OBJECTIVE: To do some comparative study on chemical composition between the cultivated and wild samples of Radix Scutellariae. METHOD: Thirty three samples of Radix Scutellariae were collected from different habitats. An HPLC method for fingerprint identification and simultaneous determination of baicalin, baicalein and wogonin was established, and the content of ethanolic extractive was measured according to the method in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. RESULT: The number of chromatographic peaks in fingerprint of wild sample was more than that of cultivated sample in Hebei and Inner Mongolia. In 95% confidence intervals, the contents of baicalin, baicalein and wogonin were (15.89 +/- 1.52)%, (1.04 +/- 0.26)% and (0.27 +/- 0.07)%, respectively in the cultivated samples and (11.93 +/- 1.62)%, (1.03 +/- 0.26)% and (0.27 +/- 0.06)%, respectively in wild samples. The content of ethanolic extractive was 52.07 +/- 3.05% in the cultivated and (41.21 +/- 2.86)% in the wild within 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSION: Slight difference between the fingerprint of the cultivated and wild samples was found, and the contents of baicalin and ethanolic extraction in the cultivated were higher than those in the wild.
OBJECTIVE: To do some comparative study on chemical composition between the cultivated and wild samples of Radix Scutellariae. METHOD: Thirty three samples of Radix Scutellariae were collected from different habitats. An HPLC method for fingerprint identification and simultaneous determination of baicalin, baicalein and wogonin was established, and the content of ethanolic extractive was measured according to the method in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. RESULT: The number of chromatographic peaks in fingerprint of wild sample was more than that of cultivated sample in Hebei and Inner Mongolia. In 95% confidence intervals, the contents of baicalin, baicalein and wogonin were (15.89 +/- 1.52)%, (1.04 +/- 0.26)% and (0.27 +/- 0.07)%, respectively in the cultivated samples and (11.93 +/- 1.62)%, (1.03 +/- 0.26)% and (0.27 +/- 0.06)%, respectively in wild samples. The content of ethanolic extractive was 52.07 +/- 3.05% in the cultivated and (41.21 +/- 2.86)% in the wild within 95% confidence interval. CONCLUSION: Slight difference between the fingerprint of the cultivated and wild samples was found, and the contents of baicalin and ethanolic extraction in the cultivated were higher than those in the wild.