Abstract
The root of Angelica acutiloba Kitagawa is an important crude drug in Kampo medicines (traditional Japanese medicine). Chemical evaluation of crude drugs is crucial to ensuring the safety and efficacy of herbal medicine; however, there is currently no chemical standard for the A. acutiloba crude drug in Japanese pharmacopoeia. (E)-ferulic acid (FA) is an important active ingredient of Angelica spp., including A. sinensis (Oliv.) Diels, and has been suggested as a marker for quality evaluation of those crude drugs. However, it has been controversial whether FA is a reliable marker constituent of A. acutiloba. To achieve effective extraction of FA from A. acutiloba, we compared three different extraction methods: alkaline hydrolysis, ethanol extraction, and hexane extraction. FA levels in these extracts were assessed using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and alkaline hydrolysis was found to be the most effective. Furthermore, in the hydrolysate, FA was distinctly identified by thin layer chromatography (TLC) analysis. These results provide useful information for the quality control of the A. acutiloba crude drug.
References
Wei WL, Zeng R, Gu CM et al (2016) Angelica sinensis in China-A review of botanical profile, ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry and chemical analysis. J Ethnopharmacol 190:116–141
Hook IL (2014) Danggui to Angelica sinensis root: are potential benefits to European women lost in translation? A review. J Ethnopharmacol 152:1–13
Tarachiwin L, Katoh A, Ute K, Fukusaki E (2008) Quality evaluation of Angelica acutiloba Kitagawa roots by 1H NMR-based metabolic fingerprinting. J Pharm Biomed Anal 48:42–48
Lu GH, Chan K, Liang YZ et al (2005) Development of high-performance liquid chromatographic fingerprints for distinguishing Chinese Angelica from related umbelliferae herbs. J Chromatogr A 1073:383–392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chroma.2004.11.080
Jeong SY, Kim HM, Lee KH et al (2015) Quantitative analysis of marker compounds in Angelica gigas, Angelica sinensis, and Angelica acutiloba by HPLC/DAD. Chem Pharm Bull 63:504–511
Srinivasan M, Sudheer AR, Menon VP (2007) Ferulic acid: therapeutic potential through its antioxidant property. J Clin Biochem Nutr 40:92–100. https://doi.org/10.3164/jcbn.40.92
Ghosh S, Basak P, Dutta S et al (2017) New insights into the ameliorative effects of ferulic acid in pathophysiological conditions. Food Chem Toxicol 103:41–55
Kumar N, Pruthi V (2014) Potential applications of ferulic acid from natural sources. Biotechnol Reports 4:86–93
Xie JJ, Lu J, Qian ZM et al (2009) Optimization and comparison of five methods for extraction of coniferyl ferulate from Angelica sinensis. Molecules 14:555–565
Jankovska P, Copikova J, Sinitsya A (2001) The determination of ferulic acid in sugar beet pulp. Czech J Food Sci 19:143–147
Rondini L, Peyrat-Maillard MN, Marsset-Baglieri A et al (2004) Bound ferulic acid from bran is more bioavailable than the free compound in rat. J Agric Food Chem 52:4338–4343
Aarabi A, Honarvar M, Mizani M, Faghihian H (2015) Determination of total phenolic compounds, antioxidant activity and ferulic acid in extracts of sugar beet pulp. Hacettepe J Biol Chem 43:251–257
Gogoi P, Gogoi A, Rajbangshi C et al (2017) Extraction, purification and spectroscopic characterization of ferulic acid by alkaline hydrolysis from brans of Assam, India. Imp J Interdiscip Res 3:358–361
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by “Research project on developing of fundamental technology aiming for promotion of domestic cultivation of medicinal plants and study of medicinal plant resources for drug discovery” from Japan Agency for Medical Research and development, AMED.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
There is no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shinjyo, N., Fuchino, H., Kawahara, N. et al. Determination of (E)-ferulic acid content in the root of Angelica acutiloba: a simple chemical evaluation method for crude drug quality control. J Nat Med 72, 774–778 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11418-018-1190-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11418-018-1190-1