Determination of Phenolic Constituents in Echinacea Raw Materials and Dietary Supplements by HPLC–UV: Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A collaborative study was conducted to evaluate an HPLC method for determining phenolic compounds in Echinacea spp. raw materials, powdered extracts, and tinctures. Eleven collaborating laboratories received three practice samples representing each matrix type, phenolic reference standards, eight test samples as blind duplicates, the validated analytical method, and instructions. Test samples included two raw materials, four extracts (including one in combination with astragalus and reishi), one ethanolic tincture in combination with goldenseal, and one glycerite tincture. Each material was extracted with a 60% methanol aqueous solution, separated on a C18 column, and detected at 330 nm. Results reported by laboratories for total phenolics in Echinacea roots, aerial parts, and extracts ranged from 9.5 to 62.9 mg/g with RSDR ranging from 3.64 and 7.95% and Horwitz ratio (HorRat) values ranging from 1.06 to 2.01. Total phenolics in the ethanolic tincture ranged from 4837 to 5962 μg/mL, with an RSDR of 6.35% and a HorRat value of 1.45. The glycerite tincture showed poor interlaboratory precision with a HorRat value of 3.32, an RSDR of 21.8%, and reported total phenolic values ranging from 257 to 539 μg/mL.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".