基于化学模式识别及多指标定量分析比较诃子和西青果的差异 点击下载
| 论文标题： | 基于化学模式识别及多指标定量分析比较诃子和西青果的差异 |
| 英文标题： | |
| 中文摘要： | 目的：为鉴别诃子和西青果提供参考。方法：采用超高效液相色谱（UPLC）法。色谱柱为WatersCortecsT3C18，流动相为乙腈-0.2％磷酸水溶液（梯度洗脱），流速为0.35mL/min，柱温为30℃，检测波长为270nm，进样量为1μL。以没食子酸为参照，采用《中药色谱指纹图谱相似度评价系统（2012版）》建立17批诃子和14批西青果药材的指纹图谱并进行相似度评价；通过与对照品、紫外吸收光谱和相关文献对比，指认共有峰。采用SPSS20.0、SIMCA14.1软件进行主成分分析（PCA）和偏最小二乘法-判别分析（PLS-DA）以筛选主要差异成分；采用上述UPLC法测定诃子和西青果中主要差异成分的含量并比较。结果：诃子和西青果的UPLC指纹图谱中均有共有峰8个，指认峰1、2、3、4、6、7、8分别为诃子次酸、没食子酸、安石榴苷A、安石榴苷B、柯里拉京、诃子鞣酸、诃子酸；17批诃子的相似度为0.92～0.99，14批西青果的相似度均大于0.99，诃子对照指纹图谱与西青果对照指纹图谱的相似度为0.909。PCA显示，诃子与西青果存在一定差异；PLS-DA结果与PCA结果一致，其模型的变量重要性投影（VIP）值显示，峰5、4、7、3、2的VIP值均大于1。31批样品中，没食子酸（峰2）、安石榴苷A（峰3）、安石榴苷B（峰4）、诃子鞣酸（峰7）的含量分别为2.63～10.31、5.37～44.63、8.02～60.77、44.07～162.98mg/g，RSD分别为40.14％、47.91％、53.97％、36.22％（n＝31）。诃子和西青果中上述4个成分组间比较差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论：诃子和西青果存在明显差异，没食子酸、安石榴苷A、安石榴苷B、诃子鞣酸可作为鉴别二者的主要差异成分。 |
| 英文摘要： | OBJECTIVE：To provide reference for the identification of Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus . METHODS：UPLC method was adopted. The determination was performed on Waters Cortecs T 3 C18 column with mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile- 0.2％ phosphoric acid solution （gradient elution ）at the flow rate of 0.35 mL/min. The column temperature was 30 ℃，and the detection wavelength was set at 270 nm. The sample size was 1 μL. Using gallic acid as reference，UPLC fingerprints of 17 batches of Chebulae Fructus and 14 batches of Chebulae Fructus Immaturus were established and their similarity was evaluated by TCM Chromatographic Fingerprint Similarity Evaluation System （2012 edition）. By comparing substance control ， UV absorption spectrum and related literaturs ，common peaks were identified. PCA and PLS-DA were performed by using SPSS 20.0 and SIMCA 14.1 software. The contents of main difference components in Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus were determined by above UPLC method and compared. RESULTS ：There were 8 common peaks in UPLC fingerprint of Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus ，i.e. chebulic acid （peak 1），gallic acid （peak 2），punicalagin A （peak 3），punicalagin B （peak 4），corilagin（peak 6），chebulagic acid （peak 7）and chebulinic acid （peak 8）. The similarities of 17 batches of Chebulae Fructus were from 0.92 to 0.99，while 14 batches of Chebulae Fructus Immaturus were all above 0.99. The similarity of control fingerprint between Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus was 0.909. PCA demonstrated the differences between Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus . The results of PLS-DA were consistent with those of PCA ，and the variable importance in projection （VIP）values of peak 5，4，7，3 and 2 were above 1 in the PLS-DA model. In 31 batches of samples ，the contents of gallic acid （peak 2），punicalagin A（peak 3），punicalagin B （peak 4）and chebulagic acid （peak 7）were 2.63-10.31， 5.37-44.63，8.02-60.77，44.07-162.98 mg/g；RSDs were 40.14％， 47.91％ ，53.97％ ，36.22％（n＝31）. There was statistical significance in the differences of the mentioned 4 components between Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus 719412818@qq.com （P＜0.05）. CONCLUSIONS ：There are significant differences between Chebulae Fructus and Chebulae Fructus Immaturus gallic acid ，punicalagin A ，punicalagin B and chebulagic acid are the main difference components for identification. |
| 期刊： | 2020年第31卷第20期 |
| 作者： | 索彩仙，邱韵静，吴文平，孙冬梅，李秀枝，潘礼业，李国卫 |
| 英文作者： | SUO Caixian ，QIU Yunjing ，WU Wenping ，SUN Dongmei ，LI Xiuzhi ，PAN Liye，LI Guowei |
| 关键字： | 诃子；西青果；化学模式识别；多指标定量分析；主成分分析；偏最小二乘-判别分析；差异 |
| KEYWORDS： | Chebulae Fructus ；Chebulae Fructus Immaturus ；Chemical pattern recognition ；Multi-index quantification ；PCA； |
| 总下载数： | 81次 |
| 本日下载数： | 2次 |
| 本月下载数： | 81次 |
| 文件大小： | 619.60Kb |
* 注：未经本站明确许可，任何网站不得非法盗链资源下载连接及抄袭本站原创内容资源!在此感谢您的支持与合作！