Rapid Quantification of Evodiamine and Rutaecarpine in Evodia Rutaecarpa £¨Juss.£© Benth. Using Supercritical Fluid Chromatography

KeyWord:supercritical fluid chromatography£¨SFC£©  supercritical fluid extraction£¨SFE£©  quantification  Evodia rutaecarpa£¨Juss.£© Benth.  evodiamine  rutaecarpine

Abstract:

      This study proved the feasibility of using supercritical fluid chromatography£¨SFC£© in rapid quantification of evodiamine and rutaecarpine in Evodia rutaecarpa£¨Juss.£© Benth.£¨E. rutaecarpa£©. The two alkaloids were firstly extracted by supercritical fluid extraction£¨SFE£©£®As a result£¬the developed SFE conditions were as follows£¬sample £¨120£­200 mesh£©/cellulose acetate=1¡Ã1£¬20% ethanol as modifier£¬40 ¡æ£¬25 MPa and the CO2 flow rate of 8 mL/min£®The developed SFC method was carried out on a 2£­EP column£¬with methanol as modifier at a flow rate of 1.4 mL/min£¬a column temperature of 35 ¡æ and a back pressure of 15 MPa£®The baseline separation of evodiamine and rutaecarpine was completed within 6 min£®After verification£¬the SFC method was confirmed to be linear with correlation coefficients£¨r2£© of 0.999 8£¬good precision£¨RSD below 0.50%£© and accuracy£¨recoveries of 102%£­109%£©£®Meanwhile£¬limits of detection£¨LODs£©and limits of quantitation£¨LOQs£© for evodiamine were 1.00 and 3.33 ¦Ìg/mL£¬while LOD and LOQ for rutaecarpine were 0.95 and 3.17 ¦Ìg/mL£¬respectively£®Finally£¬the method was applied to the determination of contents of evodiamine and rutaecarpine in ten E£®rutaecarpa samples from 4 areas£®The total content of target alkaloids accounted 2.95% for Guangdong£¬1£¬0.51% for Guangdong£¬2£¬1.27% for Guizhou£¬3£¬1.00% for Hunan£¬4£¬0.93% for Hunan£¬5£¬1.81% for Jiangxi£¬6£¬0.73% for Jiangxi£¬7£¬0.58% for Jiangxi£¬8£¬0.41% for Jiangxi£¬9 and 0.36% for Jiangxi£¬10£®Although the ten samples all meet the requirements for the Chinese Pharmacopoeia£¬the origin difference of sample quality is very obvious£¬and the samples from the same place also have differences£®In addition£¬the developed method was compared with the Pharmacopoeia method£¨2020 Edition£©£®The results of content determination by the two methods were similar £¨1.27% by SFC vs£®1.12% by Pharmacopoeia£©£¬while the time required by SFC£¨6 min£© was significantly shorter than that by the Pharmacopoeia method£¨25 min£©£®This work showed the potential of SFC in the fast quantification of active components in traditional Chinese medicines£®