4.5 Article

Rapid characterization of chlorogenic acids in Duhaldea nervosa based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-linear trap quadropole-Orbitrap-mass spectrometry and mass spectral trees similarity filter technique

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 41, 期 8, 页码 1764-1774

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201701047

关键词

chlorogenic acids; Duhaldea nervosa (Wallich ex Candolle) A. Anderberg; mass spectral trees similarity filter; traditional Chinese medicine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81603393]
  2. Scientific Research Fund of Hunan Provincial Education Department [16B185]
  3. Hunan University of Medicine high-level talent introduction startup funds [15001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Duhaldea nervosa (Wallich ex Candolle) A. Anderberg has been traditionally used as a food spice and also in folk medicine for treating traumatic injury and relieving rheumatism, especially accelerating the healing of a fracture. However, so far as we are aware, the chemical constituents have not been fully investigated. In this study, a practical method of mass spectral trees similarity filter, a data-mining technique, was developed and evaluated for the rapid detection and identification complicated constituents based on ultra-high-performance liquid chromatography-linear trap quadropole-Orbitrap-mass spectrometry. Finally, a total of 47 chlorogenic acids, including 19 monoacyl-quinic acids, 22 diacyl-quinic acids, and six triacyl-quinic acids, were unambiguously or tentatively identified based on their accurate mass measurement, chromatographic retention, MSn spectra, and bibliography data. To our best knowledge, it is the first time to report the chlorogenic acids of D. nervosa, which would be beneficial for the further material basis and quality research. Meanwhile, this mass spectral trees similarity filter method could be envisioned to exhibit a wide application for the identification of complicated components from botanical extracts.

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

4.5
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