The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Total Phenol, Catechin, and Caffeine Contents of Teas Commonly Consumed in the United Kingdom
Abstract
Levels of total phenol, catechins, and caffeine in teas commonly consumed in the United Kingdom have been determined using reversed phase high-performance liquid chromatography. Tea bags or tea leaves were purchased from local supermarkets and extracted in boiling water for 5 min. The resulting data showed considerable variability in both total phenols [80.5-134.9 mg/g of dry matter (DM) in black teas and 87-106.2 mg/g of DM in green teas] and catechins (5.6-47.5, 51.5-84.3, and 8.5-13.9 mg/g of DM in black, green, and fruit teas, respectively); this was most probably a result of differing agronomic conditions, leaf age, and storage during and after transport, as well as the degree of fermentation. Caffeine contents of black teas (22-28 mg/g of DM) were significantly higher than in less fermented green teas (11-20 mg/g of DM). The relative concentration of the five major tea catechins ranked EGCG > ECG > EC > EGC > C. The estimated U.K. dietary intakes of total tea catechins, calculated on the basis of an average tea consumption of three cups of tea (200 mL cup, 1% tea leaves w/v), were 61.5, 92.7, and 405.5 mg/day from fruit teas, black teas, and green teas, respectively. The coefficients of variation were 19.4, 88.6, and 17.3%, respectively, indicating the wide variation in these intakes. The calculated caffeine intake ranged between 92 and 146 mg/day. In addition, many individuals will consume much larger quantities of tea, of various strengths (as determined by the brewing conditions employed). This broad spread of U.K. daily intakes further emphasizes the need for additional research to relate intake and effect in various population groups.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Hertog, M. G. L., Hollman, P. C. H., Katan, M. B., & Kromhout, D. (1993) · Nutrition and Cancer · doi:10.1080/01635589309514267 · Cited by 1,216
Cited by
Roby, M. H. H., Sarhan, M. A., Selim, K. A.-H., & Khalel, K. I. (2013) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.08.029 · Cited by 580
The chemistry and biotransformation of tea constituents
Sang, S., Lambert, J. D., Ho, C.-T., & Yang, C. S. (2011) · Pharmacological Research · doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2011.02.007 · Cited by 492
HAYOUNI, E., ABEDRABBA, M., BOUIX, M., & HAMDI, M. (2007) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.02.010 · Cited by 441
Green tea consumption and cognitive function: a cross-sectional study from the Tsurugaya Project
Kuriyama, S., Hozawa, A., Ohmori, K., Shimazu, T., Matsui, T., Ebihara, S., Awata, S., Nagatomi, R., Arai, H., & Tsuji, I. (2006) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/83.2.355 · Cited by 428
Rusak, G., Komes, D., Likić, S., Horžić, D., & Kovač, M. (2008) · Food Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.foodchem.2008.02.072 · Cited by 398
Metadata
- Authors
- Khokhar, S., & Magnusdottir, S. G. M.
- Venue
- Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2002-01-01
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 565-570
- ISSN
- 0021-8561 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-5118
- OpenAlex
- W2119116383
- Cited by
- 533
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 8.54
- 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
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.