The plant material was subjected to quantitative HPLC analysis as described by Weremczuk-Jeżyna et al. [18 (link)]. The HPLC system consisted of a diode array detector (Waters 2998), a binary HPLC pump (Waters 2545), and an autosampler (Waters 2767). Separations were carried out on an XBridge C18 OBD column. The mobile phase (A) consisted of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in the water, with mobile phase B consisting of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile. The flow rate was 1.6 mL/min. UV spectra were recorded at 190–700 nm and chromatograms were acquired at 325 nm. The phenolic compounds were identified by comparing their UV spectra and retention times with those of reference compounds and/or literature data [18 (link)]. Phenolic standards such as rosmarinic acid, caffeic acid, and chlorogenic acid were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany), and salvianolic acid B was purchased from Extrasynthese (Genay, France). Compounds for which pure standards were not available were quantified according to the calibration curve of similar standards.
Quantitative HPLC Analysis of D. forrestii
The plant material was subjected to quantitative HPLC analysis as described by Weremczuk-Jeżyna et al. [18 (link)]. The HPLC system consisted of a diode array detector (Waters 2998), a binary HPLC pump (Waters 2545), and an autosampler (Waters 2767). Separations were carried out on an XBridge C18 OBD column. The mobile phase (A) consisted of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in the water, with mobile phase B consisting of 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile. The flow rate was 1.6 mL/min. UV spectra were recorded at 190–700 nm and chromatograms were acquired at 325 nm. The phenolic compounds were identified by comparing their UV spectra and retention times with those of reference compounds and/or literature data [18 (link)]. Phenolic standards such as rosmarinic acid, caffeic acid, and chlorogenic acid were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (Darmstadt, Germany), and salvianolic acid B was purchased from Extrasynthese (Genay, France). Compounds for which pure standards were not available were quantified according to the calibration curve of similar standards.
Corresponding Organization : Medical University of Lodz
Other organizations : University of Łódź
Variable analysis
- Extraction method: 80% methanol by sonification (UD-20 ultrasonic disintegrator)
- Quantitative HPLC analysis of phenolic compounds
- Plant material: Lyophilized shoots of D. forrestii (100 mg amounts)
- HPLC system: Diode array detector (Waters 2998), binary HPLC pump (Waters 2545), and autosampler (Waters 2767)
- Separation column: XBridge C18 OBD column
- Mobile phase: (A) 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in water, (B) 0.1% trifluoroacetic acid in acetonitrile
- Flow rate: 1.6 mL/min
- UV detection: 190-700 nm, chromatograms acquired at 325 nm
- Phenolic compound identification: Comparing UV spectra and retention times with reference compounds and/or literature data
- Positive controls: Rosmarinic acid, caffeic acid, chlorogenic acid, salvianolic acid B standards
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required
Revolutionizing how scientists
search and build protocols!