4.7 Article

Quantitative and chemical fingerprint analysis for quality control of Rhizoma Coptidischinensis based on UPLC-PAD combined with chemometrics methods

期刊

PHYTOMEDICINE
卷 16, 期 10, 页码 950-959

出版社

ELSEVIER GMBH
DOI: 10.1016/j.phymed.2009.03.016

关键词

Rhizoma Coptidischinensis; UPLC-PAD; Quality control; Fingerprint; Chemometrics

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2007CB512607, 2006CB504703]
  2. Fond of State Youth Science [30625042]
  3. National Natural Science Fond [30772740]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To control the quality of Rhizoma Coptidis, a method based on ultra performance liquid chromatography with photodiode array detector (UPLC-PAD) was developed for quantitative analysis of five active alkaloids and chemical fingerprint analysis. In quantitative analysis, the five alkaloids showed good regression (R > 0.999 2) within test ranges and the recovery of the method was in the range of 98.4-100.8%. The limit of detections and quantifications for five alkaloids in PAD were less than 0.07 and 0.22 mu g/ml, respectively. In order to compare the UPLC fingerprints between Rhizoma Coptidis from different origins, the chemometrics procedures, including similarity analysis (SA), hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA), principal component analysis (PCA) were applied to classify the Rhizoma Coptidis samples according to their cultivated origins. Consistent results were obtained to show that Rhizoma Coptidis samples could be successfully grouped in accordance with the province of origin. Furthermore, five marker constituents were screened out to be the main chemical marker, which could be applied to accurate discrimination and quality control for Rhizoma Coptidis by quantitative analysis. This study revealed that UPLC-PAD method was simple, sensitive and reliable for quantitative and chemical fingerprint analysis, moreover, for the quality evaluation and control of Rhizoma Coptidis. (C) 2009 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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