| Literature DB >> 26839549 |
Xuesong Liu1, Chunyan Wu1, Shu Geng1, Ye Jin1, Lianjun Luan1, Yong Chen1, Yongjiang Wu1.
Abstract
This paper used near-infrared (NIR) spectroscopy for the on-line quantitative monitoring of water precipitation during Danhong injection. For these NIR measurements, two fiber optic probes designed to transmit NIR radiation through a 2 mm flow cell were used to collect spectra in real-time. Partial least squares regression (PLSR) was developed as the preferred chemometrics quantitative analysis of the critical intermediate qualities: the danshensu (DSS, (R)-3, 4-dihydroxyphenyllactic acid), protocatechuic aldehyde (PA), rosmarinic acid (RA), and salvianolic acid B (SAB) concentrations. Optimized PLSR models were successfully built and used for on-line detecting of the concentrations of DSS, PA, RA, and SAB of water precipitation during Danhong injection. Besides, the information of DSS, PA, RA, and SAB concentrations would be instantly fed back to site technical personnel for control and adjustment timely. The verification experiments determined that the predicted values agreed with the actual homologic value.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26839549 PMCID: PMC4709625 DOI: 10.1155/2015/313471
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Figure 1Scheme for the on-line NIR spectroscopy detection device.
Figure 2Typical chromatogram of sample. (1) DSS, (2) PA, (3) RA, and (4) SAB.
HPLC method validation for DSS, PA, RA, and SAB.
| Ingredients | Regression equations |
| Range ( | RSD of repeatability | RSD of stability | Average recoveries |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSS (mg/mL) |
| 0.9999 | 9.84~147.6 | 0.18% | 0.88% | 101.2% |
| PA (mg/mL) |
| 0.9999 | 1.13~22.68 | 1.08% | 0.38% | 98.2% |
| RA (mg/mL) |
| 0.9999 | 4.83~57.98 | 0.46% | 0.60% | 99.2% |
| SAB (mg/mL) |
| 0.9999 | 52.80~1056 | 0.10% | 0.17% | 100.8% |
Figure 3DSS (a), PA (b), RA (c), and SAB (d) concentrations measured by HPLC.
DSS, PA, RA, and SAB concentrations for the final water precipitation (mg/mL).
| Ingredients | Batches | Average | RSD (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fist | Second | Third | Fourth | Fifth | |||
| DSS (mg/mL) | 1.45 | 1.32 | 1.26 | 1.27 | 1.29 | 1.28 | 2.19 |
| PA (mg/mL) | 0.257 | 0.272 | 0.248 | 0.252 | 0.267 | 0.260 | 4.54 |
| RA (mg/mL) | 0.541 | 0.582 | 0.541 | 0.560 | 0.572 | 0.564 | 3.13 |
| SAB (mg/mL) | 2.71 | 2.22 | 1.93 | 1.95 | 2.19 | 2.07 | 7.35 |
Figure 4Raw NIR spectra for the Danhong injection water precipitation process.
Figure 5Correlation coefficients for the 1st Der NIR spectroscopy.
Figure 6First derivative spectra with a 17-point Savitzky-Golay smoothing pretreatment. (a) The first derivative spectra with a 17-point Savitzky-Golay smoothing pretreatment from 4000 to 12000 cm−1; (b) the wavenumbers (1) from 5450 to 6100 cm−1; (c) the wavenumbers (2) from 7700 to 8700 cm−1.
Parameters for the PLSR models with different spectral pretreatment methods.
| Pretreatments |
| RMSEC (mg/mL) | RMSECV (mg/mL) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSS | PA | RA | SAB | DSS | PA | RA | SAB | DSS | PA | RA | SAB | |
| Raw spectra | 98.08 | 97.81 | 97.76 | 95.97 | 0.0642 | 0.0141 | 0.0312 | 0.177 | 0.0684 | 0.0150 | 0.0333 | 0.1886 |
| SLS | 87.26 | 88.99 | 89.22 | 91.15 | 0.1540 | 0.0341 | 0.0716 | 0.263 | 0.1619 | 0.0356 | 0.0748 | 0.2765 |
| VN | 97.61 | 97.64 | 97.57 | 95.86 | 0.0716 | 0.0147 | 0.0340 | 0.180 | 0.0763 | 0.0157 | 0.0363 | 0.1905 |
| 1st Der | 98.20 | 98.14 | 98.06 | 96.10 | 0.0619 | 0.0130 | 0.0304 | 0.174 | 0.0651 | 0.0137 | 0.0320 | 0.1806 |
| 2nd Der | 81.38 | 80.63 | 83.88 | 85.45 | 0.2000 | 0.0420 | 0.0876 | 0.337 | 0.2024 | 0.0425 | 0.0887 | 0.3411 |
| 1st Der + SLS | 89.20 | 89.58 | 90.79 | 88.84 | 0.1520 | 0.0308 | 0.0662 | 0.295 | 0.1577 | 0.0320 | 0.0687 | 0.3042 |
SLS: straight line subtraction.
VN: vector normalization.
1st Der: first derivative.
2nd Der: second derivative.
R 2: coefficient of determination.
RMSECV: root mean squares error of the cross-validation.
RMSEC: root mean square error of the calibration.
Figure 7Calibration models for DSS (a), PA (b), RA (c), and SAB (d).
Parameters of selected NIR models for DSS, PA, RA, and SAB.
| Ingredients |
| RSEC | RPD of calibration | RSEP | RPD of prediction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSS | 0.9820 | 3.71% | 7.49 | 3.86% | 8.83 |
| PA | 0.9814 | 3.72% | 7.34 | 3.26% | 8.39 |
| RA | 0.9806 | 3.91% | 7.18 | 3.02% | 9.25 |
| SAB | 0.9610 | 5.72% | 5.06 | 4.02% | 8.22 |
Figure 8Predicted values for DSS (a), PA (b), RA (c), and SAB (d) obtained using the developed models.