Determination of ginsenosides Rg1, Re and Rb1 in Panax quinquefolium by micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accurate assay of the three highly hydrophobic ginsenosides Rg1, Re and Rb1 in one injection plays a key role in assessing the quality of Panax quinquefolius. A micellar electrokinetic capillary chromatographic (MEKC) method was therefore developed for the simultaneous determination of ginsenosides Rg1, Re and Rb1 in Panax quinquefolium. The separation was carried out on an uncoated fused-silica capillary with 50 microm i. d. and 30 cm effective length (to the detector). The separation buffer was V (15 mmol/L Na2B4O7 + 30 mmol/L H3BO3 (pH 9.0) + 100 mmol/L dodecyl sulfate sodium salt (SDS) + 30 g/L polyethylene glycol (PEG) 35000): V (methanol): V (iso-propanol) = 2: 1:1. The separation voltage was 30 kV with hydrodynamic injection at 3. 448 kPa for 15 s. The detection wavelength was set at 214 nm. The factors such as the buffer concentration, the content of the organic solvent and buffer additives, which influenced the accurate analysis of ginsenosides, were investigated in detail. The samples were simply extracted twice by methanol-10 mmol/L SDS (1: 1, v/v). The limits of detection (LOD, S/N = 3) for Rg1, Re and Rb1 were 30, 40 and 30 mg/L, respectively. The limits of quantitation (LOQ, S/N = 9) were 90, 120 and 90 mg/L, respectively. The recoveries at the studied concentrations were between 87.4% and 95.2%. The established method was used for the determination of the certified reference material (CRM) of Rg1, Re and Rb1 in Panax quinquefolium. The results were in good agreement with those of the high performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method. The samples of Panax quinquefolium from Canada, United States and China were also analyzed separately and satisfactory results were obtained.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".