| Literature DB >> 35889220 |
Hui Li1, Hua Jiang1, Lei Xu1, Yaling Deng1, Jing Xu1, Yuqing Zhao1,2.
Abstract
Ginseng (Panax ginseng C. A. Meyer), a perennial herb, possesses immunostimulatory, anticarcinogenic, antiemetic, and antioxidative biological activities. In recent years, more and more people have paid attention to the extraction methods and quality evaluation of ginseng. China, the United States, Europe, Japan, and Korea have all had the quality standards and content determination methods of ginseng. The different treatment methods are adopted before the determination of ginseng samples and the content limits of the index components, such as ginsenoside Rb1, ginsenoside Rg1, and ginsenoside Re exist differences. The similarities and differences of ginseng content detection methods in pharmacopoeias of different countries have been analyzed by a research group, but the comparison of the effects of different methods on the ginsenoside content and structural transformation has not been reported. In this paper, ginsenosides in ginseng were extracted according to four national pharmacopoeias and analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively by UPLC-Q-Exactive-MS and HPLC-UV. It was illustrated that the pretreatment method has a significant influence on the content determination of ginseng. The yield of rare saponins was increased by heating concluded from both the qualitative and quantitative comparison. Finally, a simple and feasible extraction method was optimized by response surface method at room temperature. The analysis of the preparation method and process optimization of the four pharmacopoeias can provide important reference information for the revision of ginseng standards.Entities:
Keywords: UPLC-Q-Exactive-MS; extraction method; ginsenoside; pharmacopoeia; response surface methodology
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35889220 PMCID: PMC9351678 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27144347
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1Quantitative chromatogram of HPLC analysis of ginseng using the four different countries’ pharmacopoeia extraction methods.
Content of ginsenoside in different pharmacopoeias.
| CP | USP | EP | J/KP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rg1 (mg/g) | 0.43 ± 0.022 | 0.46 ± 0.026 | 0.49 ± 0.029 | 0.70 ± 0.037 |
| Re (mg/g) | 1.80 ± 0.091 | 1.87 ± 0.099 | 1.96 ± 0.112 | 2.25 ± 0.122 |
| Rh1 (mg/g) | 0.21 ± 0.021 | 0.20 ± 0.015 | 0.18 ± 0.011 | 0.04 ± 0.002 |
| Rb1 (mg/g) | 2.01 ± 0.102 | 2.26 ± 0.106 | 2.31 ± 0.112 | 2.42 ± 0.116 |
| Rc (mg/g) | 0.23 ± 0.013 | 0.20 ± 0.011 | 0.20 ± 0.012 | 0.11 ± 0.006 |
| F1 (mg/g) | 0.05 ± 0.004 | 0.05 ± 0.003 | 0.04 ± 0.002 | 0.01 ± 0.001 |
| Rd (mg/g) | 0.39 ± 0.023 | 0.30 ± 0.022 | 0.22 ± 0.015 | 0.06 ± 0.003 |
| Rg3 (mg/g) | 0.02 ± 0.001 | 0.01 ± 0.001 | 0.01 ± 0.001 | - |
| Rg5 (mg/g) | 0.09 ± 0.006 | 0.04 ± 0.002 | 0.02 ± 0.001 | - |
| Rh2 (mg/g) | 0.01 ± 0.001 | 0.01 ± 0001 | 0.01 ± 0.001 | - |
| PPT (mg/g) | - | - | - | - |
| PPD (mg/g) | - | - | - | - |
Figure 2The different pretreatment methods in China Pharmacopoeia, Japan/Korea Pharmacopoeia, the United States Pharmacopoeia, and European Pharmacopoeia on ginsenosides.
The BBD matrix and the obtained results at different levels of the experimental variables.
| No. | A: Ethanol Concentration (%) | B: The Ratio of Liquid to Material (mL/g) | C: Extraction Time (min) | Y: Total Saponin Content (mg/g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 80 | 20 | 40 | 34.25 ± 0.86 |
| 2 | 70 | 30 | 40 | 35.12 ± 0.97 |
| 3 | 70 | 20 | 30 | 42.33 ± 1.05 |
| 4 | 70 | 20 | 30 | 41.65 ± 1.16 |
| 5 | 60 | 20 | 40 | 28.50 ± 0.59 |
| 6 | 70 | 10 | 20 | 34.00 ± 0.82 |
| 7 | 80 | 30 | 30 | 34.16 ± 0.75 |
| 8 | 60 | 30 | 30 | 29.88 ± 0.68 |
| 9 | 80 | 10 | 30 | 33.48 ± 1.03 |
| 10 | 70 | 30 | 20 | 35.82 ± 0.68 |
| 11 | 70 | 10 | 40 | 36.89 ± 0.96 |
| 12 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 32.25 ± 0.72 |
| 13 | 60 | 10 | 30 | 30.59 ± 0.78 |
| 14 | 70 | 20 | 30 | 41.23 ± 0.99 |
| 15 | 70 | 20 | 30 | 42.12 ± 1.21 |
| 16 | 70 | 20 | 30 | 42.27 ± 1.12 |
| 17 | 80 | 20 | 20 | 33.67 ± 0.72 |
Analysis of variance of experimental regression equation.
| Source | Sum of Squares | DF | Mean Square | F Value | Significant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 331.17 | 9 | 36.80 | 57.94 | <0.0001 | ** |
| A | 25.59 | 1 | 25.59 | 40.30 | 0.0004 | ** |
| B | 4.51 × 10−5 | 1 | 4.51 × 10−5 | 7.11 × 10−5 | 0.9935 | |
| C | 0.12 | 1 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 0.6830 | |
| AB | 0.49 | 1 | 0.49 | 0.77 | 0.4089 | |
| AC | 4.63 | 1 | 4.63 | 7.29 | 0.0307 | * |
| BC | 3.21 | 1 | 3.21 | 5.06 | 0.0593 | |
| A2 | 182.79 | 1 | 182.79 | 287.80 | <0.0001 | ** |
| B2 | 45.89 | 1 | 45.89 | 72.25 | <0.0001 | ** |
| C2 | 41.94 | 1 | 41.94 | 66.03 | <0.0001 | ** |
| Residual | 4.45 | 7 | 0.64 | |||
| Lack of Fit | 3.56 | 3 | 1.19 | 5.34 | 0.0697 | |
| Pare Error | 0.89 | 4 | 0.22 | |||
| Cor Total | 335.62 | 16 | ||||
| Std. Dev | 0.80 | R2 | 0.9868 | |||
| Mean | 35.78 | Adj R2 | 0.9697 | |||
| C.V. % | 2.23 | Pred R2 | 0.8263 | |||
| PRESS | 58.31 | Adeq precision | 20.825 |
* Significant at p < 0.05, ** Significant at p < 0.01.
Figure 3Effects of extraction solvent (A), extraction ethanol concentration (B), liquid–solid ratio (C), and extraction time (D). Data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 3).
The main difference of the pre-processing in the four pharmacopoeias.
| Pharmacopoeia Name | Extraction Method | Temperature | Heating Time | Reagent |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CP | Trichloromethane soxhlet | 60 °C | 3 h | Trichloromethane; Butanol |
| USP | Water bath reflux extraction | 100 °C | 1 h | Ethanol-water (4:6) |
| EP | Water bath reflux extraction | 100 °C | 1 h | Methanol-water (50:50); Acetonitrile-water (20:80) |
| J/KP | Shake extraction | Room temperature | - | Methanol-water (3:5); Dilute sodium hydroxide solution; 0.1 mol/L Hydrochloric acid solution |
Experimental variables and their levels in Box–Behnken design.
| Factor | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Low (−1) | Central (0) | High (1) | |
| A: Ethanol concentration (%) | 60 | 70 | 80 |
| B: The ratio of liquor to material (mL/g) | 10 | 20 | 30 |
| C: Extraction time (min) | 20 | 30 | 40 |