Liao Zheng-Gen, Yuan Qi-Li, Liang Xin-Li, Ding Hai-Bo, Jiang Qie-Ying
Key Laboratory of Modern Preparation of Traditional Chinese Medicine under Ministry of Education,Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Nanchang 330004,China.
Laboratory Animal Research Center for Science and Technology,Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Nanchang 330004,China.
Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2021 Feb;46(4):830-836. doi: 10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20201022.307.
To verify the appropriate preparation process of extracts for the solid substance benchmark of Linggui Zhugan Decoction. The extracts were prepared by different preparation processes, namely the traditional process(process 1), the extract combined with volatile oil separated from traditional process extract liquid(process 2), the modern secondary reflux extraction process(process 3) and the process that volatile oil was extracted first, then prepared according to the traditional process, and combined with extract(process 4); based on the characteristic spectrum, index components of cinnamaldehyde, glycyrrhizin, ammonium glycyrrhizinate, cinnamic acid, and the dry extract rate of process 1, the differences and similarities of four extracts were compared. The results showed that the similarity of the characteristic spectrum of process 2, process 4 and process 1 were all greater than 0.97, while there was no significant difference for the content of 4 quality control components and dry extract rate; the similarity of the characteristic spectrum of process 3 and process 1 was 0.91, the absolute peak area of 13 out of 21 peaks and the relative peak area of 7 peaks increased significantly, and the content of 3 out of 4 quality control components and dry extract rate also significantly increased. In conclusion, the material standards of extracts by the process 2 and 4 are consistent with that of the traditional process, so the two processes are suitable.
验证苓桂术甘汤固体物质基准提取物的适宜制备工艺。提取物采用不同制备工艺制备,即传统工艺(工艺1)、传统工艺提取液分离出挥发油后再与提取物合并(工艺2)、现代二次回流提取工艺(工艺3)以及先提取挥发油,再按传统工艺制备并与提取物合并的工艺(工艺4);依据特征图谱、肉桂醛、甘草酸、甘草酸铵、肉桂酸指标成分以及工艺1的干膏率,比较4种提取物的异同。结果显示,工艺2、工艺4与工艺1特征图谱相似度均大于0.97,4种质控成分含量及干膏率无显著差异;工艺3与工艺1特征图谱相似度为0.91,21个峰中13个峰的绝对峰面积及7个峰的相对峰面积显著增加,4种质控成分中3种成分含量及干膏率也显著增加。综上所述,工艺2和工艺4提取物的物质标准与传统工艺一致,故这两种工艺适用。