4.5 Article

Quality Evaluation of Potentilla discolor by High-performance Liquid Chromatography Coupled with Diode Array Detection and Electrospray Ionisation Tandem Mass Spectrometry

期刊

PHYTOCHEMICAL ANALYSIS
卷 22, 期 6, 页码 547-554

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/pca.1317

关键词

identification; quantification; HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS(n); flavonoids; triterpenoids

资金

  1. Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education of China [20100096120004]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction - The whole herb of Potentilla discolor has long been used for treatment of diarrhoea, malaria, haemoptysis and haematemesis in clinical applications. However, until now, there has been no literature regarding to the quality control of it. Objective - To develop a simple and accurate HPLC-DAD (diode array detection)-ESI/MS(n) (electrospray ionisation multistage mass spectrometry) method for the identification of constituents in P. discolor and simultaneous quantification of its marker compounds. Methodology - Separations were performed on a Shimpack C(18) column by gradient elution using acetonitrile: 0.1% formic acid. The identification of constituents in P. discolor were achieved by HPLC-DAD-ESI/MS(n) while six flavonoids and five triterpenoids were determined by HPLC-DAD at 360 and 210 nm, repectively. Results - A total of 23 compounds including 13 flavonoids and 10 triterpenoids were identified or tentatively characterised. A quantitative HPLC-DAD method allowing the simultaneously quantification of 11 marker compounds was optimised and validated for linearity, precision, accuracy, and limits of detection and quantification. The method was successfully applied to the quantification of 11 marker compounds in 10 samples of P. discolor collected from different provinces of China. Conclusion - This developed method was validated as simple, precise and accurate, and could be used for effectively and comprehensibly evaluating the quality of P. discolor. Copyright (C) 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.5
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