Improving the rigor and utility of botanical toxicity studies: Recommended resources.

Interest in botanicals, particularly as dietary supplement ingredients, is growing steadily. This growth, and the marketing of new ingredients and combination products as botanical dietary supplements, underscores the public health need for a better understanding of potential toxicities associated with use of these products. This article and accompanying template outline the resources to collect literature and relevant information to support the design of botanical toxicity studies. These resources provide critical information related to botanical identification, characterization, pre-clinical and clinical data, including adverse effects and interactions with pharmaceuticals. Toxicologists using these resources should collaborate with pharmacognosists and/or analytical chemists to enhance knowledge of the botanical material being tested. Overall, this guide and resource list is meant to help locate relevant information that can be leveraged to inform on decisions related to toxicity testing of botanicals, including the design of higher quality toxicological studies.

Understanding plant to extract ratios in botanical extracts.

Dietary supplement current good manufacturing practice (cGMP) requires establishment of quality parameters for each component used in the manufacture of a dietary supplement to ensure that specifications for the identity, purity, strength, composition, and limits on contaminants are met. Compliance with botanical extract ingredient specifications is assured by using scientifically valid methods of analysis, the results of which are reported on certificates of analysis (CoAs). However, CoAs routinely include additional data that are not amenable to verification through methods of analysis. Such descriptive information may include Plant to Extract ratios, which are ratios of the quantity of botanical article used in the manufacture of the extract to the quantity of extract obtained. Plant to Extract ratios can be misleading when their meaning is not clearly understood. Plant to Extract ratios do not completely describe botanical extracts because other important factors influence the make-up of final extracts, such as the quality of the raw starting material (as can defined by pharmacopeial standards), extraction solvent(s) used, duration and temperature of extraction, and percentage and type of excipients present. Other important qualitative descriptions may include constituent "fingerprinting." Despite these issues, Plant to Extract ratios are often used as a measure of extract strength for dosage calculations. This article defines and clarifies the meaning of Plant to Extract ratios and their proper use in describing and labeling botanical extract ingredients and finished products containing them.

Determination of Aloin A and Aloin B in Aloe vera Raw Materials and Finished Products by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Single-Laboratory Validation.

A single-laboratory validation (SLV) was conducted on an HPLC method for the detection and quantification of aloin A and aloin B in Aloe vera raw materials and finished products. An extraction procedure using sonication with an acidified solvent was used for solid test materials while liquid test materials only required dilution, if necessary, prior to filtration and analysis. Separation was achieved using a fused core C18 column in 18 min under isocratic elution conditions allowing for a single analyte (aloin A) calibration curve to quantify both aloins. Adequate chromatographic resolution (Rs ≥ 1) was achieved for aloin A and aloin B. The calibration curves for aloin A exhibited coefficients of determination (r(2)) of ≥ 99.9% over the linear range of 0.3-50 µg/mL. The LOD values were 0.092 and 0.087 µg/mL, and LOQ 0.23 and 0.21 µg/mL for aloin A and aloin B, respectively. Repeatability studies were performed on nine test materials on each of 3 separate days, with five of the test materials determined to be above the LOQ having repeatability RSD (RSDr) values ranging from 0.61 to 6.30%. Method accuracy was determined through a spike recovery study on both liquid and solid matrixes at three different levels: low, medium, and high. For both aloins, the recovery in the liquid matrix ranged from 92.7 to 106.3% with an RSDr of 0.15 to 4.30%, while for the solid matrix, the recovery ranged from 84.4 to 108.9% with an RSDr of 0.23 to 3.84%. Based on the results of the SLV study, it is recommended that this method be evaluated for reproducibility through a collaborative study.