4.6 Article

Flow rate gradient high-speed counter-current chromatography separation of five diterpenoids from Triperygium wilfordii and scale-up

期刊

JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A
卷 1200, 期 2, 页码 129-135

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2008.05.041

关键词

Triperygium wilfordii Hook.f.; diterpenoid; high-speed counter-current chromatography; flow rate gradient; scale-up

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, high-speed counter-current chromatography (HSCCC) instruments with different gravitational forces were applied for the separation of bioactive compounds from Triperygium wilfordii Hook.f. The critical parameters including sample concentration, sample volume and flow rate were first optimized on an analytical Mini-DE HSCCC system, and then scaled up to a preparative TBE 300A HSCCC system. Although this scale-up process was performed using different CCC instruments with different centrifuges and gravitational forces, the same resolutions were obtained and the elution time could be predictable. Five cliterpenoid compounds and one unknown compound were separated from Triperygiurn wilfordii Hook.f. by HSCCC with a two-phase solvent system composed of n-hexane-ethyl acetate- metha no I -water (HEMW) (3:2:3:2, v/v/v/v). This one-step flow gradient separation produced triptonide (25 mg), isoneotriptophenolide (77 mg), hypolide (83 mg), unknown compound (I mg), triptophenolide (42 mg), triptonoterpene methyl ether VI (37 mg) from 320 mg crude extract with purities of 98.2%, 96.6%, 98.1%, 95.3%, 95.1 %, and 96.5%, respectively. Their purities and structures were identified by h igh- performance liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry and NMR. This paper demonstrates that analytical CCC plays an important role in optimizing parameters and scale-up process when analytical CCC and preparative CCC are supplied by different manufacturers with different gravitational forces, and the scale-up process from analytical CCC to preparative CCC is still predictable. (c) 2008 Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据