4.6 Article

Comprehensive Quality Assessment of Kaixin Powder by HPLC-DAD Quantification and HPLC-QTOF-MS/MS Confirmation

期刊

ACS OMEGA
卷 6, 期 17, 页码 11319-11326

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.1c00289

关键词

-

资金

  1. Importation and Development of High-Caliber Talents Project of Beijing Municipal Institutions [CITTCD201504098]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [7182019]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple and accurate HPLC-DAD method was established and validated for the quantitative analysis of seven bioactive compounds in KXP, including the first quantification of DTU and DTR. The study provided a useful method for analyzing the major bioactive compounds in KXP and improving its quality assessment research.
Kaixin Powder (KXP) is a classic formula for treating morbid forgetfulness in ancient China. To guarantee the efficacy and safety of KXP, a simple and accurate HPLC-DAD method has been established and validated for the quantitative analysis of seven bioactive compounds in KXP. Dehydrotumulosic acid (DTU) and dehydrotrametenolic acid (DTR) were quantified in KXP for the first time. Good chromatographic separation was conducted on a Kromasil 100-5 C-18 column (250 mm x 4.6 mm, 5 mu m) by gradient elution using mobile phases containing acetonitrile and 0.1% formic acid aqueous solution at different detection wavelengths. The calibration curves of each compound showed good linearity (r >= 0.9990), and the LOD and LOQ were in the ranges of 0.01-0.10 and 0.03-0.40 mu g/mL, respectively. The relative standard deviations (RSDs) of intra-day and inter-day precisions were in the ranges of 0.45-1.74% and 0.562.32%, respectively. All recoveries were in the range of 93.6-105.5% with an RSD no more than 2.77%. These quantification results of seven compounds determined in the samples were further confirmed by HPLC-QTOF-MS/MS. This study provides a useful and simple method for analyzing the major bioactive compounds and improves the quality assessment research of KXP.

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