|
 |
| PHARMACEUTICAL STANDARDIZATION |
|
| Year : 2013 | Volume
: 34
| Issue : 2 | Page : 200-203 |
|
|
Phytochemical evaluation of the wild and cultivated varieties of Eranda Mula (Roots of Ricinus communis Linn.)
Krunal A Doshi1, Rabinarayan Acharya2, VJ Shukla3, Renuka Kalyani4, Komal Khanpara4
1 Lecturer, Department of Dravyaguna, Institute of Ayurvedic Pharmaceutical Sciences, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
2 Associate Professor, Department of Dravyaguna, Institute for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
3 Head, Institute for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
4 Ph.D. Scholar, Pharmaceutical Chemistry Laboratory, Institute for Post Graduate Teaching and Research in Ayurveda, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
| Date of Web Publication | 10-Oct-2013 |
Correspondence Address:
Krunal A Doshi
Department of Dravyaguna, IAPS, GAU, Jamnagar, Gujarat
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0974-8520.119679
 Abstract | | |
In Ayurveda, the roots of Eranda (Ricinus communis Linn.) are used in the treatment Amavata (rheumatism), Sotha (inflammation), Katisula (backache), Udararoga (disease of abdomen), Jwara (fever), etc, Due to high demand, root of the cultivated variety is mainly used in place of wild. But, a comparative phytochemical profile of both varieties is not available till date. Considering this, a preliminary study has been done to ensure basic phytochemical profile of both the varieties. Preliminary physicochemical parameters, phytochemical screening, quantitative estimation of alkaloid, high-performance thin layer chromatography ( HPTLC), and heavy metal analysis were carried-out in the study. Analysis of physicochemical data reveals no significant difference in between both varieties of roots, while alkaloid was found to be more in cultivated variety (0.34%) than wild one (0.15%). Though, the analytical profiles are almost identical, except the quantity of alkaloid; inferences should be made through well designed pharmacological and clinical studies. Keywords: Alkaloid, Eranda, high-performance thin layer chromatography, Ricinus communis
How to cite this article:
Doshi KA, Acharya R, Shukla V J, Kalyani R, Khanpara K. Phytochemical evaluation of the wild and cultivated varieties of Eranda Mula (Roots of Ricinus communis Linn.). AYU 2013;34:200-3 |
How to cite this URL:
Doshi KA, Acharya R, Shukla V J, Kalyani R, Khanpara K. Phytochemical evaluation of the wild and cultivated varieties of Eranda Mula (Roots of Ricinus communis Linn.). AYU [serial online] 2013 [cited 2023 May 28];34:200-3. Available from: https://www.ayujournal.org/text.asp?2013/34/2/200/119679 |
| Introduction | |  |
Ricinus communis Linn (Euphorbiaceae) commonly known as Eranda in Ayurveda is a soft-wooded small tree wide spread throughout tropics and warm temperate regions of the world. In the Indian system of medicine, the leaf, root, and seed oil of this plant have been used for the treatment of inflammation and liver disorders. [1] In Ayurveda, the roots of Eranda are used in the treatment of Amavata (rheumatism), Sotha (inflammation), Katisula (backache), Udararoga (diseases of abdomen), Jwara (fever), etc. [2] Its roots have also been highlighted for its Vrishya (aphrodisiac) and Vatahara actions by Acharya Charaka. [3] This plant also possesses hepatoprotective, [4],[5] anti-diabetic, [6] laxative, [7] anti-fertility, [8] anti-inflammatory and free radical scavenging activities. [9]
Due to high demand, roots of the cultivated variety are mainly used instead of wild. But, a comparative phytochemical profile of both varieties is not available till date. Hence, to ensure quality of both varieties, phytochemical evaluations of both the varieties was undertaken.
| Materials and Methods | | |
Collection of drug
Fresh roots of wild and cultivated varieties of R.communis Linn. after proper identification were collected from the adjacent area of Jamnagar, Gujarat, with the help of taxonomist. Specimen herbarium of both varieties for wild (No. 1490) and cultivated (No. 1491) were preserved in the Pharmacognosy Laboratory, IPGT and RA, Gujarat Ayurved University, Jamnagar for further reference. The obtained roots were shade dried and made into coarse powder with the help of mechanical grinder and preserved in a glass container for future studies [Figure 1].
Physicochemical study
Moisture content, ash values (total ash, acid insoluble ash), and extractive values (alcohol soluble extractive, water soluble extractive) were determined by following standard analytical procedures. [10],[11]
Preliminary phytochemical screening
Five grams coarse powder of the roots was subjected for extraction with methanol (100 ml), keeping it for overnight with initial occasional shaking up to 6 h. and then set aside. After 24 h, it was filtered and alcoholic extract was collected. Similarly, water extract was prepared. Both the extracts were evaporated to dryness. The dried extracts were weighed, and percentage yield was calculated. The extracts were used for preliminary phyto-chemical screening with a set of various chemical tests viz., Dragendorff's Mayer's, Hager's, and Wagner's tests for alkaloids; ferric chloride, lead acetate, potassium dichromate, and dilute iodine tests for tannins and phenolics; and foam test for saponin glycosides. [12]
High-performance thin layer chromatography
High-performance thin layer chromatography ( HPTLC) was carried out by the standard methods. [13]
Chloroform extract of cultivated variety was labeled as track 1, while the wild variety as track 2. The solvent System used in the study was Toluene:Ethyl acetate:dimethylamine (7:2:2).
Chromatographic conditions
Application mode: Camag Linomate V; Development chamber: Camag Twin trough chamber; Plates: Pre-coated silica gel GF254 plates; Chamber saturation: 30 min; Development time: 30 min; Development distance: 7 cm; Scanner: Camag scanner II; Detection: Deuterium lamp and mercury lamp; Photo-documentation: Camag reprostar; Data system: Win cats software; Drying device: Oven and was visualized under 254 nm and 366 nm.
Quantitative estimation of alkaloid
The samples were estimated quantitatively for total alkaloid content by gravimetric method. [14]
Heavy-metal analysis
Heavy metal analysis of the root powder of both varieties, for arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium, by following standard procedure, [15] was carried out at Analytical Testing Laboratory, Konark Research Foundation, Daman.
| Results and Discussion | | |
Physico-chemical analysis
Results of physicochemical analysis, qualitative tests, and R f values of HPTLC in wild and cultivated varieties of R.communis Linn. are mentioned in [Table 1]. [Table 2] and [Table 3] respectively. Alkaloid percentage was estimated as 0.34% in cultivated, and 0.15% in wild variety. Results of heavy metal analysis for arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium are mentioned in [Table 4]. | Table 1: Physicochemical analysis of Eranda Mula: Wild and cultivated varieties
Click here to view |
 | Table 2: Preliminary phytochemical profiles of Eranda Mula: Wild and cultivated varieties
Click here to view |
 | Table 3: Rf values of chloroform extracts of wild and cultivated variety of Eranda Mula
Click here to view |
 | Table 4: Heavy metal analysis of wild and cultivated variety of Eranda Mula
Click here to view |
Analysis of physicochemical data [Table 1] reveals absence of foreign matter in both samples. Moisture content in wild variety (6.48% w/w) is less than cultivated variety (7.43% w/w). The difference in total ash, acid insoluble ash, water soluble extractive value and pH in between the samples is insignificant. Alcohol soluble extractive is comparatively higher in wild variety (22.56% w/v) than cultivated variety (17.92% w/v).
The root of cultivated and wild varieties of R.communis exhibits almost similar phytochemical profile indicating presence of alkaloids, cyanogenic glycosides, flavonoids, terpenoids, tannin, carbohydrates, and saponin [Table 2]. Quantitatively, tannin was found to be more in cultivated variety (0.34%) than the wild one (0.15%).
Chloroform extract of wild variety showed 03 spots and cultivated variety showed 05 spots under 254 nm, among them R f values 0.13 and 0.35 are similar in both samples. In 366 nm, chloroform extract of both varieties showed 05 spots, among them one R f value 0.13 is similar in both samples. Other R f values are nearer to each other, indicating that the components present in both varietiesmay be similar [Figure 2]; [Table 3]. In situUltra Violet spectral comparison graph also shows chemical similarity at 0.08 R f , 0.15 R f , and 0.36 R f values [Figure 3].
Heavy metal analysis of both varieties shows that the samples are free from heavy metal contamination and the observations are under the prescribed limits for heavy metals. [16] [Table 4].
| Conclusion | | |
Both cultivated and wild varieties have a chemical similarity except higher percentage of alkaloid in cultivated than wild variety. HPTLC finger printing shows similarities in wild and cultivated varieties. Heavy metals were within prescribed limit in both the varieties. Though, the analytical profiles are almost identical, except the quantity of alkaloid; inferences for clinical use should be made through well designed pharmacological and for clinical studies.
| Acknowledgment | | |
The authors are thankful to the Director, IPGT and RA, Gujarat Ayurved University for providing facilities to carry out the research work.
| References | | |
| 1. | Kirtikar KR, Basu BD., Euphorbiaceae, Indian Medicinal Plants. 2 nd ed. Dehradun: International Book Distributor; 1985. p. 2274-7. 
|
| 2. | Anonymous. The Ayurvdic Pharmacopoeia of India. 1 st ed., Part-I, Vol. 1. New Delhi: Govt. of India. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of I.S.M. and H; 1999. p. 34-5.
|
| 3. | Agnivesha, Charaka, Dridhabala, Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthana, Yajjahapurushiyo Adhyaaya, 25/40. In: Shri Satya Narayana Sastri, editor. Part-1, Reprint ed. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Bharti Academy; 2005. p. 468.
|
| 4. | Yanfg LL, Yen KY, Kiso Y, Hikino H. Antihepatotoxic actions of Formosan plant drugs. J Ethnopharmacol 1987; 19:103-10.
|
| 5. | Visen P, Shukla B, Patnaik G, Tripathi S, Kulshreshtha D, Srimal R, et al. Hepatoprotective activity of Ricinus communis leaves. Int J Pharmacognosy 1992; 30:241-50.
|
| 6. | Shokeen P, Anand P, Murali YK, Tandon V. Antidiabetic activity of 50% ethanolic extract of Ricinus communis and its purified fractions. Food Chem Toxicol 2008; 46:3458-66.
|
| 7. | Capasso F, Mascolo N, Izzo AA, Gaginella TS. Dissociation of castor oil-induced diarrhea and intestinal mucosal injury in rat: effect of NG-nitro-L-arginine methyl ester. Br J Pharmacol 1994; 113:1127-30.
|
| 8. | Sandhyakumary K, Bobby RG, Indira M. Antifertility effects of Ricinus communis Linn. on rats. Phytother Res 2003; 17:508-11.
|
| 9. | Ilavarasan R, Mallika M, Venkataraman S. Anti-inflammatory and free radical scavenging activity of Ricinus communis root extract. J Ethnopharmacol 2006; 103:478-80.
|
| 10. | Anonymous. Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India. Appendix. 1 st ed., Part 2, Vol. 2. New Delhi: Govt. of India, Ministry of Health of Family Welfare; 2008. p. 156.
|
| 11. | Harborne JB. Phytochemical methods. A Guide to Modern Techniques of Plant Analysis. Berlin: Springer Verlag; 2005.
|
| 12. | Shukla VJ, Bhatt UB. Methods of Qualitative Testing of Some Ayurvedic Formulations. Jamnagar: Gujarat Ayurvedic University; 2001.
|
| 13. | Stahl I. Thin Layer Chromatography: A Laboratory Handbook. New York: Springer Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg; 1969. p. 52-56, 127-128, 900.
|
| 14. | Stephen KS, Sim. Medicinal Plant Alkaloids: An Introduction for Pharmacy Students. Canada: University of Torronto Press; 1969. p. 44.
|
| 15. | Anonymous. Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India. Appendix. 1 st ed., Part 2, Vol. 2. New Delhi: Govt. of India, Ministry of Health of Family Welfare; 2008. p. 178.
|
| 16. | Anonymous. Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India. Appendix. 1 st ed., Part 2, Vol. 2. New Delhi: Govt. of India, Ministry of Health of Family Welfare; 2008. p. 168.
|
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]
|
