Printer Friendly

Analysis of the HPLC Fingerprint and QAMS for Sanhuang Gypsum Soup.

1. Introduction

Perspiration is a considerable physiological phenomenon to maintain and control body temperature. Excessive sweat secretion can cause armpit moisture, resulting in unpleasant body odour, embarrassment, and inconvenience [l, 2]. Hyperhidrosis is an excessive sweating disease which can bring severe psychological burden and affect the quality of life of patients negatively. There are a variety of medical treatments and surgery for treating primary hyperhidrosis. However, the side effects of these drugs include thirst, dry eyes, dizziness, drowsiness, constipation, and urinary retention, which limit the scope of their use. Surgical treatment is mainly applied to patients who are not suitable for the abovementioned methods. Surgery is more traumatized and risky than other treatments. Therefore, surgical operation should be as a second or third option [3]. There is still a paucity of effective nonsurgical therapies. With the development of modern society, the elimination of body odour is given more and more people's attention; this article is about introducing Sanhuang gypsum soup (SGS) which is a significant antiperspirant. Through the use of classical Chinese medicine SGS to regulate the internal environment of the human body, it achieves a good antiperspirant effect with small side and remarkable effects, which make up for deficiency of some medicine and surgery. Every year, more than ten thousands of patients have benefited from SGS by reducing excessive perspiration symptoms. SGS is a hospital preparation of Jiangsu Provincial Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, which consists of coptidis rhizoma, phellodendri chinensis cortex, Scutellariae radix, scrophulariae radix, anemarrhenae rhizome, gardeniae fructus, cinnamomi cortex, glycyrrhizae radix et rhizoma preparata cum melle, and gypsum fibrosum. These herbs can be used for treating and could exhibit action on excessive perspiration through anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. Studies have shown that SGS has many chemical constituents such as mangiferin, geniposide, coptisine, wogonin, wogonoside, baicalein, baicalinin, and cinnamic aldehyde [4--13] in accordance with herbs and preparations known to be beneficial for the treatment of excessive perspiration through anti-inflammatory properties and so on.

Although the SGS is prepared as a prescription with the combination of these herbs in well-defined formulae, no standard quality control method for this product has been reported up to now. Since the effect of SGS might result from the synergy of multiple components, a reliable, sensitive, and uncomplicated quantitative method based on the diverse constituents is need to be developed.

Our findings have established an HPLC method to evaluate the quality of SGS comprehensively. Due to the variety of components of traditional Chinese medicine preparations, any one of the active ingredients cannot reflect the overall curative effect of traditional Chinese medicine. Therefore, a comprehensive macroscopic analysis will become an inevitable trend. Chromatographic fingerprint analysis with integrated, macroscopic, and "fuzzy" nonlinear characteristics is more adapted to the traditional Chinese medicine theory needs. Under the premise of efficacy, toxicology, and clinical trials which have confirmed safety and efficacy of preparation, we can not only verify the authenticity of the preparation but also determine whether the stability of the quality exists or not along with a practical fingerprint. Unlike the content determination, the fingerprint can provide more informative and useful message than the determination of any single component. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows applicants to provide product chromatographic fingerprinting information in the phytomedical guidance (Draft for Comment). British Herbal Codex, Ayurvedic Codex, the Canadian Society of Medicinal and Aromatic Plants [14], and the German Society of Medicinal Plants [15] also accept chromatographic fingerprint. One of the first measures that China's State Drug Administration has taken to strengthen the supervision of traditional Chinese medicine injections requires the research on the fingerprint of injections, which has taken into account its necessity and feasibility. It is accepted that preparation of acceptable quality can be exerted on its drug efficacy, what really matters is establishing an accurate and easy method.

Previously, our laboratory has researched on the fingerprints of the existing preparations which have been applied in the control of preparation quality. Also, to make up for the limitations of fingerprint that cannot be quantified accurately, a QAMS method using berberine as the standard was developed and validated for the simultaneous quantitative of 14 components [16]. This strategy can not only reduce the cost of the experiment and time of detection but also be independent of the availability of all the target ingredients [15]. To our knowledge, quality control of herb extracts and botanical ingredient by QAMS have been included both in USP 33-NF and in Ch.P.2010 edition (volume I). Our results showed that no significant difference was found in the results between our established QAMS method and the external standard method. No one has yet studied the fingerprints of SGS; this article first established the SGS fingerprinting method and also used the QAMS method to measure the preparation of 14 kinds of pharmacodynamics components. This method could potentially be applied for the identification of qualitative and quantitative quality of SGS.

This HPLC fingerprint method, therefore, provides a comprehensive platform for quality evaluation of SGS with more chemical information. The combination of HCA and similarity analysis presents the differences and similarities of the HPLC fingerprints. In the meantime, QAMS method was adopted to quantify the main active components by comparing with the external standard method (ESM) in all the SGS samples. Our findings offer a new routine for assessing the quality of TCM.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Chemicals and Reagents. Analysis was applied on three different HPLC systems, including (a) Agilent 1100 series with vacuum degasser (G1322A), quaternary pump (G1311A), autosampler (G1316A), and a ChemStation Workstation with VWD detector; (b) Agilent 1260 series with DAD detector and Agilent ChemStation Workstation; and (c) Waters 2695-2996 series with 2998PDA detector and empower workstation. The chromatographic separation was performed on an Amethy[C.sub.18] (4.6 mm x 250 mm, 5 [micro]m) column, Agilent [C.sub.18] (4.6 mm x 250 mm, 5 [micro]m) column, and Hedra[C.sub.18] (4.6 mm x 250 mm, 5 [micro]m) column.

The SPSS software (Edition 2.0) was used for conducting cluster analysis.

BP-211D electronic analytical balance (Germany Sartorius Company) was used to weigh the drugs. Sonicator (SK6200H, Shanghai Branch guided ultrasound instrument Co., Ltd.) was used to help dissolve the sample.

2.2. Materials. The batch numbers and origins of eight qualified Chinese herbal pieces of decoction are shown in Table 1. All pieces were purchased from Anhui Concord Pharmaceutical Pieces Co., Ltd. and identified by Professor Zhihui Liu of Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Fifteen batches of Sanhuang Gypsum Soup were provided by the Department of Pharmacy of Jiangsu Provincial Hospital. Their batch numbers were S1 (1707010), S2 (1704006), S3 (1712019), S4 (1711016), S5 (1704005), S6 (1703004), S7 (1711013), S8 (1711017), S9 (1705007), S10 (1704003), S11 (1704002), S12 (1704001), and S13 (1702015). Each single piece preparations and its negative preparations are made by our laboratory as per the preparation standard process.

2.3. Chemical Reagents and Standards. Mangiferin, geniposide, liquiritin, epiberberine, coptisine, baicalin, palmatine, berberine, harpagosid, wogonoside, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, baicalein, glycyrrhizic acid, and wogonin were all supplied by Chengdu Mansi Biotechnology Co., Ltd. The purity of each ingredient was greater than 98% as determined by HPLC. Acetonitrile of HPLC grade and formic acid of analytical grade were purchased from Merck (Darmstadt, Germany) and Roe Scientific Inc. (USA). A Milli-Q water (Millipore, Inc., USA) purification system was applied to purify water for the HPLC analysis.

2.4. Preparation of the Sample Solution. The sample solution of SGS was precisely absorbed (5 ml) and immersed in 25 mL volumetric flask with methanol. Additional methanol was added to compensate the weight loss after ultrasonic extraction for 30min. All solutions were filtered through 0.45 [micro]m filter membranes before being injected into the HPLC system precisely.

2.5. Reference Solution Preparation. A mixed stock solution containing reference standards was prepared by dissolving weighed samples of each compound in methanol accurately. Then, the stock solutions were diluted to establish the calibration curves based on six appropriate concentrations with the ranges of 2.80-88.70 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for mangiferin, 14.80- 472.90 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for geniposide, 3.20-101.00 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for liquiritin, 1.40-44.30 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for epiberberine, 6.40-204.10 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for coptisine, 19.80-632.50 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for baicalin, 1.80- 56.80 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for palmatine, 15.30-488.40 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for berberine, 2.60-82.60 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for harpagosid, 4.60-145.82 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for wogonoside, 0.30-9.51 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for cinnamic acid, 0.20-6.34 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for cinnamic aldehyde, 0.50-15.85 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for baicalein, 1.10-34.00 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for glycyrrhizic acid, and 0.30-9.51 [micro]g x [ml.sup.-1] for wogonin.

2.6. Chromatographic Procedures. Analytes were separated on a reverse phase [C.sub.18] column (Amethyl-ODS-2 [C.sub.18] column, 250 mm * 4.6 mm * 5 [micro]m).

Mobile phase consists of 0.1% phosphoric acid (A)-acetonitrile (B), gradient elution program was as follows: 0~2 min, 12% B; 2-7 min, 12%-20% B; 7-17 min, 20%-25% B; 17-25 min, 25%~32[degrees]/o B; 25-32 min, 32%-35% B; 32-45 min, 35%-44% B; 45-50 min, 44%~45% B; 50-55 min, 45%~50% B; 55-56 min, 50% B; 56-61 min, 12% B. Flow rate: 0.8 mL-mm-1; column temperature: 35[degrees]C; injection volume: 10 [micro]L; UV detection wavelength: 250 nm. On the basis of chromatographic conditions, all the components had good resolution.

2.7. Data Analysis. The data were analyzed and evaluated by Similarity Evaluation System for chromatographic fingerprint of TCM (Version 2004 A) which was recommended by the SFDA of China for evaluating similarities of chromatographic profiles of TCM. The similarity among different chromatograms was determined by calculating the correlative coefficient or cosine value of the vectorial angle [17-19]. HCA was carried out by calculating Squared Euclidean distance to distinguish preparation of different batches using SPSS. At the same time, we used the external standard method (ESM) and QAMS to calculate the 15 active components in 13 batches of SGS, respectively, to verify the feasibility of QAMS.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Chromatograph Optimization. At present, there are no single liquid phase conditions that can divide 15 components of SGS with good resolution. As the ingredients of SGS are very intricate, it is critical to establish a favorable mobile phase system, gradient elution system, and detection wavelength to obtain efficient separation of the numerous target components. The suitable ingredient of the HPLC method was investigated by checking peak resolution and the peak purity of SGS. In this case, some different mobile phases were tested which were acetonitrile-water, methanol-water, methanol-water containing phosphoric acid or formic acid at different concentrations, acetonitrile-water with acetic acid, formic acid, and phosphoric acid at different concentrations. Experimental results show that acetonitrile-water containing 0.2% phosphoric acid system produced sharp and symmetrical chromatographic peak shapes, good separation, and prevented the peak tailing. Chromatogram with the maximum number of peaks also relies on best conditions for preparation of sample solution. On the basis of the investigation of different solvent and ultrasonic time, it can be concluded that samples are dissolved in methanol and ultrasound 30 minutes; we can get better resolution and reproducibility of fingerprint chromatograms under the conditions of Section 2.6. Under the above chromatographic conditions, all the components were well separated (Figure 1).

3.2. Method Validation

3.2.1. Linearity. A mixed solution containing all the reference substances were prepared and diluted in series with methanol to obtain six different concentrations. The different concentration of the mixed solution was used for constructing the reference curve. As shown in Table 2, good calibration curves of 15 compounds were obtained, and high correlation coefficient values ([R.sup.2] > 0.999) were shown with good linearity at a wide range relatively. In response to sample concentration, the peak area of the analyte is determined by least squares linear regression to obtain a linear equation.

3.2.2. Precision, Stability, Repeatability, and Recovery. The same mixed standard solution of 10 [micro]l was injected for six consecutive times under chromatographic conditions, and their RSDs were calculated. The RSD of mangiferin, geniposide, liquiritin, epiberberine, coptisine, baicalin, palmatine, berberine, harpagosid, wogonoside, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, baicalein, glycyrrhizic acid, and wogonin was 1.94%, 0.72%, 0.88%, 0.54%, 0.62%, 0.97%, 0.93%, 1.35%, 0.98%, 1.33%, 0.67%, 1.40%, 1.08%, 0.96%, and 1.49% which indicated that the developed method had a good precision.

The stability of the sample solutions was analyzed at 0,2, 4, 8, 12, and 24 h at room temperature. It was found that the sample solutions were stable within 24 h (RSD [less than or equal to] 5.0%).

To confirm the repeatability of the method, six independently prepared solutions from the same batch were analyzed. The RSD values of the peak area was 0.37%, 0.31%, 1.52%, 0.72%, 1.00%, 0.20%, 0.71%, 0.18%, 0.88%, 0.50%, 3.02%, 3.65%, 2.30%, 1.68%, and 3.23%, respectively. The results indicated the method is reproducible.

The recovery was performed by adding a known amount of individual standards into a certain amount of the SGS sample. The mixture was extracted and analyzed by using the method mentioned above. The average recoveries of 6 samples are shown in Table 3. The results show that the method is accurate. The recoveries of the 15 compounds which are shown in Table 3 ranged from 70.08% to 111.45% with RSDs [less than or equal to] 5.0%.

3.3. HPLC Fingerprint and Similarity Analysis. Thirteen batches of samples were prepared according to Section 2.5, and 10 [micro]L was injected into the HPLC system according to the chromatographic conditions given under Section 2.6, and then the chromatograms were recorded and entered into the similarity analysis software. We selected S (1) as the reference chromatogram, the utilization of the average correlation coefficient method of 13 batches of samples for multipoint correction, time window width is set to 0.5, while the establishment of a common model is to generate a control fingerprinting SGS, the antithesis fingerprint chromatogram was shown in Figure 2. Fingerprint chromatograms of 13 batches of SGS can be seen in Figure 3. As compared with the reference fingerprint chromatograms, the similarities of 13 batches of samples shown in Table 4, and the results are all above 0.95. On the basis of these results, we concluded that SGS between different batches are of good consistency and in line with the relevant requirements of the fingerprints. Palmatine is the main active ingredient of coptidis rhizoma; the corresponding peaks have favorable resolution, and the retention time is stable and moderate. Therefore, we selected palmatine (no. 11 peak) as the reference peak and calculated the relative retention time of the other common peaks. We can see that the retention time of the common peak is stable. According to the retention time of each fingerprint, a total of 20 common peaks were identified while 14 of them were determined. However, it should be pointed out that the chemical property of cinnamic aldehyde is very unstable due to its alkene structure of the molecule which has poor stability when exposed to light and oxygen, so it is not within the category of the common peaks [20]. This can be in accordance with S11 without the peak of cinnamic aldehyde. To gain better understanding of ascription of common peaks, reference standards and single TCM pieces were used. The peaks 2, 3, 6,8, 9,10,11,12,13,16,17,18,19, and 20 were identified as mangiferin, geniposide, liquiritin, epiberberine, coptisine, baicalin, palmatine, berberine, harpagosid, wogonoside, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, baicalein, glycyrrhizic acid, and wogonin, respectively (Figure 4). The peak 1 belongs to phellodendri chinensis cortex. The peak 4 belongs to both phellodendri chinensis cortex and coptidis rhizoma. The peaks 5,14, and 15 belong to scutellariae radix. The peak 7 belongs to scrophulariae radix.

3.4. Hierarchical Cluster Analysis. The 13 * 20 matrices were obtained from 20 common peak areas of fingerprints of 13 batches of SGS. The cluster analysis was performed by using spss 2.0 software. The Euclidean distance was chosen as the measure of the distance between groups. The results are shown in Figure 5. S3, S4, S5, and S12 batches of samples are divided into a category; the remaining batches are divided into another classification, which indicates that there are differences in the content of the components in the samples prepared from different raw material TCM pieces. And it suggested that HCA was a valid method for the identification of the source of TCM pieces.

3.5. Quantitative Analysis of Multicomponents by a Single Marker (QAMS). It is well established that many variations of experimental conditions, such as concentrations of standard, detector, and peak measurement parameters, would extremely influence the RCFs. Accordingly, the accuracy of RCFs may affect the final analysis results. Nevertheless, RCFs, which was calculated by linear-regression equation in the experiment, was considered to be accurate and stable [21, 22]. The RCFs were calculated using the calibration curves as follows:

FK/S = [a.sub.k]/[a.sub.s]. (1)

The content of the measured component was calculated as follows:

[C.sub.k] = [A.sub.k]/([A.sub.S] * [F.sub.K/S]). (2)

[a.sub.s] is the ratio of the slope of internal standard reference calibration equations; [a.sub.k] is the ratio of the slope of measured component calibration equations; [A.sub.K] is the peak area of the measured component; [A.sub.S] is the peak area of the internal standard reference.

We investigated the influence of different instruments and different columns on the RCF values, and results are shown in Table 5 which illustrated RCF values had good repeatability on different chromatographic systems and different columns.

In this paper, we selected cheap, readily available, and chemically stable berberine as an internal reference standard for the quantitative determination of other active components. In addition to that, berberine is the main active ingredient of phellodendri chinensis cortex and coptidis rhizoma, so this study eventually takes it as an internal reference standard. The relative retention time has been used to locate target chromatographic peaks.

[t.sub.k/s] = [t.sub.k]/[t.sub.s], (3)

where [t.sub.s] is the retention time of internal standard reference and [t.sub.k] is the retention time of measured component.

The internal reference is berberine; the relative retentions between the other target peaks and berberine were obtained in different columns and HPLC instruments. Results are shown in Table 6. The results showed that their RSDs [less than or equal to] 5% and no interference with other components; the relative retention time can be applied to locate the peak component of the analytes.

We measured the multicomponent content of 13 batches SGS (Figure 6); the results showed that there were significant differences in some contents of 15 ingredients, such as cinnamic aldehyde and baicalein, which indicated that only a few ingredients of the standard determination of content could not control the quality of SGS effectively. It is necessary to use multiple active ingredients as index components to control the quality of TCM preparations more comprehensively.

To validate the difference between ESM and QAMS method using RCFs, 13 SGS samples were analyzed for their active ingredients. The calculated results are shown in Table 7. Standard method difference (SMD) is calculated according to the following equation:

SMD = ([C.sub.ES] - [C.sub.QAMS])/[C.sub.ES] * 100%, (4)

where [C.sub.ES] and [C.sub.QAMS] represent the concentrations of an analyte assayed by the external standard method and QAMS method, respectively [23]. All the values of standard deviation (SMD < 0.05) revealed that there were no significant differences between ESM and QAMS methods of all SGS samples.

4. Conclusion

On the basis of these results, we concluded that HPLC fingerprint method based on chemical constituents profiling was an effective and stable tool, and QAMS method was feasible to quantify the active compounds by RCFs for evaluating the quality of SGS. Along with similarity analysis and HCA of synthesis, the quality of SGS would be evaluated and better identified comprehensively. This method could potentially be applied in the quality control of TCM.

Data Availability

The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this submitted manuscript.

Disclosure

Minghui Dong is the co-first author.

https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5890973

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the advantages discipline of Universities in Jiangsu Province (PATA2014).

References

[1] S. Jing, "Progress in antiperspirant research," Detergent and Cosmetics, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 23-25, 2006.

[2] K. Sato, N. Kane, and G. Soos, "The eccrine sweat gland: Basic science and disorders of eccrine sweating," Progress in Dermatology, vol. 29, pp. 1-11, 1995.

[3] J.-R. Yang and L.-H. Zhou, "Therapeutic status and progress of primary hyperhidrosis," Journal of Practical Medicine, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 493-495, 2015.

[4] C. Zhang, C. Li, F. Sui et al., "Cinnamaldehyde decreases interleukin-1[beta] induced PGE2 production by down-regulation of m PGES-1 and COX-2 expression in mouse macrophage RAW264.7 cells," China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, vol. 9, no. 37, pp. 1274-1278, 2012.

[5] X.-Y. Ma, C.-H. Li, L.-F. Li et al., "Experimental study on antipyretic, analgesic and anti-inflammatory actions of cinnamaldehyde," Chinese Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 12, no. 11, pp. 1336-1339, 2006.

[6] S. Saha, P. Sadhukhan, and P. Sil, "Mangiferin: A xanthonoid with multipotent anti-inflammatory potential," BioFactors, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 459-474, 2016.

[7] Y.-P. Yu, Y. Zhang, H. Li et al., "Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamics study on antipyretic effects of baicalin on carrageenan-induced pyrexia of rats," Chinese Traditional and Herbal Drugs, vol. 4, no. 45, pp. 527-531, 2014.

[8] L. Wang, Y.-F. Hu, D. Tong et al., "Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamics study on antipyretic effects of coptisine on endotoxin-induced pyrexia of rats," Chinese Pharmacological Bulletin, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 552-556, 2017.

[9] J. Wu, H. Zhang, B. Hu et al., "Coptisine from Coptis chinensis inhibits production of inflammatory mediators in lipopolysaccharide-stimulated RAW 264.7 murine macrophage cells," European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 780, pp. 106-114, 2016.

[10] L. B. Lopes, J. L. Lopes, D. C. Oliveira et al., "Liquid crystalline phase s of monoolein and water for topical delivery of cyclosporine A: characterization and study of in vitro and in vivo delivery," European Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 146-155, 2006.

[11] X. Song, M. Guo, T. Wang, W. Wang, Y. Cao, and N. Zhang, "Geniposide inhibited lipopolysaccharide-induced apoptosis by modulating TLR4 and apoptosis-related factors in mouse mammary glands," Life Sciences, vol. 119, no. 1-2, pp. 9-17, 2014.

[12] Y. S. Chi, B. S. Cheon, and H. P. Kim, "Effect of wogonin, a plant flavone from Scutellaria radix, on the suppression of cyclooxygenase-2 and the induction of inducible nitric oxide synthase in lipopolysaccharide-treated RAW 264.7 cells," Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 1195-1203, 2001.

[13] H. S. Kim, J. H. Song, U. J. Youn et al., "Inhibition of UVB-induced wrinkle formation and MMP-9 expression by mangiferin isolated from Anemarrhena asphodeloides," European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 689, no. 1-3, pp. 38-44, 2012.

[14] B.-S. Xie, "On the feasibility of application of chromatographic fingerprint identification to herbal medication," Chinese Traditional Patent Medicine, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 391-395, 2000.

[15] R. Bauer, "Quality criteria and phytopharmaceuticals: can acceptable drug standards be achieved?," Drug Information Journal, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 101-110, 1998.

[16] Z.-M. Wang, H.-M. Gao, X.-T. Fu, and W.-H. Wang, "Multicomponents quantitation by one marker new method for quality evaluation of Chinese herbal medicine," China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, vol. 23, no. 31, pp. 1925-1928, 2006.

[17] D.-W. Li, M. Zhu, Y.-D. Shao et al., "Determination and quality evaluation of green tea extracts through qualitative and quantitative analysis of multi-components by single marker (QAMS)," Food Chemistry, vol. 197, pp. 1112-1120, 2015.

[18] H.-L. Zhai, B.-Q. Li, Y.-L. Tian, P. Z. Li, and X. Y. Zhang, "An application of wavelet moments to the similarity analysis of three-dimensional fingerprint spectra obtained by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with diode array detector," Food Chemistry, vol. 145, no. 7, p. 625, 2014.

[19] L.-W. Yang, D.-H. Wu, X. Tang et al., "Fingerprint quality control of Tianjihuang by high-performance liquid chromatography--photo diode array detection," Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1070, no. 1-2, pp. 35-42, 2005.

[20] L.-Q. Zhang, Z.-G. Zhang, F.-U. Yan et al., "Research Progress of cinnamic aldehyde in pharmacology," China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica, vol. 40, no. 23, pp. 4568-4572, 2015.

[21] X.-Y. Gao, Y. Jiang, J.-Q. Lu, and P. F. Tu, "One single standard substance for the determination of multiple anthraquinone derivatives in rhubarb using high-performance liquid chromatography diode-array detection," Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1216, no. 11, pp. 2118-2123, 2009.

[22] J.-J. Hou, W.-Y. Wu, J. Da et al., "Ruggedness and robustness of conversion factors in method of simultaneous determination of multi-components with single reference standard," Journal of Chromatography A, vol. 1218, no. 33, pp. 5618-5627, 2011.

[23] C.-Q. Wang, X.-H. Jia, S. Zhu et al., "A systematic study on the influencing parameters and improvement of quantitative analysis of multi-component with single marker method using notoginseng as research subject," Talanta, vol. 134, pp. 587-595, 2015.

Yi Peng (iD), Minghui Dong (iD), Jing Zou (iD), and Zhihui Liu (iD)

Department of Pharmacy, Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Nanjing 210029, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Zhihui Liu; liuzhl008@126.com

Received 12 March 2018; Revised 5 May 2018; Accepted 9 May 2018; Published 2 July 2018

Academic Editor: Eduardo Dellacassa

Caption: FIGURE 1: (a) Mixed standard solution, (b) negative sample without coptidis rhizoma, (c) negative sample without scrophulariae radix, (d) negative sample without anemarrhenae rhizome, (e) negative sample without gardeniae fructus, (f) negative sample without coptidis rhizoma and phellodendri chinensis cortex, (g) negative sample without glycyrrhizae radix et rhizoma preparata cum melle, (h) negative sample without cinnamomi cortex, (i) negative sample without phellodendri chinensis cortex, (j) negative sample without scutellariae radix, and (k) SGS sample. 1, mangiferin; 2, geniposide; 3, liquiritin; 4, epiberberine; 5, coptisine; 6, baicalin; 7, palmatine; 8, berberine; 9, harpagosid; 10, wogonoside; 10, cinnamic acid; 11, cinnamic aldehyde; 12, baicalein; 13, glycyrrhizic acid; and 14, wogonin.

Caption: FIGURE 2: Antithesis fingerprint chromatogram of SGS.

Caption: FIGURE 3: Fingerprint chromatograms of 13 batches of SGS.

Caption: FIGURE 4: Comparison of single TCM pieces and SGS sample.

Caption: FIGURE 5: Clustering analysis graph of 13 SGS samples.

Caption: FIGURE 6: The contents of 15 active components in 13 batches of SGS.
TABLE 1: Species and geographical locations of eight Chinese
herbal pieces in SGS.

Botanical name                   Family        Collection site

Coptis chinensis Franch.     Ranunculaceae         Sichuan

Phellodendron chinense          Rutaceae           Sichuan
Schneid.

Scutellaria baicalensis         Labidae         Heilongjiang
Georgi

Scrophularia ningpoensis    Scrophulariaceae       Yunnan
Hemsl.

Anemarrhena asphodeloides      Liliaceae           Jiangsu
Bge.

Gardenia jasminoides           Rubiaceae           Jiangxi
Ellis

Cinnamomum cassia Presl.       Aceraceae           Sichuan

Glycyrrhiza uralensis            Legume           Neimenggu
Fisch.

Gypsum fibrosum               Monoclinic            Hunan
                             crystal system

Botanical name                    Coordinates             Voucher ID

Coptis chinensis Franch.    N30[degrees]15'49.6902"        16121204
                             S102[degrees]48'19.71"

Phellodendron chinense      N30[degrees]15'49.6902"    1508120316060500
Schneid.                     S102[degrees]48'19.71"

Scutellaria baicalensis      N47[degrees]7'17.9292"         160401
Georgi                      S128[degrees]44'17.6316"

Scrophularia ningpoensis    N24[degrees]28'31.0254"        16060501
Hemsl.                      S101[degrees]20'35.1816"

Anemarrhena asphodeloides    N33[degrees]8'24.6186"        16032208
Bge.                         S119[degrees]47'20.13"

Gardenia jasminoides         N27[degrees]5'14.841"         16122107
Ellis                       S114[degrees]54'15.1956"

Cinnamomum cassia Presl.    N30[degrees]15'49.6902"        16112519
                             S102[degrees]48'19.71"

Glycyrrhiza uralensis       N43[degrees]22'41.5914"        16021710
Fisch.                      S115[degrees]3'34.1316"

Gypsum fibrosum             N27[degrees]37'31.0794"        16120420
                            S111[degrees]51'24.6924"

TABLE 2: Standard curves of fifteen kinds of reference components.

Compounds           Regression equations        Linear ranges
                                            ([micro]g x [mL.sup.-1])

Mangiferin          y = 29.897x + 30.359          2.80-88.70
Geniposide          y = 11.306x - 40.123         14.80-472.90
Liquiritin          y = 6.9865x - 5.2633          3.20-101.00
Epiberberine        y = 23.477x - 12.998          1.40-44.30
Coptisine           y = 11.677x - 31.945          6.40-204.10
Baicalin            y = 17.312x - 189.17         19.80-632.50
Palmatine           y = 39.570x - 21.105          1.80-56.80
Berberine           y = 38.357x + 108.6          15.30-488.40
Harpagosid          y = 9.5715x + 8.4144          2.60-82.60
Wogonoside          y = 16.462x + 11.105          4.60-145.82
Cinnamic acid       y = 32.7x + 0.4639            0.30-9.51
Cinnamic aldehyde   y = 15.523x - 0.1567          0.20-6.34
Baicalein           y = 25.996x + 3.789           0.50-15.85
Glycyrrhizic acid   y = 7.5138x + 1.333           1.10-34.00
Wogonin             y = 21.652x + 0.8509          0.30-9.51

Compounds           [r.sup.2]

Mangiferin           0.9998
Geniposide           0.9997
Liquiritin           1.0000
Epiberberine         0.9998
Coptisine            0.9998
Baicalin             0.9999
Palmatine            0.9999
Berberine            0.9999
Harpagosid           0.9998
Wogonoside           0.9999
Cinnamic acid        0.9998
Cinnamic aldehyde    0.9998
Baicalein            0.9998
Glycyrrhizic acid    0.9999
Wogonin              1.0000

TABLE 3: The results of recovery of fifteen components in
samples (n = 6).

Compound            Original (mg)   Added amount (mg)

Mangiferin             0.0241            0.0241
Geniposide             0.1036            0.1036
Liquiritin             0.0198            0.0198
Epiberberine           0.0073            0.0073
Coptisine              0.0223            0.0223
Baicalin               0.1226            0.1226
Palmatine              0.0104            0.0104
Berberine              0.0748            0.0748
Harpagosid             0.0212            0.0212
Wogonoside             0.0307            0.0307
Cinnamic acid          0.0023            0.0023
Cinnamic aldehyde      0.0023            0.0023
Baicalein              0.0048            0.0048
Glycyrrhizic acid      0.0079            0.0079
Wogonin                0.0028            0.0028

Compound            Detected amount (mg)   Recovery (%)   RSD (%)

Mangiferin                 0.0478             93.96        1.18
Geniposide                 0.2032             99.58        2.60
Liquiritin                 0.0380             96.11        3.42
Epiberberine               0.0142            103.46        3.61
Coptisine                  0.0438            110.19        3.16
Baicalin                   0.2139             81.82        2.61
Palmatine                  0.0200             97.21        2.28
Berberine                  0.1539            101.87        5.31
Harpagosid                 0.0433            100.01        3.56
Wogonoside                 0.0620             99.81        3.33
Cinnamic acid              0.0048            111.45        2.38
Cinnamic aldehyde          0.0040             70.08        5.00
Baicalein                  0.0095             79.84        3.73
Glycyrrhizic acid          0.0155             94.08        2.52
Wogonin                    0.0056             98.34        4.19

TABLE 4: Similarities of 13 batches SGS.

       S1      S2      S3      S4      S5      S6      S7

S1      1     0.984   0.984   0.982   0.989   0.981   0.991
S2    0.984     1     0.975   0.978   0.985   0.986   0.985
S3    0.984   0.975     1     0.991   0.987   0.978   0.974
S4    0.982   0.978   0.991     1     0.991   0.99    0.98
S5    0.989   0.985   0.987   0.991     1     0.985   0.992
S6    0.981   0.986   0.978   0.99    0.985     1     0.983
S7    0.991   0.985   0.974   0.98    0.992   0.983     1
S8    0.99    0.995   0.974   0.975   0.989   0.982   0.992
S9    0.978   0.997   0.964   0.972   0.98    0.985   0.983
S10   0.984   0.987   0.983   0.99    0.985   0.993   0.98
S11   0.982   0.979   0.995   0.987   0.988   0.972   0.975
S12   0.987   0.973   0.995   0.988   0.988   0.972   0.979
S13   0.978   0.994   0.959   0.96    0.975   0.974   0.983
R     0.994   0.994   0.991   0.992   0.996   0.992   0.992

       S8      S9      S10     S11     S12     S13      R

S1    0.99    0.978   0.984   0.982   0.987   0.978   0.994
S2    0.995   0.997   0.987   0.979   0.973   0.994   0.994
S3    0.974   0.964   0.983   0.995   0.995   0.959   0.991
S4    0.975   0.972   0.99    0.987   0.988   0.96    0.992
S5    0.989   0.98    0.985   0.988   0.988   0.975   0.996
S6    0.982   0.985   0.993   0.972   0.972   0.974   0.992
S7    0.992   0.983   0.98    0.975   0.979   0.983   0.992
S8      1     0.994   0.982   0.977   0.975   0.993   0.994
S9    0.994     1     0.985   0.969   0.963   0.994   0.989
S10   0.982   0.985     1     0.977   0.977   0.973   0.993
S11   0.977   0.969   0.977     1     0.994   0.966   0.99
S12   0.975   0.963   0.977   0.994     1     0.962   0.99
S13   0.993   0.994   0.973   0.966   0.962     1     0.985
R     0.994   0.989   0.993   0.99    0.99    0.985     1

TABLE 5: RCFs of berberine to mangiferin, geniposide, liquiritin,
epiberberine, coptisine, baicalin, palmatine, harpagosid, wogonoside,
cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, baicalein, glycyrrhizic acid, and
wogonin on different instruments and different columns.

Instrument     Column    Mangiferin   Geniposide   Liquiritin

Waters2695-    Amethy      0.7632       0.3112       0.1888
2998
                Hedra      0.7794       0.3008       0.1791
               Agilent     0.7794       0.2948       0.1821
Agilent 1100   Amethy      0.7553       0.3138       0.1813
                Hedra      0.7421       0.3097       0.1923
               Agilent     0.7342       0.3201       0.1799
Mean                       0.7589       0.3084       0.1839
RSD (%)                     2.48         2.97         2.91

Instrument     Epiberberine   Coptisine   Baicalin   Palmatine

Waters2695-       0.6033       0.3144      0.4421     1.0451
2998
                  0.6215       0.3211      0.4351     1.0733
                  0.6121       0.3044      0.4513     1.0316
Agilent 1100      0.5988       0.3198      0.4579     1.0651
                  0.5899       0.3176      0.4621     1.0688
                  0.6031       0.3021      0.4633     1.0803
Mean              0.6048       0.3132      0.4520     1.0607
RSD (%)            1.80         2.58        2.52       1.75

Instrument     Harpagosid   Wogonoside   Cinnamic   Cinnamic
                                           acid     aldehyde

Waters2695-      0.2561       0.4321      0.8611     0.4043
2998
                 0.2671       0.4411      0.8835     0.4156
                 0.2495       0.4292      0.8525     0.4047
Agilent 1100     0.2355       0.4351      0.8421     0.4255
                 0.2466       0.4284      0.8311     0.4322
                 0.2611       0.4511      0.8941     0.4167
Mean             0.2527       0.4362      0.8607     0.4165
RSD (%)           4.45         1.98        2.81       2.67

Instrument     Baicalein   Glycyrrhizic   Wogonin
                               acid

Waters2695-     0.6811        0.1993      0.5532
2998
                0.6632        0.1911      0.5783
                0.6777        0.1959      0.5645
Agilent 1100    0.6843        0.2021      0.5547
                0.6731        0.2124      0.5832
                0.6864        0.2145      0.5401
Mean            0.6776        0.2025      0.5623
RSD (%)          1.26          4.56        2.90

TABLE 6: Rentention time (min) of berberine to mangiferin, geniposide,
liquiritin, epiberberine, coptisine, baicalin, palmatine, harpagosid,
wogonoside, cinnamic acid, cinnamic aldehyde, baicalein, glycyrrhizic
acid, and wogonin on different instruments and different columns.

Instrument     Column    Mangiferin   Geniposide   Liquiritin

Waters2695-    Amethy       0.38         0.40         0.58
2998
                Hedra       0.41         0.43         0.62
               Agilent      0.39         0.41         0.60
Agilent 1100   Amethy       0.36         0.39         0.57
                Hedra       0.37         0.41         0.58
               Agilent      0.40         0.42         0.60
Mean                        0.39         0.41         0.59
RSD (%)                     5.00         3.03         3.38

Instrument     Epiberberine   Coptisine   Baicalin   Palmatine

Waters2695-        0.80         0.83        0.92       0.97
2998
                   0.82         0.84        0.96       0.97
                   0.81         0.83        0.94       0.97
Agilent 1100       0.75         0.81        0.90       0.95
                   0.77         0.83        0.92       0.96
                   0.82         0.85        0.94       0.99
Mean               0.79         0.83        0.93       0.97
RSD (%)            4.03         2.76        2.66       1.90

Instrument     Harpagosid   Wogonoside   Cinnamic   Cinnamic
                                           acid     aldehyde

Waters2695-       1.04         1.14        1.17       1.34
2998
                  1.06         1.11        1.18       1.28
                  1.05         1.13        1.17       1.30
Agilent 1100      1.02         1.13        1.16       1.30
                  1.05         1.12        1.16       1.33
                  1.06         1.16        1.19       1.36
Mean              1.05         1.13        1.17       1.32
RSD (%)           1.85         2.32        1.77       2.95

Instrument     Baicalein   Glycyrrhizic   Wogonin
                               acid

Waters2695-      1.41          1.60        1.81
2998
                 1.54          1.59        2.02
                 1.48          1.60        1.91
Agilent 1100     1.38          1.59        1.79
                 1.40          1.58        1.78
                 1.43          1.62        1.83
Mean             1.44          1.60        1.86
RSD (%)          4.33          1.95        5.00

TABLE 7: Comparison of the results from the ESM and QAMS
([micro]g x [ml.sup.-1]).

                               Mangiferin          Geniposide
Batch number   Berberine
                  ESM       QAMS       ESM       QAMS       ESM

1              109.5341    40.2024   40.2261   181.4930   189.7332
2               89.2249    37.5741   37.7510   179.5150   188.7602
3              129.1133    35.8398   35.6103   157.0895   164.0831
4              124.5509    39.7362   39.6241   177.6354   185.2223
5              131.7465    42.8953   42.8017   215.0841   223.2552
6               91.8581    33.9407   33.9713   167.7467   176.4659
7               93.6830    33.7007   33.7037   184.5859   193.7133
8               83.4633    28.7922   28.7534   161.0843   170.0976
9               87.8692    35.7417   35.8779   191.4261   201.1430
10              96.1076    33.3683   33.3358   163.7588   172.1319
11              81.0647    21.1692   20.8931   96.3176    103.2304
12             127.4969    35.4701   35.2424   160.0752   167.1788
13              66.2826    26.8813   27.0141   161.2528   171.6896
p value                           1.0000               0.9990
SMD                               -0.14%               4.84%

                    Liquiritin              Epiberberine
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               23.0219     24.3703     6.3113      7.0281
2               15.1217     16.3549     5.8212      6.5595
3               15.6869     16.7843     7.5026      8.2207
4               16.2344     17.3568     8.0797      8.8171
5               13.4517     14.4941     8.1313      8.8596
6               13.4688     14.6373     8.0163      8.8171
7               12.6430     13.7785     5.6230      6.3466
8               11.7671     12.9197     4.9025      5.6224
9               15.2532     16.4980     5.3645      6.0910
10              13.7647     14.9235     5.8754      6.6021
11              10.2344     11.3452     3.7042      4.3872
12              18.2031     19.3607     6.7088      7.4114
13              10.7070     11.9177     4.4526      5.1965
p value                 1.0000                  1.0000
SMD                     5.00%                   4.40%

                     Coptisine               Baicalin
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               46.8326     50.7789    134.5759    148.9816
2               40.4232     44.4416    140.9748    156.3753
3               54.0515     57.9725    163.0149    177.5168
4               57.6934     61.7406    178.8141    193.8060
5               58.7696     62.7683    177.6743    192.4197
6               41.8712     45.8975    161.3843    177.2857
7               40.0668     44.0134    121.2770    135.8693
8               37.9355     41.9581    118.3847    133.3277
9               47.1242     51.3784    151.7083    167.5237
10              44.4223     48.4666    171.5295    187.5098
11              33.2648     37.1624     93.3769    107.5653
12              56.9690     60.9699    139.2935    153.3139
13              32.0308     36.1347     95.5600    110.5690
p value                 1.0000                  1.0000
SMD                     3.88%                   4.64%

                     Palmatine               Harpagosid
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               11.4799     12.3100     14.2582     13.7492
2               10.5081     11.3749     14.3794     13.9581
3               12.7851     13.5988     13.6995     13.1223
4               13.3434     14.1801     14.3017     13.7492
5               13.8791     14.7108     17.3874     16.8835
6               13.0916     14.0284     15.7097     15.3163
7               10.4254     11.2738     12.4737     11.9730
8               9.5326      10.3893     11.7217     11.2417
9               9.7197      10.5662     14.9799     14.5850
10              10.4331     11.2738     16.8469     16.4655
11              7.3989      8.1907      8.5808      8.0029
12              11.8422     12.6385     11.9582     11.3462
13              7.9011      8.7719      9.5187      9.0477
p value                 1.0000                  1.0000
SMD                     5.00%                   -4.00%

                   Wogonoside              Cinnamic acid
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               41.5099     41.9147     4.3225      4.4343
2               41.7443     42.4007     3.3197      3.4251
3               42.3230     42.5829     3.0224      3.0887
4               48.7639     49.2042     3.6181      3.7003
5               45.4335     45.7417     3.2033      3.2722
6               48.3223     49.1435     3.4117      3.5168
7               36.3218     36.7513     2.9684      3.0581
8               35.2517     35.7794     2.6324      2.7217
9               41.7833     42.4614     3.9107      4.0367
10              46.1440     46.8351     2.4359      2.5076
11              24.3588     24.5414     1.9207      1.9878
12              35.5964     35.7186     3.8293      3.9144
13              27.3810     27.8824     2.6982      2.8135
p value                 1.0000                  1.0000
SMD                     1.15%                   2.84%

                    Cinnamic                Baicalein
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               10.1104     10.3781     3.8998      3.8544
2               8.1171      8.3811      4.2131      4.2006
3               8.5102      8.7032      5.2322      5.2008
4               10.8341     11.0868     6.0932      6.0856
5               12.8653     13.1482     6.2136      6.2010
6               6.2494      6.4485      4.9259      4.9315
7               7.2536      7.4792      3.2858      3.2390
8               9.3460      9.6695      3.3857      3.3544
9               7.6140      7.8657      4.4720      4.4699
10              5.3190      5.4822      4.5214      4.5084
11              4.0460      4.1938      2.0815      2.0080
12              9.8943      10.1205     3.9137      3.8544
13              5.8692      6.1264      3.3202      3.3159
p value                 1.0000                  1.0000
SMD                     2.92%                   -0.80%

                 Glycyrrhizic acid           Wogonin
Batch number
                 QAMS         ESM        QAMS         ESM

1               10.7680     10.8733     2.8363      2.8704
2               10.3196     10.4741     3.3573      3.4246
3               11.9814     12.0711     3.6155      3.6556
4               12.1021     12.2042     4.6062      4.6716
5               10.8139     10.8733     4.1144      4.1636
6               9.4250      9.5424      3.8532      3.9327
7               11.1098     11.2726     2.7346      2.7780
8               9.5254      9.6755      2.8142      2.8704
9               10.9594     11.1395     4.2506      4.3483
10              12.1523     12.3373     4.0377      4.1174
11              8.7446      8.8770      3.2131      3.2861
12              12.1083     12.2042     3.5242      3.5632
13              10.0833     10.3410     2.9233      3.0090
p value                 0.9990                  1.0000
SMD                     1.28%                   1.75%
COPYRIGHT 2018 Hindawi Limited
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2018 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:Research Article
Author:Peng, Yi; Dong, Minghui; Zou, Jing; Liu, Zhihui
Publication:Journal of Analytical Methods in Chemistry
Date:Jan 1, 2018
Words:7197
Previous Article:A PCR Method That Can Be Further Developed into PCR-RFLP Assay for Eight Animal Species Identification.
Next Article:Discrimination and Geographical Origin Prediction of Cynomorium songaricum Rupr. from Different Growing Areas in China by an Electronic Tongue.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2020 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters