Advertisement

European Food Research and Technology

, Volume 220, Issue 5–6, pp 648–652 | Cite as

Lutein and zeaxanthin in new dietary supplements—analysis and quantification

  • Dietmar E. BreithauptEmail author
  • Jörg Schlatterer
Original Paper

Abstract

Lutein and zeaxanthin, two xanthophylls supposed to delay formation of age-related macular degeneration (AMD), are found in numerous new dietary supplements appearing on the international market. Usually, the lutein concentration ranges from 0.25 to 20 mg/serving size. The lutein contents of 14 products with lutein highlighted on the label were evaluated. Oily formulations were dissolved, and powdery capsule contents were extracted with solvents before high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) analysis (diode-array detector, 450 nm) using a C30 column. If lutein diesters from marigold (Tagetes erecta) were present, the extracts were saponified with methanolic KOH. To unequivocally identify carotenoids, HPLC-(atmospheric pressure chemical ionization)mass spectrometry was applied. In this study only all-trans-lutein was quantified, whereas cis isomers (approximately 1–5 area% of total lutein) were not taken into account. The lutein concentration of half of the products investigated was found to be below the amount stated, varying here from 11 to 93%. With the exception of one product, all dietary supplements contained zeaxanthin in amounts typical for the use of marigold oleoresin (6.0±1.4 area% of all-trans-lutein). The high discrepancy found between the amounts labeled and determined in half of the products may be attributed to degradation reactions or to improper storage conditions.

Keywords

Lutein Marigold Tagetes erecta Dietary supplement High-performance liquid chromatography 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Najduszynska and Z. Dogan for their preliminary experiments and R. Aman (Institute of Food Technology, University of Hohenheim) for valuable help with enzymatic hydrolysis of gelatine capsules.

References

  1. 1.
    Landrum JT, Bone RA (2001) Arch Biochem Biophys 385:28–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mares-Perlman JA, Millen AE, Ficek TL, Hankinson SE (2002) J Nutr 132:518S-524SPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beatty S, Boulton M, Henson D, Koh HH, Murray IJ (1999) Br J Ophthalmol 83:867–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Somerberg O, Keunen JEE, Bird AC, van Kujik FJGM (1998) Br J Ophthalmol 82:907–910Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berendschot TT, Goldbohm RA, Klopping WA, van de Kraats J, van Norel J, van Norren D (2000) Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 41:3322–3326Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Neher RT (1968) Econ Bot 22:317–324Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hadden WL, Watkins RH, Levy LW, Regalado E, Rivadeneira DM, van Breemen RB, Schwartz SJ (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:4189–4194CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cisneros M, Benavides J, Brenes CH, Rito-Palomares M (2004) J Chromatogr B 807:105–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weller P, Breithaupt DE (2003) J Agric Food Chem 51:7044–7049CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Horwitz W (ed) (2000) Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, 17th edn. Recovery studies. Byrd, Richmond, VA, p 20, item 27Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Breithaupt DE (2004) Food Chem 86:449–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Breithaupt DE, Wirt U, Bamedi A (2002) J Agric Food Chem 50:66–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Delgado-Vargas F, Parades-López O (1998) J Agric Food Chem 45:1097–1102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Khachik F, Steck A, Pfander H (1999) J Agric Food Chem 47:455–461CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gaziano JM, Johnson EJ, Russel RM, Manson JE, Stampfer MJ, Ridker PM, Frei B, Hennekens CH, Krinsky NI (1995) Am J Clin Nutr 61:1248–1252PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für LebensmittelchemieUniversität HohenheimStuttgartGermany

Personalised recommendations