International Journal of Botany Studies


International Journal of Botany Studies


International Journal of Botany Studies
International Journal of Botany Studies
Vol. 6, Issue 2 (2021)

Estimation of rutin in Nelumbo nucifera leaves by HPTLC


Prachet Pinnamaneni, Haritha Chowdary Darapaneni, Yogitha Malempati, Jaswanth Kumar Chaluvadi, Rama Rao Nadendla

Estimation of rutin in Nelumbo nucifera leaves by HPTLC

Prachet Pinnamaneni1*, Haritha Chowdary Darapaneni2, Yogitha Malempati2, Jaswanth Kumar Chaluvadi2, Rama Rao Nadendla3

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Chalapathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chalapathi Nagar, lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

2 PG scholars, Chalapathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chalapathi Nagar, lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

3 Principal, Chalapathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chalapathi Nagar, lam, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India

 

 

Abstract

The present research article emphasis on the estimation of rutin in Nelumbo nucifera leaves by High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography (HPTLC). Nelumbo nucifera is also called as Lotus. The leaves of plant contain many constituents; mainly it is rich in flavonoids. Rutin and quercetin are the flavonoids present in lotus leaves. Rutin is used for strengthening and increasing the flexibility in blood vessels, and also your arteries and capillaries. HPTLC is an advanced sophisticated analytical technique of thin layer chromatography. It has the advantages like accuracy, specific identification of compounds in the plants. We used aluminium back coated silica gel of 60F 254 stationary phase and mobile phase of n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: 0.1% Formic acid (7:1:1:0.25v/v/v/v) with dosage speed of 20µL/sec and 5×5mm band length and width at 254nm detection wavelength. Rutin was developed by ascending mode and quantified by using JustTLC software. Rf value of rutin was found to be 0.68. Further the developed method was validated for system suitability, accuracy, linearity, precision, LOD, LOQ and robustness according to ICH guidelines. Finally conclude that estimation of rutin by HPTLC method was found to be simple, precise and accurate and can be carried for routine analysis.

 

Keywords: Rutin, Nelumbo nucifera, HPTLC
 

Introduction

Lotus leaf is the dry leave of water lily plant lotus (Nelumbo nucifera Gaertn), has another name lotus leaf, lotus root leaf in China, most of the region has more plantation and is extensively used in food and medicine, the kind that the second batch specified for the Ministry of Health "is food and medicine". Flavonoids such as rutin (Figure-1) and quercetin are primarily included in lotus leaves. The glycoside combining the flavonol quercetin and the disaccharide rutinose is a bioflavonoid, or plant pigment sometimes referred to as rutoside, quercetin-3-O-rutinoside and sophorin, Rutin. It is a citrus flavonoid present in a wide range of plants, including vegetables and citrus fruits. The apples are rutin-filled. Rutin is also found in buckwheat, most oranges, figs, and both black and green tea [1]. Rutin has strong antioxidant properties. It also helps to create collagen and vitamin C in the body. You can add rutin to your diet by eating foods that contain it or taking it in supplement form [2].

 

Materials

High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography instrument used was Aetron manufactured with Sample applicator, Documentation system and Just TLC software was used for quantification of compounds. Samples were applied by using Hamilton syringe. Soxhlet apparatus and Rotary film evaporator was used for extracting the rutin from Nelumbo nucifera leaves.

 

Preparation of standard solutions

Weigh accurately about 10mg of standard rutin in a 10mL volumetric flask and make up the volume with methanol (i.e., 1000µg/mL). From the above solution pipette out 0.5mL into 10mL volumetric flask and make up the volume with methanol (i.e.,50µg/mL). This is used as working standard solution for the estimation of rutin in Nelumbo nucifera leaves.

 

Preparation of sample solution

Nelumbo nucifera leaves were collected, air dried and powdered. Extraction was done by taking powder and was placed in the Soxhlet apparatus using ethanol and water combination for one week. The collected solvent was taken and evaporated by using rotary film evaporator under -100C and 620C bath temperature with a 30rpm rotating speed. The collected residue was dissolved in methanol for further analysis.

 

Method Development

Estimation of rutin in the lotus leaves by using HPTLC was done using different mobile phases with different dosing speed and in different concentrations.

 

Chromatographic conditions

Trail 1

Stationary phase: Aluminium back coated silica gel of 60F 254

Mobile Phase: Hexane: Glacial acetic acid: Methanol: Orthophosphoric acid (8:1:1:0.25v/v/v/v)

Dosing speed: 20µL/sec

Band Length and Width: 5×5mm

Injection Volume: 20µL/sec

Detection Wavelength: 254nm

Chromatogram of trail 1 was represented in Figure-2

Trail 2

Stationary phase: Aluminium back coated silica gel of 60F 254

Mobile Phase: n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Methanol: Formic acid (6:2:2:0.25v/v/v/v)

Dosing speed: 20µL/sec

Band Length and Width: 5×5mm

Injection Volume: 20µL/sec

Detection Wavelength: 254nm

Chromatogram of trail 2 was represented in Figure-3

 

Trail 3

Stationary phase: Aluminium back coated silica gel of 60F 254

Mobile Phase: n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: Formic acid (8:0.5:1.5:0.5v/v/v/v)

Dosing speed: 20µL/sec

Band Length and Width: 5×5mm

Injection Volume: 20µL/sec

Detection Wavelength: 254nm

Chromatogram of trail 3 was represented in Figure-4

 

Optimized conditions

Stationary phase: Aluminium back coated silica gel of 60F 254

Mobile phase: n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: 0.1% Formic acid (7:1:1:0.25v/v/v/v)

Band length and width: 5×5mm

Dosing speed: 20µL/sec

Injection volume: 20µL/sec

Detection Wavelength: 254nm

Optimized chromatogram was represented in Figure-5

 

Method Validation

Method validation was done according to ICH guidelines and parameters are system suitability, linearity, accuracy, precision, LOD, LOQ and robustness.

 

Results and Discussion

System Suitability

It ensures that the method is suitable for carrying out in the system by adopting the suitable conditions. Six replicate injections were given and analysed according to the ICH acceptance criteria called relative standard deviation (%RSD). The data of system suitability was tabulated in Table-1.

 

Discussion: The system suitability results showed that the %RSD observed was within the acceptance limits.

 

Precision

The precision of an analytical procedure expresses the closeness of agreement (degree of scatter) between a series of measurements obtained from multiple sampling of the same homogeneous sample under the prescribed conditions. Precision may be considered at three levels: repeatability, intermediate precision and reproducibility. The data of interday and intraday precision was enlisted in Table-2 and Table-3.

 

Discussion: For the different parameters intraday and interday precision the %RSD observed was within the acceptance limits.

 

Linearity

The linearity of an analytical procedure is its ability (within a given range) to obtain test results which are directly proportional to the concentration (amount) of analyte in the sample.The data and calibration curve of linearity was represented in Table-4 and Figure-6.

 

Discussion: The compound rutin was linear and regression found was 0.9998.

 

Detection Limit

The detection limit of an individual analytical procedure is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample which can be detected but not necessarily quantitated as an exact value.

 

Discussion: Limit of detection observed was 0.344 and acceptance range was within 3 therefore it is accepted.

 

Quantitation Limit

The quantitation limit of an individual analytical procedure is the lowest amount of analyte in a sample which can be quantitatively determined with suitable precision and accuracy. The quantitation limit is a parameter of quantitative assays for low levels of compounds in sample matrices, and is used particularly for the determination of impurities and/or degradation products.

 

Discussion

Limit of quantification observed was 2.084 and acceptance range was within 10 therefore it is accepted.

 

Accuracy

The accuracy of an analytical procedure expresses the closeness of agreement between the value which is accepted either as a conventional true value or an accepted reference value and the value found. This is sometimes termed trueness. The data of accuracy studies was given in Table 5.

 

Discussion: The accuracy results showed that the %recovery was within the acceptance limits.

 

Robustness

The robustness of an analytical procedure is a measure of its capacity to remain unaffected by small, but deliberate variations in method parameters like

 

  1. Change in mobile phase of Decreasing - n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: 0.1% Formic acid (6.5:0.5:1:0.25v/v/v/v) and Increasing - n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: 0.1% Formic acid (7.5:1.5:1:0.25v/v/v/v).
  2. Change in Dosage Speed of Decreasing - 16µL/sec and Increasing - 25µL/sec.
  3. Change in Band Width of Decreasing – 6mm and Increasing -12mm.

 

The data of robustness with variation in parameters like Mobile Phase, Dosage Speed and Band Width were represented in Table-6, Table-7 and Table-8.

 

Discussion

For the parameters like mobile phase, dosage speed and band width the %RSD observed was within the acceptance limits.

 

Table 1: Data of System suitability

 

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

4160

2.

300

4125

3.

300

4155

4.

300

4107

5.

300

4163

6.

300

4158

Average

4144.667

SD

23.071

%RSD

0.56

 

Table 2: Data of Interday precision

 

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

4162

2.

300

4150

3.

300

4105

4.

300

4138

5.

300

4143

6.

300

4166

Average

4144

SD

21.918

%RSD

0.53

 

Table 3: Data of Intraday precision

 

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

4165

2.

300

4153

3.

300

4145

4.

300

4127

5.

300

4153

6.

300

4108

Average

4141.833

SD

20.789

%RSD

0.50

 

Table 4: Linearity of Rutin

 

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

100

1402

2.

200

2800

3.

300

4160

4.

400

5446

5.

500

6807

 

Table 5: Data of Accuracy

 

S. No

Level

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

%Recovery

%Average Recovery

1.

50

100

2801

99.97

 

99.47

100

2899

98.72

100

2890

99.72

2.

100

300

4160

99.60

 

99.77

300

4167

99.97

300

4163

99.73

3.

150

500

6807

99.98

 

99.92

500

6814

99.92

500

6810

99.86

 

Table 6: Robustness data for variation with Mobile Phase

 

Mobile Phase (Decreased)

Mobile Phase (Increased)

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

3205

1.

300

4140

2.

300

3263

2.

300

4238

Average

3234.5

Average

4189.5

SD

41.01

SD

69.296

%RSD

1.27

%RSD

1.65

Table 7: Robustness data for variation with Dosage Speed

 

Dosage Speed (16µl/sec)

Dosage Speed (25µl/sec)

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

2160

1.

300

5218

2.

300

2115

2.

300

5315

Average

2137.5

Average

5266.5

SD

31.820

SD

68.589

%RSD

1.49

%RSD

1.30

 

Table 8: Robustness data for variation with Band Width

 

Band Width (6mm)

Band Width (12mm)

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

S. No

Concentration (µg/mL)

Area

1.

300

2100

1.

300

6251

2.

300

2145

2.

300

6132

Average

2122.5

Average

6191.5

SD

31.820

SD

84.146

%RSD

1.50

%RSD

1.36

 

                                       

 

 

Conclusion

For the estimation of rutin from Nelumbo nucifera leaves, a simple, precise and accurate method was established in this research. Mobile phase n-Butanol: Glacial acetic acid: Water: 0.1% Formic acid (7:1:1:0.25v/v/v/v) with a dosage speed of 20μL/sec and aluminium back-coated silica gel with a stationary phase of 60F 254 were used as optimal conditions for HPTLC. Satisfactory outcomes according to ICH guidelines were obtained under the optimized conditions. The High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography technique was simple, economical compared to other techniques such as HPLC and GC, and the estimation of constituents in plant extract is done with high efficiency in a simple way. The value of the retardation factor for Rutin was 0.68. For qualitative analysis such as the identification of constituents and quantitative analysis like quantification of constituents present in the plant, the optimized method was used and therefore this methodology can be employed for routine analysis.

 

Acknowledgement

We acknowledge the management and Prof. Rama Rao Nadendla, principal of Chalapathi Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences for providing necessary facilities in completing this work.

 

References

  1. Shen-Miller, Schopf J et al. Long-living lotus: Germination and soil-irradiation of centuries-old fruits, and cultivation, growth and phenotypic abnormalities of offspring. Amer. J. of Bot 2002;89(2):236-47.
  2. Na Tin, Zhonghu Liu, Jian an Huang, Guan Luo, Shuoqian Liu, Xintao Liu. Isolation and preparation of flavanoids from the leaves of Nelumbo nucifera gaertn by preparative reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography. Se. Pu 2007;25(1):88-92.
  3. Gaurav Mahesh Doshi, Sandeep Prabhakar Zine, Pratip Kashinath Chaskar, Hemant Devidas Une. Solicitation of HPLC and HPTLC Techniques for Determination of Rutin from Polyalthia longifoliaThwaite. Pharmacog. Res 2014;6(3):234-240.
  4. Abou-Donia AH, Toaima SM, Hammoda HM, Shawky E. Determination of Rutin in Amaryllis belladonna L. Flowers by HPTLC and Spectrophotometry. Chromto 2006;64:109-112.
  5. Gaurav Mahesh Doshi, Hemant Devidas Une. Quantification of Quercetin and Rutin from Benincasahispida Seeds and Carissa Congesta Roots by High-performance Thin Layer Chromatography and High-performance Liquid Chromatography. Pharmacog. Res 2016;8(1):37-42.
  6. Gaurav Mahesh Doshi, Manjushree Kundalik Pawar, Kajal Haribhai Chavda. Quantification of rutin and quercetin by HPTLC/HPLC and in vitro immunomodulatory and anticancer activities of Capparis moonii fruits extracts, Int. J. of Basic & Clinical Pharmacol 2018;7(1):153-161.
  7. Patil RH, Patil MH, Maheshwari VL. Isolation and HPTLC Densitometric Analysis of Rutin in the Broth Extract of Endophytic Aspergilluis flavus from Aegle marmelos. J. of Bio. Act. Prod Nat 2014;4(5, 6):371-376.
  8. Biswas Sayan, Ranjit Harwansh, Amit Kar, Mukherjee Pulok. Validated high-performance thin-layer chromatographic method for the simultaneous determination of quercetin, rutin, and gallic acid in Amaranthus tricolor L. J. of Planar Chroma - Modern TLC 2019;32(2):121-126.
  9. Parmar Resa, Niranjan S, Kanaki. Development of HPTLC Method for estimation of rutin in polyherbal transdermal gel. World. J. of Pharma and Pharma. Sci 2017, 1188-1194.
  10. Rajasekaran, Aiyalu, Ramasamy, Arivukkarasu, Archana D. HPTLC method for estimation of Gallic acid and Rutin in Haritaki -An ayurvedic formulation. Int. J. of Pharm Tech. Res 2011;3(2):986-999.
  11. Pawar NP, Vijay S. Development and validation of UV spectrophotometric method for simultaneous estimation of rutin and gallic acid in hydroalcoholic extract of Triphala churna. Int. J. of Pharm Tech. Res 2013;5(2):724-729.
  12. Rajendra J, Manju Singh, Deependra Singh. Development and Determination of Rutin by Spectrofluorimetric Method. Biomed and Pharmacolo. J 2014;7(2):681-686.
  13. Vyawahare J, Damle Mrinalini. Development and validation of stability-indicating HPTLC method for determination of Rutin and Quercitin 2014;6:79-83.
  14. Kharat, Dr-Sopan, Mendhulkar, Vijay. HPTLC assay for quercetin and rutin flavonoids in Elephantopus Scaber [Linn.] grown under induced heat stress condition. Int. J. of Pharma. Bio. Sci 2015;6(2):36-52.
  15. Trineeva OV, Safonova II, Safonova EF, Slivkin AI. Quantitative determination of rutin by Thin-Layer chromatography. Pharma. Chem. J 2014;48(2):134-148.
  16. Tian SG, Xin LD, Halmuart Upur. High performance Thin layer chromatographic quantification of Rosmarinic Acid and Rutin in Abnormal Savda Munziq. J. of chem 2012, 1-4.
  17. Ashok Kumar BS, Lakshman K, Jayaveera KN, VamshiKrishna N, Manjunath M, Suresh MV. Estimation of Rutin and Quercetin in Amaranthus viridis Linn by HPLC. Asian. J. Exp. Sci 2009;23(1):51-54.
  18. Wankhade MS, Mulani RM. Chromatography finger print profiling and phytochemical investigation on leaf and bark methanolic extract of ougeinia oojeinensis (roxb.) Hochr. Int. J. of Cur. Res 2015;7(02):12665-12673.
  19. Patil VP, Kurhade SD, Devdhe SJ, Kale SH, Wakte PS. Determination of Gallic Acid by HPTLC as Quality Control Parameterin Herbal Formulation: Triphalachurna. Int. J. of Chem. and Analy. Sci 2012;3(9):1546-1549.
  20. Asha Thomas, Abhilash Kanakdhar, Adinath Shirsat, Sanjeevani Deshkar, Lata Kothapalli. A High Performance Thin Layer Chromatographic Method Using a Design of Experiment Approachfor Estimation of Phytochemicals in Extracts of Moringa Oleifera Leaves. Turk. J. Pharm. Sci 2020;17(2):148-158.
  21. Patil Vandana P, Sachidanand S, Angadi, Devdhe Subhash J. Development and validation of UV spectroscopy for the estimation of rutin from ethanolic extract of Cocculus Hirsutus leaves. Int. J. Res. Ayurveda Pharm 2015;6(3):354-357.
  22. Wankhade MS, Mulani RM. Preliminary phytochemical screening and chromatographic fingerprint analysis of acacia leucopholearoxb. methanolic leaf and bark extract by hptlc technique. Indo Amer. J. of Pharm Res 2015;4(01):184-191.
  23. Habib HII, Omar SK, Mohamed HS. Estimation of Rutin and Ascorbic Acid in Some Libyan Herbal Plants by RP-HPLC. Med. and aro. plants 2016;5(4):1-4.
Pages : 58-62 | 65 Views | 23 Downloads