Narentuya, Wang Dong, Wuyunsuode, Chaolumen, Bai Yan, Guo Yan, Nan Ding, Zhao Xin, Ren Jun, Han Tana, Zheng Jian
Objective: To conduct a comparative study on the Mongolian medicine Halenia sibirica and its adulterants Halenia elliptica, with the aim of establishing a specific testing method for Mongolian medicine Halenia sibirica. Methods: The origin identification, morphological identification, microscopic identification, thin-layer chromatography (TLC) identification, and chromatographic fingerprint were adopted. [High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was performed on a Kromasil 100-5-C18 column (250 mm×4.6 mm, 5 μm). A gradient elution was performed with a mobile phase comprising acetonitrile-0.1% phosphoric acid at a flow rate of 1.0 mL · min-1 and the detection wavelength was 241 nm. The common peaks were identified and the similarity was calculated by the traditional Chinese medicine fingerprint evaluation system, and content determination (HPLC was adopted, with the same chromatographic conditions as those for the fingerprint chromatogram; the detection wavelength was 348 nm) were used to compare Halenia sibirica and its adulterants Halenia elliptica. Results: The root, stem, and leaf traits of the two were basically the same. The difference lies in that the corolla of the Halenia sibirica was pale white or pale green, and the calyx lobes were linear or linear-lanceolate, while the corolla of the Halenia elliptica was blue or blue-purple, and the calyx lobes were ovate or elliptical. The cross-sectional and powder microscopic features of the stems of the two were basically the same, no obvious difference. In TLC (1), there was no significant difference in the characteristic spots between the Halenia sibirica and the Halenia elliptica. In TLC (2), the Halenia sibirica had one more yellow-green main spot than the Halenia elliptica, which could effectively distinguish the two origins. Compared with the established Halenia sibirica reference fingerprint chromatogram, the similarity of 11 batches of Halenia sibirica samples was all higher than 0.93, with an average similarity of 0.97, while the similarity of 3 batches of Halenia elliptica samples was all lower than 0.65, with an average similarity of 0.63. The fingerprint chromatograms of the two were significantly different. In terms of the content of the differential component galuteolin, there was a 10∶1 difference between the Halenia sibirica and the Halenia elliptica. Conclusion: By integrating the traditional identification methods with a series of established detection methods, the differences between the Halenia sibirica and the confused Halenia elliptica can be identified intuitively and hierarchically. This study provides a reliable method for the accurate identification and quality control of the characteristic Mongolian medicine Halenia sibirica.
