4.6 Article

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the major constituents in Chinese medicinal preparation Guan-Xin-Ning injection by HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 59, Issue -, Pages 184-189

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2011.10.007

Keywords

Traditional Chinese medicinal preparation; Guan-Xin-Ning injection; Major constituents; HPLC-DAD-ESI-MSn; Quality control

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30830116]
  2. Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Guan-Xin-Ning (GXN) injection, a traditional Chinese medicinal preparation consisting of Radix Salvia miltiorrhiza and Rhizoma Ligusticum chuanxiong, has been used to treat coronary heart disease and angina pectoris in China for decades. In this paper, a HPLC/DAD/ESI-MSn method was successfully developed for qualitative and quantitative analysis of the active components in GXN injection for the first time. 28 compounds were identified by comparison of their retention times and MS spectra (HPLC/DAD/ESI-MSn) with those elucidated standards or recorded literature. 19 of them (danshensu, furoic acid, 3-O-caffeoylquinic acid, protocatechuic aldehyde, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, chlorogenic acid, caffeic acid, 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid, vanillin, 1,3-dicaffeoylquinic acid, 4-hydroxycinnamic acid, ferulic acid, senkyunolide I, senkyunolide H, isosalvianolic acid A, rosmarinic acid, salvianolic acid B, salvianolic acid A and isosalvianolic acid C) were simultaneously determined by HPLC-DAD quantitatively. The analytical method was validated and successfully applied for simultaneous determination of major components in GXN injections from seven different production batches, indicating that the proposed approach was applicable for the routine analysis and quality control of GXN injection. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available