| Literature DB >> 30352981 |
Meng Pan1,2, Wenxuan Pei3, Yixin Yao4, Ling Dong5, Jianbo Chen6.
Abstract
This research aimed to develop an FTIR-based method for rapid and low-cost integrated quality assessment of organic-inorganic composite herbs, which are kinds of herbs composed of both organic and inorganic active ingredients or matrix components. A two-step quality assessment route was designed and verified using the example of Indigo Naturalis (Qing Dai). First, the FTIR spectra were used as global chemical fingerprints to identify the true and fake samples. Next, the contents of the organic and inorganic marker components were estimated by FTIR quantification models to assess the quality of the true samples. Using the above approaches, all the 56 true samples and five fake samples of Indigo Naturalis could be identified correctly by the correlation threshold of the FTIR chemical fingerprints. Furthermore, the FTIR calibration models provided an accurate estimation of the contents of marker components with respect to HPLC and inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (ICP-OES). The coefficients of determination (R²) for the independent validation of indigo, indirubin, and calcium were 0.977, 0.983, and 0.971, respectively. Meanwhile, the mean relative errors (MRE) for the independent validation of indigo, indirubin, and calcium were 2.2%, 2.4%, and 1.8%, respectively. In conclusion, this research shows the potential of FTIR spectroscopy for the rapid and integrated quality assessment of organic-inorganic composite herbs in both chemical fingerprints identification and marker components quantification.Entities:
Keywords: ATR-FTIR spectroscopy; indigo; indigo naturalis; indirubin; quality assessment
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30352981 PMCID: PMC6278429 DOI: 10.3390/molecules23112743
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Algorithm of the integrated quality assessment of Indigo Naturalis by FTIR spectroscopy.
Contents of some marker components in true and fake Indigo Naturalis.
| Ingredient (wt%) | True Samples | Fake Samples | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± Std | Max | Min | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |
| Indigo | 2.28 ± 0.51 | 3.47 | 1.18 | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. |
| Indirubin | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.26 | 0.09 | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. | N.D. |
| Calcium | 28.11 ± 2.97 | 38.47 | 23.65 | 7.01 | 7.10 | 6.97 | 10.91 | 1.47 |
N.D.: Not detected by the HPLC method used in this research.
Figure 2ATR-FTIR spectra of Indigo Naturalis and reference compounds. (a) CaCO3 (calcite); (b) sample T12; (c) sample T07; (d) indigo; (e) indirubin.
Figure 3Correlation-based FTIR identification of Indigo Naturalis. (a) ATR-FTIR spectra of the reference and the fake samples F1–F5; (b) Cumulative distribution of the correlation coefficients of the true samples against the reference; (c) Correlation-based FTIR identification of the calibration true samples (+) and validation true samples (▲); (d) Correlation-based FTIR identification of the fake samples.
Figure 4Comparisons between the ATR-FTIR model estimated and the reference method measured contents of the marker components of Indigo Naturalis. (a) Calibration samples (●) of the indigo model; (b) Validation samples (▲) of the indigo model; (c) Calibration samples (●) of the indirubin model; (d) Validation samples (▲) of the indirubin model; (e) Calibration samples (●) of the calcium model; (f) Validation samples (▲) of the calcium model.
Performance of the ATR-FTIR quantification models of Indigo Naturalis.
| Ingredient (wt%) | Indigo | Indirubin | Calcium | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration | Validation | Calibration | Validation | Calibration | Validation | |
| Mean ± Std | 2.29 ± 0.55 | 2.24 ± 0.43 | 0.17 ± 0.04 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 27.86 ± 3.05 | 28.62 ± 2.80 |
| Max | 3.47 | 2.82 | 0.26 | 0.23 | 38.47 | 34.85 |
| Min | 1.18 | 1.46 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 23.65 | 24.37 |
| Latent variables | 6 | 6 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 9 |
| R2 | 0.940 | 0.977 | 0.974 | 0.983 | 0.946 | 0.971 |
| MRE | 5.6% | 2.4% | 2.9% | 2.2% | 2.3% | 1.8% |
Figure 5HPLC chromatograms of typical samples of Indigo Naturalis and the reference compounds.