4.1 Article

A Rapid Simple Approach to Screen Components in Radix Salviae Miltiorrhizae Using Rapid Resolution Liquid Chromatography Coupled with Diode Array Detection and Electrospray Ionization Time-of-Flight Mass Spectrometry

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/10826070903245854

关键词

Quality evaluation; Radix Salvia Miltiorrhizae; RRLC-DAD; RRLC-ESI-TOF; MS

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Supporting Program of P. R. China [2006BAI08B03-07]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An improved method based on rapid resolution liquid chromatography (RRLC) coupled with diode array detection (DAD) and electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF/MS) has been developed for quantification of seven major components and identification of most components in extracts of Radix Salvia Miltiorrhizae (RSM). RRLC analysis was performed with a C18 column by gradient elution using acetonitrile and 0.4% formic acid (v/v) in water as the mobile phase; the detection wavelength was set at 280nm. Seven major components in RSM were successfully separated. This quantitative method was fully validated with respect to the following performance criteria: linearity, precision, repeatability, stability, accuracy, limit of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ). The UV spectra, acquired by DAD, were used to distinguish the two groups of components roughly, water-soluble phenolic and nonpolar diterpenoid compounds. A formula database of known compounds in RSM was established, against which most of the reported components in the herbal extract were identified effectively, based on the extract masses acquired by TOF/MS. This qualitative and quantitative method was successfully used to analyze the components in 10 batches of RSM samples collected from different regions in China. This improved quality evaluation method consisted of RRLC assay of seven major components and unambiguous identification of forty components, is suitable for routine quantification and comprehensive quality control of RSM.

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

4.1
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