Herein, the iodometric titration and HPLC-RP methods were compared for the determination of vitamin C in vitamin and mineral supplements. The methods were validated in terms of linearity, limits of detection (LOD), li...Herein, the iodometric titration and HPLC-RP methods were compared for the determination of vitamin C in vitamin and mineral supplements. The methods were validated in terms of linearity, limits of detection (LOD), limits of quantification (LOQ), precision, and recovery by using vitamin standards and a reference material SRM 3280 (multivitamin/multimineral tablets) obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A total of 22 samples of vitamin supplements, randomly acquired in local markets of Sao Paulo (Brazil) were evaluated for content of vitamin C by these two methodologies. The precision expressed as RSD was lower than 5% for both methods. LOD was 3.6 μg/mL for HPLC and 1.0 mg for titration, while LOQ were 12.0 μg/mL and 3.0 mg for HPLC and titration, respectively. Percent recoveries (%) of spiked samples ranged from 98.7 to 100.5 for HPLC and from 98 to 104 for titration. The contents of vitamin C in SRM 3280 (Certified value = 42.2 ± 3.7 mg/g) were 40.2 and 42.1 mg/g when determined by HPLC and titration respectively. Statistically, there was no difference in the analysed vitamin C content for half of the samples, irrespective of the method applied. HPLC was more sensitive, but the titrimetric method was faster and consumed less reagent. Although both methods were accurate in determining the vitamin C content in SRM 3280, the matrix constituents of some vitamin supplements may have interfered with the analysis.展开更多
文摘Herein, the iodometric titration and HPLC-RP methods were compared for the determination of vitamin C in vitamin and mineral supplements. The methods were validated in terms of linearity, limits of detection (LOD), limits of quantification (LOQ), precision, and recovery by using vitamin standards and a reference material SRM 3280 (multivitamin/multimineral tablets) obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A total of 22 samples of vitamin supplements, randomly acquired in local markets of Sao Paulo (Brazil) were evaluated for content of vitamin C by these two methodologies. The precision expressed as RSD was lower than 5% for both methods. LOD was 3.6 μg/mL for HPLC and 1.0 mg for titration, while LOQ were 12.0 μg/mL and 3.0 mg for HPLC and titration, respectively. Percent recoveries (%) of spiked samples ranged from 98.7 to 100.5 for HPLC and from 98 to 104 for titration. The contents of vitamin C in SRM 3280 (Certified value = 42.2 ± 3.7 mg/g) were 40.2 and 42.1 mg/g when determined by HPLC and titration respectively. Statistically, there was no difference in the analysed vitamin C content for half of the samples, irrespective of the method applied. HPLC was more sensitive, but the titrimetric method was faster and consumed less reagent. Although both methods were accurate in determining the vitamin C content in SRM 3280, the matrix constituents of some vitamin supplements may have interfered with the analysis.
