4.7 Article

Analysis of potential adulteration in herbal medicines and dietary supplements for the weight control by capillary electrophoresis

期刊

FOOD CHEMISTRY
卷 108, 期 3, 页码 1075-1081

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2007.11.042

关键词

capillary electrophoresis; adulterants; dietary supplements; quality control; weight control drugs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Four different phytopharmaceutical dosage forms for use in weight control programs were analyzed. Two different ground herbal blends and their correspondent infusions, a capsule and a tincture were investigated for the presence of compounds used as adulterants in these products. A capillary electrophoresis (CE) method was developed and validated. The optimized experimental conditions were: BGE, sodium tetraborate buffer 20 mM, pH 9.2, voltage applied 30 kV, capillary temperature 25 degrees C, injection sample at 0.5 Psi during 5 s. Ephedrine, norephedrine, caffeine and furosemide were baseline separated in less than 7 min; the migration times were found to be 2.65, 2.90, 3.75 and 6.58 min, respectively. The analysis showed in sample 3 concentrations of 0.45 +/- 0.03 mg g(-1) (ephedrine), 0.33 +/- 0.02 mg g(-1) (norephedrine), 1.09 +/- 0.41 mg g(-1) (caffeine) and 0.80 +/- 0.17 mg g(-1) (furosemide). Caffeine content in samples 1, 2 and 4 was 0.61 +/- 0.06 mg g(-1), 15.66 +/- 1.05 mg g(-1) and 2.27 +/- 0.13 mg ml(-1), respectively. Linearity was obtained in the concentration range of 1-1000 mu g ml(-1). Limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) were determined as 0.42 mu g ml(-1) and 1.40 mu g ml(-1) (ephedrine), 0.47 mu g ml(-1) and 1.40 mu g ml(-1) (norephedrine), 0.12 mu g ml(-1) and 0.48 mu g ml(-1) (caffeine), 0.22 mu g ml-1 and 0.73 mu g ml(-l) (furosemide). The common constituents of the samples did not interfere with the potential adulterants. Repeatability was better than 0.24% RSD for the retention time and 1.43% for the peak area. Intermediate precision was tested by changing the capillary, the day of operation and the operator, in all the cases the %RSD was better than 3.06. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. 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