Karin Kimberly N, Poklis Justin L, Peace Michelle R
Department of Forensic Science, Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond, VA, USA.
Anal Methods. 2021 Feb 21;13(7):884-893. doi: 10.1039/d0ay02015j. Epub 2021 Jan 18.
Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are classified as dietary supplements. Interactions with western medications, the presence of contaminants or adulterants, or a mis-labeled or mis-used CHM may lead to toxicological emergencies that can be undetected in death investigations. Laboratories must be able to efficiently analyze cases in which CHMs are suspected. Five extractions were evaluated for their ability to extract pharmacologically active compounds from herbal matrices: water, ethanol, microwave-assisted (MAE), ethanol : chloroform, and acid-wash. Anticonvulsive and other pharmacologically active compounds in Gou Teng, Tian Ma, and Jiang Can purchased from Beijing, China and New York were compared in the powder and the extracts using Direct Analysis in Real Time-Mass Spectrometry (DART-MS). Approximately 0.25 g of macerated herb was used per extraction. The water and ethanol extractions were simple liquid extractions. For the MAE, powdered herb was soaked in 65% ethanol, microwaved, and concentrated. The ethanol : chloroform extraction involved soaking in 1 : 1 ethanol : chloroform, sonication, and concentration. In the acid-wash extraction, powdered herb was soaked in acetic acid, followed by addition of sodium hydroxide, hexane extraction, and reconstitution in ethyl acetate. The powdered herbs and extracts were analyzed using a Jeol JMS T100LC AccuTOF DART-MS in positive and negative mode. Of the evaluated methods, no single extraction worked for all active compounds from the three CHMs. The MAE extract contained the most pharmacologically active compounds, while the acid-wash contained the least for the three products. Gou Teng purchased from different sources did exhibit a difference in pharmacologically active compounds, potentially from different species.
中草药被归类为膳食补充剂。与西药的相互作用、污染物或掺假物的存在，或中草药标签错误或使用不当，都可能导致毒理学紧急情况，而这些情况在死亡调查中可能无法被发现。实验室必须能够有效地分析疑似使用中草药的案例。对五种提取方法从草药基质中提取药理活性化合物的能力进行了评估：水提取、乙醇提取、微波辅助提取（MAE）、乙醇：氯仿提取和酸洗提取。使用实时直接分析质谱法（DART-MS）对从中国北京和纽约购买的钩藤、天麻和僵蚕中的粉末和提取物中的抗惊厥及其他药理活性化合物进行了比较。每次提取大约使用0.25克浸泡过的草药。水提取和乙醇提取是简单的液体提取。对于微波辅助提取，将粉末状草药浸泡在65%乙醇中，微波处理后浓缩。乙醇：氯仿提取包括浸泡在1:1乙醇：氯仿中、超声处理和浓缩。在酸洗提取中，将粉末状草药浸泡在乙酸中，然后加入氢氧化钠，进行己烷提取，并在乙酸乙酯中复溶。使用日本电子JMS T100LC AccuTOF DART-MS以正模式和负模式对粉末状草药和提取物进行分析。在所评估的方法中，没有一种提取方法能从这三种中草药中提取出所有的活性化合物。微波辅助提取物中含有的药理活性化合物最多，而酸洗提取物中含有的最少，对于这三种产品都是如此。从不同来源购买的钩藤在药理活性化合物方面确实存在差异，可能来自不同的物种。
