The fructose, glucose and sucrose contents of selected soft' drinks available in Malaysian

markets were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The soft drinks tested

had a soluble sugar content of between 8.5 to 15.3 g 100 ml- 1

• The average fructose, glucose and

sucrose contents werefound to be in the ranges of 0 - 6. 7, 0 - 6.9 and 0 - 10.5 g 100 ml I respectively.

The content of individual sugars were found to be more variable than the content of total sugar in different

samples of a specific soft drink

Augustin, M. A.

Khor, K. L.

Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository

PertaWka 9(1), 119 -123 (1986)COMMUNICATION IDetermination of Sugars in Soft Drinks byHigh Performance Liquid ChromatographyKey words: HPLC, soluble sugars; soft drinks.ABSTRAKKandungan fruktosa, glukosa dan sukrosa dalam minimum ringan terpilih yang terdapat diMalaysia ditentukan melalui kromatografi cecair prestasi tinggi (HPLC). Minuman ringan yang diujimengandungi 8.5 -15.3 g 100 ml- 1 gula larut. Kandungan fruktosa, glukosa dan sukrosa masing-masing didapati dalam julat 0 - 6. 7, 0 - 6.9 dan 0 - 10.5 g 100 ml -1. Didapati bahawa pada minu-mam ringan yang spesifik, perbezaan adalah lebih besar antara kandungannya untuk gula in-dividu daripada kandungannya bagijumlah gula.ABSTRACTThe fructose, glucose and sucrose contents of selected soft' drinks available in Malaysianmarkets were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). The soft drinks testedhad a soluble sugar content of between 8.5 to 15.3 g 100 ml- 1• The average fructose, glucose andsucrose contents were found to be in the ranges of 0 - 6. 7, 0 - 6.9 and 0 - 10.5 g 100 ml I respectively.The content of individual sugars were found to be more variable than the content of total sugar in dzj-ferent samples ofa specific soft drink.INTRODUCTIONThe past few years has seen the mushroom-ing of the soft drink industry in Malaysia.Besides the well known soft drinks like Seven Upand Coca-cola, many new varieties which arelesser known in-the West, have gained popularityin the local market. These include chrysan-thenum and herbal tea, longan-winter melonand sugar cane drinks, as well as fruit juices likeguava, mango and mango-pineapple juice.Interest in the sweetened soft drinks, bothcarbonated and non-carbonated, arises from twoconsiderations. Firstly, the analysis of the sugarcontents of locally produced soft drinks by highpressure liquid chromatography (HPLC) has notbeen undertaken before. Secondly, from a nutri-tional view point, sucrose intake at high levelshas been implicated in such health problems asdiabetes mellitus (Cohen et al., 1974), athero-sclerotic heart disease (Kaufmann et al., 1967),carbohydrate malabsorption syndromes (Do-naldson and Grybosky, 1973) and dental caries(Hartles, 1967).MATERIALS AND METHODSMaterialsSamples of soft drinks were bought fromlocal supermarkets. 4 samples of each drink wereanalysed. The drinks selected were: (i) OI;angecrush (F & N), (ii) Coca-cola, (iii) A & W rootbeer, (iv) Dads root beer, (v) Schweppes orange,(vi) Fanta (Gedep Merk) vruchtenlimonade si-naasappel, (vii) Yeo's longan-winter melondrink, (viii) Drinho chrysanthenum tea (ix)Drinho sugar cane drink, (x) Joy mango juice (xi)Joy guava juice, (xii) Delite mango juice (xiii)Dewi mango juice, (xiv) Sunjus orange juice (xv)Green Spot orange juice drink and (xvi) Drinhoherbal tea.Analyses ofSugarsA HP 1048B liquid chromatograph with anRI detector was used. The method was based onthat of Hurst et al., 1977. The column was anNH 2 polar bonded phase column, 10 J1 m (250mm X 4.6 mm I.D.). The mobile phase wasM.A. AUGUSTIN AND K.L. KHORacetonitrile:water (85:15) and the flow rate was2.5 em min -1. The injection volume was 10 J.L 1.Identification and quantification of sugars weredone by comparing retention times and peakareas of samples to peak areas of standards aspeak area was directly proportional to the con-centration of the standard throughout the con-centration range used.SUGAR STANDARDr'"00CNGJOY GUAVA JUICE...,.,00CNGSoft drinks were analysed as received withminor sample preparation. Carbonated drinkswere decarbonated by vigorous agitation of solu-tions with a glass rod for 5 min. For the analysis,2 ml of the drink was diluted to 10 ml in avolumetric flask. The diluted drink solution wasfiltered through C-18 Sep Pak cartridges and0.45 J.l m filters prior to injection into the HPLC.Recovery studies were carried out by spiking softdrinks with known amounts of a standard sugarsolution containing glucose, fructose andsucrose. For spiking experiments, 2 ml of stan-dard sugar solution containing 1.6 X 10 -2 gml -I of each of the sugars glucose, fructose andsucrose was mixed with 1 ml of the undiluteddrink and the mixture was made up to volume ina 10 ml volumetric flask. These studies showedthat the recovery for fructose, glucose andsucrose for the range of soft drinks was between91 to 107%. However, the variation in the %recovery between individual sugars in a specificdrink was much less and averaged about 2.6%.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSugar Content ofSoft DrinksFig. 1 shows two chromatograms obtainedusing the HPLC conditions described. Table 1shows the data obtained for the soft drinksanalysed. The total sugar content was found tobe between 8.5 to 15.3 g 100 ml -I. The lowestsugar content was found in Drinho sugar canedrink while .the highest was found in one batch ofJoy guava juice. The average value for totalsugar in the drinks analysed in this work wasfound to be 12 g 100 ml -I. Vidal-Valverde et ai.(1985) found that the total amount of sugarsranged from 9.2 to 14 g 100 ml - 1 in soft drinksand fruit nectars he analysed. A total sugar con-tent of 10 to 12 g 100 ml -I was found in most""o'"s""00 CN .,.;'""".,.,'""" .... 0'06 ~ l@ 10~ f-<'"rrFig. 1: HPLC chromatograms of (I) standardsugar solution and (ill diluted Joy guavajuice. (F - fructose; G - Glucose;S - sucrose)drinks analysed by Martin-Villa et ai. (1981).Thus, it is evident that the range of total sugarsin soft drinks found in locally available softdrinks is in a similar range to that reported.There are however more marked differences inthe contents of individual sugars.There is a wide variation in the content ofindividual sugars present in the range of softdrinks analysed. The average fructose andglucose contents were found to be 0 - 6.7 and0- 6.9 g 100 ml I respectively. The averagesucrose content was in the range of 0 - 10.5 g 100ml - 1 • One of the main reasons for the differencesin the content of individual sugars is the dif-ferent amounts of corn sweeteners and sucroseused in the manufacture of different drinks.Labels on the soft drink containers indicatedthat in some drinks corn sweeteners (which in-cludes high fructose-glucose syrups) or/ andsugar was used in the manufacture of the drinks.The labels on some of the other drinks statedonly that 'sugar' was used as an ingredient. Thedefinitions of sugar and sweeteners for soft120 PERTANIKA VOL. 9 NO. I. 1986SUGARS IN SOIT DRINKSTABLE 1Soluble sugars in soft drinksType of Drink Container Fructose Glucose Sucrose Total Sugarsg 100 ml- I g 100 ml- I g 100 ml- I g 100 ml- IOrange Crush (F&N) Bottle 6.57 ± 0.09 6.31 ±0.23 < 0.46 13.00±0.41Coca-Cola Bottle 5.65±0.57 5.57 ± 0.05 <0.16 11.35±0.12Can 3.40 ± 0.25 3.65 ± 0.25 3.60 ± 0.09 10.65 ± 0.43A & W root beer Can 6.62 ±0.12 4.71±0.11 n.d. 11.32 ± 0.23Dads root beer Can 3.75±0.10 3.74 ± 0.09 4.25 ± 0.52 11.74 ± 0.35Schweppes orange Can 6.58 ± 0.28 6.36 ±0.24 < 1.19 13.41 ± 0.38Fanta (Gedep Merk) Can 6.69 ± 0.44 6.50 ± 0.41 <0.91 13.67 ± 0.92vruchtenlimonadesinaasappelYeo's longan-winter Tetra-pak 0.43 ± 0.02 0.42 ± 0.02 9.59 ± 0.46 10.45 ± 0.47melon drinkDrinho chrysanthenum tea Tetra-pak <0.06 <0.05 10.48 ± 0.50 10.53 ± 0.50Drinho sugar cane drink Tetra-pak (a) 1.41 ± 0.01 1.97 ±0.01 5.10 ± 0.01 8.47 ± 0.01(b) 0.58 ± 0.09 0.55 ± 0.12 9.19±0.18 10.20 ± 0.35Joy mango juice Tetra-pak 3.53±0.13 3.11 ±0.08 5.64 ± 0.14 12.28 ± 0.32Dewi mango juice Tetra-pak (a) 6.23 ± 0.15 6.28 ± 0.44 2.42 ± 0.34 14.93±0.93(b) 5.60±0.17 5.01 ± 0.11 2.10±0.87 12.72±0.32Delite mango-pineapple Tetra-pak 6.04 ± 0.16 6.06 ± 0.23 < 1.47 12.64±0.16drinkSunjus orange juice Tetra·pak 6.62 ± 0.11 6.48 ± 0.08 <1.22 14.05 ± 0.16Joy guava juice Tetra·pak (a) 4.46 ± 0.35 5.27 ± 0.26 5.58 ± 0.56 15.31 ± 0.05(b) 6.39 ± 0.10 6.16±0.66 0.31 ± 0.02 12.82 ± 0.11Green Spot orange Tetra·pak (a) 6.41 ± 0.18 6.93 ± 0.46 0.82 ± 0.25 14.44±0.98juice drink (b) 6.22 ± 0.09 6.08 ± 0.20 <0.57 12.67 ± 0.07Drinho herbal tea Tetra-pak <0.03 <0.03 9.81 ± 0.20 9.83 ± 0.18The symbols (a) and (b) refer to analyses of different batches of drinks which were bought at different times. Indrinks, other than those with symbols (a) and (b), the differences in sugar contents between batches were smalland less marked. n.d. = not detectable.drinks vary from country to country. In the 1964Soft Drink Regulation (UK), sugar is defined as'any soluble carbohydrate sweetening matter'while the sugar product regulations of the EECidentifies the term sugar with 'sucrose' (Tilley,1978). In the Food Regulations 1985 of Malaysiasugar is defined as the food chemically known assucrose and includes granulated sugar, loafsugar, castor sugar and powdered sugar. Sugarshould contain not less than 99.5 % of sucrose.The differences in the content of individualsugar can also arise because of other factors. Infruit juice drinks where the juice, concentrate orpuree of the fruit is added as an ingredient, dif-ferences in the contents of individual sugars inthe drink may be due to inherent differences inthe contents of individual sugars in differentfruits. Another contributory factor is the inver-sion of sucrose during storage. It has been statedthat it is quite reasonable to assume that sucroseundergoes hydrolysis in the acidic pH of softdrink media (Martin-Villa et al., 1981; VidalValverde et at., 1985).PERTANIKA VOL. 9 NO. I, 1986 121M.A. AUGUSTIN AND K.L. KHORIn this work, there were also marked dif-ferences in the individual sugar content in dif-ferent samples of Coca-cola, Drinho sugar canedrink, Dewi mango juice, Joy guava juice andGreen Spot orange juice drink. The pH of thesedrinks was found to be between 2.5 to 4.8. Itwould appear that these differences may be part-ly due to inversion of sucrose during storage. Inthe paper by Vidal-Valverde et al., (1985) it wasalso stated that a low sucro~e content was pro-bably an indication of long storage time. Anumber of reports have shown that there can besignificant differences in the individual sugarcontent of the same type of drink. Pinalla (1968)found 9.5% sucrose in cola drinks while South-gate et al., (1978) found 0.5% sucrose in coladrinks. In recent analysis, the sucrose level inCoca-cola was found to vary from 3.3 to 7.3 g100 ml -1 in 3 different samples of Coca-coladrinks while the individual sugar contents ofsome canned lemon, orange, pineapple drinksand Seven-up, Sprite and Tonic water were alsofound to be variable (Vidal-Valverde et al.,1985). In addition to differences in contents ofindividual sugars, there were also differences inthe content of total soluble sugars. This wasfound most prominently in Drinho sugar canedrink, Dewi mango juice, Joy guava juice andGreen Spot orange drink. These differences areprobably due primarily to different productionbatches of the drinks. Variations in sugar con-tent of this range has also been reported by otherworkers (Vidal-Valverde et al., 1985).Nutritional ImplicationsThe analysis revealed that the usual packetof soft drink (250 ml) contains between 21 to 38 gof sugar. This constitutes a significant level con-sidering that the average daily intake of sugar byMalaysians is nearly 100 g (FAO, 1984). Sincesoft drinks are popular among children, concernis expressed for the role soft drinks may have incontributing to dental caries. Among the healthproblems related to high intakes of refined car-bohydrates, dental caries is most clearly linked tothe quantity and frequency of sufar ingested(Bierman, 1979).ACKNOWLEDGEMENTThe authors would like to thank HalimAbdul Rahman and Azman Abu Yamin for theirtechnical assistance in the analysis and The NewStraits Time Press (Malaysia) Bhd. for provisionof funds for the analysis.M.A. Augustin andK.L. Khor'Department ofFood Science,Faculty ofFood Science and Technology,Universiti Pertanian Malaysia,43400 Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia.REFERENCESBIERMAN, E.L. (1979): Carbohydrate and sucrose in-take in the causation of atherosclerotic heartdisease, diabetes mellitus and dental caries. Am.I Clin. NutT. 32: 2644 - 2647.COHEN, A.M., TEITELBAUM. A., BRILLER, S., YANKO.L., ROSENMANN, E. and SHAFRIR. E. (1974): Ex-perimental modes of diabetes. In Sugars in Nutri-tion. (Eds.) H.L. Sipple and K.W. McNutt. Lon-don. Academic Press, pp 635 - 644.DONALDSON. R.M. and GRYBOSKY. J.D. (1973): Car-bohydrate intolerance. In Gastrointestinaldisease. (Eds.) M.H. Sleisenger and J.S. Ford-tran. Philadelphia. Sanders, pp 1015 - 1030.FAO (1984): Food Balance Sheet for 1979-1981.FAO, Rome.HARTLES, R.L. (1967): Carbohydrate consumptionand dental caries. Am. j. Clin. NutT. 20:152 -156.HURST, W.J., MARTIN Jr., R.A. and ZOUMAS. B.L.(1979): Application of HPLC to Characterizationof Individual Carbohydrates in Foods. j. Fd.Science. 44: 892 - 895.KAUFMANN. N.A., POZNANSKI, R., BLONDHEIM. S.H.and STEIN, Y. (1967): Comparison of effects offructose, sucrose, glucose and starch on serumlipids in patients with hypertriglyceridemia andnormal subjects. Am. j. Clin. NutT. 20:131- 132.MARTI ·VILLA. C., VIDAL·VALVERDE, C., DABRIO.M.V. and ROJAS·HIDALGO. E. (1981): Chromato-graphic measurement of the carbohydrate con-tent of some commonly used soft drinks. Am. j.Clin. NutT. 34: 1432 -1436."Department of Human Development Studies. Faculty of Agriculture.122 PERTANIKA VOL. 9 NO.1, 1986SUGARS IN SOIT DRINKSPINALLA. I. (1968): Bebidas refrescantes azucaradas.In: Regimenesdieteticos. Introduction ala Dieta-tica Hosptilaria. (Ed.) E. Rojas-Hildago. Madrid:INP p. 248 through Martin-Villa et ai. (1981).SOUTHGATE. D.A.T., PAUL. A.A., DEAN. A.C. andCHRISTIE. A.A. (1978): Free sugars in goods. j.Hum. Nutr. 32: 335 - 347.THOMAS. S. and CORDEN. M. (1977): Metric Tables ofComposition of Australian Foods. AustralianGovernment Publishing Service, Canberra, p. 5.TILLEY. N. (1978): Quality Control. In: Developmentsin Soft Drink Technology. (Ed.) L.F. Green.London. App. Sci. Pub. Ltd., pp 171 - 207.VIDAL·VALVERDE, C., VALVERDE, S., MARTIN·VILLA,C., BLANCO, I. and ROJAS.HIDALGO, E. (1985):High Performance Liquid ChromatographicDetermination of Soluble Carbohydrates in Com·mercial Drinks.]. Sci. Fd. Agric. 36(1): 43 - 48.(Received 7 October, 1985)PERTA IKA VOL. 9 NO. I, 1986 123

Determination of Sugars in Soft Drinks by

High Performance Liquid Chromatography

http://psasir.upm.edu.my/2370/1/Determination_of_Sugars_in_Soft_Drinks_by.pdf

Determination of Sugars in Soft Drinks by High Performance Liquid Chromatography

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Universiti Putra Malaysia Institutional Repository