| Literature DB >> 23997802 |
Chia-Ming Lu1, Mei-Ling Hou, Lie-Chwen Lin, Tung-Hu Tsai.
Abstract
This study develops several chemical and physical methods to evaluate the quality of a traditional Chinese formulation, Jia-Wei-Xiao-Yao-San. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) coupled with electrospray ionization was used to measure the herbal biomarkers of saikosaponin A, saikosaponin D, ferulic acid, and paeoniflorin from this herbal formula. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) and light microscopy photographs with Congo red staining were used to identify the cellulose fibers if raw herbal powder had been added to the herbal pharmaceutical product. Moreover, water solubility and crude fiber content examination were used to inspect for potential herbal additives to the herbal pharmaceutical products. The results demonstrate that the contents of the herbal ingredients of saikosaponin A, saikosaponin D, ferulic acid, and paeoniflorin were around 0.351 ± 0.017, 0.136 ± 0.010, 0.140 ± 0.005, and 2.281 ± 0.406 mg/g, respectively, for this herbal pharmaceutical product. The physical examination data demonstrate that the raw herbal powder had rough, irregular, lumpy, filamentous, and elongated shapes, as well as strong Congo red staining. In addition, water solubility and crude fiber content were not consistent in the herbal pharmaceutical products.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23997802 PMCID: PMC3753750 DOI: 10.1155/2013/952796
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
The analytical conditions of LC-MS/MS for the identification of the four constituents.
| Constituents | Molecular weight | RT (min) | Mass fragments | Collision energy (eV) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 Mass (amu) | Q3 Mass (amu) | ||||
| Saikosaponin A | 780.98 | 4.31 | 781.40 [M + H]+ | 455.35 | −25.0 |
| Saikosaponin D | 780.98 | 5.33 | 781.40 [M + H]+ | 455.35 | −25.0 |
| Ferulic acid | 194.18 | 1.73 | 193.00 [M − H]− | 134.00 | 15.0 |
| Paeoniflorin | 480.46 | 1.24 | 498.20 [M + NH4]+ | 179.10 | −25.0 |
Figure 1The product ion mass spectra of four marker compounds (a) saikosaponin A; (b) saikosaponin D; (c) ferulic acid; and (d) paeoniflorin.
Figure 2Typical MRM chromatograms of analytes: (a) 1: saikosaponin A, 2: saikosaponin D; (b) ferulic acid; and (c) paeoniflorin.
Linear ranges, calibration curves, correlation coefficients (r 2), and detection limits of four constituents using LC-MS/MS.
| Constituents | Linear range (ng/mL) | Calibration curve |
| LOD (S/N = 3) (ng/mL) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saikosaponin A | 25–1000 |
| 0.998 | 10 |
| Saikosaponin D | 50–1000 |
| 0.997 | 10 |
| Ferulic acid | 50–1000 |
| 0.999 | 5 |
| Paeoniflorin | 50–1000 |
| 0.999 | 5 |
Intraday and interday, precision, and accuracy for the determination of four constituents from the standard samples.
| Nominal concentration (ng/mL) | Intraday | Interday | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed concentration (ng/mL) | Precision (%) | Accuracy (%) | Observed concentration (ng/mL) | Precision (%) | Accuracy (%) | |
| Saikosaponin A | ||||||
| 25 | 24.26 ± 3.33 | 13.74 | −2.98 | 24.66 ± 1.74 | 7.04 | −1.37 |
| 50 | 48.13 ± 3.25 | 6.75 | −3.73 | 48.07 ± 2.47 | 5.14 | −3.87 |
| 250 | 252.40 ± 3.24 | 1.28 | 0.96 | 248.14 ± 4.81 | 1.94 | −0.74 |
| 500 | 497.80 ± 13.28 | 2.67 | −0.44 | 509.28 ± 11.49 | 2.26 | 1.86 |
| 1000 | 1000.13 ± 6.46 | 0.65 | 0.01 | 995.71 ± 5.59 | 0.56 | −0.43 |
| Saikosaponin D | ||||||
| 50 | 44.74 ± 3.88 | 8.67 | −10.51 | 48.64 ± 2.73 | 5.60 | −2.72 |
| 100 | 98.28 ± 5.57 | 5.67 | −1.72 | 101.92 ± 4.71 | 4.62 | 1.92 |
| 250 | 258.05 ± 6.92 | 2.68 | 3.22 | 247.21 ± 5.25 | 2.12 | −1.11 |
| 500 | 503.66 ± 11.20 | 2.22 | 0.73 | 505.82 ± 3.69 | 0.73 | 1.16 |
| 1000 | 996.29 ± 5.47 | 0.55 | −0.37 | 997.57 ± 2.07 | 0.21 | −0.24 |
| Ferulic acid | ||||||
| 50 | 42.54 ± 1.28 | 3.02 | −14.93 | 48.54 ± 5.31 | 10.93 | −2.92 |
| 100 | 100.01 ± 3.38 | 3.38 | 0.01 | 100.95 ± 4.85 | 4.80 | 0.95 |
| 250 | 265.09 ± 3.05 | 1.15 | 6.04 | 249.88 ± 10.51 | 4.21 | −0.05 |
| 500 | 493.81 ± 1.86 | 0.38 | −1.24 | 500.51 ± 12.88 | 2.57 | 0.10 |
| 1000 | 999.35 ± 1.12 | 0.11 | −0.06 | 999.43 ± 6.03 | 0.60 | −0.06 |
| Paeoniflorin | ||||||
| 50 | 45.52 ± 2.52 | 5.53 | −8.96 | 47.88 ± 4.17 | 8.70 | −4.25 |
| 100 | 96.55 ± 4.02 | 4.16 | −3.45 | 101.20 ± 5.53 | 5.47 | 1.20 |
| 250 | 261.12 ± 4.89 | 1.87 | 4.45 | 248.78 ± 3.88 | 1.56 | −0.49 |
| 500 | 501.96 ± 4.52 | 0.90 | 0.39 | 503.40 ± 17.55 | 3.49 | 0.68 |
| 1000 | 996.61 ± 2.52 | 0.25 | −0.34 | 998.17 ± 8.86 | 0.89 | −0.18 |
Notes: data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 6).
Precision: RSD (%) = [standard deviation/C obs] × 100.
Accuracy: bias (%) = [(C obs − C nom)/C nom] × 100.
Abbreviation: RSD: relative standard deviation.
The amounts of saikosaponin A, saikosaponin D, ferulic acid, and paeoniflorin in the herbal pharmaceutical products of JWXYS from different brands.
| Brand | Saikosaponin A (mg/g) | Saikosaponin D (mg/g) | Ferulic acid (mg/g) | Paeoniflorin (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.126 ± 0.014 | ND | 0.055 ± 0.004 | 2.246 ± 0.306 |
| B | 0.351 ± 0.017 | 0.136 ± 0.010 | 0.140 ± 0.005 | 2.281 ± 0.406 |
| C | 0.271 ± 0.025 | ND | 0.046 ± 0.001 | 2.128 ± 0.387 |
| D | 0.280 ± 0.037 | 0.107 ± 0.012 | 0.057 ± 0.002 | 3.200 ± 0.568 |
| E | 0.116 ± 0.014 | ND | 0.124 ± 0.011 | 3.497 ± 0.599 |
Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).
ND: not detectable.
Figure 3Scanning electron microscope photographs of (a) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand A (b) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand B, (c) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand C, (d) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand D, (e) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand E, (f) corn starch, (g) raw herbal powder, (h) corn starch: raw herbal powder = 1 : 1, and (i) raw herbal powder: herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand A = 1 : 1 (×500).
Figure 4Light microscopy photographs of Congo red stained: (a) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand A; (b) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand B; (c) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand C; (d) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand D; (e) herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand E; (f) corn starch; (g) raw herbal powder; (h) corn starch: raw herbal powder = 1 : 1; and (i) raw herbal powder: herbal pharmaceutical product JWXYS of brand A = 1 : 1 (×100).
Solubility analysis of herbal pharmaceutical products of JWXYS at different temperatures.
| Sample | Solubility (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 55°C | 65°C | 75°C | 85°C | 95°C | |
| A | 40.65 ± 2.08 | 40.42 ± 2.78 | 39.30 ± 1.72 | 42.39 ± 3.97 | 44.01 ± 2.36 |
| B | 44.16 ± 1.61 | 43.24 ± 2.06 | 43.74 ± 0.72 | 42.81 ± 1.83 | 44.74 ± 1.04 |
| C | 27.88 ± 2.16 | 29.00 ± 2.49 | 29.95 ± 2.24 | 29.95 ± 1.48 | 32.11 ± 0.12 |
| D | 46.89 ± 2.48 | 45.17 ± 3.08 | 46.83 ± 1.62 | 47.06 ± 2.21 | 49.43 ± 3.21 |
| E | 40.03 ± 0.86 | 40.40 ± 1.49 | 39.35 ± 2.71 | 41.11 ± 3.07 | 42.91 ± 2.67 |
Each value is expressed as mean ± standard deviation (n = 3).