Evaluates quality control parameters for Maghz-e-Pambadana, indicating essential measures for herbal authenticity.
Background: Adulteration and substitution of herbal medicines pose a significant challenge to maintaining the authenticity and therapeutic effectiveness of herbal products. The quality of raw plant materials is greatly influenced by factors such as geographical origin, the stage of plant growth during collection, post-harvest processing and storage. To ensure standardization, several national and international pharmacopoeias—including the Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP), British Pharmacopoeia (BP), United States Pharmacopoeia (USP), Japanese Pharmacopoeia (JP) and the Pharmacopoeia of the Republic of China—provide detailed monographs and quality control guidelines for medicinal plants. Likewise, the Unani Pharmacopoeia of India (UPI) outlines specific standardized tests to safeguard quality and authenticity. Objective: To extract Maghz-e-Pambadana ( Gossypium herbaceum L .) seeds and evaluate the extract using quality control parameters prescribed in the Unani Pharmacopoeia of India (Part I). Methods: Seeds of Maghz-e-Pambadana were subjected to extraction, followed by a series of quality control tests as per UPI guidelines. These included (1) morphological examination, (2) powder analysis with specific reagents, (3) determination of ash content, (4) extractive value, (5) loss on drying, and (6) thin-layer chromatography (TLC)/high-performance thin-layer chromatography (HPTLC). Results: The extract of Maghz-e-Pambadana complied with all pharmacopoeial standards. Morphological features, chemical characteristics, moisture content, and chromatographic profiles were consistent with authentic reference material, confirming its identity and purity. Conclusion: Pharmacopoeial quality control testing effectively ensures the authenticity of Maghz-e-Pambadana and helps prevent adulteration. Such standardization is essential for maintaining the safety, efficacy, and therapeutic reliability of Unani herbal formulations.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmed et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: