Next Article in Journal
Lithium Extraction from Salt Lake Brine with High Mass Ratio of Mg/Li Using TBP-DIBK Extraction System
Next Article in Special Issue
Characterization of the Aroma Profile of Food Smoke at Controllable Pyrolysis Temperatures
Previous Article in Journal
A Compendium of the Principal Stationary Phases Used in Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography: Where Have We Arrived?
Previous Article in Special Issue
Phytochemical Compound Profile and the Estimation of the Ferruginol Compound in Different Parts (Roots, Leaves, and Seeds) of Juniperus procera
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Separations
Volume 10
Issue 1
10.3390/separations10010023
separations-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Thin Layer Chromatographic Method for Detection of Conventional Drug Adulterants in Herbal Products

by
Christopher Johnson Mwankuna
1,*,
Eliapenda Elisante Mariki
1,
Faith Philemon Mabiki
1,
Hamisi Masanja Malebo
2,
Bjarne Styrishave
3 and
Robinson Hammerton Mdegela
4
1
Department of Chemistry and Physics, College of Natural and Applied Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro P.O. Box 3038, Tanzania
2
UNESCO National Commission of the United Republic of Tanzania, Dar es Salaam P.O. Box 20384, Tanzania
3
Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Denmark Universitetsparken 2, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
4
Department of Veterinary Medicine and Public Health, College of Veterinary and Biomedical Sciences, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro P.O. Box 3021, Tanzania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Separations 2023, 10(1), 23; https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10010023
Submission received: 13 November 2022 / Revised: 21 December 2022 / Accepted: 23 December 2022 / Published: 31 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Application of Chromatography in Analytical Chemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Commercially available conventional drugs have been used to adulterate herbal products. Considering the rapid growth of herbal products’ market, it is essential to screen herbal products for the presence of conventional drugs. Simple analytical methods are needed for the rapid screening of conventional drugs that are likely to be adulterated in herbal products. Thin layer chromatography (TLC) methods for screening twelve conventional drugs in herbal products have been developed and applied. The analytes were extracted from herbal products using acetonitrile:methanol:acetic acid:water (4:4:1:1, v/v). Solvent mixture of dichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (75:15:10, v/v) separated well trimethoprim, sildenafil, paracetamol, and sulfamethoxazole while pyrimethamine, metronidazole, and sulfadoxine were well separated by dichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (77.5:12.5:10, v/v). In addition, acetyl salicylic acid, ibuprofen, diclofenac, quinine, and lumefantrine were well separated by ethyl acetate:methanol:30% ammonia (75:22.5:2.5, v/v). Chromatographic separations were found to be highly reproducible, and more than 10 samples can be analysed in one run. The method was applied in the screening of 229 herbal products. Consequently, 24.0% of the samples contained one adulterant, while 21.4% contained at least two adulterants. All conventional drugs detected in herbal products were not mentioned on the labels and therefore the consumers are kept unaware of their side effects and health problems. Further studies for confirming and quantitatively determining the adulterants in a wide range of products as well as a systematic toxicological analysis of the adulterants in herbal products are recommended.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The use and demand for herbal products in both developed and developing countries is increasing [1]. The adulteration of herbal products is a growing menace in sub-Saharan African countries [2,3,4]. Adulteration in the context of herbal products is the intentional addition of undeclared drugs/chemical substances or substitution with non-drug components, or the addition of foreign non-drug materials into a product [5,6]. In Tanzania, traditional health practitioners have reported that some of their colleagues add conventional drugs to their herbal preparations to compel the users that herbal preparations are potent [7]. Cheating on the efficacy of some herbal products has been reported where adulteration with conventional drugs is performed by some practitioners to position the herbal product brand in the market [8]. The adulteration of herbal products with conventional drugs has been reported in Asia, Europe, Africa, USA, and Brazil [4,9,10,11]. Nevertheless, the extent and levels of the adulteration of herbal products remain poorly documented.
The adulteration of herbal products with conventional drugs pose health risks. The use of adulterated herbal products may result into herbal–drug interactions that can lead to adverse health problems [12,13,14,15]. Moreover, the use of herbal products containing variable amounts of conventional drugs may contribute to antimicrobial resistance. However, the impacts of such adulterants on the quality of herbal products remain poorly understood.
The ever-increasing popularity of herbal-based medications dictates that the national and international regulatory bodies assess the quality of herbal products. The screening of herbal products for the presence of conventional drugs is an integral part in assessing the quality of herbal products. However, the methods/techniques for screening the quality of herbal products are limited. Consequently, most herbal products remain unscreened for adulteration. This calls for the development of an easy and rapid method/technique for screening the quality of herbal products in the market. Different methods are reported for the detection of conventional drugs in herbal products. Capillary electrophoresis has been used for the analysis of adulteration in herbal medicines and dietary supplements for weight control [16]. Thin layer chromatography (TLC), high-performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC), and high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) have been used for the determination of erectile dysfunction drugs and steroids in herbal preparations [17,18]. High-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/MS) has been used for the screening and determination of erectile dysfunction drugs and antibiotics in herbal products [19,20,21]. Thin layer chromatography (TLC) is simple, less expensive, and easy to execute, and its components have low electrical power requirements [22]. For instance, the separation step does not require power, and, when indicator chemicals are used for visualization, it can be applied using a hand-operated sprayer. However, when an ultraviolet (UV) lamp, which is a common visualization light system, is used, power is required. TLC is also fast and can analyse several samples at a time and, with appropriate modifications, can be taken to the field [23,24,25,26,27]. Other chromatographic techniques such as gas chromatography (GC) and high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) can be used for the detection of conventional drugs, although the costs for their continuous operation are higher than those for TLC. Mass spectrometric (MS) detection is a most convenient tool for confirmation; however, it is not available in many laboratories, or the laboratory infrastructure does not make their continuous use possible. TLC can be used for screening the conventional drugs in laboratories where there is an irregular supply of electricity or a limited budget for using GC and HPLC techniques and where the application of mass spectrometric detection is not feasible. Therefore, TLC is widely used for the screening of samples before using confirmatory techniques and in resource-limited settings. In addition, the simultaneous analysis of samples and standards statistically increases its analytical precision and accuracy [28]. In this study, simple and rapid TLC methods that can be used for screening purposes prior to more demanding techniques were developed and used to detect conventional drugs mentioned in Table 1. The selection of conventional drugs was based on their common usage in Tanzania. During the optimization of the mobile phase’s composition, an emphasis was placed on achieving the best possible overall separation of the selected conventional drugs.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials, Reagents and Chemicals

Reagents used included HPLC grade methanol (Finar, India, 99.8%), HPLC grade acetonitrile (Finar, India, 99.9%), water for HPLC (Carlo Erba, France), HPLC grade ethyl acetate (Loba Chemie, India, 99.5%), dichloromethane (Finar, India, 99.9%), and analytical grade 30% ammonia solution (Loba Chemie, India). Precoated TLC sheets (ALUGRAM Xtra SIL G/UV254, Macherey-Nagel, Germany) were used as the chromatographic plates. Chromatographic developments were carried out in a rectangular glass and chromatographic spots were visualized using ultraviolet lamps emitting 254 and 366 nm radiation. Analytical standards of metronidazole, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, sildenafil, paracetamol, pyrimethamine, sulfadoxine, acetyl salicylic acid, ibuprofen, diclofenac, quinine, and lumefantrine were from Sigma Aldrich. All analytical standards had purity above 99%.

2.2. Preparation of Standards and Samples

Individual reference standard solutions were prepared by dissolving each analytical standard in methanol, producing 1.0 mg mL−1, and they were stored at −20 °C. Mixture of standards were prepared at 0.2 mg mL−1 using methanol as diluent.
Next, 5 g of the sample in a 100 mL Erlenmeyer flask 20 mL of the extraction solvent mixture (acetonitrile:methanol:acetic acid:water, 4:4:1:1, v/v) was added. The mixture was sonicated for 20 min. It was then passed through Whatman filter paper (No. 1) before analysis.

2.3. Optimization of Mobile Phase Composition for TLC Method

The optimal mobile phase compositions for the separation of the selected conventional drugs were achieved by testing solvents of various compositions of ethyl acetate and methanol; dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, and methanol; dichloromethane, ethyl acetate, and acetone. Individual standard solutions were spotted on the 20 cm × 10 cm TLC plates, which had been divided into 20 strips with width of 1.0 cm. Aliquots of 5 µL of each of the standards were spotted on TLC plates at a distance of 1 cm using a micropipette. The plates were developed in a closed glass chamber containing developing solvents having prior saturation at 25–30 °C. Chromatograms were observed on UV light at 254 nm and retention factors (Rf) were established for each analyte using Equation (1). In addition, the peak shape and the separation were visually assessed.
R f = Distance   moved   by   the   analyte   Distance   covered   by   the   mobile   phase  

2.4. Application of the Optimized Method

2.4.1. Sample Collection

Herbal products described for various ailments were randomly obtained from shops, street vendors, open markets, clinics, and home-based practitioners using the covert method of sampling from July 2018 to April 2019. The address of the centres were gathered from district coordinators for traditional and alternative medicine. Large business cities of Dar es Salaam and Arusha as well as the urban areas of Njombe and Manyara regions in Tanzania were included in the study. Of the 229 collected samples, 34 were from Arusha, 45 were from Dar es Salaam, 64 were from Manyara, and 86 were from Njombe. Samples were bought from shops (30%), street vendors (29%), clinics (22%), home-based practitioners (17%), and open markets (2%). The major health problems indicated on the labels were bacterial infections (24%), painkiller (31.9%), malaria (17.5%), erectile dysfunction (10.9%), diabetes (8.3%), and others (7.4). Most of the samples were packed in well-designed plastic bottles (75.4%). Others were packed in paper bags (17.2%), used water bottles (5.3%), and some were wrapped in pieces of newspaper (2.1%). All samples were in powder form and, after purchase, were stored in a freezer to maintain their integrity.

2.4.2. Analysis of Collected Samples

Aliquots of 5 µL of each of the sample extracts were spotted on the TLC plates using a micropipette and two spots of a mixture of standards were also applied. The plates were developed in a closed glass chamber containing developing solvents. Similarities between the retention factors of detected spots from samples with standards led to the identity of analytes in the samples. Figure 1 shows a photograph of the chromatogram for the separation of the samples and a mixture of standards.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Optimization of Mobile Phase Composition for TLC Methods

Solvent development usually required 25–40 min and the pre-saturation of the TLC chamber with a mobile phase for at least 30 min, which led to a good separation with reproducible retention factor (Rf) values, as also observed in previous studies [29,30]. The attempt to separate all the twelve compounds (metronidazole, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, sildenafil, paracetamol, pyrimethamine, sulfadoxine, acetyl salicylic acid, ibuprofen, diclofenac, quinine, and lumefantrine) on a single TLC plate was not successful, as several compounds had very close values of retention factor. This could be due to the similar retaining ability of the compounds rendered by the characteristics of the compounds and mobile phase [31]. Based on the tested solvents and their compositions, metronidazole, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, sildenafil, paracetamol, pyrimethamine, and sulfadoxine were best separated by dichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (75:15:10, v/v). The retention factors of sulfadoxine and sulfamethoxazole, as well as those of sildenafil and metronidazole, were very close, such that two different runs, with minor changes in composition (method I and II), were proposed for the best visualization, as indicated in Table 2. A slight increase in dichloromethane and a slight decrease in ethyl acetate lead to increased retention factors of metronidazole and sulfadoxine. On the other hand, acetyl salicylic acid, ibuprofen, diclofenac, quinine, and lumefantrine were best separated by ethyl acetate:methanol:30% ammonia (75:22.5:2.5, v/v).

3.2. Application of the Optimized Method

3.2.1. Characterization of Collected Herbal Samples

Most of the products’ labels (66%) did not indicate the composition and amount of the different ingredients in the products, the manufacturer’s address, dosage, manufacturing, and expiry dates. None of the labels indicated the presence of the conventional drugs in the product. About 86.3% of the labelled products were marked as being a 100% natural product. Very few samples (5.9%) indicated the composition of the product, while 9.7% described the storage conditions. Relatively large number of samples (58.2%) indicated the dosage of the herbal product. Therapeutic indications were presented on all labels, and, in most cases, it was indicated that a single product can treat at least five ailments. Similar observations have been reported elsewhere [32,33]. Products packed in paper bags, used water bottles, and pieces of newspaper may raise concerns about the hygiene under which products are prepared.

3.2.2. Adulteration of Herbal Products

Out of 229 screened samples, 24.0% contained one adulterant, while 21.4% contained at least two adulterants. Samples collected from the Njombe region presented the highest adulteration rates (51%), followed by Dar es Salaam (47%), Manyara (47%), and Arusha (26). The adulterants found in the screened products were trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, pyrimethamine, paracetamol, sulfadoxine, metronidazole, sildenafil, lumefantrine, acetyl salicylic acid, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and quinine. This is a likely result of the ill practice of some traditional health practitioners to capture the market for their products. Adding conventional drugs to herbal preparations by untrustworthy traditional health practitioners have been noted elsewhere [7]. As indicated in Table 3, half of the samples from herbal shops, street vendors, and open markets contained adulterants. Herbal clinics and homebased practitioners, respectively, had 39% and 37% of samples that contained adulterants. A high percentage of adulteration for the products from herbal shops and street vendors may be attributed to the dealers aspiring to position their herbal product brand in the market and hence make a large profit. Similarly, the adulteration of herbal products with varieties of conventional drugs has been observed in other counties [2,3,8,18].

3.2.3. Frequency of Adulterants

The most common adulterants are listed in order of the frequency of detection (with the incidents of detection totalling above four) in Table 4. Trimethoprim (43), sulfamethoxazole (28), pyrimethamine (27), paracetamol (25), sulfadoxine (19), and metronidazole (15) were among the most frequently encountered adulterants. Up to eight adulterants were detected in a single sample. Almost quarter of the screened products (24.0%) contained one adulterant, and 21.4% contained at least two adulterants. The presence of more than one adulterant in a product was observed by other researchers [9,34]. Trimethoprim and sulfamethoxazole occur in a combination termed as cotrimoxazole or commonly septrin. In Tanzania, cotrimoxazole is used as a prophylactic agent for HIV and AIDS patients and in diarrheal diseases for non-HIV patients [35,36]. Its high frequency of adulteration could be targeting the prevention of opportunistic infections in HIV/AIDS patients and to manage diarrhoea. A combination of pyrimethamine and sulfadoxine is recommended for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria during pregnancy [37]. The objective of its adulteration could to render clinical effectiveness for malaria treatment. The adulteration of paracetamol and metronidazole could be targeting pain and protozoa infections, respectively.

3.2.4. Distribution of Adulterants among Therapeutic Areas

Categorizing herbal products according to their claimed indications as shown in Table 5 reveal that half of the products claimed to be pain killers and almost half (47.3%) of the products claimed for bacterial infections contained adulterants. Pain and bacterial infections have been cited as most frequent health problems for which people use herbal products [38]. In addition, other studies reported that products purportedly for pain killing and fever were most commonly adulterated [39,40]. As also observed by Huang et al. [34], some adulterants appeared in categories not relevant to their claimed indication or purpose. For example, although antidiabetic conventional drugs were not screened in the products, antidiabetic products were found to contain other conventional drugs such as trimethoprim, sulfadoxine, and ibuprofen. While consumers are assuming that they are taking a natural product, they could unknowingly be exposed to dangerous complications such as unpredictable herb–drug interactions which could increase or decrease an undesirable pharmacological effect of either or both components.

4. Conclusions

Simple and rapid TLC methods for the detection of metronidazole, trimethoprim, sulfamethoxazole, sildenafil, paracetamol, pyrimethamine, sulfadoxine, acetyl salicylic acid, ibuprofen, diclofenac, quinine, and lumefantrine in herbal products were developed. Chromatographic separations were found to be highly reproducible, and more than 10 samples can be analysed in one run. The proposed TLC methods are simple, rapid, and flexible compared to HPLC, and they can be used for the preliminary screening of herbal products for the presence of adulterants. However, confirmation of the identified adulterants using other methods such as HPLC-MS/MS will be required. The presence of adulterants in herbal products might unknowingly be exposing consumers to conventional drugs that may lead to herb–drug interactions. The screening of the herbal products using the developed methods may contribute to the protection of herbal product consumers from unethical practices such as adulteration. We recommend further studies for the confirmation and quantitative determination of the adulterants in a wide range of products as well as a systematic toxicological analysis of the adulterants in herbal products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.J.M., E.E.M., F.P.M., H.M.M., B.S. and R.H.M.; methodology, C.J.M., F.P.M. and H.M.M.; validation, C.J.M., E.E.M. and F.P.M.; formal analysis, C.J.M.; investigation, C.J.M., E.E.M., F.P.M. and R.H.M.; resources, F.P.M.; data curation, C.J.M., E.E.M. and F.P.M.; writing—original draft preparation, C.J.M.; writing—review and editing, E.E.M., F.P.M., H.M.M., B.S. and R.H.M.; visualization, E.E.M. and F.P.M.; supervision, E.E.M., F.P.M., H.M.M., B.S. and R.H.M.; project administration, F.P.M.; funding acquisition, F.P.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Danida Fellowship Centre through Green Resources Innovations for Livelihood Improvement (GRILI) project with project code 18-03-TAN and The APC was funded by the same organization.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to ethical considerations.

Acknowledgments

This work received financial support from DANIDA through Green Resources Innovations for Livelihood Improvement (GRILI) project.

Conflicts of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. WHO Global Report on Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  2. Debella, A.; Abebe, D.; Mudie, K.; Tadele, A.; Gebreegziabher, A. Qualitative Laboratory Analysis for the Detection of Conventional Drugs in Herbal Preparations Supplied by Healers in Major Towns of Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Health Dev. 2008, 22, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Ofori-Kwakye, K.; Ayensu, I.; Akyinah, B.; Kipo, S.L.; El Boakye-Gyasi, M. Adulteration of Ghanaian Topical Herbal Preparations with Dexamethasone. World J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2014, 3, 134–141. [Google Scholar]
  4. Snyman, T.; Stewart, M.; Grove, A.; Steenkamp, V. Adulteration of South African Traditional Herbal Remedies. Ther. Drug Monit. 2005, 1, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Xu, M.; Huang, B.; Gao, F.; Zhai, C.; Yang, Y.; Li, L.; Wang, W.; Shi, L. Assessment of Adulterated Traditional Chinese Medicines in China: 2003–2017. Front. Pharmacol. 2019, 10, 1446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Abuga, K.O. Adulteration of Herbal Preparations. East Cent. Afr. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  7. Otieno, J.N.; Kidukuli, A.W.; Nondo, R.S.O. Toxicity Evaluation for Herbal Products Used for Enhancing Male Sexual Desire and Penile Enlargement in Dar Es Salaam City, Tanzania. Int. J. Adv. Pharm. Biol. Chem. 2014, 3, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  8. Nili-Ahmadabadi, A.; Borzouee, Z.; Ahmadimoghaddam, D.; Firozian, F.; Dastan, D. The Occurrence of Acetaminophen/Codeine as an Adulterant in Herbal Analgesic Supplements in Hamadan, Iran: A Pilot Study. Complement. Ther. Med. 2019, 42, 223–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Foroughi, M.H.; Akhgari, M.; Jokar, F.; Mousavi, Z. Identification of Undeclared Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients in Counterfeit Herbal Medicines Used as Opioid Substitution Therapy. Aust. J. Forensic Sci. 2017, 49, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Park, H.J.; Cho, S.H.; Lee, J.H.; Hwang, I.S.; Han, K.M.; Yoon, C.Y.; Cho, S.; Kim, W.S. Screening for Corticosteroid Adulterants in Korean Herbal Medicines. J. Forensic Sci. 2016, 61, 226–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Savaliya, A.A.; Shah, R.P.; Prasad, B.; Singh, S. Screening of Indian Aphrodisiac Ayurvedic/Herbal Healthcare Products for Adulteration with Sildenafil, Tadalafil and/or Vardenafil Using LC/PDA and Extracted Ion LC-MS/TOF. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2010, 52, 406–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Izzo, A.A.; Ernst, E. Interactions between Herbal Medicines and Prescribed Drugs: An Updated Systematic Review. Drugs 2009, 69, 1777–1798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ekar, T.; Kreft, S. Common Risks of Adulterated and Mislabeled Herbal Preparations. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 123, 288–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. De Carvalho, L.M.; Martini, M.; Moreira, A.P.L.; de Lima, A.P.S.; Correia, D.; Falcão, T.; Garcia, S.C.; de Bairros, A.V.; do Nascimento, P.C.; Bohrer, D. Presence of Synthetic Pharmaceuticals as Adulterants in Slimming Phytotherapeutic Formulations and Their Analytical Determination. Forensic Sci. Int. 2011, 204, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Hu, Z.; Yang, X.; Ho, P.C.L.; Sui, Y.C.; Heng, P.W.S.; Chan, E.; Duan, W.; Hwee, L.K.; Zhou, S. Herb-Drug Interactions: A Literature Review. Drugs 2005, 65, 1239–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cianchino, V.; Acosta, G.; Ortega, C.; Martínez, L.D.; Gomez, M.R. Analysis of Potential Adulteration in Herbal Medicines and Dietary Supplements for the Weight Control by Capillary Electrophoresis. Food Chem. 2008, 108, 1075–1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Saeed, M.A.; Mohamed, M.A.; Shantier, S.W.; Gadkariem, E.A.; Ismail, E.M.O. Determination of Undeclared Sildenafil Citrate and Tadalafil in Aphrodisiac Herbal Preparations by TLC and HPLC. Int. J. Innov. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2015, 3, 688–696. [Google Scholar]
  18. Dumba, K.; Kwiringira, W.; Namukobe, J.; Ntale, M. Identification and Analysis of Adulterants in Aphrodisiac Herbal Medicines Sold by Private Herbal Clinics, Pharmacies and Herbal Drug Shops in Kampala, Uganda. East Cent. Afr. J. Pharm. Sci. 2021, 24, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  19. Al Lawati, H.A.J.; Al Busaidi, I.; Kadavilpparampu, A.M.; Suliman, F.O. Determination of Common Adulterants in Herbal Medicine and Food Samples Using Core-Shell Column Coupled to Tandem Mass Spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2017, 55, 232–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Haneef, J.; Shaharyar, M.; Husain, A.; Rashid, M.; Mishra, R.; Siddiqueb, N.A.; Palc, M. Analytical Methods for the Detection of Undeclared Synthetic Drugs in Traditional Herbal Medicines as Adulterants. Drug Test. Anal. 2013, 5, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mwankuna, C.J.; Uwamaliya, G.A.; Mariki, E.E.; Mabiki, F.; Malebo, H.M.; Mdegela, R.; Styrishave, B. A HPLC-MS/MS Method for Screening of Selected Antibiotic Adulterants in Herbal Drugs. Anal. Methods 2022, 14, 1060–1068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pyka, A. Detection Progress of Selected Drugs in TLC. Biomed Res. Int. 2014, 2014, 732078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Satcher, J.H.; Maienschein, J.L.; Pagoria, P.F.; Racoveanu, A.; Carman, M.L.; Whipple, R.E.; Reynolds, J.G. Portable Thin Layer Chromatography for Field Detection of Explosives and Propellants. Chem. Biol. Radiol. Nucl. Explos. Sens. XIII 2012, 8358, 251–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chi, B.H.; Lee, A.; Acosta, E.P.; Westerman, L.E.; Sinkala, M.; Stringer, J.S.A. Field Performance of a Thin-Layer Chromatography Assay for Detection of Nevirapine in Umbilical Cord Blood. HIV Clin. Trials 2006, 7, 263–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Risha, P.; Msuya, Z.; Ndomondo-Sigonda, M.; Lavloff, T. Proficiency Testing as a Tool to Assess the Performance of Visual TLC Quantitation Estimates. J. AOAC Int. 2006, 89, 1300–1304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Lv, D.; Cao, Y.; Lou, Z.; Li, S.; Chen, X.; Chai, Y.; Lu, F. Rapid On-Site Detection of Ephedrine and Its Analogues Used as Adulterants in Slimming Dietary Supplements by TLC-SERS. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2015, 407, 1313–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sherma, J. Analysis of Counterfiet Drugs by Thin Layer Chromatography. Acta Chromatogr. 2007, 19, 5–20. [Google Scholar]
  28. Santiago, M.; Strobel, S. Thin Layer Chromatography, 1st ed.; Elsevier Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2013; Volume 533, ISBN 9780124200678. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lugimbana, L.; Malebo, H.; Segeja, M.; Akida, J.; Malle, L.; Lemnge, M. A Simple Technique for the Detection of Anti-Malarial Drug Formulations and Their Presence in Human Urine. Tanzan. J. Health Res. 2011, 8, 149–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Hancu, G.; Simon, B.; Kelemen, H.; Rusu, A.; Mircia, E.; Gyéresi, Á. Thin Layer Chromatographic Analysis of Beta-Lactam Antibiotics. Adv. Pharm. Bull. 2013, 3, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bele, A.A.; Khale, A.; Archana, M.; Bele, A. An Overview on Thin Layer Chromatography. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2011, 2, 256–267. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kayombo, E.J. Traditional and Alternative Medicine in Tanzania: Lesson from the Exhibition. SAS J. Med. 2017, 3, 23–31. [Google Scholar]
  33. Posthouwer, C. Medicinal Plants of Kariakoo Market; Leiden University: Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  34. Huang, W.F.; Wen, K.C.; Hsiao, M.L. Adulteration by Synthetic Therapeutic Substances of Traditional Chinese Medicines in Taiwan. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1997, 37, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Marwa, K.J.; Mushi, M.F.; Konje, E.; Alele, P.E.; Kidola, J.; Mirambo, M.M. Resistance to Cotrimoxazole and Other Antimicrobials among Isolates from HIV/AIDS and Non-HIV/AIDS Patients at Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza, Tanzania. AIDS Res. Treat. 2015, 2015, 103874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Vila, J.; Vargas, M.; Casals, C.; Urassa, H.; Mshinda, H.; Schellemberg, D.; Gascon, J. Antimicrobial Resistance of Diarrheagenic Escherichia Coli Isolated from Children under the Age of 5 Years from Ifakara, Tanzania. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 1999, 43, 3022–3024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Mikomangwa, W.P.; Minzi, O.; Mutagonda, R.; Baraka, V.; Mlugu, E.M.; Aklillu, E.; Kamuhabwa, A.A.R. Effect of Sulfadoxine-Pyrimethamine Doses for Prevention of Malaria during Pregnancy in Hypoendemic Area in Tanzania. Malar. J. 2020, 19, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Wirth, J.H.; Hudgins, J.C.; Paice, J.A. Use of Herbal Therapies to Relieve Pain: A Review of Efficacy and Adverse Effects. Pain Manag. Nurs. 2005, 6, 145–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ariffin, S.H.; Wahab, I.A.; Hassan, Y.; Wahab, M.S.A. Adulterated Traditional-Herbal Medicinal Products and Its Safety Signals in Malaysia. Drug. Healthc. Patient Saf. 2021, 13, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Chandra, D.N.B.; Choon-sheen, L.; Rosemal, M.; Mas, H.; Tull, J. Screening of Adulterants in Unregistered Herbal Products in Malaysia. Der. Pharma Chem. 2013, 5, 278–285. [Google Scholar]
Separations 10 00023 g001 550
Figure 1. Chromatogram obtained at the separation of samples 1–17 and a mixture of standards, S containing, SMX—sulfamethoxazole, PCM—paracetamol, SDF—sildenafil, and TMP—trimethoprim using dichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (75:15:10, v/v) and detected in UV light at 254 nm.
Figure 1. Chromatogram obtained at the separation of samples 1–17 and a mixture of standards, S containing, SMX—sulfamethoxazole, PCM—paracetamol, SDF—sildenafil, and TMP—trimethoprim using dichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (75:15:10, v/v) and detected in UV light at 254 nm.
Separations 10 00023 g001
Table
Table 1. Structures of the selected conventional drugs for the developed method.
Table 1. Structures of the selected conventional drugs for the developed method.
Compound NameChemical Structure
QuinineSeparations 10 00023 i001
SulfadoxineSeparations 10 00023 i002
PyrimethamineSeparations 10 00023 i003
ArtemetherSeparations 10 00023 i004
LumefantrineSeparations 10 00023 i005
MetronidazoleSeparations 10 00023 i006
TrimethoprimSeparations 10 00023 i007
SulfamethoxazoleSeparations 10 00023 i008
Diclofenac Separations 10 00023 i009
Acetyl salicylic acid Separations 10 00023 i010
Sildenafil Separations 10 00023 i011
Ibuprofen Separations 10 00023 i012
Table
Table 2. Solvent composition, separated compounds, and their retention factors for the developed methods.
Table 2. Solvent composition, separated compounds, and their retention factors for the developed methods.
MethodSolvent CompositionSeparated CompoundsRetention Factor
IDichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (75:15:10, v/v)Trimethoprim0.15
Sildenafil0.39
Paracetamol0.60
Sulfamethoxazole0.79
IIDichloromethane:ethyl acetate:methanol (77.5:12.5:10, v/v)Pyrimethamine0.26
Metronidazole0.48
Sulfadoxine0.84
IIIEthyl acetate:methanol:30% ammonia (75:22.5:2.5, v/v)Acetyl salicylic acid0.16
Ibuprofen0.26
Diclofenac0.35
Quinine0.60
Lumefantrine0.91
Table
Table 3. Adulteration of herbal products according to the supplying sources.
Table 3. Adulteration of herbal products according to the supplying sources.
SourceNo. of SamplesNo. of Adulterated Samples (%)
Herbal Clinics5120 (39.2)
Home-Based4015 (37.5)
Herbal Shops6834 (50.0)
Street Vendor6633 (50.0)
Open Market42 (50.0)
Total229104
Table
Table 4. Frequency of adulteration of herbal products.
Table 4. Frequency of adulteration of herbal products.
Ranking of Adulteration Detected AdulterantFrequency of Adulteration
1 Trimethoprim43
2 Sulfamethoxazole28
3 Pyrimethamine27
4 Paracetamol25
5 Sulfadoxine19
6 Metronidazole15
7 Sildenafil11
8 Lumefantrine11
9 Acetyl salicylic acid9
10 Diclofenac8
11 Ibuprofen7
12 Quinine5
Table
Table 5. Adulterated herbal products according to therapeutic areas.
Table 5. Adulterated herbal products according to therapeutic areas.
IndicationsNo. of Screened Samples No. of Adulterated Samples% Adulterated Samples
Antibacterial552647.3
Antidiabetic19842.1
Antimalarial 401742.5
Pain killer733750.7
Erectile dysfunction25832.0
Others17847.1
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Mwankuna, C.J.; Mariki, E.E.; Mabiki, F.P.; Malebo, H.M.; Styrishave, B.; Mdegela, R.H. Thin Layer Chromatographic Method for Detection of Conventional Drug Adulterants in Herbal Products. Separations 2023, 10, 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10010023

AMA Style

Mwankuna CJ, Mariki EE, Mabiki FP, Malebo HM, Styrishave B, Mdegela RH. Thin Layer Chromatographic Method for Detection of Conventional Drug Adulterants in Herbal Products. Separations. 2023; 10(1):23. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10010023

Chicago/Turabian Style

Mwankuna, Christopher Johnson, Eliapenda Elisante Mariki, Faith Philemon Mabiki, Hamisi Masanja Malebo, Bjarne Styrishave, and Robinson Hammerton Mdegela. 2023. "Thin Layer Chromatographic Method for Detection of Conventional Drug Adulterants in Herbal Products" Separations 10, no. 1: 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/separations10010023

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop