ArticlePDF Available

Study of Various Factors impacting the Quality of Terminalia Chebula Fruit Rind Raw Material and Phytochemical Evaluation of Fruit, Fruit Rind and Nut Part of Terminalia Chebula

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Terminalia chebula, belongs to Combretaceae family is called the “King of Medicine” in Tibet because of it wide spectrum of Pharmacological activities majorly anti-cancer, anti-diabetic, immunomodulatory agent etc. It is used in many Ayurvedic preparations to cure different diseases. Twenty seven fruit rind samples of Terminalia chebula was collected from forests areas of different geographical sources. The present study was conducted for the quantitative evaluation of major phytochemical constituents present in fruit, fruit rind and nut part of Terminalia chebula. Study of various factors like Geographical locations, different supplier samples, different grades of sample, washed and unwashed sample, ripe and unripe fruit, different species which impacting the quality of Terminalia chebula fruit rind. The Percentage results of physical parameters like Loss on Drying, Ash value, Extractive value and TLC identification were carried out and calculated. The mean value of the results were calculated and compared with each other to know the impact of variants on the quality of the sample. Percentage content of Total tannins, polyphenols and flavonoids were quantitatively estimated by UV Visible spectrophotometry and it was found to be present more in fruit rind part than nut and as a whole fruit. This study helps for further investigation of various parts of Terminalia chebula.
Content may be subject to copyright.
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal
Peer-reviewed research journal on Phytochemistry & Bioactive Substances
ISSN 2170 – 1768 EISSN 2602-5132
PCBS Journal
Volume 14 N° 2 2020
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal (PCBS Journal) is a peer-reviewed research journal
published by Phytochemistry & Organic Synthesis Laboratory. The PCBS Journal publishes
innovative research papers, reviews, mini-reviews, short communications and technical notes
that contribute significantly to further the scientific knowledge related to the field of
Phytochemistry & Bioactives Substances (Medicinal Plants, Ethnopharmacology,
Pharmacognosy, Phytochemistry, Natural products, Analytical Chemistry, Organic Synthesis,
Medicinal Chemistry, Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Biochemistry, Computational Chemistry,
Molecular Drug Design, Pharmaceutical Analysis, Pharmacy Practice, Quality Assurance,
Microbiology, Bioactivity and Biotechnology of Pharmaceutical Interest ). Contributions in
all areas at the interface of Chemistry, Pharmacy, Medicine and Biology are welcomed.
Submission of an article to the PCBS Journal implies that the work described has not been
published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or
academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its
publication is approved by all authors.
The PCBS Journal reserves the right to submit all received manuscripts to ad hoc referees,
whose names will be kept confidential, and will have the authority to decide on the pertinence
for acceptance. Referees may send back manuscripts to Editor-in-Chief, for transmission to
the author(s) with suggestions for necessary alterations, which are to be made in order to
conform to the standards and editorial rules of the Journal. All manuscripts should be
prepared in MS-Word format, and submitted online to Phytochem07@yahoo.fr. Upon
receipt of paper submission, the Editor sends an E-mail of confirmation to the corresponding
author within 1-4 working days. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all
contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Editor in Chief
Pr Abdelkrim CHERITI
Phytochemistry & Organic Synthesis Laboratory
08000, Bechar, Algeria
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal
ISSN 2170 – 1768 EISSN 2602-5132
Peer-reviewed research journal on Phytochemistry & Bioactive Substances
CAS Source Index ( CODEN: PBJHB3)
ISSN 2170-1768
Editorial Board
Abou Enein H
Pharm. Med Chem Dept. Research Division,
NRC, Dokki, Giza, Egypt
Afaxantidis J.
Synerlab Développement,
Orléans, France
Akkal S.
Research Unity: VNRBM Lab. Dept. Chem.,
University of Constantine 1, Algeria
Allali H.
LASNABIO, Dept. Chemistry,
University of Tlemcen, Algeria
Allouch A.
Applied Chem. Lab., Faculty of Science Lebanese
University, Tripoli, Lebanon
Aouf N.
Lab. Applied Org. Chem. , Dpt.Chem.,
Annaba University, Algeria
Awad Allah A.
Dept. Chem., Faculty of Science, Islamic
University of Gaza, Gaza, Palestine
Badjah A.Y.
Dept. Chem., College of Science,
King Saud Univ., Riyadh, KSA
Balansard G.
Pharmacognosy Lab., Faculty of pharmacy, Univ.
Aix Marseille II, Marseille, France
Barkani M.
Materials Laboratory, Bedjai University,
Algeria
Belkhiri A.
Pharmacognosy Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine,
Constantine university, Algeria
Benharathe N
Materials Laboratory, USTO university, Oran,
Algeria
Bennaceur M.
Biochemical Laboratory, Biology faculty, Es
Senia University, Oran, Algeria
Berredjem M.
Lab. Applied Org. Chem. , Dpt.Chem.,
Annaba University, Algeria
Boksha I.
Federal Research Centre for Epidemiology
Microbio., MH, Moscow, Russia
Bouchekara M.
Chemistry Laboratory, Science faculty,
University of Mascara, Algeria
Bouklouze A.
Lab. Pharmaco. Toxico. Faculty of medicine and
pharmacy, Med. V Univ. Rabat, Morocco
Boukir A.
Lab. Applied Chem., Faculty of Science, S.M.Ben
Abdellah Univ., Fez, Morocco
Brada M.
Valuation of Natural Substances Lab., Khemis-
Miliana University, Algeria
Bressy C.
iSm2, CNRS UMR6263, Aix-Marseille University,
Marseille, France
Boulenouar N.
Biochemical Laboratory, Nour E. University, El
Bayadh, Algeria
Dadamoussa B.
Chemitry Laboratory, Ghardai University,
Algeria
Daich A.
URCOM, EA-3221, CNRS FR-3038, UFR Sci. Tec.,
Normandie Univ, Le Havre, France
Daoud K.
GP- Indus.Pharma Laboratory, USTHB, Algiers,
Algeria
Djebar S.
Materials & mineral laboratory, USTHB, Algiers
, Algeria.
Djebli N.
Pharmacognosy, Api-Phytotherapy Lab. Mostaganem
University, Algeria
Djeradi H.
Phytochemistry & Organic Synthesis Laboratory
UTMB, Bechar, Algeria
El Abed D.
Fine Organic Chemistry laboratory, Es Senia
university, Oran, Algeria
Elachouri M.
Lab. Physiology and Ethnopharma.,.Sci.Fac Med. I
University. Oujda, Morocco
El Hatab M.
Natural products Laboratory, Science faculty,
Blida university, Algeria
El Omar F.
Applied Chem. Lab., Faculty of Science
Lebanese University, Tripoli, Lebanon
Ermel G.
Rennes University EA 1254, Beaulieu Campus
Rennes, France
Esnault M. A.
INRA, UMR 0118 RENN Vegetal Biotecnology
Lab., Rennes, France
Govender P.
KwaZulu-Natal Univ., School of Life Sci.
Biochem., Durban, South Africa
Hacini S.
Fine Organic Chemistry laboratory, Es Senia
university, Oran, Algeria
Hadj Mahamed M.
BGCMD laboratory, Science Faculty,
Univ. Ouargla, Algéria
Gargouri A. F.
Biotechnology center, CBS
Sfax, Tunisia
Ghanmi M.
Medicinal plants division, CRF, Agdal
, Rabat, Morocco
Gharabli S.
Chem. Lab., School of App. Med.Sciences, German
Jordanian University, Jordan
Gherraf N.
LRNAMS Laboratory, Larbi ben M’hidi,
University, Oum El-Bouaghi, Algeria
Ghezali S.
IAP, Dept Catalysis, Sonatrach, Algiers ,
Algeria
Jesus Aizpurua M.
Dept. Organic Chemistry-I, Univ. Basque Country
UPV/EHU, San Sebastian, Spain
Gouasmia A.
Organic Materials Laboratory, faculty of
science, Tebessa University, Algeria
Kabouche Z.
LOST Laboratory, faculty of sciences, Constantine
University, Algeria
Kacimi S.
Materials laboratory, Chemistry dept. Ain
Temouchent University, Algeria
Kajima J.M
COSNA Laboratory, faculty of science, Tlemcen
University, Algeria
Kaid-Harche M.
Biotechnology Laboratory, Faculty of biology, USTO,
Oran, Algeria
Kessat A.
Analytical Laboratory, Central pharmacy
Rabat, Morocco
Khelil-Oueld Hadj A.
ECOSYS Laboratory, Ouargla, University,
Ouargla, Algeria
Lahreche M.B.
LCO laboratory, faculty of Biology, Djelfa
University, Algeria
Legseir B.
Phytochemistry laboratory, Faculty of science,
Annaba University, Algeria
Marouf A.
Biochemistry laboratory, Dept of Biology,
Naama University, Algeria
Meddah B.
Lab. Pharmaco. Toxico. Faculty of medicine and
pharmacy, Med. V Univ. Rabat, Morocco
Melhaoui A.
LCOMPN-URAC25, Fac. Scie., Mohamed I
University, Oujda, Morocco
Laouar H
NRV laboratory, Dept. Biology and plant
ecology, F.A. University, Setif-1, Algeria
Mushfik M.
Natural products laboratory, Dept chemistry, AMU
university, New Delhi, India
Ouahrani M. R.
Faculty of Sciences & Technology, El-Oued
University, Oued Souf, Algeria
Oueld Hadj M.D.
ECOSYS Laboratory, Ouargla, University,
Ouargla, Algeria
Rahmouni A.
LMC laboratory, Dept Chemistry, Saida University,
Algeria
Reddy K.H.
Dept. Adv. Res. Center, Narayana Med.College ,
Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
Roussel C.
Chirosciences, UMR 7313, Stereo-Dyna.
Chiralty, Aix-Marseille Univ., France
Saidi M.
LPSEZA laboratory, Dept Chemistry, Ouargla
University, Algeria
Salgueiro L.D
Lab. Farmacognosia, Fac. Farmacia, Univ. de
Coimbra, Coimbra, Portugal
Sidiqi S. K.
Bioorganometallic Lab., Dept. chemistry, AMU
University, New Delhi, India
Soltani Y.
BPO Laboratory, Endocrinology theam, Dept. Bio.
Physio., USTHB, Algiers, Algeria,
Tabcheh M.
Applied Chem. Lab., Faculty of Science Lebanese
University, Tripoli, Lebanon
Tabti B.
LASNABIO, Dept. Chemistry, University of
Tlemcen, Algeria
Taleb S.
Materials Chemistry Laboratory
Dept Chem. UDL Univ., SBA, Algeria
Villemin D.
LCMT lab., UMR CNRS 6507, ENSICAEN, Caen,
France.
Youcefi M.
LSF laboratory, faculty of sciences, Laghouat
University, Algeria
Zyoud A.H.
Dept Chemistry, An-Najah N. University, Nablus,
West Bank, Palestine
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
122
Study of Various Factors impacting the Quality of Terminalia Chebula
Fruit Rind Raw Material and Phytochemical Evaluation of Fruit, Fruit
Rind and Nut Part of Terminalia Chebula
Anandakumar Karunakaran1, Sangeetha Premkumar1, Ramesh Jayaprakash1, Arun
Thangavel1, Sundaram Ramachandran2, Prakash Newsi Sivappa2, Suganya
Kulathooran2 & Devendra Reddy2
1Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy,
Elayampalayam, Tiruchengode, Namakkal, Tamil Nadu, India – 637205
2 Research and Development centre. The Himalaya Drug Company,
Bangalore, Karnataka, India-562162
Received: December 23, 2019; Accepted: March 10, 2020
Corresponding author Email: anandanalysis@gmail.com
Copyright©2020POSL
DOI:10.163.pcbsj/2020.14.2122
Abstract. Terminalia chebula, belongs to Combretaceae family is called the “King of Medicine” in Tibet
because of it wide spectrum of Pharmacological activities majorly anti-cancer, anti-diabetic, immuno-
modulatory agent etc. It is used in many Ayurvedic preparations to cure different diseases. Twenty seven fruit
rind samples of Terminalia chebula was collected from forests areas of different geographical sources. The
present study was conducted for the quantitative evaluation of major phytochemical constituents present in
fruit, fruit rind and nut part of Terminalia chebula. Study of various factors like Geographical locations,
different supplier samples, different grades of sample, washed and unwashed sample, ripe and unripe fruit,
different species which impacting the quality of Terminalia chebula fruit rind. The Percentage results of
physical parameters like Loss on Drying, Ash value, Extractive value and TLC identification were carried out
and calculated. The mean value of the results were calculated and compared with each other to know the impact
of variants on the quality of the sample. Percentage content of Total tannins, polyphenols and flavonoids were
quantitatively estimated by UV Visible spectrophotometry and it was found to be present more in fruit rind
part than nut and as a whole fruit. This study helps for further investigation of various parts of Terminalia
chebula.
Key Words: Terminalia chebula, fruit rind, UV Visible spectrophotometry, TLC, Physiochemical parameters.
1. INTRODUCTION
Terminalia chebula consists of dried ripe fruit, and fully matured fruits belonging to the
family Combretaceae. The plant is also called as Black myrobalan in English, Kadukkaya in
Tamil, Harad in Hindi, and Haritaki in Ayurveda [1, 2]. The tree was found in the sub
Himalayan tracks from Ravi to west Bengal, Assam and in deciduous forests of India. It
grows at an attitude of 1800 m. It is not cultivated and the fruits are collected from wild
ISSN217
0
176
8
2020
Vol. 14 No. 2
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
123
grown forests plants. It is a tree, 15-25 m in height and 1.5 – 2.5 m in diameter [3,4].
Myrobalan consists of dried nature fruits known as Harde or small fruit known as Himag.
The dried seed flesh is rich in Tannin whose content considerably varies with the different
grades of myrobalan from different areas [5,6]. Major chemical constituents are Tannins (20-
40 per cent), which on hydrolysis give Chebulic and α D -gallolyl glucose. Others are
Chebulagic acid, Chebulinic acid, Ellagic acid and Gallic acid; a tannin terchebin,
ellagitannin, terchebulin, syringic acid [7,8,9]. Myrobalans are a safe and effective purgative,
astringent and alterative. Unripe fruits are more purgative and the ripe are astringent.
Myrobalans are used in fevers, cough, asthma, urinary diseases, piles, worm infections and
rheumatism. It is highly useful in chronic diarrhoea and dysentery, flatulence, colic and
enlarged spleen and liver [10,11].
1. FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY OF HERBAL DRUGS [12]
The increasing demand for herbal medicines (which represent a substantial proportion of the
global drug market), both in the developing and developed countries, inevitably led to
maintaining the quality and purity of the herbal raw materials and finished products. To
ensure reproducible quality of an herbal remedy, proper control of the starting material is
utmost essential. To control the quality of this starting material, the following aspects need-
to be considered
1.1 Authentication and Reproducibility of Herbal Ingredients
Herbal ingredients must be accurately identified by macroscopical and microscopical
characteristics, comparison with authentic material or accurate description of authentic
herbs. It is essential that herbal ingredients be referred to by their binomial Latin names of
genus and species. Even when correctly authenticated, it is important to realize that different
batches of the same herbal ingredient may differ in quality due to a number of factors.
1.2 Inter/ lntra Species Variation in Plants
There is considerable inter and intra species variations in different plants, for which the
primary and secondary metabolite also varies considerably. This results in variation of the
individual constituents and thereby causes difficulties in standardization. These all variations
are genetically controlled which is related to the country of origin for that particular species
1.3 Environmental Factors
So many factors relating to place, climate, altitude, rainfall and other conditions responsible
for growth of plants affect the quality of herbal ingredients present in a particular species,
even if it is in the same country. This results in major variations in the herbal ingredients
presents.
1.4 Plant Parts Used
Usually the active constituents vary between different parts of a plant. It is not uncommon
for an herbal ingredient to be adulterated with the parts of the plant not normally utilized.
The same situation arises when an exhausted plant part of the same physical appearances are
mixed to increase the weight of the supplied herbal ingredient causing adulteration.
1.5 Time of Harvesting
While collecting a particular herbal ingredient, the optimum time of harvesting should be
specified. The constituents, like various concentrates obtained from the secondary
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
124
metabolites, vary considerably during the growing cycle. That is why to get the maximum
concentration of the desired constituent proper time of harvesting has a great rote to play.
Literatures have been reported for the Terminalia chebula fruit for the investigation of two
important phytochemical viz, Chebulagic and Chebulinic acid from the twelve Terminalia
chebula accessions [13]. Physiochemical and Phytochemical studies have been reported on
Terminalia chebula fruit [14, 15, 16]. HPLC method was reported for the isolation of chemical
constituents from dried fruits of Terminalia chebula [17, 18, 19]. Isolation of tannins from
Terminalia chebula by high speed counter current chromatography [20]. PR-HPLC methods
were reported for the determination of chemical components in the fruit of Terminalia
chebula [21]. HPTLC method was reported for the estimation of Gallic acid, rutin and
quercetin from aqueous extract of Terminalia chebula [22, 23, 24]. Pharmacognostical
evaluation of different marketed samples has been reported [25]. Determination of Phenolic
and flavonoids content and antioxidant activity in Terminalia chebula fruit have been
reported [26]. As per Ayurveda and Siddha, only the fruit rind of Terminalia chebula was
constitute as a drug. The fruit rind is used in many Ayurvedic preparations. Hence it is
necessary to identify the quality of the raw material obtained from different geographical
source by various external and internal factors. Hence, the present study was performed to
investigate the various factors which impacting the quality of Terminalia chebula fruit rind.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 Collection and Authentication of raw materials
Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Black chebula whole fruit, fruit rind, nut
sample was collected from different geographical locations and it was authenticated by
Dr. R Kannan, Botanist from Department of Pharmacognosy, R&D. The Himalaya Drug
Company, Bangalore.
2.2 chemicals and reagents
All reagents and solvents used were analytical grade (Sigma Aldrich, Merck and Loba
chemic). Double distilled water was obtained from the Millipore unit. UV
spectrophotometric method was performed on SHIMADZU-1700 Double Beam UV-Visible
Spectrophotometer with pair of 10 mm matched quartz cell. Camag Reprostar-3 TLC
Scanner, Camag twin trough glass chamber, auto sampler (LINOMAT V), for Thin Layer
Chromatographic analysis.
2.3 Phytochemical Evaluation technique employed for Analysis
2.3.1 Loss on drying
The moisture content was done by using Halogen moisture analyzer. Sample should be free
from lumps and in powder form. The front analyzer cover was opened and aluminium pan
was placed on the sample hander. The weight was tarred manually and spreaded about 2
gram of the powdered sample on the aluminium pan evenly to form a thin layer. The front
analyzer cover was closed and pressed the start button on the display. The percentage of
Loss on Drying was calculated by using the formula
Percentageof Loss on Drying = W2- W3
W2- W1 × 100
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
125
2.3.2 Total ash value
Weighed 2 g of test substance in a preciously weighed silica crucible and kept at 675°C ±
2°C in a muffle furnace for 6 hours. Cooled and weighed the final weight of crucible. The
percentage ash value was calculated with air dried substance by using the formula
Percentage Total ash = W4-W1
W3 × 100
2.3.3 Acid insoluble ash value
25 ml of 2M hydrochloric acid was added to the crucible that contains total ash, boiled for 5
minutes in a water bath and filtered through ash less filter paper. The insoluble matter
present in the ash less filter paper was transferred in to a respective silica crucible and
ignited at a temperature not exceeding 450°C for 4 hours. Cooled in a desiccator and
weighed the final weight. The percentage of acid insoluble ash was calculated on the
reference to air dried drug by using the formula
Percentage Acid insoluble ash = W7
W3 × 100
2.3.4 Water soluble extractive value
5g of dried powdered sample was taken in closed flask. 100 ml of chloroform water was
added it is shaken continuously for 6 hours on the shaker and was allowed to stand for
overnight. The solvent was filtered and 25 ml of the filtrate was evaporated to dryness in
tarred petri plate. Dried at 105°C to constant weight in oven and weighed.
2.3.5 Alcohol soluble extractive value
5g of dried powdered sample was taken in closed flask. 100 ml of 95% ethanol was added it
is shaken continuously for 6 hours on the shaker and was allowed to stand for overnight. The
solvent was filtered and 25 ml of the filtrate was evaporated to dryness in tarred Petri plate.
Dried at 105°C to constant weight in oven and weighed.
2.3.6 Quantitative estimation of total tannins
2.3.6.1 Preparation of standard solution
100 mg of standard tannic acid was weighed accurately in to a 100 ml volumetric flask,
added 50 ml of purified water and sonicated for 5 minutes. The volume was made up to the
mark with same. Diluted 1 ml from the above solution to another 100 ml volumetric flask
and made the volume with purified water.
2.3.6.2 Procedure
0.2 ml of sample solution and 1 ml standard tannic solution was pipetted out in to a separate
10 ml volumetric flasks. To each flask 1 ml potassium ferricyanide reagent and 1 ml of ferric
chloride reagent was added and the volume was made up to mark with purified water in to
10 ml volumetric flask. Reagent blank was prepared by diluting 1 ml of potassium
ferricyanide and 1 ml of ferric chloride reagent in 10 ml volumetric flask and the volume
was made up to the mark with purified water and allowed to stand for 30 minutes. The
absorbance of the standard and sample solution was measured at 720 nm against the reagent
blank. The amount of total tannins was calculated.
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
126
2.3.7 Quantitative estimation total Polyphenolic compound
2.3.7.1 Preparation of standard Pyrogallol stock solution
Weighed accurately 50 mg of Pyrogallol in a 100 ml volumetric flask and dissolved in
purified water and diluted to 100 ml with the water.
2.3.7.2 Preparation of working standard solution
Pipetted out 5 ml of stock Pyrogallol standard solution to another 100 ml of volumetric flask
and made the volume up to 100 ml with purified water.
2.3.7.3 Preparation of sample solution
Weighed accurately about 1 g of the powdered test substance in to a 250 ml flat bottomed
flask and added 150 ml of purified water. Immersed the flask in boiling water bath and
refluxed between 97 ± 20C for 30 minutes. Cooled under running water and allowed the
residue to settle. Dissolved extract was decanted quantitatively to a 250 ml volumetric flask.
The same process was repeated with each 30 ml of purified water until the dissolved extract
gets colourless. Rinsed the flat-bottomed flask and collected the washings in the volumetric
flask and diluted to 250 ml with purified water. Allowed the residue to settle and filtered the
liquid through a Whatmann filter paper No.1. Discarded the first 50 ml of the filtrate and
used subsequent filtrate for the analysis. 5 ml of the filtrate was diluted to 25 ml with
purified water.
2.3.7.4 Procedure
2 ml of each of standard and sample was pipetted out in to a separate 25 ml volumetric
flasks. To each flask 1 ml of Phosphomolybdotungstic acid, 10 ml of purified water and 25
ml sodium carbonate solution were added and allowed to stand for 30 minutes. The
absorbance of the standard and sample solution was measured at 760 nm against the reagent
blank.
2.3.8 Thin Layer Chromatography
2.3.8.1 Preparation of standard solution
50 mg of standard Chebulagic and Chebulinic acid were accurately weighed and transferred
in to 100 ml volumetric flask. Dissolved with purified water and made up to 100 ml with the
same. The solution contains 0.5 mg/ ml concentration.
2.3.8.2 Preparation of sample solution
500 mg of sample was weighed accurately in to a 250 ml round bottom flask and added 20
ml of methanol and refluxed for 30 minutes at 80°C. The solution was decanted and
transferred into a 100 ml volumetric flask. The solution was diluted with purified water.
2.3.8.3 Procedure
Camag twin trough development tank (20 x 10 cm) was used. One side of the inside chamber
is covered with Whatman filter paper No. 1. About 40 ml of mobile phase was transferred
into the development chamber along the sides of the Whatman filter paper. Covered the
development tank with a lid and saturated the chamber for 30 minutes. The sample solution
as 12 mm band was applied, in a distance of 12 mm from the bottom of TLC plate. Mark
was made up to a distance of 8.5 cm from the point of application as a development mark
using pencil. The spotted plate was placed inside the development tank after saturation. The
plate was developed up to the pencil marking in the solvent system. Soon after the
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
127
development, the plate was removed and dried. The dried plate was visualized under UV
light at 254 nm and 366 nm using UV cabinet. Dipped the plate in visualizing solution 1:
Diphenol boric acid amino ethyl ester and Solution 2: Macrogol 400 Polyethylene glycol
(PEG) and dried, the image of the plate was captured under UV light at 366 nm before and
after derivatization.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1 Factors impacting the quality of raw materials
Since the samples of Terminalia chebula, Terminalia bellirica and Black chebula were
collected form forest areas from different places some of the factors to be considered to
impacting the quality of raw materials by applying the various factors like Geographical
location, different supplier sample, washing, graded samples, different parts of the fruit and
species variation.
The macroscopical characters, results of physical and chemical parameters were considered
to know the impact of variants on the quality of the raw material. The median values of all
the test parameters were calculated for each variant and are compared with each other.
3.3.1 Impact of Geographical variation of the sample
The Terminalia chebula fruit rind samples were collected from four different geographical
locations namely Chattishgarh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka of India. The
phytochemical evaluation was performed and the results were compared. The results were
shown in Table 1 and figure 1.
Table 1. Physiochemical parameters of samples from different geographical locations
ANALYTICAL TEST
PARAMETERS
DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
CHATTISGARH TAMILNADU ANDHRA
PRADESH KARNATAKA
Loss on drying % MC 7.64 7.56 9.1 9.69
Total ash (% w/w) 3.13 2.8 2.29 3.66
Acid insoluble ash (% w/w) 0.81 0.55 0.61 1.05
Water soluble extractive
value (% w/w) 32.97 46.91 35.97 31.87
Alcohol soluble extractive
value (% w/w) 10.37 9.73 19.48 30.94
Total tannins (% w/w) 40.4 41.67 54.9 31.92
Total polyphenols (% w/w) 19.3 31.83 27.01 19
HPLC
(%)
Chebulagic acid 10.92 3.64 8.77 2.99
Chebulinic acid 4.21 3.76 7.04 1.61
Ellagic acid 0.81 0.97 0.59 0.34
Gallic acid 1.3 1.33 1.04 0.43
Fig
u
From
t
differe
n
Karnat
a
Polyp
h
sample
3
.
3.2 I
m
The sa
m
Alva p
associ
a
results
The T
L
the ba
n
chang
e
acid, E
3.3.3 I
m
Termi
n
size,
m
Grade
were c
were c
o
The T
L
was o
b
sample
Ellagic
compa
r
u
re 1. Thin
l
t
he TLC c
n
t geograp
h
a
ka were
f
h
enols and
collected
fr
m
pact o
f
s
a
m
ples wer
e
harmacy,
T
a
tes. The p
h
were show
n
L
C chroma
t
n
ds and its
i
e
s in the pe
r
llagic acid
a
m
pact o
f
D
i
n
alia chebu
l
m
aturity of t
h
II (dark co
ollected fo
r
o
mpared. T
h
L
C was pe
r
b
served tha
t
. It was ob
s
acid and
r
ed with Gr
l
ayer chrom
a
hromatogr
a
h
ical sour
c
f
ound to b
e
Chebulagi
c
fr
om Karna
t
a
mples
f
ro
m
e
collected
T
alaguppa,
h
ytochemic
a
n
in Table
2
t
ogram for
i
ntensity w
e
r
centage co
n
a
nd Gallic
a
iff
erent Gr
a
l
a fruit rind
h
e fruit an
d
lour matur
e
r
analysis.
h
e results
w
r
formed for
t
the inten
s
s
erved that
t
Gallic aci
d
ade I and I
I
a
tography o
f
a
m it is o
b
c
e were si
m
e
less. It
w
c
acid, Ch
e
t
aka locatio
n
m
di
ff
erent
s
from seve
n
Shital trad
e
a
l evaluatio
n
2
and Figur
e
all seven s
u
e
re found t
o
n
tent of Ta
n
a
cid for the
a
ded samp
l
samples w
e
d
other exte
e
d fruit), a
n
The phyto
c
w
ere shown
Grade I, I
I
s
ity of the
t
he percent
a
d
was fou
n
I
.
128
f
samples col
b
served th
a
m
ilar but
t
w
as found
t
e
bulinic ac
i
n
were fou
n
s
uppliers
n
different
e
rs, Satyo
m
n
was perf
o
e
2.
u
pplier sa
m
o
be simila
r
n
nins, Poly
p
sample col
l
l
es
e
re separat
e
rnal featur
e
n
d Grade I
I
c
hemical e
v
in Table 3
a
I
and III sa
m
band was
a
ge conten
t
n
d to be le
s
PhytoChe
m
lected from
d
a
t all band
s
t
he band i
n
t
hat the p
e
i
d, Ellagic
n
d to be les
s
suppliers.
T
m
enterprise
o
rmed and t
h
m
ple was c
o
r
. It was fo
u
p
henols an
d
l
ected fro
m
e
d to differ
e
e
s into Gra
d
I
I (damage
d
v
aluation
w
a
nd Figure
m
ple of Te
r
found to b
t
of the Ch
e
s
s in Grad
e
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
m
& BioSub J
o
C
d
ifferent ge
o
s
obtained
n
tensity o
f
e
rcentage c
o
acid and
G
s
.
T
hey are
C
s, Ramkan
n
h
e results
w
o
mpa
r
ed. It
u
nd that th
e
d
Chebulag
m
different s
u
e
nt grades
b
d
e I (dried
m
d
due to e
x
w
as perfor
m
3.
r
minalia c
h
e less in
G
e
bulagic aci
e
III fruit
a
ck 1: Stand
a
a
ck 2: Chatti
a
ck 3: Chatti
a
ck 4: Tamil
a
ck 5: Andh
r
a
ck 6: Karna
t
a
ck 7: Karna
t
a
ck 8: Stand
a
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
o
graphical s
o
for sampl
e
f
the samp
l
o
ntent of
T
G
allic aci
d
C
lassic Me
d
n
a traders
a
w
ere compa
r
was obser
v
e
re is no si
g
ic acid, Ch
e
u
ppliers.
b
ased on th
e
m
atured fr
u
x
ternal fact
o
m
ed and th
e
h
ebula frui
t
G
rade III f
r
d, Chebuli
n
rind samp
l
a
rd
sgarh
sgarh
Nadu
r
a Pradesh
t
aka
t
aka
a
rd
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
o
urce
e
s from
l
e from
T
annins,
for the
d
i herbs,
a
nd KV
r
ed. The
v
ed that
g
nificant
e
bulinic
e
colour,
u
it rind),
o
rs) and
e
results
t
rind. It
r
uit rind
n
ic acid,
l
e when
L
o
T
o
A
c
W
v
a
A
l
v
a
T
o
T
o
H
P
(
%
ANALYTIC
A
PARAME
T
o
ss on drying
%
o
tal ash (% w/
w
c
id insoluble a
s
W
ater soluble e
x
a
lue (% w/w)
l
cohol soluble
e
a
lue (% w/w)
o
tal tannins (%
o
tal polypheno
l
P
LC
%
)
Che
b
acid
Che
b
Ella
g
Gall
i
Table
A
L TEST
T
ERS
%
mc
w
)
s
h (% w/w)
x
tractive
e
xtractive
w/w)
l
s (% w/w)
b
ulagic
b
ulinic aci
d
g
ic aci
d
i
c aci
d
Figure 2.
T
2.
P
hysioc
h
Classic
medi
herbs
p
8.29
2.61
0.76
34.18
5.01
35.56
20.55
8.71
4.03
1.17
1.11
T
hin layer c
h
h
emical par
a
Alva
p
harmacy
8.81
3.04
0.87
34.61
3.04
42.22
18.2
9.04
7.08
0.76
1.03
h
romatogra
p
129
a
meters of s
a
DIF
F
Talaguppa,
sagar
9.82
2.63
0.67
47.46
12.15
50
28.72
6.78
6.08
0.49
0.87
p
hy of sampl
e
T
T
T
T
T
T
e
T
T
T
PhytoChe
m
a
mples from
F
ERENT SUP
P
Shital
trader
s
S
8.88
2.96
1.1
46.6
11.47
50.29
31.06
6.18
4.22
1.25
0.38
e
s collected
f
Tr
ack 1: Sta
n
T
rack 2: Cl
a
T
rack 3: Al
v
T
rack 4: Tal
T
rack 5: K
V
T
rack 6: Sat
y
e
nterprises
T
rack 7: Ra
m
T
rack 8: Shi
T
rack 8: Sta
n
m
& BioSub J
o
C
different su
p
P
LIERS
S
atyom
enter-
prises a
s
7.64
2.97
0.56
46.16
2
2.97
42.44
16.31
5.8
4.24
1.62
0.58
f
rom differe
n
n
dard
a
ssic medi h
e
v
a pharmacy
aguppa
V
associates
y
om
m
kanna trad
e
tal traders
n
dard
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
p
pliers
K.V
s
sociat
es
R
k
a
tr
a
7.42
8
3.39
2
0.98
0
2
8.95 3
3.39 1
30.83 4
14.68
9.08 1
2.72
5
0.87
0
1.69
0
n
t suppliers
e
rbs
e
rs
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
R
am-
a
nna
a
ders
Ag
r
te
c
8
.56 8.
0
2
.23 2.
4
0
.27 0.
7
3.02 26.
8
2.45 9.
2
2.31 38.
2
30 24.
9
4.34 11.
5
5
.26 4.
3
0
.86 0.
5
0
.42 1.
2
r
o-
c
h
0
9
4
6
7
6
8
8
2
9
2
2
9
7
5
5
3
8
5
2
AN
A
Loss o
n
Total a
s
Acid in
s
Water s
Alcoho
l
Total t
a
Total p
o
HPLC
Figu
r
3
.
3.4 I
m
Washi
n
conta
m
washe
d
phytoc
h
shown
The T
L
b
ands
a
chang
e
Ellagic
3.3.5 I
m
Differ
e
fruit, f
r
of the
f
5 and
F
Tab
l
A
LYTICA
L
n
drying %
M
s
h (% w/w)
s
oluble ash
oluble extra
c
l
soluble ext
r
a
nnins (% w
/
o
lyphenols
(
C
h
C
h
El
l
G
a
r
e 3. Thin la
y
m
pact o
f
W
n
g proced
u
m
ination by
d
and un
w
h
emical ev
a
in Table 4
a
L
C was per
f
a
nd its int
e
e
s were obs
acid and
G
m
pact o
f
D
i
e
nt parts of
t
r
uit rind, n
u
f
ruit and th
e
F
igure 5.
l
e 3.
P
hysio
c
L
TEST PA
R
M
C
(% w/w)
c
tive value (
%
r
active valu
e
/
w)
(
% w/w)
h
ebulagic ac
i
h
ebulinic aci
l
agic acid
a
llic acid
y
er chromat
o
W
ashin
g
an
d
u
res was p
microbes
o
w
ashed Te
r
a
luation w
a
a
nd Figure
4
f
ormed for
t
e
nsity were
erved in t
h
G
allic acid
p
iff
erent pa
r
t
he Termin
a
u
t, shell and
e
results w
e
c
hemical pr
o
R
AMETER
S
%
w/w)
e
(% w/w)
i
d
d
o
graphy of
d
d
Un-washi
n
racticed t
o
o
n the sur
f
r
minalia c
a
s perform
e
4
.
t
he two bat
c
found to
b
h
e percenta
g
p
resent in w
a
r
ts o
f
the
f
r
u
a
lia chebul
a
kernel. Th
e
e
re compar
e
Trac
k
Trac
k
Trac
k
Trac
k
130
o
perties of t
h
S
G
R
d
ifferent gra
d
ng
o
remove
a
f
ace of ra
w
hebula fr
u
e
d and the
r
c
hes of Ter
m
b
e similar.
I
g
e co
n
tent
o
a
shed and
u
u
i
t
a
fruits wer
e
e
phytoche
m
e
d with eac
h
k
1: Standar
d
k
2: GRAD
E
k
3: GRAD
E
k
4: GRAD
E
PhytoChe
m
h
ree differe
n
DIF
R
ADE I
7.81
3.15
0.92
38.74
12.64
41.51
21.01
8.89
4.5
1.27
1.1
d
ed sample o
a
ny extran
e
w
material.
u
it rind s
a
r
esults wer
e
m
inalia ch
e
I
t was fou
n
o
f the Che
b
u
nwashed f
r
e
collected
a
m
ical para
m
h
other. Th
d
E
I
E
II
E
III
m
& BioSub J
o
C
n
t graded sa
m
FERENT
G
GRADE
I
6.91
3.64
0.99
32.54
6.33
42.74
21.74
11.03
4.28
0.8
1.55
f Terminali
a
e
ous matte
The two d
a
mples we
r
e
compare
d
e
bula fruit
r
n
d that the
r
b
ulagic aci
d
r
uit rinds
a
nd separat
e
m
eters were
e results w
e
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
m
ples
G
RADES
I
I GR
A
6
2
0
3
0
1
3
9
2
2
5
2
1
2
a
chebula fr
u
rs like so
i
ifferent ba
t
r
e collect
e
d
. The resu
l
r
ind sample
r
e is no si
g
d
, Chebuli
n
e
d. They a
r
performed
a
e
re shown
i
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
A
DE III
6
.92
2
.84
0
.77
0
.68
1.99
9
.87
2
.65
5
.67
2
.06
1
.12
2
.18
u
it rind
i
l, dust,
t
ches of
e
d. The
l
ts were
and the
g
nificant
n
ic acid,
r
e whole
a
ll parts
i
n Table
A
Loss o
n
Total a
s
Acid i
n
Water
s
Alcoho
Total t
a
Total p
o
HPLC
(%)
The T
L
compa
r
intensi
t
param
e
extract
i
Tanni
n
the fru
i
3.3.6 I
m
The F
u
comm
o
fully
m
phytoc
h
shown
Tab
l
A
NALYTIC
A
n
drying %
M
s
h (% w/w)
n
soluble ash
s
oluble extra
l soluble ext
r
a
nnins (%
w
o
lyphenols
(
Ch
e
Ch
e
Ell
a
Gal
l
Figu
r
L
C were
p
r
ison. The
t
y for nut
e
ters Loss
i
ve value,
n
s and Poly
p
i
t.
m
pact o
f
M
u
lly mature
o
nly called
m
ature an
d
h
emical ev
a
in Table 6
a
l
e 4.
P
hysio
c
A
L TEST P
M
C
(% w/w)
ctive value
(
r
active valu
e
w
/w)
(
% w/w)
e
bulagic aci
d
e
bulinic acid
a
gic acid
l
ic acid
r
e 4. Thin l
a
p
erformed
bands elut
sample is
on Dryin
g
Alcohol s
o
p
henols we
r
M
ature and
U
and unripe
as Black c
h
d
dried fr
u
a
luation w
a
a
nd Figure
c
hemical pr
op
ARAMET
E
(
% w/w)
e
(% w/w)
d
a
yer chromat
o
for Termi
n
ed in both
less whe
n
g
, Total as
h
o
luble extr
a
r
e found to
U
nripe
f
ru
i
fruit of Te
r
h
ebula or
b
u
it is cal
l
a
s perform
e
6.
131
op
erties of w
a
E
RS
o
graphy of
w
n
alia cheb
u
the parts
n
compare
d
h
vale, A
c
a
ctive valu
e
be more i
n
it
r
minalia ch
e
b
lack myro
b
l
ed as M
y
e
d and the
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
PhytoChe
m
a
shed and u
W
washed s
a
7.64
3.13
0.81
40.4
5
14.7
5
42.6
2
21.3
5
12.2
5
5.2
0.62
1.36
w
ashed and
u
u
la fruit r
i
are simila
r
d
with fr
u
c
id insolub
e
s and the
n
fruit rind
e
bula was
c
b
alan and i
t
y
robalan o
r
r
esults wer
e
T
rack 1: Sta
n
T
rack 2: Wa
T
rack 3: U
n
T
rack 4: W
a
T
rack 5: U
n
T
rack 6: Sta
n
m
& BioSub J
o
C
nwashed sa
m
W
ASHING
M
a
mple
u
5
5
2
5
5
u
nwashed sa
m
i
nd and n
u
r
with stan
d
u
it rind. T
h
le ash val
u
percentag
e
sample tha
n
c
ollected. T
h
t
does cont
r
Chebuli
c
e
compare
d
n
dard
shed fruit ri
n
n
washed frui
t
a
shed fruit ri
n
washed frui
t
n
dard
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
m
ples
M
ETHODS
u
nwashed s
a
7.97
3.16
1.02
37.03
10.53
40.4
20.66
8.53
3.81
1.93
0.85
m
ple.
u
t sample
d
ard but t
h
h
e physioc
h
u
e, Water
e
content
o
n
any othe
r
h
e unripe
fr
ain hard s
e
c
myrobal
a
d
. The resu
l
n
d
t
rind
nd
t
rind
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
a
mple
for the
h
e band
h
emical
soluble
o
f Total
r
part of
fr
uit was
e
ed. The
a
n. The
l
ts were
Loss on
d
Total as
h
Acid ins
o
Water so
Alcohol
s
Total ta
n
Total po
l
HPLC
(%)
Table 5.
Ph
ANALYTI
C
PARA
M
d
rying % M
C
h
(% w/w)
o
luble ash (
%
luble extrac
t
s
oluble extra
c
Chemical
p
n
nins (% w/
w
l
yphenols (
%
Chebulag
i
Chebulin
i
Ellagic a
c
Gallic aci
d
Fig
u
h
ysiochemic
a
C
AL TEST
M
ETERS
C
%
w/w)
t
ive value (
%
c
tive value (
%
p
arameters
w
)
%
w/w)
i
c acid
i
c acid
c
id
d
u
re 5. Thin
L
a
l paramete
r
%
w
/
)
%
w/w)
W
L
ayer Chrom
a
and nut c
o
132
r
s of differe
n
WHOLE
6.5
2.
2
0.
3
21.
8
10.
6
DI
F
W
HOLE
FRUIT
39.69
14.87
7.22
1.67
3.54
2.9
a
tography o
f
o
mpared wi
t
PhytoChe
m
n
t parts of
T
DIFF
E
FRUIT
8
2
3
8
7
6
8
F
FERENT
P
FRUIT
RIND
43.71
10.09
10.09
2.4
6.06
5.09
f
Terminalia
t
h standard
m
& BioSub J
o
C
T
erminalia c
h
E
RENT PA
R
FRUIT
R
8.4
8
2.6
9
0.
8
26.
9
2.6
9
P
ARTS OF
T
NUT
S
27.5
4
5.42
0.05
0.21
0.13
0.1
chebula fru
i
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
h
ebula fruit
R
TS
R
IND
8
9
8
9
6
9
T
HE FRUI
T
S
HELL
K
5.27
5.07
0.7
0.27
0.51
0.11
i
t rind
Track 1: S
Track 2: F
rind
Track 3:
N
Track 1: S
t
Track 2:
W
Track 3: F
r
Track 4:
N
Track 5:
S
Track 6:
K
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
NUT
8.31
1.67
0.25
9.51
10.16
T
K
ERNEL
4.73
4.45
0.07
0.36
0.97
0.2
tandar
d
ruit
N
ut
t
andar
d
W
hole fruit
r
uit rin
d
N
ut
S
hell
K
ernel
Tab
l
A
N
Loss on
Total as
h
Acid in
s
Water s
o
Alcohol
Total ta
n
Total p
o
HPLC
(%)
The T
L
intensi
t
conten
t
compa
r
acid w
e
3
.
3.7 I
m
Termi
n
collect
e
compa
r
l
e 6. Compa
r
N
ALYTICA
L
drying %
M
h
value (%
w
s
oluble ash
v
o
luble extra
c
soluble extr
n
nins (% w/
w
o
lyphenols (
%
Che
b
Che
b
Gall
i
Ella
g
Figure 6
.
L
C was p
e
t
y for Blac
k
t
of Total
T
r
ed. The pe
r
e
re quantit
a
m
pact o
f
Di
n
alia chebu
l
e
d and th
e
r
ed with ea
c
r
ison of ph
y
a
L
TEST PA
R
M
C
w
/w)
v
alue (% w/
w
c
tive value (
%
active value
w
)
%
w/w)
b
ulinic acid
b
ulagic acid
i
c acid
g
ic acid
.
Thin layer
c
e
rformed f
o
k
chebula
w
T
annins an
d
r
centage as
s
a
tively esti
m
iff
erent sp
e
l
a and Ter
m
e
y were s
u
c
h other. T
h
y
siochemica
l
a
nd Termin
a
R
AMETE
R
w
)
%
w/w)
(% w/w)
c
hromatogr
a
o
r Black c
h
w
as found t
o
d
Polyphe
n
s
ay of Che
b
m
ated and c
o
e
cies
m
inalia bell
i
u
bjected fo
r
h
e results w
133
l
parameters
a
lia chebula
R
S
B
a
phy of
B
lac
k
h
ebula and
o
be more
t
n
ols for Bl
a
b
ulagic aci
d
o
mpared.
i
rica are th
e
r
phytoch
e
ere shown
i
PhytoChe
m
between Bl
a
(mature fru
i
MATUR
E
B
LACK C
H
6.8
7
2.15
0.4
7
47.1
5
7.18
43.2
1
30.5
2
6.93
1.41
0.9
2
0.55
k
chebula a
n
Terminali
a
t
han Termi
n
a
ck chebula
d
, Chebulin
i
e
two diffe
r
e
mical eva
l
i
n Table 7
a
m
& BioSub J
o
C
a
ck chebula
i
t)
E
AND IM
M
H
EBULA
7
7
5
1
2
2
n
d Terminali
a
a
chebula
f
n
alia cheb
u
was foun
d
i
c acid, Ell
a
r
ent species
l
uation an
d
a
nd Figure
7
Tr
a
Tr
a
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
(immature
f
M
ATURE F
R
TERMI
N
CHE
B
6.5
2.
2
0.
3
21.
8
18.
39.
6
14.
8
1.
6
7.
2
3.5
2.
9
a
chebula.
f
ruit and t
h
u
la. The pe
r
d
to be mo
r
a
gic acid an
d
of Termin
a
d
the resul
t
7
.
a
ck 1: Whol
e
a
ck 2: Black
c
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
f
ruit)
R
UIT
N
ALIA
B
ULA
8
2
3
8
7
3
6
9
8
7
6
7
2
2
4
9
h
e band
r
centage
r
e when
d
Gallic
a
lia was
t
s were
e
frui
t
c
hebula
A
Loss on
d
Total as
h
Acid ins
o
(% w/w)
Water s
o
Value (
%
Alcohol
Value (
%
Total ta
n
Total po
l
HPLC
(%)
Table 7. C
o
A
NALYTI
C
PARAM
E
d
rying % M
C
h
(% w/w)
o
luble ash
o
luble extrac
t
%
w/w)
soluble extr
a
%
w/w)
n
nins (% w/
w
l
yphenols (
%
Chebula
g
Chebuli
n
Ellagic a
c
Gallic ac
Figure 7. T
h
o
mparison
o
of Te
r
C
AL TEST
E
TERS
C
t
ive
a
ctive
w
)
%
w/w)
g
ic acid
n
ic acid
c
id
id
h
in layer ch
r
o
f physioche
r
minalia ch
e
w
2
1
3
1
r
omatograp
h
134
mical para
m
e
bula and T
e
Termina
l
w
hole
fruit f
r
r
6.58
8
2.2
2
0.3
0
2
1.87 2
6
1
0.68
2
3
9.69 6
2
1
4.87 1
6
7.22 1
2
1.67
5
3.54
0
2.9
0
h
y of Termin
a
PhytoChe
m
m
eters betwe
e
e
rminalia b
e
DIFFE
R
l
ia chebula
r
uit
r
ind n
u
8
.48 8.
3
2
.69 1.
6
0
.8 0.
2
6
.96 9.
5
2
.69 10.
2
.95 28.
6
6
.83 16.
4
2
.58 1.
2
5
.99 1.
2
0
.38 0.
3
0
.63 0.
4
a
lia chebula
m
& BioSub J
o
C
e
n two diffe
r
e
llirica
R
ENT SPE
C
T
e
u
t whol
e
frui
t
3
1 7.63
6
7 1.48
2
5 0.86
5
1 12.2
3
16 8.19
6
2 4.29
4
3 10.7
6
2
8 0.56
2
8 0.67
3
0.13
4
1 0.63
and Termin
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
Tr
a
o
urnal Vol.
1
ISSN
2
C
AS-CODE
N
r
ent species
C
IES
e
rminalia b
e
e
t
fruit
rind
7.64
3.41
1.16
3
22.97
8.45
9.21
6
9.46
1.45
1.25
0.22
0.99
a
lia belliric
a
a
ck 1: Whol
e
a
ck 2: Fruit r
i
a
ck 3: Nu
t
1
4(2) 2020
2
170-1768
N
:PBJHB3
e
llirica
nut
6.82
2.65
0.45
8.42
8.25
3.85
5.96
0.07
0.92
0.35
0.52
a
e
frui
t
i
nd
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
135
The TLC chromatograms were compared. The pattern was found to be different with each
other and the band intensity for Terminalia bellirica was found to be less than Terminalia
chebula. It was observed that the percentage content of the Chebulagic acid, Chebulinic acid,
Ellagic acid and Gallic acid was found more in Terminalia chebula when compared with
Terminalia bellirica
CONCLUSION
As the raw material collected directly from forest areas, only few variants are impacting
material quality. Impact factors such as washing procedure, geographical location,
different grades, and different suppliers were investigated using various analytical test
parameters. The research were summarized, median value of all test parameters calculated
for each variants and the results were compared each other. The physical appearance,
texture, colour, size of the material, results of physical and chemical parameters considered
to know the impact of variants on material quality. It was observed that
I. There is no significant difference was found between washed and unwashed samples.
II. There is no significant difference was found between the samples from different
geographical source.
III. There is no significant difference was found within different supplier samples.
IV. The percentage content of Tannins and Chebulagic acid, Chebulinic acid, Ellagic acid
and Gallic acid are less in grade III when compared to grade I and II.
V. The percentage content of Tannins, polyphenols and Chebulagic acid, Chebulinic
acid, Ellagic acid and Gallic acid were higher in fruit rind than any other part of the
fruit
VI. The percentage content of Tannins, polyphenols and Chebulagic acid, Chebulinic
acid, Ellagic acid and Gallic acid were higher in Terminalia chebula compared with
Terminalia bellirica.
The above findings are useful for the determination of quality of the Terminalia chebula
fruit rind raw material collected from different geographical sources from India.
Acknowledgement
The authors are thankful to the Principal, Swamy Vivekanandha College of Pharmacy, for
his constant encouragement and support and The Himalaya Drug Company for their help and
valuable guidance to carry out the project work.
REFERENCE
[1] Kirtikar KR, Basu BD. (1918). Indian medicinal plants. Indian Medicinal Plants.
[2] Ayurvedic Pharmacopeia of India Volume 1. Part I. 2001.47.
[3] Kokate CK, Purohit AP, Gokhale SB. 2017. Pharmacognosy. Pune: Nirali Prakashan,
01.01- 01.16
[4] William Evans C. Trease and Evans Pharmacognosy. Edinburgh: Sauders Elsevier,
2009, pg.135- 138.
[5] Ansari, SH. 2008. Essentials of Pharmacognosy. Delhi: Birla Publications Pvt. Ltd,
2008, pg.10- 14, 351- 352.
[6] Edwin Jarald E, Sheeja Edwin Jarald. Textbook of Pharmacognosy and
Phytochemistry. New Delhi: CBS Publishers & Distributors Pvt. Ltd, 2010, pg.8-27,
37, 107-111.
[7] Gupta, AK. 2003. Quality Standards of Indian Medicinal Plants, Indian Council of
Medical Research, New Delhi, Volume I, 205-211.
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal Vol. 14(2) 2020
ISSN 2170-1768
CAS-CODEN:PBJHB3
136
[8] Vadlamani S, Bala Durga DK, Kumar BV. Immuno-modulatory activity of ethanolic
leaf extract of Terminalia chebula. Int. Lett. Nat. Sci. 2015; 47.
[9] Riaz M, Khan O, Sherkheli MA, Khan MQ, Rashid R. Chemical constituents of
Terminalia chebula. Natural Products: Ind. J. 2017; 13(2):112.
[10] Nadkarni, KM. The Indian Materi Medica. Volume I. 1206
[11] Mohammed A. 1994. Text book of Pharmacognosy. CBS Publishers and
Distributors, 2nd edition, 376-377.
[12] Deswal G, Saini V. Quality audit of herbal drugs-a review. World J. Pharm. Res.
2015; 4(11):400-417.
[13] Ranjini TN, Suryanarayana MA, Bhanuprakas K, Umesha K. Estimation of
chebulagic and Chebulinic acid in Terminalia chebula. J. Bio. Scan. 2015; 10(2):549-
551.
[14] Meena AK, Rao MM, Sharma K, Yadav A, Singh U. Physicochemical and
Preliminary Phytochemical Studies on the Fruit of Terminalia chebula Retz. Asian J.
Chem. 2010; 3(4):844-6.
[15] Manohar VR, Chandrashekar R, Rao SN. Phytochemical Analysis of Ethanolic
Extract of Fruits of Terminalia chebula (EEFTC). Drug Invent. Today. 2012; 4(10).
[16] Kumar A, Kumar S, Rai A, Ram B. Pharmacognostical and Phytochemical Evaluation
of Haritaki (Terminalia chebula Retz.) Fruit Pulp. Int. j. pharm. chem. biol. sci. 2017;
7(4).
[17] Anil M, Nandini P. Simultaneous isolation and identification of phytoconstituents
from Terminalia chebula by preparative chromatography. J. Chem. Pharm. Res. 2010;
2(5):97-103.
[18] Mahajan AD, Pai NR. Development and validation of HPLC method for
quantification of phytoconstituents in Haritaki Churna. Int. J ChemTech research.
2011; 3(1):329-36.
[19] Dhanani T, Shah S, Kumar S. A Validated High-Performance Liquid
Chromatography method for determination of tannin-related marker constituents
gallic acid, corilagin, Chebulagic acid, Ellagic acid and Chebulinic acid in four
Terminalia species from India. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2014; 53(4):625-32.
[20] Han Q, Song J, Qiao C, Wong L, Xu H. Preparative isolation of hydrolysable tannins
chebulagic acid and chebulinic acid from Terminalia chebula by high speed counter
current chromatography. J. Sep. Sci. 2006; 29(11):1653-7.
[21] Juang LJ, Sheu SJ, Lin TC. Determination of hydrolyzable tannins in the fruit of
Terminalia chebula Retz. by HighPerformance Liquid Chromatography and
Capillary electrophoresis. J. Sep. Sci. 2004; 27(9):718-24.
[22] Kumar A, Lakshman K, Jayaveera KN, Tripathi SM, Satish KV. Estimation of gallic
acid, rutin and quercetin in Terminalia chebula by HPTLC. Jordan J Pharm Sci. 2010;
3(1):63-8.
[23] Tripathi Idra P, Dwivedi Neelesh, Shukla Puspendra. Estimation of Gallic acid in
Terminalia chebula Linn. Fruit by validated HPTLC method. Unique J. Pharm. Bio.
Sci. 2015; 03(03):24-28.
[24] Savitha T, Arivukkarasu R. Determination of phytocompounds from Terminalia
chebula Retz by HPTLC densitometric method. Int. J Pharm Pharm. Sci. 2014;
6(7):516-520.
[25] Singh MP, Sharma CS. Pharmacognostical evaluation of Terminalia chebula fruits on
different market samples. Int J Chem Technol Res. 2010; 2(1):57-61.
[26] Balaji K, Ni LH, Rajindran B, Sikarwar MS, Fuloria NK, Fuloria S. Determination of
Total Phenolic, Flavonoid Content and Antioxidant Activity of Terminalia Chebula
(Fruit). Res. J. Pharm. Bio. Chem. Sci. 2015; 6(2):413-7.
PhytoChem & BioSub Journal
Peer-reviewed research journal on Phytochemistry & Bioactive Substances
ISSN 2170 - 1768 EISSN 2602-5132
ISSN 2170-1768
Edition LPSO - Phytochemistry & Organic Synthesis Laboratory-
https://sites.google.com/site/phytochembsj/
Email: phytochem07@yahoo.fr
P
O S L
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
The present communication attempts to evaluate the physicochemical and preliminary phytochemical studies on the fruit of Terminalia chebula Retz. Combretaceae family. Haritaki is semi-deciduous tree grows up to 24 meter in height. Terminalia Chebula is found throughout India chiefly in deciduous forests, on dry slopes up to 900m especially in Tamil Nadu, widely distributed through the greater parts of India, from Ravi eastwards to West Bengal and Assam, Bihar, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Deccan, West coast and Western Ghats. The plant is also reported in Sri Lanka, Nepal and Burma. Terminalia chebula is traditionally used in the formulation for anti-diabetic, antimicrobial, laxative, anti-inflammatory, laxative, anti-fungal, cardiotonic, diuretic, hyperlipidemic activity. As there is no detailed standardisation work reported on fruit, the physicochemical parameters, preliminary phytochemical constants, toxic heavy metals, pesticide residue, and aflatoxin analysis are carried out. The study revealed specific identities for the particular crude drug which will be useful in identification and control to adulterations of the raw drug.
Article
Objective: The present investigation has been focused on the detection of antibacterial activity of methanolic extract by disc diffusion method and the quantitative estimation of phyto constituents from Terminalia chebula, (King of Medicine) by High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography (HPTLC) method. Methods: An in vitro study on the efficacy of methanol extract of T.chebula was carried out. For this analysis, Tannic acid (TA), Gallic acid (GA), Ellagic acid (EA) were as used as standard markers by using toluene: ethyl acetate: formic acid: methanol (4.3:4.3:1:1.2:0.3, V/V/V/V) was used as a mobile phase. Detection and quantification were performed densitometrically at Lambda 254 nm. Results: The methanol extract has shown best activity against test strains. The Rf values of standards were 0.78 for TA, 0.74 for GA and 0.63 for EA. The total peak areas of the standards and the corresponding peak areas of extracts were composed and the statistical analysis was carried out. Conclusions: Based on the present findings, there is a wide opportunity for the development of new drug formulations for the effective treatment against multiple drug resistant micro organisms with no side effects with lesser costs.
Article
A high performance liquid chromatography method coupled with diode array detection was developed to simultaneously determine seven different marker compounds in Haritaki churna, an ayurvedic formulation. These markers are gallic acid (1), methyl gallate (2), ethyl gallate (3), ellagic acid (4), chebulagic acid (5), chebulinic acid (6) penta-O-galloyl-β-D-glucose (7). HPLC analysis was carried out at wavelength 272nm. The developed method was able to determine the marker compounds with excellent resolution, precision and recovery. The chromatographic separation was performed on Thermo Scientific BDS HYPERSIL Phenyl reversed-phase column (100mm×4.6mm, 3μm). The mobile phase was consisted of 0.02% triethyl amine aqueous pH 3.0 with ortho-phosphoric acid (A) and acetonitrile (B) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min gradient mode. Regression equations showed good linear relationships (R 2 > 0.998) between the peak area of each marker and concentration. The assay was reproducible with overall intra- and inter-day variation of less than 3.4%. The recoveries, measured at three concentration levels, varied from 97.8% to 101.1%. The method was applied to determine the amounts of the marker compounds in three different commercial market samples, and significant variations in phytoconstituents were observed.
Article
Plants of genus Terminalia belongs to family Combretaceae and have been widely employed for various health ailments. Objective of the present study is to do preliminary phytochemical screening of Ethanolic Extract of Fruits of Terminalia chebula (EEFTC). About 1000 gm of air dried crude powder material of fruits of Terminalia chebula was extracted with 90% ethanol in a Soxhlet extractor for 36 hours. It was concentrated to dryness under reduced pressure and controlled temperature (40-50°C) using rotary evaporator. The ethanolic extract yielded a brownish mass weighing 165g. The ethanolic extract was concentrated by vacuum distillation to dryness; the yield obtained was 16.5% w/w with respect to dried powder. The preliminary screening of EEFTC for its phytochemical constituents were performed using generally accepted laboratory technique for qualitative determination which showed the presence of phytosterols, Triterpenoids, carbohydrates, glycosides, phenolic compounds and tannins.