Figures (5)  Tables (1)

    • Figure 1. 

      Separation of the target compound by TLC developed with different solvents. (a) Acetonitrile/acetic acid/water/n-butanol (69.5/20/10/0.5, v/v/v/v). (b) n-butanol/water (3/1, v/v). (c) Staining with vanillin after development with n-butanol/water. 1. RF > 0.85, 2. RF 0.70−0.85, 3. RF 0.55−0.70, 4. RF 0.40−0.55, 5. RF 0.25−0.40, 6. RF 0.10−0.25, 7. RF < 0.10; the array showed the peak of target compound.

    • Figure 2. 

      Comparison of the target compound with 1,3,6-TGG. (a) Daughter ions and UV absorbance of the target compound (m/z 635). (b) Daughter ions and UV absorbance of the 1,3,6-TGG. (c) Different retention time between target compound (solid line) and 1,3,6-TGG (dash line) in HPLC spectrum.

    • Figure 3. 

      MRM spectrum of the sample extracted from fresh leaves of four special tea plant clones (‘1-17’, ‘1-18’, ‘FZ1’ and ‘FZ2’) in channel 635/483, and MRM was performed at ES− mode, five distinct compounds were detected and the array indicated the target compound.

    • Figure 4. 

      UV and total ion chromatogram spectrum of the target compound before (20141123-2) and after (20141123-3) purification by semi-preparative chromatography. The array showed the target compound.

    • Figure 5. 

      NMR spectrums and characteristics of target compound. (a) 1H-NMR. (b) 13C-NMR. (c) HMQC. (d) H1-H1 COSY. (e) Chemical structure. (f) Exact molecular weight.

    • CompoundORACDPPHFRAP
      1,4,6-TGG2.68 ± 0.03b5.67 ± 0.09b5.77 ± 0.08b
      Vitamin C1.23 ± 0.06c1.20 ± 0.03c4.04 ± 0.09c
      EGCG2.83 ± 0.02a6.36 ± 0.12a6.40 ± 0.13a
      Antioxidant capacity was expressed as μmol trolox equivalent antioxidant capacity (TEAC) per μmol compound. Different letters in same column showed significant difference (p < 0.05).

      Table 1. 

      Antioxidant capacity of the 1,4,6-TGG.