Next Article in Journal
Arene-Ruthenium(II) Complexes with Carbothiamidopyrazoles as a Potential Alternative for Antibiotic Resistance in Human
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of an LC–DAD–MS-Based Method for the Analysis of Hydroxyanthracene Derivatives in Food Supplements and Plant Materials
Previous Article in Journal
Using Triethylborane to Manipulate Reactivity Ratios in Epoxide-Anhydride Copolymerization: Application to the Synthesis of Polyethers with Degradable Ester Functions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Simultaneous Determination of Vitamins D3 (Calcitriol, Cholecalciferol) and K2 (Menaquinone-4 and Menaquinone-7) in Dietary Supplements by UHPLC
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Molecules
Volume 27
Issue 2
10.3390/molecules27020467
molecules-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development, Validation, and Application of the UPLC-DAD Methodology for the Evaluation of the Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Phenolic Compounds in the Fruit of American Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton)

by
Rima Urbstaite
1,*,
Lina Raudone
1,2,
Mindaugas Liaudanskas
1,2 and
Valdimaras Janulis
1
1
Department of Pharmacognosy, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 50162 Kaunas, Lithuania
2
Institute of Pharmaceutical Technologies, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, 50162 Kaunas, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(2), 467; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020467
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Revised: 4 January 2022 / Accepted: 10 January 2022 / Published: 12 January 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Development, Validation, Innovative Analytical Approaches in the Study of Food Supplement and Nutraceutical Composition)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Phenolic compounds in the fruit of American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton) determine the antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anticancer, and other biological effects. The berries are used in the production of medicinal preparations and food supplements, which highlights the importance of qualitative and quantitative analysis of phenolic compounds in cranberry fruit raw material. The aim of our study was to develop and validate an efficient, cost-effective, reproducible, and fast UPLC-DAD methodology for the evaluation of the qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds in raw material and preparations of American cranberry fruit. During the development of the methodology, chlorogenic acid and the following flavonols were identified in cranberry fruit samples: myricetin-3-galactoside, quercetin-3-galactoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, quercetin-3-rhamnoside, myricetin, and quercetin. The developed and optimized UPLC-DAD methodology was validated according to the guidelines of the International Council for Harmonization (ICH), evaluating the following parameters: range, specificity, linearity (R2 > 0.999), precision (%RSD < 2%), LOD (0.38–1.01 µg/mL), LOQ (0.54–3.06 µg/mL), and recovery (80–110%). The developed methodology was applied to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds in fruit samples of cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, and ‘Searles’, as well as ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12′ clones. In the tested samples, the majority (about 70%) of the identified flavonols were quercetin derivatives. The greatest amount of quercetin-3-galactoside (1035.35 ± 4.26 µg/g DW) was found in fruit samples of the ‘Searles’ cultivar, and the greatest amount of myricetin-3-galactoside (940.06 ± 24.91 µg/g DW) was detected in fruit samples of the ‘Woolman’ cultivar.

1. Introduction

American cranberries (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton) are perennial evergreen plants of the Ericaceae A.L. de Jussie family native to North America that are now widely cultivated in Europe as well [1]. Due to the effect of biologically active compounds of cranberry fruit and their use in the food industry, large cranberry plantations are grown in Lithuanian farms and private gardens [2,3]. The following groups of biologically active compounds have been identified in cranberry fruit: flavonols (quercetin and myricetin derivatives) [4], flavan-3-ols, anthocyanins [5], tannins, derivatives of phenolic acids, and triterpenoids [6].
The biologically active compounds found in cranberry fruit reduce cellular oxidative stress while increasing resistance to H2O2-induced DNA damage in tissue cells [7]. Cranberry fruit preparations have antibacterial [8], antiviral [9], and anticancer [10,11] effects. The type A trimeric proanthocyanidin complex and flavonols (quercetin and myricetin) in cranberries inhibit the adhesion of the uropathogenic strain of Escherichia coli, the causative agent of urinary tract infections, to the receptors of the urinary tract epithelial cells [12], and thus cranberry fruits and their preparations are used for the prevention and treatment of urinary tract infections [13]. Chlorogenic acid is prevalent in botanical raw materials, including cranberry fruit. Studies have shown that chlorogenic acid has antihypertensive, antidiabetic, antiobesity, and antidyslipidemic effects [14]. Quercetin determined in cranberry fruit has an effect on bladder [15], breast [16], and ovarian [17] cancer cells. The anticancer effects of quercetin have been associated with its ability to selectively inhibit cell proliferation and induce cancer cell death without harming healthy cells [18]. Quercetin has been shown to inhibit influenza viral infection by stimulating the cellular immune system and inhibiting viral mechanisms of action [19].
Quality assurance of botanical raw materials and preparations is important for the production and effective use of cranberry fruit preparations and food supplements in medical practice. In order to achieve that objective, it is expedient to determine the composition of the active ingredients so that the consumers receive quality products. Such demand increases with the increasing use of the botanical raw material of cranberries and the development and production of food products, food supplements, functional foods, and medicinal products [7,20]. The qualitative and quantitative composition of biologically active compounds of the botanical raw material of cranberries and their preparations is determined by climatic conditions, the time of the preparation of the raw material, the storage conditions of the botanical raw material, and the peculiarities of its processing. According to literature, about 200 cultivars of American cranberries are grown, with varying fruit yield and the composition of biologically active compounds [21]. Assurance of the quality control of medicinal plant raw materials and preparations requires the development of modern methodologies for the phytochemical analysis of such materials that would be in line with the scientific progress and would allow the evaluation of the qualitative and quantitative content of biologically active compounds at the lowest costs of labor and time.
Determination of the phytochemical profile and identification of the markers are important for quality assurance and control of cultivated or naturally growing cranberry fruit. In the matrix of biologically active compounds of cranberries, a specific chromatographic profile of flavonol glycosides may be isolated, the identification of which could be used to assess the quality of cranberry raw material and preparations [22]. It would be expedient to develop a methodology for qualitative and quantitative analysis to test the authenticity of the botanical raw material of morphologically similar plants of the Ericaceae family (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton., Vaccinium oxycoccus L., Vaccinium vitis-idaea L., and Arctostaphylos uva-ursi L.). Plants of the cranberry species Vaccinium macrocarpon and Vaccinium oxycoccus are genetically and morphologically similar, and thus the chromatographic profile of the biologically active compounds in their fruit samples is similar, yet the quantitative composition of phenolic compounds differs [23]. The evaluation of the variation in the qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds may explain the peculiarities of the therapeutic effect of the preparations [24], while at the same time allowing for determining the identity and quality of the raw material [25].
Different methods of instrumental analysis have been mentioned in publications on the evaluation of phenolic compounds in the botanical matrix. The methods for the evaluation of the total amount of phenolic compounds in samples of botanical raw materials that have been described in scientific literature are created and developed on the basis of the spectrophotometric method and cannot be used to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative content of individual phenolic compounds [26].
Different methods based on chromatographic methods can be used for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of phenolic compounds in botanical raw materials. Cre et al. [27] have developed an ultra-high-performance thin-layer chromatography technique for the evaluation of hyperoside and chlorogenic acid in cranberry fruit samples. The advantages of thin-layer chromatography are a simple preparation of the samples, short analysis time, and the ability to analyze multiple samples simultaneously. However, no other flavonoids were identified in cranberry raw material [27]. Thin-layer chromatography is intended for qualitative analysis and is therefore not suitable for the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the entire chromatographic profile of flavonoids [28,29].
HPLC (high-performance liquid chromatography) method is an instrument of choice for the evaluation of the distribution of secondary metabolites of the plant matrix. The methodologies developed on the basis of this method are applied for qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the profile of flavonoids in botanical raw materials [30,31]. The advantages of the HPLC method are that it only requires a small amount of the test sample, the efficient distribution of the plant matrix components, and a reproducible and fast process of qualitative and quantitative analysis. The disadvantages of the method are the following: the analysis requires expensive equipment serviced by qualified staff; the preparation of the test sample for analysis consists of several procedures; the selection of the gradient or isocratic elution systems and conditions, and larger amounts of organic solvents used for the separation of the analytes [32]. Liquid chromatography with MS detection is used for the evaluation of the flavonoid structure [33]. Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of flavonoids is performed by applying the liquid chromatography method with a DAD detector based on the ability of the test compound to selectively absorb UV rays in proportion to the concentration in the sample [34]. Flavonols have a UV absorption spectrum, thus the use of a DAD detector is more appropriate for routine testing and reliable analytical results than MS/MS detection [28].
To ensure safer and more ecological working conditions when conducting phytochemical studies of medicinal plant raw materials, there is a continuous search for more ecological research techniques, and new analytical methods that meet these requirements are being developed and validated. In order to limit the use of organic solvents, it is expedient to develop methodologies that use less harmful solutions [35]. UPLC (ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography), compared to HPLC, is a better alternative because it is less harmful to the environment due to the lower amount of organic solvents used, has a shorter analysis time, and is characterized by higher sensitivity and resolution [36,37]. The methods developed and validated on the basis of UPLC can be used for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of biological matrices, and therefore our study aimed to develop a short, simple, accurate, and efficient methodology suitable for routine qualitative and quantitative studies of medicinal plant raw material samples which would employ lower amounts of harmful organic solvents, thus reducing environmental pollution.
The developed and validated UPLC-DAD methodology can be applied to routine studies on the identification of cranberry raw material and the identification and quantification of myricetin and the quercetin group compounds in it. Our proposed research methodology was used for a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the fruit of American cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’, as well as genetic clones ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12’. The study helped to determine analyte profiles in chromatograms of the predominant biologically active compounds (chlorogenic acid and identified flavonols) in cranberry fruit.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Development of the Method

The development and validation of the method are interrelated processes that demonstrate the scientific reliability of the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of analytes in the developed methodology [38]. The aim of this study was to develop a UPLC-DAD methodology for the reliable, rapid, and accurate evaluation of phenolic compounds in the ethanol extract of cranberry fruit.
Reverse-phase columns are commonly used for the separation of phenolic compounds due to the polarity of the molecules [39,40]. During the development of the method, analyte separation was performed using an ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 (2.1 × 50 mm, 1.7 µm) and ACE C18 (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm) reversed-phase columns. The ACE C18 reversed-phase column (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm) was chosen for further analysis due to a better separation of the analytes and their greater symmetry. Even though the properties of methanol and acetonitrile are similar, the water and acetonitrile gradient was chosen as the mobile phase [41] because compared to the mobile phase composed of the mixture of methanol and water, the use of a mixture of water and acetonitrile as the mobile phase reduces the elution time, enhances the symmetry of the last peaks of analytes eluted from the column, and allows for a more accurate quantification of the compounds at low concentrations [5]. Flavonoids can be ionized, which reduces their adsorption to the stationary phase of the column, and peak tailing of analytes can occur in the chromatogram [42]. In order to reduce the ionization of the matrix components and to improve the resolution and recovery of the analysis, the aqueous phase was acidified with formic acid [5].
The selection of the appropriate column temperature is one of the parameters of liquid chromatography that affects the retention time of the analytes and the efficiency of the separation. Flavonoid separation is usually performed at a column temperature of 25–35 °C, and such temperature fluctuations do not significantly affect the separation of the analytes [43]. As the temperature increases, the viscosity of the solvents decreases, resulting in a faster separation of the analytes in the column, and thus sometimes, to reduce the duration of the analysis, the column temperature is maintained at >40 °C, yet often this reduces the efficiency of the distribution of phenolic compounds [36,44]. Based on the literature data, a column temperature of 30 °C was used for the analysis [43,45].
During the study, by varying the mobile phase gradient consisting of 0.1–1% formic acid (mobile phase A) and 100% acetonitrile (mobile phase B), the flow rate (0.4–0.5 mL/min), and the duration of the analysis (from 10 to 15 min), we aimed at optimizing the isolation of the analytes of the compounds in the cranberry fruit extract at the wavelength of 360 nm. During the study, the injection volume ranged from 1 to 10 µL. The injection volume of 1 µL was chosen for further analysis because with larger injection volumes, the adjacent peaks were merged. During the evaluation of the analytes of phenolic compounds in the chromatogram of cranberry fruit extracts, the best sensitivity and resolution were observed when using a gradient composed of 0.1% formic acid (A) and 100% acetonitrile (B) at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min and the following gradient change: 0 min, 95% A; 1 min, 88% A; 3 min, 88% A; 4 min, 87% A; 9 min, 75% A; 10.5 min, 70% A; 12 min, 70% A; 12.5 min, 10% A; 13 min, 10% A; 13.5 min, 95% A; 14.5 min, 95% A, delaying the next injection for 2 min to stabilize the initial 95% A and 5% B concentrations. Using this gradient, after an injection of 1 µL of cranberry fruit extract, phenolic acid analytes were isolated within 0 to 5 min, and the analytes of flavonol compounds were isolated within 6 to 13 min.

2.2. Specificity

The identification and qualitative analysis of the compounds were performed by comparing the UV absorption spectrum of the reference standard with the UV absorption spectrum of the matrix peaks of American cranberry, using the same retention time [46]. During the study, the following compounds were identified: (1) chlorogenic acid and eight flavonols, (2) myricetin-3-galactoside, (3) quercetin-3-galactoside, (4) quercetin-3-glucoside, (5) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside, (6) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, (7) quercetin-3-rhamnoside, (8) myricetin, and (9) quercetin (Figure 1). The retention times of the compounds and the values of the peaks in the UV-vis absorption spectrum are given in Table 1. The determined profile of the cranberry raw material is specific to cranberries, which was confirmed by the data provided in previous scientific publications, in which a similar flavonol profile was obtained when applying the HPLC analysis method that lasted up to 3.5 times longer [4,31].
Among the compounds identified, quercetin derivatives predominated, accounting for the majority of flavonols in the studied cranberry samples [30,31]. Quercetin and myricetin derivatives have similar absorption spectra with two maxima, and thus reference standards are necessary for the identification of the compounds [31]. In our study, we did not detect compounds identified by other investigators, such as myricetin-3-rhamnoside [30], quercetin-3-rutinoside [2,47,48], and kaempferol-3-glucoside [49], possibly due to a too-low concentration of these compounds in the tested matrix. Synapic acid (Rt 7.591 min) and trans-ferulic acid (Rt 7.374 min) were identified in the study, and their amounts in the studied American cranberry matrix were below the LOQ value.

2.3. Linearity and LOD and LOQ

The linear range of the identified compounds, calibration equations, their coefficients of determination, and the range of qualitative and quantitative evaluation are presented in Table 2. The linear range of detection of the identified compounds was from 0.78 to 200 µg/mL and included all concentrations of the phenolic compounds identified during the study. The coefficients of determination (R2) for all analyte calibration curves were greater than 0.999, confirming the linearity of the optimized UPLC methodology [38,50]. The calculated limits of detection (LOD) of the target analytes ranged from 0.38 to 1.01 µg/mL, and the limit of detection (LOQ) ranged from 0.54 to 3.06 µg/mL.

2.4. Accuracy

The accuracy of the method of the analysis is expressed in percentage and indicates the proximity between the measured value and the actual value of the analyte [51,52]. Accuracy should be assessed using a certified reference plant material or a matrix without the target analyte [53,54]. In the absence of certified reference cranberry fruit raw material, accuracy was assessed by applying two alternative methods [53]. The first method estimates the marginal recovery based on the amount of the reference standard added to the blank matrix, while the second method estimates the total recovery based on the addition of the exact amount of the reference standard into the matrix of a natural analyte of a known concentration (Table 3) [53]. Marginal recovery was assessed within the linearity range at three concentration levels (low, medium, or high). The recovery determined at level 1 was 97.05–105.40%; at level 2, it was 96.17–103.59%, and at level 3, it was 95.97–103.59%, the relative standard deviation ranging from 0.03 to 3.16%.
Total recovery was determined by adding the exact amount of the analytical standard to the natural matrix at a 2:1 ratio to increase the concentration of the target analyte in the matrix by 50, 100, or 150% [54]. The recovery at level 50% was 94.10–107.40%; at level 100%, it was 96.33–108.13%, and at level 150%, it was 93.64–106.84%, with RSD% ranging from 0.02 to 4.37%.
The accuracy assessed by both methods did not exceed the limit of 80–110% specified in the European Commission Directive 96/23/EC [55]. The comparison of the results of both methods showed that the results obtained in the case of the marginal recovery were within the narrower range of 95.97–105.40%, compared to the total recovery range of 93.64–108.13%. Larger deviations in total recovery may have been influenced by the matrix effect, which changed the intensity of the predicted response when the analyte interacted with other components in the matrix [56,57].

2.5. Precision

The precision of the UPLC-DAD methodology was evaluated according to two parameters: repeatability and intermediate precision (or intra-day precision and inter-day precision). The obtained parameter values are presented in Table 4. Relative standard deviations for retention time ranged from 0.10 to 0.20% for intra-day precision and from 0.07 to 0.17% for inter-day precision. The RSD% for repeatability of the identified phenolic compounds ranged from 0.52 to 1.48%, and the RSD% for intermediate precision ranged from 0.59 to 1.88%. The RSD% of the intermediate precision did not exceed the value range of the RSDr% calculated according to the Horwitz equation. The content of phenolic compounds in the matrix of American cranberry fruit makes up a small part of all the components of the matrix, and therefore the calculated permissible values of RSDr% deviation were higher (5.67–8.09%) than the 2% deviation limit often recommended in literature [50,53,58,59].

2.6. Determination of Phenolic Compounds in Fruit Samples of American Cranberry Cultivars

A validated methodology for the determination of the quantitative and qualitative composition of phenolic compounds based on the UPLC-DAD method was used for the evaluation of the composition of biologically active compounds in fruit samples of American cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’ as well as in genetic clones ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12′. The results of the quantitative composition of the detected phenolic compounds in the studied fruit are presented in Figure 2. The results of the study suggest that representatives of the flavonol group (quercetin-3-galactoside and myricetin-3-galactoside) predominated in the studied fruit samples.
Samples of the ‘Searles’ cultivar had the highest content of quercetin-3-galactoside (1035.35 ± 4.26 µg/g DW) (p < 0.05). Maximum levels of myricetin-3-galactoside (p < 0.05) were found in fruit samples of cranberry cultivars group of ‘Searles’ and ‘Woolman’ (mean 932.64 ± 15.27 µg/g DW). Meanwhile, the lowest content of quercetin-3-galactoside (535.43 ± 7.43 µg/g DW) was found in fruit samples of cranberry cultivar ‘Baifay’ (p < 0.05). The lowest (414.24 ± 2.32 µg/g DW) content of myricetin-3-galactoside was found in the fruit samples of the American cranberry genetic clone ‘BL-12’ (p < 0.05).
The fruit samples of the American cranberry cultivar ‘Searles’ was found to have the highest levels of quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside (613.80 ± 3.66 µg/g DW), quercetin-3-rhamnoside (413.68 ± 1.13 µg/g DW), and quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside (104.63 ± 0.98 µg/g DW) (p < 0.05). The highest levels of quercetin-3-glucoside were detected in fruit samples of cranberry cultivars group of ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’ (means 122.46 ± 1.46 µg/g DW) (p < 0.05). The lowest (293.79 ± 8.99 µg/g DW) content of quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside was found in the fruit samples of the cranberry genetic clone ‘BL-12’ (p < 0.05). The lowest (227.49 ± 4.03 µg/g DW) content of quercetin 3-rhamnoside (p < 0.05) was found in the fruit samples of the cranberry cultivar ‘Bergman’.
Our methodology showed that in the studied cranberry fruit samples, quercetin accounted for about 1.35–2.00%, and myricetin for 0.87–1.60% of the total amount of the identified flavonols. The highest amounts of quercetin (57.73 ± 1.36 µg/g DW) and myricetin (46.09 ± 0.60 µg/g DW) were found in fruit samples of the cranberry cultivar ‘Woolman’ (p < 0.05).
The highest content of chlorogenic acid (472.97 ± 1.44 µg/g DW) was found in fruit samples of the cultivar ‘Searles’, while the minimum content (119.14 ± 1.80 µg/g DW) was detected in fruit samples of the cultivar ‘Baifay’ (p < 0.05). Ruse et al. [60] conducted a study where they found that the amount of chlorogenic acid in the fruit of the ‘Bergman’ cultivar of American cranberry was 260 µg/g. Compared to the results of their study, we detected slightly lower levels of chlorogenic acid (209.61 ± 6.45 µg/g DW) in fruit samples of the ‘Bergman’ cranberry cultivar [60].
Oszmiański et al. [61] used LC/MS QTOF and UPLC-PDA-FL methodologies for qualitative and quantitative analysis of cranberry fruit samples. The authors identified 14 compounds of the flavonol group: 4 myricetin derivatives and 10 quercetin derivatives [61]. The study showed that quercetin-3-galactoside levels in samples of lyophilized fruit of ‘Stevens’, ‘Ben Lear’, and ‘Pilgrim’ cultivars were higher than those of quercetin-3-rhamnoside: accordingly, 771 and 700 µg/g; 1378 and 522 µg, and 806 and 484 µg/g [61]. In their study, Zheng et al. [62] found that the level of quercetin 3-rhamnoside in the fruit of the cranberry cultivar ‘Ben Lear’ was lower (41.6 ± 3.50 µg/g).
Oszmiański et al. [61] found four myricetin derivatives in cranberry fruit samples, the amounts of which were three times higher than those of the quercetin group derivatives. Our study found that about 70% of the compounds identified in cranberry fruit samples were quercetin group glycosides. The results of our study were confirmed by those obtained in a study by Vvedenskaya et al. [63], where quercetin glycosides accounted for up to 80% of flavonols in cranberry fruit samples.
Wang et al. [31] used HPLC MS/MS in their study and detected myricetin-3-galactoside, myricetin-3-arabinofuranoside, quercetin-3-galactoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, quercetin-3-xylopyranoside, quercetin-3-arabinopyranoside, quercetin-3-arabinofuranoside, quercetin-3-rhamnopyranoside, and quercetin. The authors conducted a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the fruit samples of ‘Early Black’, ‘Howes’, ‘Ben Lear’, ‘Stevens’, ‘Crimson Queen’, ‘Demoranville’, and ‘Mullica Queen’ cultivars. In their study, quercetin-3-galactoside was found to account for approximately 31–46% of the total amount of flavonols, myricetin-3-galactoside—for 19–32%, quercetin-3-arabinofuranoside—for 7–17%, and quercetin-3-rhamnopyranoside—for 7–14% of the total amount of flavonols [31]. In the samples of our studied cranberry cultivars, quercetin-3-galactoside accounted for 28.93–32.68%, myricetin-3-galactoside for 23.83–30.37%, quercetin-3-arabinofuranoside for 13.35–19.74%, and quercetin-3-rhamnoside—for 11.55–16.09% of the total flavonol content.
The analysis of the similarity of the composition of chlorogenic acid and flavonols in American cranberry cultivars was carried out by performing a hierarchical cluster analysis. The cluster analysis of the samples of American cranberry cultivars was performed on the basis of the quantitative composition of identified phenolic compounds. Fruit samples of cranberry cultivars were divided into three clusters (Figure 3). Fruit samples of cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, and genetic clones ‘BL-12’ and ‘Bain-MC’ were assigned to cluster I. Fruit samples of cranberry cultivars ‘Proliflic’ and ‘Searles’ were assigned to cluster II. The cultivars of cluster I total amount of quantified phenolic compounds was up to 1.9 times lower than the total amount of quantified phenolic compounds of cultivars of the cluster II. Cluster III consisted of one American cranberry cultivar ‘Woolman’. The total amount of quantified phenolic compounds in cranberry fruit samples of the ‘Woolman’ cultivar was similar to the total amount of quantified phenolic compounds in samples of cultivars of cluster II, but samples of cultivar ‘Woolman’ samples contained higher levels of myrecetin-3-galactosie than quercetin-3-galactoside.
The amount of flavanols tested and quantified in cranberry fruit samples showed the following decreasing trend: the highest levels were found for quercetin-3-galactoside and myricetin-3-galactoside, followed by quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside > quercetin 3-rhamnoside > quercetin-3-glucoside > quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside > quercetin > myricetin. Chromatogram profiles of the studied American cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’, as well as ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12′ genetic clones, were identical, but varied in the size of the areas of the analyte peaks (Supplementary Figures S6 and Figure S7). Quantitative analysis of flavanols in cranberry fruit samples revealed that the coefficient of variation (CV) of flavanols (quercetin-3-galactoside, myricetin-3-galactoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, quercetin-3-rhamnoside, quercetin-3-glucoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside, quercetin, and myricetin) ranged from 24.96 to 44.14%.
The fruits of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) are morphologically similar to those of cranberry. It is especially important to have a tool that can be used to identify and separate ground and dried plant raw materials based on their chemical composition, and to identify the components of these raw materials in food products and food supplements. The myricetin-3-galactoside characteristic of the chromatogram profile of cranberry samples is not detected in the chromatogram profile of lingonberries, and this compound is one of the major markers in cranberry fruit chemotaxonomy [64,65]. Quercetin-3-galactoside and myricetin-3-galactoside are the major components of biologically active compounds in cranberry fruit. Studies of the qualitative and quantitative content of these compounds in cranberry samples are important in evaluating the quality of cranberry fruit raw material, food products, and food supplements.
The fruits of cranberries that grow in natural habitats or are cultivated are used for food and the preparation of various beverages. It is important to evaluate the quantitative composition of flavonoids in fruit samples, in which the total flavonol content of cranberry fruit is typically in the range of 20–30 mg per 100 g of fresh fruit weight [66]. Studies on the content of flavonols of lyophilized fruit samples of different cranberry cultivars showed that the total amount of the identified flavonols varied from 166 to 331 mg/100 g. Recently, lyophilized cranberry fruit and lyophilized fruit powder have been increasingly commonly used in the production of food products (biscuits, chocolate, yogurt, kissels, or beverages) and as a food supplement. The developed methodology may help to assess the qualitative and quantitative content of biologically active compounds. The results of the research are valuable in assessing the quality of cranberry fruit. The use of cranberry fruit raw material with the determined qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds may help produce high-quality food products and food supplements.
The developed and validated methodology based on the UPLC-DAD method can be applied for the determination of the content of chlorogenic acid and flavonol group compounds in cranberry fruit samples. This short-term, efficient, and selective methodology allows for routine qualitative and quantitative studies of cranberry fruit raw material. Such studies are important in assessing the chemical composition of fruits of the existing and the newly bred cultivars and genetic clones. The qualitative and quantitative analysis of the samples of cranberry fruit raw material provide new knowledge about the phytochemical composition of the fruit of different cranberry cultivars and the possibility of using quality raw material in healthy food, as well as for the development and production of cranberry-containing food supplements.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Reagents

Analytical and chromatographic grade chemicals and solvents were used for this study: ethanol 96% (v/v) (manufacturer AB Stumbras, Kaunas, Lithuania), acetonitrile (manufacturer Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany), methanol (manufacturer Sigma-Aldrich, Steinheim, Germany), and formic acid (manufacturer Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Reference HPLC standards for chlorogenic acid (3-caffeoylquinic acid), myricetin, quercetin-3-rhamnoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, and quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside were obtained from Sigma-Aldrich (Steinheim, Germany), for quercetin-3-galactoside and quercetin—from Carl Roth (Karlsruhe, Germany), for myricetin-3-galactoside—from Extrasynthese (Genay, France), and the reference standard for quercetin-3-O-glucoside was obtained from Biochemistry (Buchs, Switzerland).

3.2. Raw Material

The objects of the study were samples of mature and ripe fruit of different cultivars of American cranberry (Baifay, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’, and genetic clones ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12’) grown in Lithuanian climatic conditions, in the collection of the Institute of Botany of the Nature Research Center, Mažieji Gulbinai, Vilnius (54°41′36.6″ N 25°21′56.0″ E). The collection time was September 2020. Cranberry fruits were ground and frozen at −60 °C in an ultra-low-temperature freezer (CVF330/86, ClimasLab SL, Barcelona, Spain).
Cranberry fruits were lyophilized at a pressure of 0.01 mbar at a condenser temperature of −85 °C in a Zirbus lyophilizer (Zirbus technology GmbH, Bad Grund, Germany). The lyophilized cranberry fruits were ground into powder using a Retsch GM 200 electric mill (Retsh GmbH, Hahn, Germany). The samples were stored in tightly closed containers in a dark and dry place. Loss on drying was determined using the method described in the European Pharmacopoeia Ph.Eur.01/2008: 20232 [67].

3.3. Preparation of Cranberry Extracts

About 1 g (precise weight) of the lyophilized cranberry powder was extracted with 20 mL of 70% (v/v) ethanol in an Elmasonic P ultrasonic bath (Singen, Germany) for 15 min at 80 kHz and 565 W at 20–22 °C temperature. After the extraction, the ethanolic extracts were filtered into a 25 mL volumetric flask. The prepared extracts were stored in dark glass vials at 5–8 °C. Prior to the chromatographic analysis, the ethanol extracts were filtered through filters with 0.20 μm pore size (CHROMAFIL Xtra PTFE-20/13).

3.4. Chromatographic Analysis

The analysis of the qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds in cranberry fruit was performed using a Waters ACQUITY Ultra High-Performance LC system (Water, Milford, MA, USA) with a photodiode array detector. An ACE C18 reversed-phase column (ACT, Aberdeen, UK; 100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm particle size) was used for the separation of the compounds at 30 °C. The injection volume was 1 µL, and the distribution was performed using 0.1% formic acid (v/v) (A) and 100% acetonitrile (B) at a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min and the following gradient change: 0 min, 95% A; 1 min, 88% A; 3 min, 88% A; 4 min, 87% A; 9 min, 75% A; 10.5 min, 70% A; 12 min, 70% A; 12.5 min, 10% A; 13 min, 10% A; 13.5 min, 95% A; and 14.5 min, 95% A, delaying the next injection by 2 min.

3.5. Development and Validation of the Method

The UPLC-PDA method was developed considering the composition of the mobile phase, the elution gradient, the duration of the analysis, the flow rate, the injection volume, the column parameters, and the optimal temperature. For the validation, a methodology was selected in which the flavonol analytes in the American cranberry fruit matrix were best separated from each other in the chromatogram.
The validation of the method was performed according to the guidelines of the International Council for Harmonization (ICH). The acceptance criteria of the validation were selected considering the recommendations of Eurochem, the European Commission Directive 96/23/EC, and Guidelines for Dietary Supplements and Botanicals [51,55,68,69]. The following parameters were evaluated during the validation: accuracy, precision (repeatability and intermediate precision), specificity, limit of detection, limit of quantification, linearity, and range of determination.
Specificity was determined by comparing the analyte retention time and the UV absorption spectrum between the reference standard and the American cranberry matrix (Supplementary Figures S1–S6). Linearity was determined by constructing calibration regression equations consisting of 5 to 7 points and measuring standard solutions of known concentration. To evaluate linearity, the coefficient of determination (R2) was set (suitable when R2 > 0.999). The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) were calculated according to Formulas (1) and (2) (where σ is the residual standard deviation of the regression line, and S is the slope), respectively [51].
LOD = 3.3σ/S
LOQ = 10σ/S
Precision was determined by evaluating the relative standard deviation (RSD%) of the retention time and the amount of 6 American cranberry extracts (Formula (3)). The RSD% of repeatability was calculated from measurements taken on the same day (n = 6), and the intermediate precision was determined by analyzing six American cranberry extracts for three consecutive days (n = 18). The acceptable precision value was determined by calculating the RSDr% value (Formula (4)) [53,69].
RSD% = SD/m × 100
RSDr% = 2C(−0.15)
(RSD%—relative standard deviation, SD—standard deviation, m—mean, RSDr%—acceptable precision value, and C—concentration expressed in parts of mass (g/g).
To determine the accuracy of the method, the evaluation of recovery was performed by applying two techniques. The first technique quantified the reference standards at 3 levels: level 1—low concentration, level 2—medium concentration, and level 3—high concentration. Recovery was calculated according to Formula (5) (where Xp is the predicted concentration, and X1—the measured concentration). Recovery was regarded as adequate when the Recovery% was in the range of 80–110% [55].
Recovery% = Xp/X1 × 100
The second technique was used to evaluate the recovery of the compounds in the matrix by adding the exact amount of the reference standard to the examined American cranberry extract at a ratio of 2:1. The amount of the standard added to the matrix solution was sufficient to increase the amount of the test compound in the matrix by 0.5-, 1-, or 1.5-fold [55]. The results were evaluated at three levels, based on the percentage increase in the amount of the compound in the matrix (level 1, 50%; level 2, 100%; level 3, 150%) [55,68]. Recovery was calculated according to Formula 6. Recovery was regarded as adequate when the Recovery% was in the range of 80–110% [55].
Recovery% = (X2 − X1)/Xadd × 100
(X1—the measured concentration, X2—the amount of the test compound in the matrix, and Xadd—the amount of the standard added).

3.6. Statistical Analysis

Data analysis and presentations were performed using computer software programs SPSS Statistics 21 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and Microsoft Excel 2016 (Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA). During the study, arithmetic means, standard deviations (SD), and relative standard deviations (RSD) of the three repeated evaluations were calculated. Linear regression analysis was performed to calculate the coefficient of determination R2 and to construct calibration equations for the calculation of the amounts of the identified phenolic compounds. To evaluate the difference in the amounts of phenolic compounds between samples of different American cranberry cultivars, one-way analysis of variance ANOVA with Tukey’s test for multiple comparisons (significance level set at 0.05) was used.

4. Conclusions

A short-term efficient UPLC-DAD detection methodology was developed and validated. The proposed methodology is more environmentally friendly due to the lower consumption of eluents compared to the HPLC methods used for the evaluation of qualitative and quantitative composition of phenolic compounds in cranberry fruit samples described in literature. The validation parameters of the methodology (detection limits, specificity, linearity (R2 > 0.999), accuracy (%RSD < 2%), LOD (0.38–1.01 µg/mL), LOQ (0.54–3.06 µg/mL), and recovery (93.64–108.13%) met the requirements of the normative documents and confirm the suitability of the methodology for application.
Chromatogram profiles of the studied American cranberry cultivars ‘Baifay’, ‘Bergman’, ‘Prolific’, ‘Searles’, and ‘Woolman’, as well as those of the ‘Bain-MC’ and ‘BL-12′ clones were identical but differed in the area sizes of the analyte peaks. The highest levels of flavonols and chlorogenic acid were found in cranberry fruit samples of the ‘Searles’ cultivar.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded online. Figure S1: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the standard mixture of quercetin-3-galactoside, quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, myricetin, and quercetin at different concentrations; Figure S2: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the quercetin-3-galactoside standard at different concentrations; Figure S3: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the myricetin-3-galactoside standard at different concentrations; Figure S4: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the standard mixture of chlorogenic acid and quercetin-3-rhamnoside at different concentrations; Figure S5: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside standard at different concentrations; Figure S6: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the American cranberry samples extract of cultivar ‘Prolific’; Figure S7: UHPLC-PDA chromatogram (λ = 360 nm) of the American cranberry samples extract of genetic clone ‘Bain-MC’.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization V.J., L.R.; methodology L.R., R.U.; software R.U., M.L., L.R.; validation R.U., L.R.; formal Analysis R.U., investigation R.U., L.R., M.L., V.J., resources R.U., M.L., V.J.; data curation V.J., L.R.; writing—original draft preparation R.U.; writing—review and editing V.J., L.R., visualization R.U.; supervision V.J., L.R.; project administration V.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data generated during this study are included in this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Sample Availability

Not available.

References

  1. Sedlák, J.; Paprštein, F. Micropropagation of cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) through shoot tip cultures: Short communication. Hortic. Sci. 2011, 38, 159–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Gudžinskaitė, I.; Stackevičienė, E.; Liaudanskas, M.; Zymonė, K.; Žvikas, V.; Viškelis, J.; Urbštaitė, R.; Janulis, V. Variability in the qualitative and quantitative composition and content of phenolic compounds in the fruit of introduced American Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton). Plants 2020, 9, 1379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Viskelis, P.; Rubinskienė, M.; Jasutienė, I.; Šarkinas, A.; Daubaras, R.; Česonienė, L. Anthocyanins, antioxidative, and antimicrobial properties of american cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) and their press cakes. J. Food Sci. 2009, 74, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. White, B.L.; Howard, L.R.; Prior, R.L. Impact of different stages of juice processing on the anthocyanin, flavonol, and procyanidin contents of cranberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 4692–4698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Côté, J.; Caillet, S.; Doyon, G.; Sylvain, J.-F.; Lacroix, M. Analyzing Cranberry Bioactive Compounds. Food Sci. Nutr. 2010, 50, 872–888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Katsargyris, A.; Tampaki, E.-C.; Giaginis, C.; Theocharis, S. Cranberry as promising natural source of potential anticancer agents: Current evidence and future perspectives. Anticancer. Agents Med. Chem. 2012, 12, 619–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Diarra, M.S.; Hassan, Y.I.; Block, G.S.; Drover, J.C.G.; Delaquis, P.; Oomah, B.D. Antibacterial activities of a polyphenolic-rich extract prepared from American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) fruit pomace against Listeria spp. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 123, 109056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dandekar, S.; Deshpande, N.; Dave, D. Comparative evaluation of anti-microbial efficacy of cranberry extract and chlorhexidine mouthwash on periodontal pathogens: An in-vitro study. J. Periodont. Pract. 2017, 2, 5–8. [Google Scholar]
  9. Terlizzi, M.E.; Occhipinti, A.; Luganini, A.; Maffei, M.E.; Gribaudo, G. Inhibition of herpes simplex type 1 and type 2 infections by Oximacro®, a cranberry extract with a high content of A-type proanthocyanidins (PACs-A). Antivir. Res. 2016, 132, 154–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Wu, X.; Song, M.; Cai, X.; Neto, C.; Tata, A.; Han, Y.; Wang, Q.; Tang, Z.; Xiao, H. Chemopreventive effects of whole cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) on colitis-associated colon tumorigenesis. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2018, 62, 1800942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Déziel, B.; MacPhee, J.; Patel, K.; Catalli, A.; Kulka, M.; Neto, C.; Gottschall-Passc, K.; Hurta, R. American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) extract affects human prostate cancer cell growth via cell cycle arrest by modulating expression of cell cycle regulators. Food Funct. 2012, 3, 556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Liu, H.; Howell, A.B.; Zhang, D.J.; Khoo, C. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study to assess bacterial anti-adhesive activity in human urine following consumption of a cranberry supplement. Food Funct. 2019, 10, 7645–7652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Shaheen, G.; Ahmad, I.; Mehmood, A.; Akhter, N.; Usmanghani, K.; Shamim, T.; Ali Shah, S.M.; Sumreen, L.; Akram, M. Monograph of Vaccinium macrocarpon. J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 5340–5346. [Google Scholar]
  14. Santana-Gálvez, J.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Jacobo-Velázquez, D. Chlorogenic acid: Recent advances on its dual role as a food additive and a nutraceutical against metabolic syndrome. Molecules 2017, 22, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Prasain, J.K.; Grubbs, C.; Barnes, S. Cranberry anti-cancer compounds and their uptake and metabolism: An updated review. J. Berry Res. 2020, 10, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Neto, C.C.; Amoroso, J.W.; Liberty, A.M. Anticancer activities of cranberry phytochemicals: An update. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2008, 52, 18–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wang, Y.; Han, A.; Chen, E.; Singh, R.K.; Chichester, C.O.; Moore, R.G.; Singh, A.P.; Vorsa, N. The cranberry flavonoids PAC DP-9 and quercetin aglycone induce cytotoxicity and cell cycle arrest and increase cisplatin sensitivity in ovarian cancer cells. J. Oncol. 2015, 46, 1924–1934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Rauf, A.; Imran, M.; Khan, I.A.; Mujeeb-ur-Rehman; Gilani, S.A.; Mehmood, Z.; Mubarak, M.S. Anticancer potential of quercetin: A comprehensive review: Quercetin as an anticancer agent. Phytother. Res. 2018, 32, 2109–2130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gansukh, E.; Muthu, M.; Paul, D.; Ethiraj, G.; Chun, S.; Gopal, J. Nature nominee quercetin’s anti-influenza combat strategy—Demonstrations and remonstrations. J. Med. Virol. 2017, 27, 1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Brendlera, T.; Gafner, S. Adulteration of Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon). Bot. Adulterants Bull. 2017, 1–8. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321913401_Adulteration_of_Cranberry_Vaccinium_macrocarpon (accessed on 20 December 2021).
  21. Oszmiański, J.; Kolniak-Ostek, J.; Lachowicz, S.; Gorzelany, J.; Matłok, N. Phytochemical compounds and antioxidant activity in different cultivars of cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon): Phytochemicals in cultivars of cranberry. J. Food Sci. 2017, 82, 2569–2575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Vvedenskaya, I.O.; Rosen, R.T.; Guido, J.E.; Russell, D.J.; Mills, K.A.; Vorsa, N. Characterization of flavonols in cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) powder. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2004, 52, 188–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Narwojsz, A.; Tańska, M.; Mazur, B.; Borowska, E.J. Fruit physical features, phenolic compounds profile and inhibition activities of cranberry cultivars (Vaccinium macrocarpon) compared to wild-grown cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccus). Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2019, 74, 300–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Brown, P.; Turi, C.; Shipley, P.; Murch, S. Comparisons of large ( Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) and small ( Vaccinium oxycoccos L., Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) cranberry in british columbia by phytochemical determination, antioxidant potential, and metabolomic profiling with chemometric analysis. Planta Med. 2012, 78, 630–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Jungfer, E.; Zimmermann, B.F.; Ruttkat, A.; Galensa, R. Comparing procyyanidins in selected Vaccinium species by UHPLC-MS 2 with regard to authenticity and health effects. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 9688–9696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Cătunescu, G.M.; Rotar, A.M.; Pop, C.R.; Diaconeasa, Z.; Bunghez, F.; Socaciu, M.-I.; Semeniucb, C.A. Influence of extraction pre-treatments on some phytochemicals and biological activity of Transylvanian cranberries (Vaccinium vitis-idea L.). Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 102, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cre, G.; Morlock, G.; Raluca, A.; Nechifo, A.C. A high-performance thin-layer chromatographic method for chlorogenic acid and hyperoside determination from berry extracts. Rom. Biotechnol. Lett. 2013, 18, 9. [Google Scholar]
  28. Poudel, A.; Pandey, J.; Lee, H.-K. Geographical discrimination in curcuminoids content of turmeric assessed by rapid UPLC-DAD validated analytical method. Molecules 2019, 24, 1805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Boudesocque, L.; Dorat, J.; Pothier, J.; Gueiffier, A.; Enguehard-Gueiffier, C. High performance thin layer chromatography–densitometry: A step further for quality control of cranberry extracts. Food Chem. 2013, 139, 866–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lin, L.-Z.; Harnly, J.M. A screening method for the identification of glycosylated flavonoids and other phenolic compounds using a standard analytical approach for all plant materials. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 1084–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Wang, Y.; Johnson-Cicalese, J.; Singh, A.P.; Vorsa, N. Characterization and quantification of flavonoids and organic acids over fruit development in American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) cultivars using HPLC and APCI-MS/MS. Plant Sci. 2017, 262, 91–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Akash, M.S.H.; Rehman, K. Essentials of Pharmaceutical Analysis; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 173–184. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kachlicki, P.; Piasecka, A.; Stobiecki, M.; Marczak, Ł. Structural characterization of flavonoid glycoconjugates and their derivatives with mass spectrometric techniques. Molecules 2016, 21, 1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Sajewicz, M.; Staszek, D.; Wojtal, Ł.; Kowalska, T.; Hajnos, M.Ł.; Waksmundzka-Hajnos, M. Binary HPLC-Diode array detector and HPLC-evaporative light-scattering detector fingerprints of methanol extracts from the selected Sage (Salvia) species. J. AOAC Int. 2011, 94, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Cielecka-Piontek, J.; Zalewski, P.; Jelińska, A.; Garbacki, P. UHPLC: The greening face of liquid chromatography. Chromatographia 2013, 76, 1429–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Mišan, A.; Mimica-Dukić, N.; Mandić, A.; Sakač, M.; Milovanović, I.; Sedej, I. Development of a rapid resolution HPLC method for the separation and determination of 17 phenolic compounds in crude plant extracts. Open Chem. 2011, 9, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nováková, L.; Matysová, L.; Solich, P. Advantages of application of UPLC in pharmaceutical analysis. Talanta 2006, 68, 908–918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Singh, R. HPLC method development and validation- an overview. J. Pharm. Educ. Res. 2013, 4, 26–33. [Google Scholar]
  39. Merken, H.M.; Beecher, G.R. Measurement of food flavonoids by high-performance liquid chromatography: A review. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 577–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chen, H.; Zuo, Y.; Deng, Y. Separation and determination of flavonoids and other phenolic compounds in cranberry juice by high-performance liquid chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2001, 913, 387–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, A.; Wan, L.; Wu, C.; Fang, Y.; Han, G.; Li, H.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, H. Simultaneous determination of 14 phenolic compounds in grape canes by HPLC-DAD-UV using wavelength switching detection. Molecules 2013, 18, 14241–14257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Tuszyńska, M. Validation of the Analytical Method for the Determination of Flavonoids in Broccoli. Hortic. Res. 2014, 22, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Sentkowska, A.; Biesaga, M.; Pyrzynska, K. Effects of the operation parameters on HILIC separation of flavonoids on zwitterionic column. Talanta 2013, 115, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Olszewska, M.A. New validated high-performance liquid chromatographic method for simultaneous analysis of ten flavonoid aglycones in plant extracts using a C18 fused-core column and acetonitrile-tetrahydrofuran gradient: Liquid Chromatography. J. Sep. Sci. 2012, 35, 2174–2183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. de Rijke, E.; Out, P.; Niessen, W.M.A.; Ariese, F.; Gooijer, C.; Brinkman, U.A.T. Analytical separation and detection methods for flavonoids. J. Chromatogr. A 2006, 1112, 31–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. dos Santos, W.N.L.; da Silva Sauthier, M.C.; dos Santos, A.M.P.; de Andrade Santana, D.; Almeida Azevedo, R.S.; da Cruz Caldas, J. Simultaneous determination of 13 phenolic bioactive compounds in guava (Psidium guajava L.) by HPLC-PAD with evaluation using PCA and Neural Network Analysis (NNA). Microchem. J. 2017, 133, 583–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zavodnik, I.; Buko, V.; Lukivskaya, O.; Lapshina, E.; Ilyich, T.; Belonovskaya, E.; Kirkob, S.; Narutab, E.; Kuzmitskayab, I.; Budrynd, G.; et al. Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) peel polyphenol-rich extract attenuates rat liver mitochondria impairments in alcoholic steatohepatitis in vivo and after oxidative treatment in vitro. J. Funct. Foods 2019, 57, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Diaconeasa, Z.; Florica, R.; Rugină, D.; Lucian, C.; Socaciu, C. HPLC/PDA–ESI/MS identification of phenolic acids, flavonol glycosides and antioxidant potential in blueberry, blackberry, raspberries and cranberries. J. Food Nutr. Res. 2014, 2, 781–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Pappas, E.; Schaich, K.M. Phytochemicals of cranberries and cranberry products: Characterization, potential health effects, andprocessing stability. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2009, 49, 741–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Shabir, G.A. Validation of high-performance liquid chromatography methods for pharmaceutical analysis Understanding the differences and similarities between validation requirements of the US Food and Drug Administration, the US Pharmacopeia and the International Conference on Harmonization. J. Chromatogr. A 2003, 10, 57–66. [Google Scholar]
  51. ICH Q2 (R1). Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology. Current Step 4 Version. 2005. Available online: https://pacificbiolabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Q2_R1__Guideline-4.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  52. Islam, J.; Phukan, S.; Chattopadhyay, P. Development of a validated RP-HPLC/DAD method for the quantitative determination of methyl jasmonate in an insect repellent semi-solid formulation. Heliyon 2019, 5, 1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. AOAC International. Appendix K: Guidelines for Dietary Supplements and Botanicals. J. AOAC Int. 2013, 1–32. Available online: http://www.eoma.aoac.org/app_k.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  54. Shabir, G.A. Step-by-Step analytical methods validation and protocol in the quality system compliance industry. J. Valid. Technol. 2004, 10, 314–325. [Google Scholar]
  55. European Commission. Commission Decision of 12 August 2002 Implementing Council Directive 96/23/EC Concerning the Performance of Analytical Methods and the Interpretation of Results. 2002. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2002:221:0008:0036:EN:PDF (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  56. Rahman, M.M.; El-Aty, A.M.A.; Choi, J.-H.; Kim, S.-W.; Shin, S.C.; Shim, J.-H. Consequences of the matrix effect on recovery of dinotefuran and its metabolites in green tea during tandem mass spectrometry analysis. Food Chem. 2015, 168, 445–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rogatsky, E.; Stein, D. Evaluation of matrix effect and chromatography efficiency: New parameters for validation of method development. J. Am. Soc. Mass Spectrom. 2005, 16, 1757–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. González, A.G.; Herrador, M.Á.; Asuero, A.G. Intra-Laboratory assessment of method accuracy (trueness and precision) by using validation standards. Talanta 2010, 82, 1995–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Chaudhary, A.A.; Shelke, A.V.; Jadhav, A.G. Development and Validation of rp-HPLC method of cabozantinib in active pharmaceutical ingredient and pharmaceutical dosage form. J. Pharm. Res. Int. 2021, 15, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ruse, K.; Rakcejeva, T. Physical and chemical parameters of Latvian fresh cranberries. In Proceedings of the 9th Baltic Conference on Food Science and Technology “Food for Consumer Well-Being” FOODBALT 2014 Conference Proceeding, Jelgava, Latvia, 8–9 May 2014; pp. 165–170. [Google Scholar]
  61. Oszmiański, J.; Wojdyło, A.; Lachowicz, S.; Gorzelany, J.; Matłok, N. Comparison of bioactive potential of cranberry fruit and fruit-based products versus leaves. J. Funct. Foods 2016, 22, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zheng, W.; Wang, S.Y. Oxygen radical absorbing capacity of phenolics in blueberries, cranberries, chokeberries, and lingonberries. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 502–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Vvedenskaya, I.O.; Vorsa, N. Flavonoid composition over fruit development and maturation in American cranberry, Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait. Plant Sci. 2004, 167, 1043–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Dudonné, S.; Dubé, P.; Anhê, F.F.; Pilon, G.; Marette, A.; Lemire, M.; Harris, C.; Dewailly, E.; Desjardins, Y. Comprehensive analysis of phenolic compounds and abscisic acid profiles of twelve native Canadian berries. J. Food Compos. Anal. 2015, 44, 214–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Kelanne, N.; Laaksonen, O.; Seppälä, T.; Yang, W.; Tuukkanen, K.; Loponen, J.; Yang, B. Impact of cyclodextrin treatment on composition and sensory properties of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea) juice. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 113, 108295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Neto, C.C. Cranberry and blueberry: Evidence for protective effects against cancer and vascular diseases. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2007, 51, 652–664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Council of Europe. European Pharmacopoeia, 10th ed.; Council of Europe: Strasbourg, France, 2019; p. 51. [Google Scholar]
  68. Magnusson, B.; Örnemark, U. (Eds.) Eurachem Guide: The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods. A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics, 2nd ed.; Eurachem: Teddington, UK, 2014; Available online: https://www.eurachem.org/images/stories/Guides/pdf/MV_guide_2nd_ed_EN.pdf (accessed on 13 October 2021).
  69. Horwitz, W.; Albert, R. The Horwitz Ratio (HorRat): A useful index of method performance with respect to precision. J. AOAC Int. 2006, 89, 1095–1109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Molecules 27 00467 g001 550
Figure 1. UPLC-DAD profile of American cranberry fruit samples at 360 nm. (1) chlorogenic acid, (2) myricetin-3-galactoside, (3) quercetin-3-galactoside, (4) quercetin-3-glucoside, (5) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside, (6) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, (7) quercetin-3-rhamnoside, (8) myricetin, and (9) quercetin.
Figure 1. UPLC-DAD profile of American cranberry fruit samples at 360 nm. (1) chlorogenic acid, (2) myricetin-3-galactoside, (3) quercetin-3-galactoside, (4) quercetin-3-glucoside, (5) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside, (6) quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside, (7) quercetin-3-rhamnoside, (8) myricetin, and (9) quercetin.
Molecules 27 00467 g001
Molecules 27 00467 g002 550
Figure 2. Variation in the amounts of phenolic compounds in fruit samples of American cranberry cultivars. Letters of different fonts and sizes indicate statistically significant differences between fruit samples of different cranberry cultivars (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Variation in the amounts of phenolic compounds in fruit samples of American cranberry cultivars. Letters of different fonts and sizes indicate statistically significant differences between fruit samples of different cranberry cultivars (p < 0.05).
Molecules 27 00467 g002
Molecules 27 00467 g003 550
Figure 3. A dendrogram of the distribution of American cranberry cultivars into similar clusters according to the chlorogenic acid and flavonols content in fruit samples.
Figure 3. A dendrogram of the distribution of American cranberry cultivars into similar clusters according to the chlorogenic acid and flavonols content in fruit samples.
Molecules 27 00467 g003
Table
Table 1. Retention times and UV-vis absorption spectral data of the identified compounds.
Table 1. Retention times and UV-vis absorption spectral data of the identified compounds.
CompoundRetention Timeλmax, nm
Chlorogenic acid3.321218.5, 243.4, 324.4
Myricetin-3-galactoside6.917261.2, 355.0
Quercetin-3-galactoside8.236257.6, 355.0
Quercetin-3-glucoside8.383255.2, 358.6
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside8.984255.2, 353.8
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside9.193255.2, 352.6
Quercetin-3-rhamnoside9.488255.2, 347.8
Myricetin10.101251.7, 371.8
Quercetin12.104254.0, 369.4
Chlorogenic acid3.321218.5, 243.4, 324.4
Table
Table 2. Parameters of linearity, identification, and the limit of detection of the identified phenolic compounds.
Table 2. Parameters of linearity, identification, and the limit of detection of the identified phenolic compounds.
CompoundLinear Range (µg/mL)Calibration EquationR2LOD (µg/mL)LOQ (µg/mL)
Chlorogenic acid 1.95–62.5y = 5060x + 5700.99990.381.16
Myricetin-3-galactoside0.78–100y = 3450x – 3960.99990.180.54
Quercetin-3-galactoside3.13–200y = 4880x + 11800.99991.013.06
Quercetin-3-glucoside 3.13–50y = 4160x − 61.70.99980.922.78
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside3.13–50y = 5250x + 8610.99990.702.12
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside3.13–50y = 4170x – 1990.99970.993.03
Quercetin-3-rhamnoside3.13–50y = 3690x + 7970.99980.762.29
Myricetin1.56–50y = 5360x – 12400.99990.451.36
Quercetin3.13–50y = 7450x – 10700.99990.762.29
Table
Table 3. Determination of the recovery in reference standards and the American cranberry matrix.
Table 3. Determination of the recovery in reference standards and the American cranberry matrix.
CompoundMarginal RecoveryTotal Recovery
Level (Standard Concentration)Recovery (%)RSD (%)LevelPredicted Amount in the Matrix, µg/mLRecovered Amount in the Matrix µg/mL (SD)Recovery (%)RSD (%)
Chlorogenic acidLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)97.110.9950%16.9317.31 ± 0.07106.591.16
Level 2 (25 µL/mL)96.560.57100%22.5823.34 ± 0.13106.711.10
Level 3 (50 µL/mL)99.001.80150%28.2229.37 ± 0.15106.770.86
Myricetin-3-galactosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)105.232.6450%38.1338.55 ± 0.39103.302.99
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)98.611.16100%50.8452.90 ± 0.29108.131.05
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)103.590.51150%63.5566.15 ± 0.01106.840.02
Quercetin-3-galactosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)103.031.8150%49.7650.74 ± 0.10105.900.55
Level 2 (50 µL/mL)102.510.82100%66.3568.71 ± 0.45107.111.27
Level 3 (150 µL/mL)99.940.03150%82.9481.15 ± 0.1296.420.25
Quercetin-3-glucosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)101.830.7950%4.464.44 ± 0.0698.434.01
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)100.400.46100%5.955.84 ± 0.0196.330.25
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)99.441.09150%7.437.29 ± 0.1196.832.61
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)97.050.5450%4.944.87 ± 0.0695.993.59
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)98.673.15100%6.596.58 ± 0.0499.801.34
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)95.971.30150%8.237.99 ± 0.0295.100.51
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)105.402.3350%23.3723.42 ± 0.14100.561.77
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)103.593.16100%31.1632.26 ± 0.02107.000.14
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)101.412.29150%38.9640.13 ± 0.56105.032.27
Quercetin-3-rhamnosideLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)103.011.9650%14.6314.77 ± 0.04103.030.75
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)96.170.13100%19.5019.97 ± 0.16104.831.58
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)101.061.00150%24.3823.45 ± 0.0693.640.45
MyricetinLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)99.210.5650%2.182.23 ± 0.02107.402.18
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)98.673.11100%2.903.01 ± 0.02107.581.54
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)98.780.78150%3.633.76 ± 0.07106.052.84
QuercetinLevel 1 (5 µL/mL)101.191.8550%4.544.45 ± 0.0294.101.07
Level 2 (20 µL/mL)100.073.25100%6.056.12 ± 0.05102.241.47
Level 3 (40 µL/mL)97.121.93150%7.577.63 ± 0.20101.424.37
Table
Table 4. Values of the precision parameters of the UPLC-DAD methodology.
Table 4. Values of the precision parameters of the UPLC-DAD methodology.
CompoundMean Amount µg/g DW ± SDIntra-Day Precision
(%RSD, n = 6)		Inter-Day Precision
(%RSD, n = 18)		RSDr%
Retention TimeAmountRetention TimeAmount
Chlorogenic acid 339.41 ± 2.00 d0.200.520.170.596.63
Myricetin-3-galactoside745.32 ± 8.72 b0.171.430.141.165.89
Quercetin-3-galactoside961.91 ± 8.47 a0.130.880.110.885.67
Quercetin-3-glucoside 85.82 ± 1.60 g0.121.380.111.868.15
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinopyranoside98.70 ± 1.10 f0.060.650.101.117.98
Quercetin-3-α-L-arabinofuranoside458.51 ± 2.97 c0.110.590.100.646.34
Quercetin-3-rhamnoside286.56 ± 2.28 e0.120.710.090.796.79
Myricetin42.98 ± 0.60 h0.101.200.091.389.04
Quercetin89.76 ± 1.58 g0.101.300.071.768.09
RSD%—relative standard deviation; RSDr%—acceptable value of repeatability for quantity; different letters indicate statistically significant (p < 0.05) differences between the studied compounds of cranberry.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Urbstaite, R.; Raudone, L.; Liaudanskas, M.; Janulis, V. Development, Validation, and Application of the UPLC-DAD Methodology for the Evaluation of the Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Phenolic Compounds in the Fruit of American Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton). Molecules 2022, 27, 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020467

AMA Style

Urbstaite R, Raudone L, Liaudanskas M, Janulis V. Development, Validation, and Application of the UPLC-DAD Methodology for the Evaluation of the Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Phenolic Compounds in the Fruit of American Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton). Molecules. 2022; 27(2):467. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020467

Chicago/Turabian Style

Urbstaite, Rima, Lina Raudone, Mindaugas Liaudanskas, and Valdimaras Janulis. 2022. "Development, Validation, and Application of the UPLC-DAD Methodology for the Evaluation of the Qualitative and Quantitative Composition of Phenolic Compounds in the Fruit of American Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Aiton)" Molecules 27, no. 2: 467. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27020467

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop