Research evaluates molecularly imprinted polymers for ginsenoside Rg1 detection in Traditional Chinese Medicines, indicating high selectivity and efficiency.
Background: Ginsenoside Rg1, a bioactive compound found in ginseng, has attracted significant attention due to its therapeutic effects. Despite its promising potential, the accurate detection and quantification of ginsenoside Rg1 in ginseng and other complex substrates have proven to be challenging. Objective: To effectively detect trace target components in complex matrices of Traditional Chinese Medicines (TCMs), the use of molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) has emerged as a promising approach. MIPs are synthetic materials that are designed to possess specific recognition sites for target molecules. They offer several advantages, including high efficiency, selectivity, and stability, making them ideal candidates for the extraction and analysis of target compounds in TCMs. Methods: The performance of molecularly imprinted and non-imprinted polymers (MIPs and NIPs) was evaluated including selective recognition capacity, adsorption isotherm, and adsorption kinetics. Optimization of various parameters affecting molecular imprinted solid phase extraction (MISPE), such as the binding mode of template molecule to functional monomers, the polymerization time, ratio of template molecule and functional monomer, dosage of cross-linker and initiator, stirring speed, template molecule elution was investigated. The formed MIPs were characterized in detail by Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrometer (FT-IR) to evaluate the specific adsorption capacity. Results: Ginsenoside Rg1 exhibited a percent recovery ranging from 84% to 90%, with a maximum saturated adsorption amount of 62.22 μg/mg. Additionally, the relative standard deviations (RSDs) were found to be within the range of 3.23%. Conclusion: In conclusion, these findings present a promising approach for the effective separation and enrichment of active ingredients from ginseng.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Teng et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: