4.6 Review

Advancement in the chemical analysis and quality control of flavonoid in Ginkgo biloba

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 113, Issue -, Pages 212-225

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2015.03.006

Keywords

Ginkgo; Flavonoid; Quality control; Chemical analysis; Review

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81373966]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20140673]
  3. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flavonoids are the main active constituents in Ginkgo biloba L., which have been suggested to have broad-spectrum free-radical scavenging activities. This review summarizes the recent advances in the chemical analysis of the flavonoids in G. biloba and its finished products (from 2009 to 2014), including chemical composition, sample preparation, separation, detection and different quality criteria. More than 70 kinds of flavonoids have been identified in this plant. In this review, various analytical approaches as well as their chromatographic conditions have been described, and their advantages/disadvantages are also compared. Quantitative analyses of Ginkgo flavonoids applied by most pharmacopeias start with an acidic hydrolysis followed by determination of the resulting aglycones using HPLC. But increasing direct assay of individual flavonol glycosides found that many adulterated products were still qualified by the present tests. To obtain an authentic and applicable analytical approach for quality evaluation of Ginkgo and its finished products, related suggestions and opinions in the recent publications are mainly discussed in this review. This discussion on chemical analyses of Ginkgo flavonoids will also be found as a significant guide for widely varied natural flavonoids. (C) 2015 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