4.7 Article

The Tandem of Full Spin Analysis and qHNMR for the Quality Control of Botanicals Exemplified with Ginkgo biloba

Journal

JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS
Volume 75, Issue 2, Pages 238-248

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/np200949v

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [RC2 AT005899, P41 GM068944]
  2. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM)
  3. USP
  4. National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Botanical dietary supplements and herbal remedies are widely used for health promotion and disease prevention. Due to the high chemical complexity of these natural products, it is essential to develop new analytical strategies to guarantee their quality and consistency. In particular, the precise characterization of multiple botanical markers remains a challenge. This study demonstrates how a combination of computer-aided spectral analysis and 1D quantitative H-1 NMR spectroscopy (qHNMR) generates the analytical foundation for innovative means of simultaneously identifying and quantifying botanical markers in complex mixtures. First, comprehensive H-1 NMR profiles (fingerprints) of selected botanical markers were generated via H-1 iterative full spin analysis (HiFSA) with PERCH. Next, the H-1 fingerprints were used to assign specific H-1 resonances in the NMR spectra of reference materials, enriched fractions, and crude extracts of Ginkgo biloba leaves. These H-1 fingerprints were then used to verify the assignments by 2D NMR. Subsequently, a complete purity and composition assessment by means of 1D qHNMR was conducted. As its major strengths, this tandem approach enables the simultaneous quantification of multiple constituents without the need for identical reference materials, the semiquantitative determination of particular subclasses of components, and the detection of impurities and adulterants.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available