Determination of Myo-Inositol (Free and Bound as Phosphatidylinositol) in Infant Formula and Adult Nutritionals

Importance of the Topic

Myo-inositol is a critical carbohydrate present in free form and bound as phosphatidylinositol in cell membranes. It supports cellular osmoregulation, phosphoinositide signaling, neural development and pulmonary surfactant synthesis. Endogenous stores in infants fed formula without fortification can be insufficient compared to breast-fed infants. Regulatory bodies require specific minimum levels of myo-inositol in infant formulas and adult nutritional products. Reliable analytical methods are therefore essential to ensure product compliance and nutritional adequacy.

Objectives and Study Overview

This work evaluates a high-performance anion-exchange chromatography with pulsed amperometric detection (HPAE-PAD) method, combined with column-switching (AOAC Official Method 2011.18), to quantify free and bound myo-inositol in powdered infant formulas and adult nutritionals. Two sample preparation approaches for bound myo-inositol—silica SPE cleanup (Method 1) and an OnGuard II RP cartridge cleanup (Method 2)—were compared in terms of recovery, precision and ease of use.

Methodology and Instrumentation

• Ion chromatography system: Thermo Scientific Dionex ICS-5000+ HPIC with dual pumps, eluent generator (EGC 500 KOH), anion trap, dual electrochemical detector and disposable Au/PTFE electrode.
• Autosampler: Dionex AS-AP with 250 µL sample syringe and buffer line assembly.
• Columns and switching: CarboPac PA1 guard and MA1 analytical columns on a 6-port valve for inline cleanup and separation.
• Eluents: 15 mM KOH for initial cleanup, 750 mM KOH for analytical separation.
• Sample preparation reagents: hydrochloric acid, metaphosphoric acid, SPE cartridges, solvents for lipid extraction and cleanup.

Main Findings and Discussion

• Calibration: Linear response (r2 > 0.999) over 0.02–4 mg/L, LOD = 1.6 µg/L, LOQ = 5.4 µg/L.
• Free myo-inositol in SRM 1849 matched certified values (40.3 mg/100 g). Milk- and soy-based formulas contained 35–36 mg/100 g (6.9–7.2 mg/100 kcal), in line with label claims. Adult nutritional liquid contained ~0.34 mg/100 g.
• Bound myo-inositol quantitation: Method 2 (OnGuard II RP cleanup) achieved recoveries of 80–106%, superior to Method 1 (63–81%) due to reduced analyte loss. Method 2 also reduced sample preparation time and hazardous solvent use.
• Precision: Intraday RSD < 4%; interday RSD < 6.3%.

Benefits and Practical Applications

• No derivatization required: HPAE-PAD offers direct detection of myo-inositol with high sensitivity and selectivity.
• Disposable electrode: Au/PTFE electrode simplifies maintenance and supports continuous operation (~4 weeks per electrode).
• Column-switching workflow: Inline removal of late-eluting matrix components reduces run time and extends column life.
• Improved sample prep: OnGuard II RP cleanup streamlines bound myo-inositol analysis, minimizes analyte loss and hazardous solvent handling.
• Regulatory compliance: Method meets AOAC performance requirements for infant formula and adult nutritional testing.

Future Trends and Potential Applications

• Automation: Integration of online cleanup and hydrolysis modules for high-throughput quality control.
• Expanded analyte panels: Simultaneous determination of additional sugar alcohols and phosphoinositide derivatives.
• Miniaturized platforms: Microfluidic or capillary IC-PAD systems for rapid in-line process monitoring in manufacturing.
• Broader matrices: Application to clinical samples, human milk analysis and specialized medical nutrition products.

Conclusion

The HPAE-PAD method with column-switching reliably quantifies free and bound myo-inositol in infant formula and adult nutritionals. The use of an OnGuard II RP cartridge for bound analyte cleanup enhances recovery, reduces preparation time and lowers solvent use. This approach ensures regulatory compliance, robust precision and improved laboratory efficiency.

Reference

1. Schimpf K.; Thompson L. J. AOAC Official Method 2011.18. J. AOAC Int. 2012, 95, 937–942.
2. Ellingson D. et al. J. AOAC Int. 2012, 95, 1469–1478.
3. Wiese T.J. et al. Am. J. Physiol. 1996, 270, C990–997.
4. Majerus P.W. et al. Cell 1990, 63, 459–465.
5. Hallman M. et al. Early Hum. Dev. 1985, 10, 245–254.
6. AOAC SMPR 2011.007. J. AOAC Int. 2012, 95, Appendix 1.