4.5 Article

Quality assessment of Fructus Ligustri Lucidi by the simultaneous determination of six compounds and chemometric analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 38, 期 11, 页码 1822-1827

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201500094

关键词

Chemometrics; Fructus Ligustri Lucidi; High-performance liquid chromatography; Quality assessment; Traditional Chinese medicine

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81001599, 81173547, 81373972]
  2. Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A comprehensive strategy was designed for the quality assessment of Fructus Ligustri Lucidi, a well-known and commonly used herbal medicine in clinical practice in China. First, a simple and stable method of high-performance liquid chromatography was developed for the simultaneous quantitative analysis of six compounds, namely, salidroside, nuzhenide, specnuezhenide, oleanic acid, ursolic acid, and acetyl oleanic acid in Fructus Ligustri Lucidi. The separation of analytes was conducted on a C-18 column (200 mm x 4.6 mm, 5 mu m) at 30 degrees C, and the wavelength of UV detector was set at 210 nm. In quantitative analysis, all of the calibration curves showed good linear regression (R-2 > 0.9994) within the tested ranges, and the mean recoveries of three different concentrations ranged from 95.21-102.34%. The described method was applied to determine 11 batches of samples collected from different stores in China. Then multiple chemometrics analysis including hierarchical cluster analysis and principal component analysis were performed to classify samples and search significant compounds. Three notable compounds, specnuezhenide, oleanic acid, and acetyl oleanic acid, were discovered for better quality control compared with those stated in the China pharmacopeia. The results demonstrated that this strategy could be readily utilized for the comprehensive quality control of Fructus Ligustri Lucidi.

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