Open Access

Simultaneous quantification of major bioactive constituents from Zhuyeqing Liquor by HPLC-PDA

  • Hong-ying Gao1,
  • Shu-yun Wang1,
  • Hang-yu Wang2,
  • Guo-yu Li2,
  • Li-fei Wang3,
  • Xiao-wei Du3,
  • Ying Han3,
  • Jian Huang2 and
  • Jin-hui Wang1, 2Email author
Journal of Analytical Science and Technology20145:34

DOI: 10.1186/s40543-014-0034-1

Received: 19 December 2013

Accepted: 12 June 2014

Published: 8 August 2014

Abstract

Background

Zhuyeqing Liquor (ZYQL) is a famous traditional Chinese functional liquor. For quality control of ZYQL products, quantitative analysis using high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with photodiode array detector (HPLC-PDA) was undertaken.

Methods

Eighteen compounds from ZYQL were simultaneously detected and used as chemical markers in the quantitative analysis, including 3-hydroxy-4,5(R)-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone (M1), isobiflorin (M2), vanillic acid (M3), biflorin (M4), genipin 1-O-β-d-gentiobioside (M5), 1-sinapoyl-β-d-glucopyranoside (M6), geniposide (M7), epijasmnoside A (M8), ferulic acid (M9), luteolin 8-C-β-glucopyranoside (M10), isoorientin (M11), narirutin (M12), hesperidin (M13), 6′-O-sinapoylgeniposide (M14), 3,5-dihydroxy-3′,4′,7,8-tetramethoxyl flavones (M15), 3′,4′,3,5,6,8-hexamethoxyl flavone (M16), kaempferide (M17), and tangeretin (M18).

Results

The separation by gradient elution was achieved on SHIMADZU VP-ODS column (4.6 × 150 mm, 5 μm) at 30°C with methanol (A)/0.1% phosphoric acid (B) as the mobile phase. The detection wavelengths were 254, 278, and 335 nm. The optimized HPLC method provided a good linear relation (r ≥ 0.9991 for all the target compounds), satisfactory precision (RSD values less than 1.47%) and good recovery (97.40% to 103.44%). The limits of detection ranged between 0.20 × 10−4 and 64.90 × 10−4 μg/μL for the different analytes. Furthermore, the optimum sample preparation was obtained from HPD100 column eluted with water and 95% ethanol, respectively.

Conclusions

Quality control of ZYQL products, in total seven samples and twelve parent plants, was examined by this method, and results confirmed its feasibility and reliability in practice.

Keywords

Zhuyeqing Liquor Bioactive constituent Quantitative analysis HPLC-PDA

Background

Zhuyeqing Liquor (ZYQL), authorized as a functional health liquor in 1998 by the Ministry of Public Health in China, is a famous traditional Chinese functional liquor. The history of ZYQL could be traced back to the Warring States Period and became popular among people in the South and North Dynasties. In the Tang Dyansty and Song Dynasty, it had reached its climax (Yang [2007]). ZYQL was designed based on the principles of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and comprises 12 herbs: Lophatherum gracile Brongn. (Zhuye), Gardenia jasminoides Ellis (Zhizi), Lysimachia capillipes Hemsl. (Paicao), Angelica sinensis (Oliv.) Diels (Danggui), Kaempferia galanga L. (Shannai), Citrus reticulata Blanco (Chenpi), Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. (Juhua), Amomum villosum Lour. (Sharen), Santalum album L. (Tanxiang), Eugenia caryophyllata Thunb. (Gongdingxiang), Aucklandia lappa Decne. (Guangmuxiang), and Lysimachia foenum-graecum Hance (Linglingxiang). According to its long-term history use, ZYQL has various biological properties such as anti-oxidant, anti-fatigue, and immunoenhancement (Han [2007]).

Up to now, many studies show solicitude for the color, smell, and taste of the health functional liquor; few studies pay close attention to its chemical constituents and quality control. Currently, chemical analytical methods for the quality control of ZYQL have not been established. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a rapid and effective method for the quantitative analysis of the health functional liquor. In this study, the system of high-performance liquid chromatography coupled with photodiode array detector (HPLC-PDA) was used for analyzing the chemical profile of ZYQL. This method includes many advantages like high speed detection, excellent peak shapes, less solvent usage, well-defined chemical constituents, and simultaneous detection of multi-constituents, which is better than fingerprinting. Thus, simultaneous determination by RP-HPLC method is suitable for quantitative analysis and can be used as an effective tool to evaluate herbal medicine products.

Methods

Chemicals and materials

Methanol (HPLC-grade) was purchased from Fisher Scientific Co. (Franklin, MA, USA). Water for HPLC analysis was purified by a Milli-Q water purification system (Millipore, Billerica, MA, USA). Phosphoric acid (analytical grade) was purchased from Tianjin Guangfu Chemical Reagent Co. Ltd. (Tianjin, China). Other solvents from Tianjin Guangfu Chemical Reagent Co. Ltd. (Tianjin, China) were all of analytical grade.

Reference compounds of M1 to M18 (Figure 1) were isolated previously from ZYQL by author, structures of which were elucidated by comparison of spectral data (UV, MS, 1H NMR, and 13C NMR) with the literature data (Lin et al. [2006]; Okamurα et al. [1998]; Huang et al. [2012]; Zhang and Chen [1997]; Ma et al. [2009]; Miyake et al. [2007]; Liu et al. [2011]; Chen et al. [2008]; Rayyan et al. [2005]; Kumarasamy et al. [2004]; Ke et al. [1999]; Yoo et al. [2002]; Dinda et al. [2011]; Esteban et al. [1986]; Ballester et al. [2013]; Wang et al. [2010]; Hòrie et al. [1998]). The purity of each reference standard was determined to be above 98% by HPLC analysis based on a peak area normalization method, detected by HPLC-PDA and confirmed by HR-ESI-TOF-MS and NMR spectroscopy.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40543-014-0034-1/MediaObjects/40543_2014_Article_34_Fig1_HTML.jpg
Figure 1

Structures of compounds M1 to M18.

The samples of different batch and different alcoholicity of ZYQL and the 12 parent plants were provided by Shanxi XinghuaCun Fen Jiu Group Co., Ltd. (Shanxi, China). The 12 parent plants were identified by Professor Jincai Lu (Shenyang Pharmaceutical University, Shenyang, China). The voucher specimen was deposited at Shenyang Pharmaceutical University (Shenyang, China) and registered under the number ZYQL 2011050101.

Instrumentation and chromatographic conditions

Chromatographic analysis was performed on Waters 2695 Alliance HPLC system (Waters Co., Milford, MA, USA) with Waters 2998 PDA detector. Chromatographic separation was carried on a SHIMADZU VP-ODS column (4.6 mm × 150 mm, 5 μm; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) at a column temperature of 30°C using methanol (A) and 0.1% phosphoric acid (B) as mobile phase with the gradient elution procedure show in Table 1. The flow rate was set at 1.0 ml/min and the detection wavelengths were 254 nm (for compounds M1 to M5, M7, M8, and M17), 278 nm (for compounds M12 and M13), and 335 nm (for compounds M6, M9 to M11, M14 to M16, and M18), which were chosen based on the maximum absorption of all the tested compounds. The injection volume was 10 μL, and the analytes were well separated in chromatographic conditions above.
Table 1

Time program of the gradient elution

Time (min)

Flow (mL/min)

Methanol (%)

0.1% Phosphatic acid (%)

0

1

5

95

70

1

55

45

75

1

60

40

110

1

80

20

120

1

98

2

125

1

98

2

Standard solution preparation

Individual stock solutions were prepared by dissolving the standards in methanol to obtain 3-hydroxy-4,5(R)-dimethyl-2(5H)-furanone (M1) 19.920 mg mL−1, isobiflorin (M2) 8.330 mg mL−1, vanillic acid (M3) 5.802 mg mL−1, biflorin (M4) 3.911 mg mL−1, genipin 1-O-β-d-gentiobioside (M5) 4.405 mg mL−1, 1-sinapoyl-β-d-glucopyranoside (M6) 1.115 mg mL−1, geniposide (M7) 23.804 mg mL−1, epijasmnoside A (M8) 12.060 mg mL−1, ferulic acid (M9) 2.515 mg mL−1, luteolin 8-C-β-glucopyranoside (M10) 1.510 mg mL−1, isoorientin (M11) 2.203 mg mL−1, nairutin (M12) 1.032 mg mL−1, hesperidin (M13) 4.801 mg mL−1, 6′-O-sinapoylgeniposide (M14) 5.312 mg mL−1, 3,5-dihydroxy-3′,4′,7,8-tetramethoxyl flavones (M15) 5.021 mg mL−1, 3′,4′,3,5,6,8-hexamethoxyl flavone (M16) 15.005 mg mL−1, kaempferide (M17) 6.408 mg mL−1, and tangeretin (M18) 17.155 mg mL−1. A mixed solution containing all the 18 standards was prepared as accurately as 108 μL M1, 6.8 μL M2, 2.4 μL M3, 8.0 μL M4, 165 μL M5, 96 μL M6, 106 μL M7, 3.4 μL M8, 8.2 μL M9, 9.5 μL M10, 7.9 μL M11, 35 μL M12, 40 μL M13, 80 μL M14, 8.2 μL M15, 11 μL M16, 12 μL M17, and 4.6 μL M18 and were placed in a 2-mL flask with stopper, diluted with methanol to make sure the volume reached 2 mL. All prepared solutions were respectively stored in a refrigerator at 4°C when not in use.

Treatment for samples

For the analysis, 40 mL of ZYQL were evaporated in vacuum at 50°C to dryness. The dry residue was processed as follows in order to obtain better analytical results: The residue was dissolved with water (10 mL) and applied to an HPD100 column eluted with water (150 mL); the water eluent was discarded and then eluted with 95% ethanol (150 mL). The 95% ethanol eluent was condensed and dissolved with methanol and then placed in a 2-mL flask with stopper, with a methanol-metered volume. Prior to HPLC analysis, the sample solution was passed through a 0.22-μm millipore filter.

The 12 crude dried parent plants were pulverized and sifted through 40 mesh sieve, respectively. One gram of the powder from the parent plant was placed in a 50-mL flask with stopper, then weighed again correctly, and extracted by ultrasonic method with 20 mL methanol for 30 min. Then standing, it was cooled down to room temperature (22°C) and the weight was mended to the incipient weight with methanol. Prior to HPLC analysis, the sample solution was passed through a 0.22-μm millipore filter.

Validation of the method

Calibration curves

Linearity was established by the injection of 1, 2, 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 μL of the mixed reference standard solution prepared, respectively. Calibration graphs were plotted subsequently based on linear regression analysis of the integrated peak (Y) versus content (X, μg).

Limits of detection and quantitation

In order to evaluate the limits of detection (LODs) and the limits of quantification (LOQs) of the compounds, mixed standard stock solution was further diluted serially to provide a series of appropriate concentrations, and an aliquot of the diluted solutions was injected into HPLC for analysis. The LOD and LOQ for each analyte was calculated with corresponding standard solution on the basis of a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 3 and 10, respectively.

Precision and stability

The precision of the chromatographic system was validated by injecting 10 μL of the mixed reference solution six times during 1 day. Stability study was performed with sample solution in 48 h (the time points are 0, 5, 10, 15, 25, 35, and 48 h, respectively). Variations were expressed by relative standard deviations (RSD) of peak area.

Repeatability and recovery

The repeatability test was analyzed by injecting six independently prepared samples (45° ZYQL (20130207), the concentration, and prepared method as the ‘Treatment for samples’). The RSD value of concentration was adopted to evaluate repeatability. The recovery tests were studied by adding the proper amount of mixed-reference standard solution to the sample (45° ZYQL (20130207)), and then processed by the method described in the ‘Treatment for samples’ section to yield the final concentration. The experiment was repeated six times.

Results and discussion

Optimization of chromatographic conditions

To improve resolution and sensitivity of analysis but reduce analytical time, the following chromatographic conditions were optimized (Gao et al. [2013]), including different mobile phase compositions (methanol, acetonitrile, and aqueous phosphatic acid of different concentrations), column temperature, and wavelength: To inhibit ionization of the acidic ingredients in the ZYQL sample, phosphatic acid was added in mobile phase. Two mobile phase systems, methanol-phosphatic acid aqueous solution and acetonitrile-phosphatic acid aqueous solution, were examined, and then column temperatures at 25°C, 30°C, 40°C, and 50°C were compared. A sensitive wavelength was determined by PDA with reference compounds. Present researches indicated that better separation and results were obtained using a mobile phase of water and methanol rather than water and acetonitrile. Therefore, in this work, the optimum resolution was achieved using methanol (A) and 0.1% phosphatic acid (B) as mobile phase, with a column temperature of 30°C at different detection wavelengths, which were described in ‘Instrumentation and chromatographic conditions’ section, with gradient elution (Table 1). All 18 standard analytes could be eluted with baseline separation in 90 min. Representative chromatograms for the mixed reference standard and 18 standard compounds were shown in Figure 2A,B.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40543-014-0034-1/MediaObjects/40543_2014_Article_34_Fig2_HTML.jpg
Figure 2

Stack views. (A) Different detector-wavelength HPLC chromatograms of mixed reference standards (from up to down: 335, 278, 254 nm). Column: SHIMADZU VP-ODS column (4.6 mm × 150 mm, 5 μm), temperature of 30°C. (B) HPLC chromatograms of M1 to M18 and mixed reference standards (from up to down: 254 nm M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M7, M8, M17, mixed reference standards; 278 nm M12, M13, mixed reference standards; 335 nm M6, M9, M10, M11, M14, M15, M16, M18, mixed reference standards).

Optimization of sample preparation

In order to eliminate the water-soluble constituents and obtain the liposoluble constituents, the optimization of sample preparation was performed using 45° ZYQL (20130207). Forty milliliters of ZYQL was evaporated in vacuum at 50°C to dryness. And the following five methods were choosen to select the best method for sample preparation. First, the dry residue was suspended with water (10 mL) and extracted with acetoacetate (10 mL). The acetoacetate extract was condensed and then methanol was used to meter the volume (2 mL). Second, the dry residue was suspended with water (10 mL) and extracted with n-butanol (10 mL) The n-butanol extract was condensed and then methanol was used to meter the volume (2 mL). Third, the dry residues was dissolved with 70% ethanol (20 mL) to precipitate the polysaccharide and then condensed the supernate, use methanol to metered volume (2 mL). Fourth, the dry residues was dissolved with water (10 mL) as fraction A, then the remanent residues was dissolved with methanol (10 mL) as fraction B. Fraction A was applied to an SPE column eluted with water (150 mL); the water eluent was discarded; fraction B was applied to the same SPE column eluted with methanol (150 mL); the methanol eluent was condensed and methanol was used to meter the volume (2 mL). Fifth, the dry residue was dissolved with water (10 mL) and applied to an HPD100 column eluted with water (150 mL). The water eluent was discarded and then eluted with 95% ethanol (150 mL). The 95% ethanol eluent was condensed and then methanol was used to meter the volume (2 mL). Comparing the analytical results of the target constituents, though the former three methods proved to be more simple than the other, they could not obtain all the tested constituents and some content too lower to accurately reflect the real content. So, these three methods were deserted. The fourth one although could obtain all the tested constituents but at a lower content. Therefore, the optimized condition was selected, the fifth one (Table 2, Figure 3).
Table 2

Optimization of the treatment method of Zhuyeqing Liquor (μg/mL)

Compounda

Treatment method

Method 1

Method 2

Method 3

Method 4

Method 5

M1

ND

5.2494

3.1331

9.5943

16.4270

M2

0.0888

0.5371

0.5078

0.5818

0.5942

M3

0.0922

0.0906

0.0388

0.0939

0.1063

M4

0.0263

0.4980

0.5098

0.5069

0.5153

M5

ND

44.0545

101.6907

100.6372

101.7888

M6

0.1479

0.1880

0.1902

0.1927

0.1936

M7

45.2421

563.2436

570.3556

566.0022

574.2514

M8

20.8481

24.6279

25.6049

24.5513

25.7319

M9

0.1931

0.1782

0.1906

0.1918

0.1968

M10

0.0324

0.0526

0.0600

0.0705

0.0736

M11

0.2009

0.4601

0.4871

0.4915

0.4954

M12

0.7071

1.0544

1.0683

1.0699

1.0877

M13

1.1371

2.5392

2.8461

2.8029

2.9909

M14

ND

3.4939

4.0839

4.0563

4.3756

M15

ND

0.0641

0.0678

0.0688

0.0689

M16

0.5189

0.6113

0.5842

0.3282

0.6623

M17

2.9599

2.9776

2.1520

1.6446

2.9957

M18

0.4448

0.5307

0.4278

0.4673

0.5413

Sumb

72.6396

650.4512

713.9987

713.3521

733.0967

Sample in optimization of the treatment method was 45° Zhuyeqing Liquor (20130207). Method 1, acetoacetate extract; method 2, n-butanol extract; method 3, 70% ethanol treatment; method 4, SPE column eluted with methanol; method 5, HPD100 column eluted with ethanol. a‘ND’ in the ‘Compound’ column expressed under LOQ. bTotal content of the 18 investigated compounds.

https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40543-014-0034-1/MediaObjects/40543_2014_Article_34_Fig3_HTML.jpg
Figure 3

Stack views of 45° Zhuyeqing Liquor preparation method HPLC chromatograms (254 nm, from up to down: method 1, method 2, method 3, method 4 and method 5).

Validation of the method

The method was validated in terms of linearity, LOD and LOQ, precision, repeatability, stability, and recovery test. All calibration curves exhibited good linearity (r ≥ 0.9991) in a relatively wide linear range as shown in Table 3. For the quantified compounds, the LOD and LOQ were 0.20 × 10−4~64.90 × 10−4 μg/μL and 0.67 × 10−4~216.34 × 10−4 μg/μL, respectively (Table 3), which were calculated with corresponding standard solution on the basic of a signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of 3 and 10, respectively. Table 4 showed the results of precision, stability, recovery and repeatability of the 18 analytes. It was indicated that the RSD of the precision variations were less than 1.47% for all 18 analytes. The RSD of repeatability was less than 1.96% for all the analysis, which proved that this assay had good reproducibility. Stability test results, with RSD less than 1.76%, indicated that the sample solution was stable at room temperature for at least 48 h. The mean recovery rates, which ranged from 97.40% to 103.44% with RSD values less than 3.30% for the analytes concerned, showed that the developed analytical method had good accuracy. All these values fall within acceptable limits, which indicates this HPLC method is reliable with significant repeatability, recovery rate, and precision. The results proved that HPLC is appropriate for analyzing and assessing the quality of ZYQL.
Table 3

Regression equations, correlation coefficients, and linear range for 18 analytes in Zhuyeqing Liquor

Analyte

Time (tR)

Linear regression

Regression equation (n = 3)

Correlation coefficientsr

Linear range (μg)

LOD

LOQ

(10−4 μg/μL)

(10−4 μg/μL)

M1

14.004

Y = 5.48e + 003X − 1.45e + 003

0.9998

1.08~21.63

64.90

216.34

M2

22.819

Y = 2.86e + 006X − 8.84e + 002

0.9999

2.80 × 10−2~5.60 × 10−1

1.68

5.60

M3

23.573

Y = 4.73e + 006X − 5.52e + 003

0.9991

1.70 × 10−3~3.40 × 10−2

0.20

0.67

M4

25.069

Y = 1.62e + 006X − 3.23e + 003

0.9997

1.55 × 10−2~3.10 × 10−1

3.10

10.34

M5

26.671

Y = 5.41e + 005X − 3.44e + 004

0.9994

3.63 × 10−1~7.25

2.42

8.08

M6

28.087

Y = 1.31e + 006X − 4.70e + 003

0.9998

5.25 × 10−2~1.05

8.40

28.0

M7

29.646

Y = 7.08e + 005X + 4.19e + 003

0.9998

1.26~25.21

25.46

84.87

M8

32.875

Y = 9.81e + 005 X - 5.87 e + 003

0.9998

2.04 × 10−2~4.08 × 10−1

4.08

13.60

M9

37.264

Y = 3.17e + 006X − 1.51e + 004

0.9992

1.03 × 10−2~2.06 × 10−1

2.06

6.87

M10

40.883

Y = 1.65e + 006X − 1.26e + 002

0.9993

7.10 × 10−3~1.42 × 10−1

2.13

7.11

M11

42.396

Y = 2.38e + 006X − 6.23e + 003

0.9991

8.70 × 10−3~1.74 × 10−1

1.74

5.83

M12

46.878

Y = 2.67e + 006X − 3.22e + 002

0.9998

1.75 × 10−2~3.50 × 10−1

5.25

17.51

M13

50.008

Y = 1.69e + 006 X + 3.71e + 003

0.9998

9.56 × 10−2~1.91

5.74

19.12

M14

58.096

Y = 4.55e + 005X − 2.11e + 003

0.9998

2.13 × 10−1~4.25

12.75

42.50

M15

74.987

Y = 2.15e + 006X − 7.62e + 002

0.9991

4.10 × 10−3 ~ 8.20 × 10−2

3.28

10.95

M16

80.609

Y = 3.59e + 006X − 2.08e + 004

0.9999

8.23 × 10−2~1.65

0.55

1.84

M17

83.248

Y = 1.97e + 005X − 3.36e + 003

0.9991

3.85 × 10−2~7.70 × 10−1

15.40

51.32

M18

85.890

Y = 2.69e + 006X − 1.38e + 004

0.9996

3.93 × 10−2 ~ 7.86 × 10−1

0.79

2.64

Y is the peak area and X is the content of standard solutions; LOD refers to the limits of detection, S/N = 3; LOQ refers to the limits of quantity, S/N = 10.

Table 4

Precision, stability, recovery, and repeatability data of 18 analytes in Zhuyeqing Liquor

Analyte

Precision (n = 6)

Stability RSD (%)

Recovery (n = 6)

Repeatability (n = 6)

Concentrations

RSD (%)

Original (μg)

Spiked (μg)

Detected (μg)

Recovery (%)

RSD (%)

Average concentration (μg/mL)

RSD (%)

(mg/mL)

M1

1.08

0.92

1.70

164.16

162.26

326.57

100.17

3.10

16.0862 ± 0.2722

1.50

M2

2.80 × 10−2

0.82

1.52

7.11

4.20

11.41

102.44

1.84

0.5580 ± 0.0045

1.39

M3

1.70 × 10−3

1.30

1.66

0.27

0.26

0.52

97.40

2.52

0.1072 ± 0.0020

1.96

M4

1.55 × 10−2

0.78

1.08

5.88

2.33

8.23

100.88

2.27

0.5154 ± 0.0032

0.64

M5

3.63 × 10−1

0.87

1.62

1217.80

54.39

1273.19

101.83

3.30

101.1963 ± 0.7206

0.72

M6

5.25 × 10−2

0.86

1.58

6.00

7.88

14.15

103.44

1.68

0.1940 ± 0.0019

1.00

M7

1.26

0.49

1.18

1270.60

1260.30

2543.54

101.00

0.78

568.4991 ± 2.7722

0.98

M8

2.04 × 10−2

1.04

1.76

211.50

102.00

316.34

102.79

1.46

25.1942 ± 0.2548

1.45

M9

1.03 × 10−2

0.30

1.49

2.82

1.55

4.37

100.76

2.63

0.1947 ± 0.0018

1.00

M10

7.10 × 10−3

1.10

1.67

3.22

1.07

4.28

99.54

3.26

0.0728 ± 0.0011

1.61

M11

8.70 × 10−3

1.15

1.62

4.65

1.31

5.96

100.66

3.09

0.5101 ± 0.0057

1.28

M12

1.75 × 10−2

1.09

1.39

2.43

2.63

5.14

103.13

1.48

1.0800 ± 0.0155

1.44

M13

9.56 × 10−2

1.02

1.36

37.69

14.34

52.20

101.14

1.99

2.8911 ± 0.0351

1.21

M14

2.13 × 10−1

0.74

1.59

943.73

31.88

975.00

98.10

2.25

4.2790 ± 0.0314

1.30

M15

4.10 × 10−3

1.47

1.75

1.99

1.23

3.22

100.30

2.66

0.0645 ± 0.0009

1.53

M16

8.23 × 10−2

0.91

1.58

21.52

12.35

33.77

99.20

2.44

0.6444 ± 0.0052

0.81

M17

3.85 × 10−2

0.93

1.75

133.12

115.50

249.54

100.79

2.63

2.9457 ± 0.0498

1.36

M18

3.93 × 10−2

1.11

1.49

10.02

11.79

21.89

100.65

1.58

0.5368 ± 0.0060

1.13

RSD refers to relative standard deviation. Samples in stability, recovery, and repeatability methods were taken from 45°Zhuyeqing Liquor (20130207).

Sample analysis

The HPLC analytical method described above was subsequently used to simultaneously quantify 18 compounds in seven commercial products and 12 parent plants supplied by Shanxi XinghuaCun Fen Wine Group Co., Ltd. (Shanxi, China). Generally, the 18 compounds were authenticated by comparison of their retention times and MS spectra with those of reference standards. The representative HPLC chromatograms of mixed standard solution and sample solutions are shown in Figure 4. The analytical results are summarized in Tables 5 and 6. According to the chromatographic results shown in Table 5, there was no any constituents to be detected in 45° FenJiu (solvent of ZYQL). Moreover, the concentration of compounds M1 to M18 in 45° ZYQL were higher than those in 42° and 38°, which showed that with the increase of alcoholicity, the content of bioactive constituents increased as well. In addition, there was no content difference between the successive 5 years of 45° ZYQL. This indicated that the quality of 45° ZYQL was stable for at least 5 years.
https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1186%2Fs40543-014-0034-1/MediaObjects/40543_2014_Article_34_Fig4_HTML.jpg
Figure 4

Stack views of different detector-wavelength HPLC chromatograms. (From up to down: 45° Zhuyeqing Liquor, 45° FenJiu, mixed reference standards, blank solvent: methanol, respectively).

Table 5

Contents of 18 analytes in different batches and different alcoholicity of Zhuyeqing Liquor (μg/mL)

Compounda

45° FenJiu

38°

42°

45°

20130207

20130207

20130207

20130207

20120601

20110507

20100417

20090302

M1

ND

15.1395

15.1395

16.7150

16.6674

16.6558

16.6543

16.6239

M2

ND

0.3689

0.3945

0.5851

0.5854

0.5846

0.5839

0.5840

M3

ND

0.0792

0.0830

0.1063

0.1064

0.1058

0.1032

0.1060

M4

ND

0.3028

0.3742

0.5180

0.5139

0.5106

0.5081

0.5111

M5

ND

65.7206

71.8348

101.7175

101.3777

101.0265

101.1293

100.9297

M6

ND

ND

ND

0.1930

0.1904

0.1901

0.1893

0.1934

M7

ND

273.1958

309.9846

574.4770

574.1508

574.1103

573.6367

573.2887

M8

ND

12.6644

19.9230

25.8595

25.4397

25.2009

25.4234

25.1453

M9

ND

0.1395

0.1659

0.1956

0.1934

0.1909

0.1933

0.1938

M10

ND

0.0536

0.0612

0.0715

0.0714

0.0715

0.0715

0.0721

M11

ND

0.2612

0.2963

0.4993

0.4972

0.4983

0.4919

0.5000

M12

ND

0.5690

0.6861

1.0884

1.0835

1.0822

1.0806

1.0830

M13

ND

2.0079

2.0709

2.9740

2.9731

2.9587

2.8982

2.9883

M14

ND

2.5058

2.7162

4.3718

4.3672

4.3615

4.3586

4.3699

M15

ND

0.0549

0.0585

0.0689

0.0686

0.0684

0.0685

0.0686

M16

ND

0.4758

0.5602

0.6434

0.6435

0.6422

0.6427

0.6383

M17

ND

2.6999

2.8338

3.0047

2.9943

2.9927

2.9836

2.9735

M18

ND

0.3534

0.4045

0.5495

0.5432

0.5427

0.5389

0.5433

Sumb

ND

376.5922

427.5872

733.6385

732.4671

731.7937

731.5560

730.8129

a‘ND’ in the ‘Compound’ column expressed under LOQ. bTotal content of the 18 investigated compounds.

Table 6

Contents of 18 analytes in 12 parent plants (mg/g)

Compounda

Zhuye

Zhizi

Paicao

Danggui

Shannai

Chenpi

Juhua

Sharen

Tanxiang

Gongdingxiang

Guangmuxiang

Linglingxiang

M1

ND

2.1057

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

19.8802

M2

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

4.7841

ND

0.0790

M3

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.0038

ND

ND

ND

M4

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

5.4547

ND

0.0498

M5

ND

19.9996

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M6

ND

1.6513

ND

ND

ND

0.2580

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M7

ND

43.3886

ND

2.5174

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M8

ND

5.0078

ND

ND

ND

1.0468

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M9

ND

ND

ND

0.6170

ND

0.0805

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M10

0.3268

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M11

0.4161

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M12

ND

0.0111

ND

ND

ND

3.6198

0.2104

ND

ND

ND

0.0217

ND

M13

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

4.6719

0.3139

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M14

ND

8.6950

0.0302

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.0292

0.0025

ND

ND

ND

M15

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.1017

0.0472

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M16

0.0638

0.0750

ND

0.2479

17.7933

0.6813

0.4755

ND

ND

ND

ND

0.3214

M17

ND

1.9330

ND

ND

ND

0.8970

1.4942

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

M18

ND

0.0648

ND

ND

ND

0.5263

0.1625

ND

ND

ND

ND

ND

Sumb

0.8067

82.9319

0.0302

3.3823

17.7933

11.8833

2.7037

0.0292

0.0063

10.2388

0.0217

20.3304

a‘ND’ in the ‘Compound’ column expressed under LOQ. bTotal content of the 18 investigated compounds.

Table 6 showed the content of compounds in 12 parent plants, which exhibited that the major bioactive constituents were mainly from Gardenia jasminoides Ellis (Zhizi), Kaempferia galanga L. (Shannai), Citrus reticulata Blanco (Chenpi), and Lysimachia foenum-graecum Hance (Linglingxiang). And this result was greatly useful and helpful for the quality control and further formula optimization of the technical study of Zhuyeqing Liquor.

Conclusions

An HPLC-PDA method has been developed for the simultaneous determination of 18 major compounds extracted from ZYQL for the first time. The validation data indicated that this method is reliable and can be applied to determine the contents of the 18 compounds in different ZYQL products. This valuable information concerning the concentration of these bioactive constituents in ZYQL could be of great importance for the quality assessment and should therefore be useful for the guidance of development of the new health care products. Furthermore, this HPLC-PDA assay supplies a rapidness and effectiveness method for the simultaneous determination of multiple constituents in ZYQL.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

Grateful acknowledgement is made to the Shanxi XinghuaCun Fen Jiu Group Co., Ltd. (Shanxi Province, China) and National Key Technology R&D Program (2012BAI30B02) for financial support of this work. The authors acknowledge Waters Co. Ltd. for Cooperation Laboratory.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
School of Traditional Chinese Materia Medica 49#, Shenyang Pharmaceutical University
(2)
School of Pharmacy, Shihezi University
(3)
Shanxi Xinghuacun Fen Jiu Group Co., Ltd

References

  1. Ballester AR, Lafuente MT, De Vos RCH, Bovy AG, González-Candelas L: Citrus phenylpropanoids and defence against pathogens. Part I: metabolic profiling in elicited fruits. Food Chem 2013, 136: 178–185.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen QC, Youn UJ, Min BS, Bae KH: Pyronane monoterpenoids from the fruit of Gardenia jasminoides. J Nat Prod 2008, 71: 995–999.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Dinda B, Debnath S, Banik R: Naturally occurring iridoids and secoiridoids. An updated review, part 4. Chem Pharm Bull 2011, 59: 803–833.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Esteban MD, González Collado L, Macías FA, Massanet GM, Rodríguez Luis F: Flavonoids from Artemisia lanata. Phytochemistry 1986, 25: 1502–1504.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Gao HY, Huang J, Wang HY, Du XW, Cheng SM, Han Y, Wang LF, Li GY, Wang JH: Protective effect of Zhuyeqing liquor, a Chinese traditional health liquor, on acute alcohol-induced liver injury in mice. J Inflamm 2013, 10: 30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Han Y: Investigation on the immunoregulation functions of Zhuyeqing Liquor. Liq Making Sci Technol 2007, 2: 117–119.Google Scholar
  7. Hòrie T, Ohtsuru Y, Shibata K, Yamashita K, Tsukayama M, Kawamura Y: 13C NMR spectral assignment of the a-ring of polyoxygenated flavones. Phytochemistry 1998, 47: 865–874.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Huang Y, Chang RJ, Jin HZ, Zhang WD: Phenolic constituents from Tsoongiodendron odorum chun. Tianran Chanwu Yanjiu Yu Kaifa 2012, 24: 176–178.Google Scholar
  9. Ke Y, Jiang Y, Luo SQ: Chemical constituents from Clinopodium chinense (Benth.) O. Ktze. Chin Traditional Herbal Drugs 1999, 30: 8–10.Google Scholar
  10. Kumarasamy Y, Byres M, Cox PJ, Delazar A, Jaspars M, Nahar L, Shoeb M, Sarker SD: Isolation, structure elutiondition, and biological activity of flavone 6-C-glycosides from Alliaria petiolata. Chem Nat Compd 2004, 40: 122–128.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Lin LB, Fu XW, AI CH, Shen J, Wei K, Li W: Studies on chemical constituents in leaves of Mallotus furetianus. China J Chin Materia Medica 2006, 31: 477–479.Google Scholar
  12. Liu XM, Jiang Y, Sun YQ, Xu XW, Tu PF: Chemical constituent study of Herba Cistanches. Chin J Pharm 2011, 46: 1053–1058.Google Scholar
  13. Ma ZT, Yang XW, Zhong GY: A new flavonoid glucoside from Huanglian jiedutang decoction. China J Chin Materia Medica 2009, 34: 1097–1100.Google Scholar
  14. Miyake Y, Mochizuki M, Okada M, Hiramitsu M, Morimitsu Y, Osawa T: Isolation of antioxidative phenolic glucosides from lemon juice and their suppressive effect on the expression of blood adhesion molecules. Biosci Biotech Biochem 2007, 71: 1911–1919.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Okamurα N, Hine N, Tateyamα Y, Nakazawα M, Fujiokα T, Mihashi K, Yagi A: Five chromones from Aloe vera leaves. Phytochemistry 1998, 49: 219–223.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Rayyan S, Fossen T, Solheim Nateland H, Andersen ØM: Isolation and identification of flavonoids, including flavone rotamers, from the herbal drug ‘crataegi folium cum flore’ (hawthorn). Phytochem Anal 2005, 16: 334–341.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang QJ, Wang YS, He L, Lou ZP, Zang S: Study on chemical constituents from Ipomoea Pescaprae (L.) Sweet. Chin J Marine Drugs 2010, 29: 41–44.Google Scholar
  18. Yang HP: Zhuyeqing liquor in different historical period. Liquor Making Sci Technol 2007, 2: 110–112.Google Scholar
  19. Yoo SW, Kim JS, Kang SS, Son KH, Chang HW, Kim HP, Bae KH, Lee CO: Constituents of the fruits and leaves of Euodia daniellii . Arch Pharm Res 2002, 25: 824–830.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhang YW, Chen YW: Isobiflorin, a chromone C-glucoside from cloves ( Eugenia Caryophyllata ). Phytochemistry 1997, 45: 401–403.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Gao et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement