新疆医科大学学报

目的 比较中、美、欧药典对药材薄层鉴别的要求与结果判定的差异，探究特征图谱在药材薄层色谱鉴别中的应用。方法 参照《中国药典》、《美国药典》和《欧洲药典》药材薄层色谱鉴别的方法，选取大蒜粉、甘草浸膏、胡芦巴和小茴香4味药材进行实验研究，选取人参和银杏叶两味药材进行案例分析，对不同药典药材薄层鉴别中对照品的选择和结果分析方法进行比较。结果 大蒜粉薄层鉴别中，《美国药典》采用2个对照品控制了6个成分；《欧洲药典》采用了替代对照品丙氨酸进行鉴别。甘草浸膏薄层鉴别中，《中国药典》选择甘草酸铵对照品进行鉴别；《美国药典》中选择甘草酸为对照品，鉴别甘草酸及其余成分；《欧洲药典》中选择甘草次酸对照品和百里酚替代对照品鉴别了2个成分。胡芦巴薄层鉴别中，《中国药典》选择葫芦巴碱对照品进行鉴别；《美国草药纲目》选择4-羟基异亮氨酸对照品控制了11个成分。小茴香薄层鉴别中，《中国药典》采用了茴香醛对照品进行鉴别；《欧洲药典》以茴香脑为对照品控制了2个成分。人参薄层鉴别中，《中国药典》采用4个对照品和对照药材进行鉴别；《美国药典》中采用2个替代对照品控制了4个成分；《欧洲药典》中采用2个对照品，并直接给出薄层色谱示意图，控制了9个成分。银杏叶薄层鉴别中，《中国药典》采用4个对照品和对照药材进行鉴别；《美国药典》中采用3个对照品控制了8个成分；《欧洲药典》中采用2个对照品，并直接给出薄层色谱示意图，控制了10个成分。《美国药典》和《欧洲药典》多采用替代对照品和相对比移值控制药材中的多个成分，通常采用详细的文字描述或标准色谱示意图进行结果分析。结论 不同药典薄层色谱鉴别中对照品的选择和结果分析方法不同，导致鉴别成本和效率上存在较大差异。充分利用薄层色谱信息，建立薄层鉴别特征图谱，可以从整体上评价药材的质量。

Objective To compare the differences in the requirements and the results of thin layer chromatography(TLC) identification of medicinal materials in Chinese, American and European pharmacopoeias, and to investigate the application of characteristic chromatogram in the TLC identification of medicinal materials. Methods With reference to the methods of TLC identification of medicinal materials in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia, the American Pharmacopoeia and the European Union Pharmacopoeia, four herbs, namely, garlic powder, licorice extract, fenugreek and fennel, were selected as the experimental studies, and two herbs, ginseng and ginkgo, were selected as the case studies to compare the selection of controls and methods of analysis of the results in TLC identification of herbs in different pharmacopoeias. Results In TLC of garlic powder, 6 components were controlled by 2 reference substances in United States Pharmacopoeia. Alternative control substance alanine was used for identification in European Union Pharmacopoeia. In TLC of glycyrrhiza extract, ammonium glycyrrhizate was selected as the reference in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Glycyrrhizic acid was selected as the reference in United States Pharmacopoeia to identify glycyrrhizic acid and its remaining components. The glycyrrhetinic acid reference and thymol substitute reference was selected to identify two components in European Union Pharmacopoeia. In TLC of fenugreek, trigonelline reference was selected for identification in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Herbal Medicines Compendium selected 4-hydroxyisoleucine as the control substance for 11 components. In TLC of fennel, anisaldehyde reference was used in Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Two components were controlled with anisole as reference in European Union Pharmacopoeia. In TLC of ginseng, Chinese Pharmacopoeia used 4 reference products and reference medicinal materials for identification. In United States Pharmacopoeia, two substitute controls were used to control four components. Two reference substances were used in European Union Pharmacopoeia; the thin-layer chromatographic diagram was directly given; nine components were controlled. In TLC of ginkgo, Chinese Pharmacopoeia used 4 reference substances and reference medicinal materials for identification. In United States Pharmacopoeia, eight components were controlled by three reference substances. Two reference substances were used in European Union Pharmacopoeia, and the TLC diagram was directly given, and ten components were controlled. The US Pharmacopoeia and European Union Pharmacopoeia mostly used alternative reference materials and relative Rf value to control multiple components in medicinal materials, usually, detailed textual descriptions or standard chromatographic diagrams were used for the result analysis. Conclusion The differences in the selection of reference materials and analysis methods of analysis of results in TLC identification of different standards lead to significant differences in identification costs and efficiency. By fully utilizing the information of TLC and establishing a TLC identification characteristic chromatogram, the overall quality of medicinal materials can be evaluated.