4.7 Article

Development and validation of an analytical method for the separation and determination of major bioactive curcuminoids in Curcuma longa rhizomes and herbal products using non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis

期刊

TALANTA
卷 123, 期 -, 页码 10-17

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2014.01.017

关键词

NACE; Curcuma longa rhizomes; Curcuminoids; Method development; Herbal products

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, fast and efficient non-aqueous capillary electrophoresis method (NACE) was developed for the simultaneous determination of three major bioactive curcuminoids (CMNs) in Curcuma longa rhizomes and its herbal products. Good separation, resolution and reproducibility were achieved with the background electrolyte (BGE) consisting a mixture of 15.0 mM sodium tetraborate and 7.4 mM sodium hydroxide (NaOH) in 2:10:15 (v/v/v) of water, 1-propanol, and methanol. The influences of background electrolyte, sodium hydroxide, water, sodium dodecyl sulfate and hydroxylpropyl-beta-cyclodextrin on separations were investigated. The separation was carried out in a fused-silica capillary tube with reverse polarity. Hydrodynamic injection of 25 mbar for 12 s was used for injecting samples and a voltage of 28 kV was applied for separation. The ultrasonication method was used for the extraction of CMNs from the turmeric herbal products and the extract was filtered and directly injected without any further treatments. The limits of detection and quantification were less than 5.0 and 14.6 mu g/ml respectively for all CMNs. The percentage recoveries for CMNs were > 97.2% (%RSD, <2.62). The results obtained by the method were compared with existing spectrophotometric and HPLC methods. The related compounds in the extract did not interfere in the determination of CMNs. The proposed NACE method is better than existing chromatographic and electrophoretic methods in terms of simple electrophoretic medium, fast analysis and good resolution. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. 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