4.5 Article

Rapid quantitative analysis of adulterant Lonicera species in preparations of Lonicerae Japonicae Flos

期刊

JOURNAL OF SEPARATION SCIENCE
卷 38, 期 23, 页码 4014-4020

出版社

WILEY-V C H VERLAG GMBH
DOI: 10.1002/jssc.201500917

关键词

Iridoids; Lonicera japonica; Saponins; Ultra high performance liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry; Yinqiaojiedu tablets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Lonicerae Japonicae Flos is often adulterated with Lonicerae Flos, which is derived from the other four Lonicera species, in both the crude drug and Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparations. We proposed a methodology for the quantitative analysis of adulterant Lonicerae Flos in Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparations. Taking macranthoidins A, B, dipsacoside B (saponins), sweroside (iridoids), and luteolin-7-O-D-glucoside (flavonoids) as markers, a method of ultra high performance liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry was employed to determine their amounts in Lonicerae Flos, Lonicerae Japonicae Flos, and Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparations. The proportion of adulterant Lonicerae Flos in Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparations was estimated based on the saponin contents of Lonicerae Japonicae Flos and Lonicerae Flos. All analytes separated under isocratic elution in 12 min with acceptable linearity, precision, repeatability, and accuracy. Lonicerae Japonicae Flos was easily distinguished from Lonicerae Flos by the total amount of saponins (0.067 and > 45.8 mg/g for Lonicerae Japonicae Flos and Lonicerae Flos, respectively). Eighteen of twenty one Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparation samples were adulterated with Lonicerae Flos in proportions of 11.3-100%. The developed ultra high performance liquid chromatography with triple quadrupole mass spectrometry method could be used for the identification of Lonicerae Japonicae Flos and the four species of Lonicerae Flos and for the analysis of Lonicerae Japonicae Flos preparations adulterated with Lonicerae Flos.

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