高等学校化学学报 ›› 2018, Vol. 39 ›› Issue (7): 1440.doi: 10.7503/cjcu20170752
谭雪莹1, 张泰铭1, 邓飞跃1(), 黄坚1, 文庆2, 陈春楠1
收稿日期:
2017-11-20
出版日期:
2018-07-10
发布日期:
2018-06-21
作者简介:
联系人简介: 邓飞跃, 男, 博士, 副教授, 主要从事非线性化学分析方面的研究. E-mail:基金资助:
TAN Xueying1, ZHANG Taiming1, DENG Feiyue1,*(), HUANG Jian1, WEN Qing2, CHEN Chunnan1
Received:
2017-11-20
Online:
2018-07-10
Published:
2018-06-21
Contact:
DENG Feiyue
E-mail:135261@csu.edu.cn
Supported by:
摘要:
采用非线性化学指纹图谱技术获得了石菖蒲、 水菖蒲和九节菖蒲的特征指纹图谱, 直观差异明显; 将石菖蒲分别与水菖蒲和九节菖蒲进行二元掺杂, 利用指纹图谱定量信息和各菖蒲含量拟合得到线性回归方程, 相关系数>0.9990. 用该方程预测了二元混合物中不同菖蒲的含量, 相对误差≤4.17%, RSD≤2.73%. 非线性化学指纹图谱技术具有良好的重现性和特征性, 同种菖蒲指纹图谱间系统相似度≥0.9989, 不同种菖蒲指纹图谱间相似度≤0.9123. 此外, 该技术摒弃传统方法复杂的前处理过程, 可高效、 快速进行鉴别, 从整体性角度对样本进行定性鉴别与定量分析.
中图分类号:
TrendMD:
谭雪莹, 张泰铭, 邓飞跃, 黄坚, 文庆, 陈春楠. 非线性化学指纹图谱技术用于菖蒲的鉴别及二元混合物中不同菖蒲含量的测定. 高等学校化学学报, 2018, 39(7): 1440.
TAN Xueying, ZHANG Taiming, DENG Feiyue, HUANG Jian, WEN Qing, CHEN Chunnan. Identification of Different Acorus calamus and Determination of Content of Acorus calamus in Binary Mixtures by Nonlinear Chemical Fingerprint†. Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2018, 39(7): 1440.
Fig.2 Nonlinear chemical fingerprint of 0.5000 g Grass-leaved sweetflag and its part of feature information^a-b is inductive curve; b-c is undulatory curve; a and c are the beginning and the end points of nonlinear chemical reactions, respectively.
Fig.3 Reproducibility(A—C) and characteristic difference(D) of the fingerprints of Grass-leaved sweetflag(A), Rhizoma calami(B) and Acorus graminens soland(C)^(A)—(C) a—c represent three parallel measurements; (D) a. Acorus graminens soland; b. Grass-leaved sweetflag; c. Rhizoma calami.
Parameter | Eigenvalue | Parameter | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass-leaved sweetflag | Rhizoma calami | Acorus graminens soland | Grass-leaved sweetflag | Rhizoma calami | Acorus graminens soland | ||
tcan/s | 276.3 | 534.5 | 600.8 | τund/s | 49.34 | 51.22 | 54.90 |
Ecan/V | 0.4430 | 0.4990 | 0.4350 | tune/s | 9447 | 7741 | 11182 |
tpet/s | 1895 | 925.0 | 936.7 | Eune/V | 0.8700 | 0.8800 | 0.8640 |
Epet/V | 1.144 | 1.166 | 1.153 | tund/s | 4962 | 4340 | 6353 |
tind/s | 4485 | 3401 | 4829 | ΔEmax/V | 0.1550 | 0.1360 | 0.1340 |
Euns/V | 0.8860 | 0.9030 | 0.8980 | nwav | 108 | 99 | 117 |
Table 1 Eigenvalue of nonlinear chemical fingerprints parameters of three Acorus calamus(n=3)
Parameter | Eigenvalue | Parameter | Eigenvalue | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Grass-leaved sweetflag | Rhizoma calami | Acorus graminens soland | Grass-leaved sweetflag | Rhizoma calami | Acorus graminens soland | ||
tcan/s | 276.3 | 534.5 | 600.8 | τund/s | 49.34 | 51.22 | 54.90 |
Ecan/V | 0.4430 | 0.4990 | 0.4350 | tune/s | 9447 | 7741 | 11182 |
tpet/s | 1895 | 925.0 | 936.7 | Eune/V | 0.8700 | 0.8800 | 0.8640 |
Epet/V | 1.144 | 1.166 | 1.153 | tund/s | 4962 | 4340 | 6353 |
tind/s | 4485 | 3401 | 4829 | ΔEmax/V | 0.1550 | 0.1360 | 0.1340 |
Euns/V | 0.8860 | 0.9030 | 0.8980 | nwav | 108 | 99 | 117 |
Sample | System similarity | ||
---|---|---|---|
Mutual mode of Grass-leaved sweetflag | Mutual mode of Rhizoma calami | Mutual mode of Acorus graminens soland | |
Grass-leaved sweetflag | 0.9990 | 0.8857 | 0.8839 |
0.9993 | 0.8854 | 0.8837 | |
0.9992 | 0.8855 | 0.8841 | |
Rhizoma calami | 0.8841 | 0.9989 | 0.9123 |
0.8839 | 0.9993 | 0.9120 | |
0.8845 | 0.9990 | 0.9119 | |
Acorus graminens soland | 0.8823 | 0.9120 | 0.9992 |
0.8815 | 0.9115 | 0.9995 | |
0.8818 | 0.9910 | 0.9989 |
Table 2 System similarities calculated by taking common pattern characteristic parameters(n=3) as references
Sample | System similarity | ||
---|---|---|---|
Mutual mode of Grass-leaved sweetflag | Mutual mode of Rhizoma calami | Mutual mode of Acorus graminens soland | |
Grass-leaved sweetflag | 0.9990 | 0.8857 | 0.8839 |
0.9993 | 0.8854 | 0.8837 | |
0.9992 | 0.8855 | 0.8841 | |
Rhizoma calami | 0.8841 | 0.9989 | 0.9123 |
0.8839 | 0.9993 | 0.9120 | |
0.8845 | 0.9990 | 0.9119 | |
Acorus graminens soland | 0.8823 | 0.9120 | 0.9992 |
0.8815 | 0.9115 | 0.9995 | |
0.8818 | 0.9910 | 0.9989 |
Fig.4 Characteristic fingerprint of different batches of Grass-leaved sweetflag 18(A), Grass-leaved sweetflag 20(B), Grass-leaved sweetflag 22(C) and Grass-leaved sweetflag 24(D)^ a—c represent reproducibility of three parallel measurements.
xRhizoma calami(%) | tind 1/min | tune 1/min | xAcorus graminens soland(%) | tind 2/min | tune 2/min |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 74.70 | 155.1 | 0 | 74.70 | 155.0 |
10.0 | 72.93 | 151.0 | 10.0 | 75.08 | 158.1 |
30.0 | 69.65 | 145.3 | 30.0 | 76.00 | 162.1 |
50.0 | 65.73 | 140.1 | 50.0 | 77.11 | 167.3 |
70.0 | 61.83 | 135.0 | 70.0 | 78.30 | 173.0 |
90.0 | 58.45 | 130.2 | 90.0 | 79.35 | 178.5 |
100 | 56.65 | 127 | 100 | 79.60 | 182.00 |
Table 3 Influence of doping contents of mixtures consisting of two species of Acorus calamus on the inductive time(tind) and the undulation end time(tune)
xRhizoma calami(%) | tind 1/min | tune 1/min | xAcorus graminens soland(%) | tind 2/min | tune 2/min |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 74.70 | 155.1 | 0 | 74.70 | 155.0 |
10.0 | 72.93 | 151.0 | 10.0 | 75.08 | 158.1 |
30.0 | 69.65 | 145.3 | 30.0 | 76.00 | 162.1 |
50.0 | 65.73 | 140.1 | 50.0 | 77.11 | 167.3 |
70.0 | 61.83 | 135.0 | 70.0 | 78.30 | 173.0 |
90.0 | 58.45 | 130.2 | 90.0 | 79.35 | 178.5 |
100 | 56.65 | 127 | 100 | 79.60 | 182.00 |
Fig.7 Linear relationship between the inductive time(A) or undulation end time(B) of the mixture fingerprint and the content of Acorus graminens soland
No. | tind/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AD (%) | RD (%) | RSD (%) | tune/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AEa (%) | REb (%) | RSD (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 74.7 | 0.47 | 0.0 | 0.47 | — | 0.04 | 155.3 | -4.87 | 0.0 | -4.87 | — | 0.27 |
2 | 71.2 | 19.92 | 20.0 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 148.5 | 20.21 | 20.0 | 0.21 | 1.05 | 0.48 |
3 | 66.4 | 46.18 | 45.0 | 1.18 | 2.62 | 0.21 | 142.0 | 44.19 | 45.0 | -0.81 | 1.8 | 1.00 |
4 | 60.4 | 79.15 | 80.0 | 0.85 | 1.06 | 0.47 | 132.1 | 81.07 | 80.0 | 1.07 | 1.33 | 0.02 |
5 | 56.7 | 99.62 | 100 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 128.3 | 95.83 | 100 | -4.17 | 4.17 | 2.7 |
Table 4 Results and their accuracies to quantitatively analyze the mixtures consisting of Rhizoma calami and Grass-leaved sweetflag via the linear relationship between the doping content and the tind or tune
No. | tind/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AD (%) | RD (%) | RSD (%) | tune/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AEa (%) | REb (%) | RSD (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 74.7 | 0.47 | 0.0 | 0.47 | — | 0.04 | 155.3 | -4.87 | 0.0 | -4.87 | — | 0.27 |
2 | 71.2 | 19.92 | 20.0 | 0.08 | 0.4 | 0.16 | 148.5 | 20.21 | 20.0 | 0.21 | 1.05 | 0.48 |
3 | 66.4 | 46.18 | 45.0 | 1.18 | 2.62 | 0.21 | 142.0 | 44.19 | 45.0 | -0.81 | 1.8 | 1.00 |
4 | 60.4 | 79.15 | 80.0 | 0.85 | 1.06 | 0.47 | 132.1 | 81.07 | 80.0 | 1.07 | 1.33 | 0.02 |
5 | 56.7 | 99.62 | 100 | 0.38 | 0.38 | 0.06 | 128.3 | 95.83 | 100 | -4.17 | 4.17 | 2.7 |
No. | tind/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AD (%) | RD (%) | RSD (%) | tune/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AE (%) | RE (%) | RSD (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 74.7 | 2.93 | 0.0 | 2.93 | — | 0.04 | 155.0 | 1.32 | 0.0 | 1.32 | — | 0.14 |
2 | 75.6 | 19.74 | 20.0 | -0.26 | -1.3 | 0.52 | 159.5 | 20.14 | 20.0 | 0.14 | 0.70 | 0.44 |
3 | 76.9 | 44.03 | 45.0 | -0.97 | -2.16 | 0.63 | 166.7 | 45.37 | 45.0 | 0.37 | 0.82 | 0.85 |
4 | 78.7 | 77.65 | 80.0 | -2.35 | 2.93 | 0.76 | 175.5 | 78.51 | 80.0 | -1.49 | -1.87 | 0.81 |
5 | 80.0 | 101.94 | 100.0 | 1.94 | 1.94 | 0.22 | 181.2 | 99.22 | 100.0 | -0.78 | -0.78 | 0.39 |
Table 5 Results and their accuracies to quantitatively analyze the mixtures consisting of Acorus graminens soland and Grass-leaved sweetflag via the linear relationship between the doping content and the tind or tune
No. | tind/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AD (%) | RD (%) | RSD (%) | tune/min | Measured value(%) | Ture value(%) | AE (%) | RE (%) | RSD (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 74.7 | 2.93 | 0.0 | 2.93 | — | 0.04 | 155.0 | 1.32 | 0.0 | 1.32 | — | 0.14 |
2 | 75.6 | 19.74 | 20.0 | -0.26 | -1.3 | 0.52 | 159.5 | 20.14 | 20.0 | 0.14 | 0.70 | 0.44 |
3 | 76.9 | 44.03 | 45.0 | -0.97 | -2.16 | 0.63 | 166.7 | 45.37 | 45.0 | 0.37 | 0.82 | 0.85 |
4 | 78.7 | 77.65 | 80.0 | -2.35 | 2.93 | 0.76 | 175.5 | 78.51 | 80.0 | -1.49 | -1.87 | 0.81 |
5 | 80.0 | 101.94 | 100.0 | 1.94 | 1.94 | 0.22 | 181.2 | 99.22 | 100.0 | -0.78 | -0.78 | 0.39 |
Temperature/℃ | xRhizoma calami(%) | xAcorus graminens soland(%) | xGrass-leaved sweetflag(%) | R/s | Sa(s/100%) | N/s | Db(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 | 50 | — | 50 | 550.2 | 1100.4 | 4 | 1.09 |
40 | — | 50 | 50 | 144.6 | 289.2 | 4 | 4.15 |
Table 6 Sensitivities and detection limits to determine the contents of Rhizoma calami and Acorus graminens soland in the mixitures consisting of 2 species of Acorus calamus(n=5)
Temperature/℃ | xRhizoma calami(%) | xAcorus graminens soland(%) | xGrass-leaved sweetflag(%) | R/s | Sa(s/100%) | N/s | Db(%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
40 | 50 | — | 50 | 550.2 | 1100.4 | 4 | 1.09 |
40 | — | 50 | 50 | 144.6 | 289.2 | 4 | 4.15 |
[1] | Wang H. Y., Sun C. B., Zhang J., Chin. J. ETMF, 2015, 21(8), 219—221 |
(王和宇, 孙长波, 张晶.中国实验方剂学杂志, 2015, 21(8), 219—221) | |
[2] | Wu Q. D., Chen X. L., Tradi. Chin. Drug Re. Clini. Pharm., 2017, 28(2), 211—215 |
(吴启端, 陈小露.中药新药与临床药理., 2017, 28(2), 211—215) | |
[3] | Xiao Y. J., Beijing J. Tradi. Chin. Med., 2011, 30(1), 56—57 |
(肖耀军.北京中医药, 2011, 30(1), 56—57) | |
[4] | Lu W. C., J. Chin. Med.Mater., 2006, 29(12), 1377—1380 |
(陆维承.中药材, 2006, 29(12), 1377—1380) | |
[5] | Li J., Zhao J. P., Li S. X., Li B., Ou Y. W., Liu Q. R., Chem. Natural Compounds, 2015, 51(6), 1099—1102 |
[6] | Jiang Y. Y., Zhang M., Wang Z. T., J. Chin. Med. Mater., 2005, 28(5), 375—377 |
[7] | Verma R. S., Padalia R. C., Chauhan A., National Academy Sci. Letters, 2015, 38(2), 121—125 |
[8] | Mohani N., Ahmad M., Mehjabeen J. N., Special, 2014, 27(6), 2251—2255 |
[9] | Xia M. Y., Chen K. L., Chin. J. Hosp. Pharmacy, 1989, 9(12), 557—557 |
(夏明衍, 陈科力.中国医院药学杂志, 1989, 9(12), 557—557) | |
[10] | Wu J. L., Dong X. P., Research and Practice on Chin.Med.,2000, 14(2), 22 |
(邬家林, 董晓萍.现代中药研究与实践,2000, 14(2), 22) | |
[11] | Li Y. M., Sui D. S., Tradi. Chin. Drug Re. Clini. Pharm., 2009, 20(4), 369—370 |
(黎奕明, 眭道顺.中药新药与临床药理, 2009, 20(4), 369—370) | |
[12] | Li H. H,Cheng L. G., Wang Y. Y., Lü W. Q., Yang Q. S., Cheng W. X., Chemical World, 2017, 58(3), 159—164 |
(李欢欢, 陈龙梗, 王元媛, 吕文倩, 杨青山, 程旺兴.化学世界, 2017,58(3), 159—164) | |
[13] | Liu L., Nie P., Xiao B. Y., Luo H. M., Li L., Li W. L., Central South Pharmacy, 2015, 13(4), 388—392 |
(刘丽, 聂平, 肖炳燚, 罗晖明, 李玲, 李文莉.中南药学, 2015, 13(4), 388—392) | |
[14] | Cheng L. G., Li H. H., Zhu L., Cheng W. X., Yang S., Yang Q. S., Chemical World, 2017, 58(5), 288—293 |
(陈龙梗, 李欢欢, 朱林, 程旺兴, 杨烁, 杨青山.化学世界, 2017, 58(5), 288—293) | |
[15] | Tang H. M., Luo Y. M., Yan Y., Liang Q. L., Meng X. S., Luo G. A., Chem. J. Chinese Universities, 2009, 30(2), 279—282 |
(汤宏敏, 罗永明, 鄢燕, 梁琼麟, 孟宪生, 罗国安.高等学校化学学报,2009, 30(2), 279—282) | |
[16] | Du B. Z., Qu M. J., Ma G. Y., Chin. Sci. Bull., 2012, 57(11), 904—909 |
(杜宝中, 屈敏佳, 马国营.科学通报, 2012, 57(11), 904—909) | |
[17] | Zhang J., Zhong J. H., Wang Z. P., Luo X. L., Fu T. F., Zhang T. M., Wang Y. N., Guo S. S., Wang E. D., Chinese J. Anal. Chem., 2014, 42(4), 559—564 |
(张娟, 钟俊辉, 王志沛, 骆学雷, 付廷发, 张泰铭, 王艳娜, 郭莎莎, 王二丹. 分析化学, 2014, 42(4), 559—564) | |
[18] | Cheng W. X., Chen J., Fang C. W., Wu D. L., Chin. Chem. Letters, 2011, 22(6), 729—732 |
[19] | Zhang T. M., Zhao Z., Fang X. Q., Qiao J. X., Xiang F. Q., Zhu R., Liang Y. Z., Ding F., Sci. China Chem., 2011, 55(2), 285—303 |
[20] | Zhang T. M., Zhao Z., Fang X. Q., Qiao J. X., Xiang F. Q., Zhu R., Liang Y. Z., Ding F., Sci.Sinica(Chimica), 2011, 41(9), 1521—1539 |
(张泰铭, 赵哲, 方宣启, 乔君喜, 向凤琴, 朱蓉, 梁逸曾, 丁峰.中国科学: 化学, 2011, 41(9), 1521—1539) | |
[21] | Tang H. M., Chin. J. Integr. Med. Cardio, 2002, 18(3), 43—44 |
(唐洪梅.中西医结合心脑血管病杂志, 2002,18(3), 43—44) | |
[22] | Ke X. H., Fang Y. Q., China J. Chinese Materia Medica, 2004, 29(3), 279—280 |
(柯雪红, 方永奇.中国中药杂志, 2004,29(3), 279—280) | |
[23] | Zhang T. M., Zhao Z., Fang X. Q., Qiao J. X., Xiang F. Q., Zhu R., Liang Y. Z., Ding F., Sci.Sinica(Chimica), 2011, 41(10), 1604—1621 |
(张泰铭, 赵哲, 方宣启, 乔君喜, 向凤琴, 朱蓉, 梁逸曾, 丁峰.中国科学: 化学,2011, 41(10), 1604—1621) | |
[24] | Fang X. Q., Zhang T. M., Zhao Z., Xiang F. Q., Liang Y. Z., Wang M., Zhu R., Chen S., Qiao J. X., Chin. Sci. Bull., 2010, 55(26), 2937—2944 |
[25] | Li J. H., Chen C. N., Gu C. M., Tan X. Y., Zhang X., Du J., Zhang T. M., Huang L. F., Acta Pharmaceutica Sinica, 2017, 52(7), 1150—1156 |
(李金花, 陈春楠, 谷彩梅, 谭雪莹, 张翔, 杜鹃, 张泰铭, 黄林芳.药学学报,2017, 52(7), 1150—1156) | |
[26] | Ma Y. J., Dong W. B., Bao H. L., Fang Y., Fan C., Food Chemistry, 2017, 221, 898—906 |
[27] | Wang E. D., Lu L. L., Zhang T. M., Dong W. B., Lu H. M., Liang Y. Z., Xu T. S., Zhang J., Chen C. N., Chem J. Chinese Universities, 2015, 36(6), 1052—1060 |
(王二丹, 鲁利利, 张泰铭, 董文宾, 卢红梅, 梁逸曾, 许天舒, 张娟, 陈春楠.高等学校化学学报,2015, 36(6), 1052—1060) |
[1] | 常慧, 姚双全, 韩文佳, 康榭娜, 张力, 李新平, 张召. 三联吡啶化合物的溶剂致荧光变色及丁醇异构体鉴别[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2021, 42(3): 902. |
[2] | 魏曼曼,路皓翔,杨辉华. 基于RF_AdaBoost模型的血液种属鉴别算法[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2020, 41(1): 94. |
[3] | 王翠翠, 于晓明, 蔡文生, 邵学广. 银镜增强的近红外漫反射光谱法测定血清尿素[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2017, 38(11): 1947. |
[4] | 邵咏妮, 蒋林军, 潘健, 何勇. 基于显微拉曼检测蛋白核小球藻鉴别丁草胺及草甘膦[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2015, 36(6): 1082. |
[5] | 王二丹, 鲁利利, 张泰铭, 董文宾, 卢红梅, 梁逸曾, 许天舒, 张娟, 陈春楠. 非线性化学群集成分分析法测定掺杂在羊奶中的牛奶和马奶含量[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2015, 36(6): 1052. |
[6] | 钟煜, 李威, 孙柏, 余道洋, 李民强, 刘锦淮. 能量色散X射线散射结合主成分分析对液体易制毒化学品的探测与鉴别分类[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2013, 34(5): 1127. |
[7] | 李军, 王柯敏, 谭蔚泓, 刘斌, 郭秋平, 唐志文, 刘凌风. 分子信标荧光探针用于抑癌基因ING1表达产物的定量测定[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 2004, 25(3): 421. |
[8] | 魏庆珣, 王胜天, 王利安. 流动注射-分光光度分析鉴别铬的化学形态的研究[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 1990, 11(2): 140. |
[9] | 赵璧英, 徐强, 谢有畅, 杨先春. 激光喇曼光谱法测定MoO3在载体表面的单层分散容量[J]. 高等学校化学学报, 1990, 11(1): 54. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||