摘要
目的:采用顶空固相微萃取和水蒸气蒸馏法分别提取姜黄挥发性成分并进行GC-MS比较分析,并结合PCA技术对分析结果进行验证。方法:采用顶空固相微萃取法和水蒸气蒸馏法提取姜黄挥发性成分,运用GC-MS技术,结合计算机检索对其挥发性成分进行分离鉴定,并通过PCA技术对结果进行验证。结果:2种方法共鉴定出48个挥发性成分,其中顶空固相微萃取法鉴定出41种挥发性化学成分,水蒸气蒸馏法鉴定出33种挥发性化学成分,共有成分为26种。结论:2种方法鉴定出的挥发性成分及其相对含量上存在一定差异,PCA分析亦进一步验证了其异同。与水蒸气蒸馏法比较,顶空固相微萃取法所得挥发性成分数目和种类较多,顶空固相微萃取法比水蒸气蒸馏法具有明显的优越性。
Objective：To compare the volatile components from Curcuma longa extract by headspace solid-phase microextraction and steam distillation,and verify the analysis results bu PCA technology.Methods：The volatile oils from Curcuma longa were extracted by using steam distillation or headspace solid-phase microextraction.Then the oils were analyzed by GC-MS combined with principal components analysis（PCA）.Results：The results indicated that totally 48 different volatile compounds were identified in the extracts,with 41 from headspace solid-phase microextraction and 33 from steam distillation.Among which,26 mutual compounds were detected.Conclusion：There were some differences between the two methods.PCA was further used in validating the differences and similarities.As compared with steam distillation,both the number and varieties of the constituents were more in the volatile oils extracted by solid-phase microextraction.Solid-phase microextraction was obviously superior to steam distillation.
出处
《药物分析杂志》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2012年第10期1787-1792,共6页
Chinese Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis
基金
重庆市自然科学基金(CSTC
2008BB1247)
中央高校基本科研业务费专项基金(XDJK2011C011)
关键词
姜黄
挥发油
水蒸气蒸馏法
顶空固相微萃取
主成分分析
气相色谱-质谱联用法
不同提取方法比较
Curcuma longa
volatile oil
steam distillation
headspace solid-phase microextraction
principal components analysis（PCA）
gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
extraction methods compare
