Cargando…

Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements

The growing popularity of botanical dietary supplements (BDS) has been accompanied by concerns regarding the quality of commercial products. Health care providers, in particular, have an interest in knowing about product quality, in view of the issues related to herb-drug interactions and potential...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krochmal, Robert, Hardy, Mary, Bowerman, Susan, Lu, Qing-Yi, Wang, H-J, Elashoff, RM, Heber, David
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2004
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15841264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neh040
_version_ 1782122052778459136
author Krochmal, Robert
Hardy, Mary
Bowerman, Susan
Lu, Qing-Yi
Wang, H-J
Elashoff, RM
Heber, David
author_facet Krochmal, Robert
Hardy, Mary
Bowerman, Susan
Lu, Qing-Yi
Wang, H-J
Elashoff, RM
Heber, David
author_sort Krochmal, Robert
collection PubMed
description The growing popularity of botanical dietary supplements (BDS) has been accompanied by concerns regarding the quality of commercial products. Health care providers, in particular, have an interest in knowing about product quality, in view of the issues related to herb-drug interactions and potential side effects. This study assessed whether commercial formulations of saw palmetto, kava kava, echinacea, ginseng and St. John's wort had consistent labeling and whether quantities of marker compounds agreed with the amounts stated on the label. We purchased six bottles each of two lots of supplements from nine manufacturers and analyzed the contents using established commercial methodologies at an independent laboratory. Product labels were found to vary in the information provided, such as serving recommendations and information about the herb itself (species, part of the plant, marker compound, etc.) With regard to marker compound content, little variability was observed between different lots of the same brand, while the content did vary widely between brands (e.g. total phenolic compounds in Echinacea ranged from 3.9–15.3 mg per serving; total ginsenosides in ginseng ranged from 5.3–18.2 mg per serving). Further, the amounts recommended for daily use also differed between brands, increasing the potential range of a consumer's daily dose. Echinacea and ginseng were the most variable, while St. John's wort and saw palmetto were the least variable. This study highlights some of the key issues in the botanical supplement market, including the importance of standardized manufacturing practices and reliable labeling information. In addition, health care providers should keep themselves informed regarding product quality in order to be able to appropriately advise patients utilizing both conventional and herbal medicines.
format Text
id pubmed-538511
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2004
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-5385112005-03-07 Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements Krochmal, Robert Hardy, Mary Bowerman, Susan Lu, Qing-Yi Wang, H-J Elashoff, RM Heber, David Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Original Article The growing popularity of botanical dietary supplements (BDS) has been accompanied by concerns regarding the quality of commercial products. Health care providers, in particular, have an interest in knowing about product quality, in view of the issues related to herb-drug interactions and potential side effects. This study assessed whether commercial formulations of saw palmetto, kava kava, echinacea, ginseng and St. John's wort had consistent labeling and whether quantities of marker compounds agreed with the amounts stated on the label. We purchased six bottles each of two lots of supplements from nine manufacturers and analyzed the contents using established commercial methodologies at an independent laboratory. Product labels were found to vary in the information provided, such as serving recommendations and information about the herb itself (species, part of the plant, marker compound, etc.) With regard to marker compound content, little variability was observed between different lots of the same brand, while the content did vary widely between brands (e.g. total phenolic compounds in Echinacea ranged from 3.9–15.3 mg per serving; total ginsenosides in ginseng ranged from 5.3–18.2 mg per serving). Further, the amounts recommended for daily use also differed between brands, increasing the potential range of a consumer's daily dose. Echinacea and ginseng were the most variable, while St. John's wort and saw palmetto were the least variable. This study highlights some of the key issues in the botanical supplement market, including the importance of standardized manufacturing practices and reliable labeling information. In addition, health care providers should keep themselves informed regarding product quality in order to be able to appropriately advise patients utilizing both conventional and herbal medicines. Oxford University Press 2004-12 2004-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC538511/ /pubmed/15841264 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neh040 Text en © 2004, the authors Evidenced-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Vol. 1, Issue 3 © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved. The online version of this article has been published under an open access model. Users are entitled to use, reproduce, disseminate, or display the open access version of this article provided that: the original authorship is properly and fully attributed; the Journal and Oxford University Press are attributed as the original place of publication with the correct citation details given; if an article is subsequently reproduced or disseminated not in its entirety but only in part or as a derivative work this must be clearly indicated.
spellingShingle Original Article
Krochmal, Robert
Hardy, Mary
Bowerman, Susan
Lu, Qing-Yi
Wang, H-J
Elashoff, RM
Heber, David
Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title_full Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title_fullStr Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title_full_unstemmed Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title_short Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements
title_sort phytochemical assays of commercial botanical dietary supplements
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC538511/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15841264
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neh040
work_keys_str_mv AT krochmalrobert phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT hardymary phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT bowermansusan phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT luqingyi phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT wanghj phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT elashoffrm phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements
AT heberdavid phytochemicalassaysofcommercialbotanicaldietarysupplements