4.4 Article

Authenticity study of commercial samples of St. John's wort by paper spray ionization mass spectrometry and chemometric tools

期刊

JOURNAL OF MASS SPECTROMETRY
卷 58, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jms.4960

关键词

adulterated medicines; ambient ionization mass spectrometry; chemometrics; herbal medicines; pattern recognition

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study analyzed 43 commercially acquired samples of St. John's wort using paper spray ionization mass spectrometry (PS-MS). It was found that 52.3% of the samples were adulterated with other plant species, including Ageratum conyzoides and Senna spectabilis. Only 13 out of 35 samples produced in Brazil were deemed authentic. Therefore, there is a clear need to improve the quality control of these drugs in Brazil.
Hypericum perforatum L. (St. John's wort) is one of the world's most consumed medicinal plants for treating depression and psychiatric disorders. Counterfeiting can occur in the medicinal plant trade, either due to the lack of active ingredients or the addition of substances not mentioned on the labels, often without therapeutic value or even harmful to health. Hence, 43 samples of St. John's wort commercially acquired in different Brazilian regions and other countries were analyzed by paper spray ionization mass spectrometry (PS-MS) and modeled by principal component analysis. Hence, samples (plants, capsules, and tablets) were extracted with ethanol in a solid-liquid extraction. For the first time, PS-MS analysis allowed the detection of counterfeit H. perforatum samples containing active principles typical of other plants, such as Ageratum conyzoides and Senna spectabilis. About 52.3% of the samples were considered adulterated for having at least one of these two species in their composition. Furthermore, out of 35 samples produced in Brazil, only 13 were deemed authentic, having only H. perforatum. Therefore, there is a clear need to improve these drugs' quality control in Brazil.

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

4.4
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