Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Common tea formulations modulate in vitro digestive recovery of green tea catechins

Green, Rodney J., Murphy, Angus S., Schulz, Burkhard, Watkins, Bruce A., Ferruzzi, Mario G.·2007·Molecular Nutrition & Food Research

Abstract

Epidemiological evidence suggests a role for tea catechins in reduction of chronic disease risk. However, stability of catechins under digestive conditions is poorly understood. The objective of this study was to characterize the effect of common food additives on digestive recovery of tea catechins. Green tea water extracts were formulated in beverages providing 4.5, 18, 23, and 3.5 mg per 100 mL epicatechin (EC), epigallocatechin (EGC), epigallocatechin‐gallate (EGCG), and epicatechin‐gallate (ECG), respectively. Common commercial beverage additives; citric acid (CA), BHT, EDTA, ascorbic acid (AA), milk (bovine, soy, and rice), and citrus juice (orange, grapefruit, lemon, and lime) were formulated into finished tea beverages at incremental dosages. Samples were then subjected to in vitro digestion simulating gastric and small intestinal conditions with pre‐ and post‐digestion catechin profiles assessed by HPLC. Catechin stability in green tea was poor with < 20% total catechins remaining post‐digestion. EGC and EGCG were most sensitive with ⪇ 10% recovery. Teas formulated with 50% bovine, soy, and rice milk increased total catechin recovery significantly to 52, 55, and 69% respectively. Including 30 mg AA in 250 mL of tea beverage significantly (p< 0.05) increased catechin recovery of EGC, EGCG, EC, and ECG to 74, 54, 82, and 45% respectively. Juice preparation resulted in the highest recovery of any formulation for EGC (81–98%), EGCG (56–76%), EC (86–95%), and ECG (30–55%). These data provide evidence that tea consumption practices and formulation factors likely impact catechin digestive recovery and may result in diverse physiological profiles.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/mnfr.200700086

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Green, R. J., Murphy, A. S., Schulz, B., Watkins, B. A., & Ferruzzi, M. G.
Venue
Molecular Nutrition & Food Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-09
Volume
51
Issue
9
Pages
1152-1162
ISSN
  • 1613-4125 (ISSN-L)
  • 1613-4133
OpenAlex
W2086868978
Cited by
260
References
4
FWCI
5.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Common tea formulations modulate in vitro digestive recovery of green tea catechins. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/mnfr.200700086
The paper
Green, R. J., Murphy, A. S., Schulz, B., Watkins, B. A., & Ferruzzi, M. G. (2007). Common tea formulations modulate in vitro digestive recovery of green tea catechins. Molecular Nutrition & Food Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200700086

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.