with the addition of sediment by a factor of 2. While many
mechanisms are possible, larger molecules have generally been
shown to be more reactive than smaller molecules toward mineral
surfaces in sorption experiments,22 and the trend in calculated
degree of polymerization is consistent. Tannin reactivity toward
the soil appears to be less than reactivity toward the sediment.
The addition of 1000 mg of soil gave yields corresponding to ∼400-
mg addition of sediment. The overall implication of this experiment
is that unreacted tannin may be detectable by GC in soils and
sediments at least as low as 0.03 wt %. Analysis of a soil sample
taken from within the dripline of the CLM camellia tree showed
the presence of tannin at 0.002 wt % as estimated by GC/ MS,
which shows greater sensitivity than GC.
To evaluate mechanisms for the matrix effects shown above,
POLL was hydrolyzed in the presence of combusted sediment
(to remove organic carbon), desalted combusted sediment, and
sodium chloride in amounts equivalent to that present in 1000
mg of sediment. Sodium chloride did not affect yields, while both
the combusted sediment additions resulted in no tannin. This
suggests that tannin is very mineral reactive and that organic
coatings might aid preservation. In addition to these matrix effects,
protein/ tannin interactions were also tested by the addition of 50
mg of bovine serum albumin to POLL prior to depolymerization.
Yields were not affected.
Our experience with mineral matrix effects was similar to that
of Schofield et al. in 1998.23 They were unable to detect tannin in
soils underlying willow leaf litter, despite evidence that tannin was
being leached from the leaves. Even when purified Sorghum tannin
was added to the soil at up to 0.2 wt %, they were unable to extract
any measurable tannin by several different techniques, including
sorptive techniques and direct depolymerization in the presence
of phloroglucinol.
Clearly, mineral matrix effects and the ability to quantify tannin
in soils and sediments are areas that need further study. There
are a number of factors to consider, the primary one being
whether tannin is sorbed by the minerals (and associated
organics) but remains intact or whether it is chemically altered.
If it is the former, then it may be possible in the future to find a
method for desorption. If it is the latter, the challenge will be to
determine how it is altered and how to quantify it. In either case,
if a means of extraction ultimately is not possible, then solid-phase
13C NMR or pursuing variations of stronger degradative tech-
niques such as pyrolysis or CuO oxidation may be necessary for
direct quantification. Mechanistically, sorption studies involving
purified tannin, soils, and sediments are in order.
ular tannin via this method was measured at 6% in both leaf
types, 7 and 10% with the Folin-Denis reagent, and ∼20% by 13
C
NMR.
Quantitative comparisons can also be made for bark tannins
of the same species analyzed by our method on whole samples18
and thioacidolysis (depolymerization in the presence of toluene-
R-thiol) on extracts.16 Barks from Pinus contorta and Pseudotsuga
menziesii were measured at the molecular level in both studies,
the latter method yielding 3.2 and 3.3% total tannin, respectively,
while our method gave 3.3 and 3.1%. The analysis by our method,
however, also included flavanones, which have been shown to be
present in gymnosperm bark tannin as terminal units27 and
constituted about half the tannin measured in these two samples.
While part of the difference is likely directly attributable to the
higher efficiency reported for thioacidolysis,14 preservation is also
likely a factor. Tannin in samples has been shown to become more
depolymerization resistant with age.14 The barks analyzed by
thioacidolysis were freshly collected26 whereas those by this
technique were >10 years old.
Compositional comparisons between the barks can also be
made. In the P. contorta and P. menziesii barks, the degree of
polymerization was measured at 4.7 and 3.7, respectively, by
thioacidolysis26 vs 4.4 and 2.5 for our technique.18 A commonly
measured parameter is the ratio of 2,3-cis (i.e., epicatechin and
epigallocatechin) monomers to 2,3-trans (i.e., catechin and gallo-
catechin) monomers. This ratio was determined to be 60:40 and
81:19, respectively, by thioacidolysis26 vs 60:40 and 64:36 by our
technique.18 Discrepancies in P. menziesii can be attributed to the
considerable variability found in inner and outer barks.26 Finally,
<20% of the condensed tannin in P. contorta bark as measured
by thioacidolysis was PD tannin, as compared to a previous
literature value of 69%.20 The measurement of 34% PD tannin by
our technique is intermediate.18
Compositional characteristics of tannin are commonly mea-
sured by 13C NMR on extracted and purified tannin. Results from
seed cones analyzed by our method18 can be compared to those
obtained by 13C NMR.28 13C NMR results from five Pinus sp. seed
cones indicated that 2,3-cis conformations made up 65-81% of
condensed tannin. Six seed cones were analyzed by our method,
with four species showing 62-90% 2,3-cis, and 37 and 38% in
Sequoia sempervirens and Tsuga heterophylla, respectively. The
only common species between the two sample sets was Pinus
ponderosa. In this species, 13C NMR indicated 74% 2,3-cis vs 62%
by our method. Degree of polymerization in the seed cones ranged
from 5.3 to 8.5 by 13C NMR vs 1.8-7.4 by our method (5.4 vs 2.4
for P. ponderosa). This latter difference is expected given that
monomers and smaller oligomers are eliminated in extraction and
purification procedures.
Comparisons to Other Methods. Analysis of a variety of
sources allows for direct comparisons to be made between this
and other tannin methods. Complete discussions can be found in
refs 18 and 24. In a mangrove leaf study, total tannin estimates
and measurements were made with 13C NMR and the Folin-Denis
reagent25 as well as with the method reported here.24 In green
and senescent yellow mangrove leaves, for instance, total molec-
On the whole, then, our method gives results that are
consistent with other established techniques for tannin, but
without extraction procedures and with much greater throughput.
Further Considerations. From the beginning of this project,
commercial availability of condensed tannin standards has been
(22) Thimsen, C. A.; Keil, R. G. Mar. Chem. 1 9 9 8 , 62, 65-76.
(23) Schofield, J. A.; Hagerman, A. E.; Harold, A. J. Chem. Ecol. 1 9 9 8 , 24, 1409-
1421.
(26) Matthews, S.; Mila, I.; Scalbert, A.; Donnelly, D. M. X. Phytochemistry 19 97 ,
45, 405-410.
(24) Hernes, P. J.; Benner, R.; Cowie, G. L.; Gon˜ i, M. A.; Bergamaschi, B. A.;
Hedges, J. I. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, in press.
(25) Benner, R.; Hatcher, P. G.; Hedges, J. I. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1 9 9 0 ,
54, 2003-2013.
(27) Hergert, H. L. In Chemistry and Significance of Condensed Tannins;
Hemingway, R. W., Karchesy, J. J., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York, 1989;
pp 3-20.
(28) Eberhardt, T. L.; Young, R. A. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1 9 9 4 , 42, 1704-1708.
Analytical Chemistry, Vol. 72, No. 20, October 15, 2000 5123