4.4 Article

Determination of fifteen bioactive components in Radix et Rhizoma Salviae Miltiorrhizae by high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and mass spectrometric detection

期刊

BIOMEDICAL CHROMATOGRAPHY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 164-172

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bmc.911

关键词

Radix et Rhizoma Salviae Miltiorrhizae; phenolic acids; diterpenoids; HPLC-UV; LC-ESI-TOF/MS; quality control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method coupled with ultraviolet (UV) and electrospray ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-TOF/MS) was established for simultaneous qualitative and quantitative determination of nine phenolic acids and six diterpenoids in Radix et Rhizoma Salviae Miltiorrhizae (RRSM). The optimal chromatographic conditions were achieved on a Zorbax C-18 column by gradient elution with 0.1% (v/v) aqueous formic acid and acetonitrile as mobile phase at the flow rate of 1.0 mL/min. The detection wavelength at 281 nm was chosen to determine the 15 bioactive components, namely danshensu (1), protocatechuic acid (2), protocatechuic aldehyde (3), caffeic acid (4), rosmarinic acid (5), lithospermic acid (6), salvianolic acid B (7), salvianolic acid A (8), salvianolic acid C (9); dihydrotanshinone I (10), cryptotanshinone (11), tanshinone I (12), methylene tanshiqunone (13), tanshinone IIA (14) and miltirone (15). Additionally, LC-ESI-TOF/MS was used to make definite identification of the constituents in samples in comparison with those reference compounds. The validation of the method included tests of linearity, sensitivity, repeatability, stability and recovery. The proposed method was successfully applied to quantify the 15 components in 21 samples; significant variations were demonstrated in the contents of the samples from diverse species and origins. The developed method could be used to effectively and comprehensively evaluate the quality of RRSM for its clinical safety and efficacy. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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