Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 533

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

Khokhar, S., Magnusdottir, S. G. M.·2002·Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/jf010153l

Cites

1 of 1 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

Cited by

See all 533

Metadata

Authors
Khokhar, S., & Magnusdottir, S. G. M.
Venue
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
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.