4.4 Article

Determination of Matrine and Oxymatrine in Sophora Flavescens by Nonaqueous Capillary Electrophoresis-Electrospray Ionization-Ion Trap-Mass Spectrometry

期刊

ANALYTICAL LETTERS
卷 46, 期 4, 页码 651-662

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/00032719.2012.726684

关键词

Matrine; Medicine preparations; Nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis-electrospray ionization-ion trap-mass spectrometry; Oxymatrine; Sophora Flavescens

资金

  1. National Scientific Foundation of China [90817103, 30973672, 20775055]
  2. Ministry of Education of China [20110141110024]
  3. Hubei Provincial Scientific Foundation [2011CDB475]
  4. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple, rapid, and sensitive nonaqueous capillary electrophoresis-electrospray ionization-ion trap-mass spectrometry (NACE-ESI-IT-MS) method was developed for determination of matrine and oxymatrine in Sophora Flavescens and medicinal preparations. The conditions for NACE separation and MS detection were systematically optimized. The optimum NACE buffer contained 30mM ammonium acetate, 1% acetic acid, and 15% acetonitrile in methanol and the applied voltage on separation capillary was set at 25kV. Berberine was selected as internal standard. In order to generate a stable electrospray, a sheath liquid (isopropanol/H2O, 2/1, v/v) was used, which could also boost the flow through the ESI needle. The matrine and oxymatrine solutions were introduced into MS detection by a syringe pump for collecting the MSn spectra to investigate the main fragment ions and its possible cleavage pathways. Both matrine and oxymatrine showed good linearity in the concentration ranges from 0.5 to 400 mu g/mL, with linear correlation coefficient R>0.99 and the limit of detections were 37.5ng/mL for matrine and 50.0ng/mL for oxymatrine, respectively. The recoveries at different content of Sophora Flavescens were 98.3%102.9% for MT and 95.3%100.6% for OMT, which indicates the reliability of this method.

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