4.7 Article

A strategy to identify and quantify closely related adulterant herbal materials by mass spectrometry-based partial least squares regression

期刊

ANALYTICA CHIMICA ACTA
卷 977, 期 -, 页码 28-35

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.aca.2017.04.023

关键词

Herbal adulteration; Fritillariae cirrhosae bulbus; Partial least squares regression; Mass spectrometric techniques

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81403057, 81473396, 31400300]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a new strategy combining mass spectrometric (MS) techniques with partial least squares regression (PLSR) was proposed to identify and quantify closely related adulterant herbal materials. This strategy involved preparation of adulterated samples, data acquisition and establishment of PLSR model. The approach was accurate, sensitive, durable and universal, and validation of the model was done by detecting the presence of Fritillaria Ussuriensis Bulbus in the adulteration of the bulbs of Fritillaria unibracteata. Herein, three different MS techniques, namely wooden-tip electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (wooden-tip ESI/MS), ultra-performance liquid chromatography quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (UPLC-QTOF/MS) and UPLC-triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-TQ/MS), were applied to obtain MS profiles for establishing PLSR models. All three models afforded good linearity and good accuracy of prediction, with correlation coefficient of prediction (r(p)(2)) of 0.9072, 0.9922 and 0.9904, respectively, and root mean square error of prediction (RMSEP) of 0.1004, 0.0290 and 0.0323, respectively. Thus, this strategy is very promising in tracking the supply chain of herb-based pharmaceutical industry, especially for identifying adulteration of medicinal materials from their closely related herbal species. (c) 2017 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