Comprehensive phytochemical characterization of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) oil macerates obtained by different extraction protocols via analytical tools applicable in routine control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of crucial process parameters, i.e. of light and temperature conditions, during the preparation of St. John's wort (SJW, Hypericum perforatum L.) Arachis oil macerates. Extracts were prepared according to a standardized protocol over a period of 28 days. For this purpose, flowering tops of H. perforatum were macerated with Arachis oil (drug extract ratio, DERnative 1:4) under different light and temperature conditions. Spectrophotometric measurements were carried out to quantitate naphthodianthrones and to characterize extract color in the CIE L*C*h° system. Moreover, individual plant secondary metabolites were screened by UHPLC-DAD-MSn measurements following liquid-liquid extraction of the oil macerates with methanol. For quantitation purposes, the chromatographic method was validated using reference standards. This methodology allowed the separation of up to 25 constituents in oily and methanolic SJW extracts, covering hydroxycinnamic acids, flavanols, proanthocyanidins, flavonol glycosides, flavonol aglyca, biflavones, bisanthraquinone glycosides, naphthodianthrones and phloroglucinols. Lowest naphthodianthrone contents were determined in oil macerates recovered at 5 °C, whereas highest amounts were detected upon extraction at 50 °C (both under the exclusion of light). Color shades of the oil macerates differed markedly, revealing e. g. a*-values ranging from -4.6±0.3 to 42.5±0.3. The flavonoids quercetin, kaempferol and I3, II8-biapigenin as well as the phloroglucinols hyperforin and adhyperforin could be simultaneously detected and quantitated in all oil macerates. Contents of these constituents varied noticeably between macerates prepared under different conditions (quercetin 14.7±1.2 to 21.8±0.6 μg/g, kaempferol 3.0±0.1 to 5.4±0.4 μg/g, I3, II8-biapigenin 4.4±0.2 to 7.4±0.4 μg/g, hyperforin 52.6±46.0 to 451.4±24.9 μg/g, adhyperforin 6.9±5.7 to 74.5±7.1 μg/g). These results confirm that the quality of the resulting plant extracts is largely determined by the respective process parameters, i.e. especially temperature and light conditions, and thus must be thoroughly chosen and monitored to obtain tailor-made preparations.
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) | 0.001 | 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".