QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT MARKETED BRANDS OF LOHASAVAHTML Full Text
QUALITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF DIFFERENT MARKETED BRANDS OF LOHASAVA
Sweta S. Koka *, Vikas K. Jain, Soniya Pillai and G. N. Darwhekar
Acropolis Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Indore - 453771, Madhya Pradesh, India.
ABSTRACT: The qualitative estimation of herbal formulation Lohasava, is of principal importance in order to justify their adequacy in present system of medicine. One of the key problems which is faced by the herbal drug industry is the unavailability of rigid quality control profiles for herbal materials and their formulations. Regulatory bodies have such as WHO, AYUSH, ICH etc., had laid down the standardization and specifications parameters for various Ayurvedic preparations. The present Investigation evaluated different brands of Lohasava available in the market as per WHO and Indian Pharmacopoeial specifications. Various physicochemical parameters such as Loss on drying, total ash, sugar content, alcohol content and microbial content were determined. The result reveals that all the preparations contain acceptable levels of alcohol (less than 12% v/v).
Lohasava, Qualitative assessment, Who guideline
INTRODUCTION: Standardization means adjusting the herbal drug preparation to defined content of a constituent or a group of substances with known therapeutic activity respectively by adding excipients or by making herbal drug preparations. Standardization is an essential factor for every single or polyherbal formulation in order to obtain and understand uniformity in active principles, therapeutic efficacy and quality of the ingredients, as the scope for variation in different batches of medicine is enormous. Lack of Standardization of herbal drugs and plant medicines in fact, hinders the use of medicinal plants in the modern system of medicine 1, 2, 3. Asava and Arishta are fermented medicines - therefore mildly alcoholic in nature. They are prepared by mixing sugar to juices or decoctions of raw drugs and letting them ferment.
They are sweetish in taste, with slight acidity and a nice aroma. Asavas and Arishtas are similar in nature. Asava-arishtas are self fermented preparations and are apparently extension of cold infusion or decoction. The number of active herbs range from 1 to 70 and Dhataki pushp (Woodfordia fruitcosa flowers) and Madhuka (Madhuca indica flowers) used as inoculums for fermentation inductors. They have upto (6% - 12%) by volume alcohol content 4. In the present research work, an attempt was made to standardize Lohasava a polyherbal formulation made up of herbs. Lohasava is used in treatment of various disorders such as epilepsy, rheumatic arthritis, epilepsy, skin diseases etc. It is chiefly used as anti anemic medicine 5.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: 6, 7, 8, 9
Collection of Lohasava: The four brands of Lohasava was purchased from local market of Indore of different brands: Baidyanath, Dabur, Sandu and Patanjali. They were coded was follows L1, L2, L3 and L4 respectively.
Botanical Parameters: Organoleptic evaluation was performed as per WHO guidelines to assess the color, odor and taste of the all marketed formulations.
Determination of Solid Content: 5 ml of the each samples were taken in different tared dish and was evaporated at low temperature until the liquid was removed and then heated until the residue was apparently dried. Thereafter, it was transferred to an oven and dried to constant weight at 105 °C.
Determination of specific Gravity: The specific gravity was measured using the standard procedure using a pycknometer.
Determination of Viscosity: Viscosity of the samples were determined using Ostwald’s viscometer.
Determination of Alcohol Content: 25 ml of the sample were taken in Round Bottom flasks to which 150 ml of water and pumice powder was added to it to avoid bumping then the sample was refluxed until 90 ml of distillate was collected in a 100 ml volumetric flask and cooled to 25 °C. The volume was adjusted to 100 ml with distill water. Then the specific gravity of the sample was determined which was compared to standard text was measured and then alcohol content was determined as per the table given in I.P.
Determination of pH: The pH of the all formulations i.e. L1, L2, L3 and L4 was determined with the help of pH meter.
Determination of Refractive Index: It was determined with the help of Abbes Refractometer.
Determination of Sugar Content: Sucrose (0.475g) was dissolved in 250 ml of distilled water. It was converted into invert sugar, by adding conc. HCl (2 ml) to it and boiling gently for 30 min. The solution was kept on boiling water-bath for about 2 h and neutralized with sodium carbonate. The neutralized solution was diluted up to 500 ml. 5 ml of each sample were taken and to each 25 ml of water was added, followed by 2 ml HCl and boiled for 2 h. Then it was filtered and the filtrate was collected and neutralized with sodium bicarbonate and the volume was made up to 250 ml. Fehling’s solution was prepared freshly every time, by mixing equal volumes of Fehling’s A and B. 10 ml of Fehling’s solution was taken in porcelain evaporating basin and diluted with equal volume of distilled water. The solution was allowed to boil, and titrated against standard invert sugar solution until the blue color entirely disappeared. Then the solution was allowed to cool till the precipitate of cuprous oxide was settled and the solution was boiled again until the end-point was approached. 5ml of sample was dissolved in water and diluted upto 250 ml, and titrated against 25 ml. of the standard Fehling’s solution.
Determination of Acid Value: 10 ml of sample was taken and dissolved in 50 ml of equal mixture of solvent ether and alcohol. This solution was titrated with 0.1N NaOH, 1 ml Phenolphthalein was added as indicator and was titrated until the solution remained faintly pink after shaking for 30 sec. The acid-value of sample was calculated by following formula
n × 5.61 Acid value = w
n = the number of ml of 0.1N sodium hydroxide required; w = the weight in g of the substance
Phytochemical Screening: Active phytochemical constituents like glycosides, flavonoids, alkaloids, tannins, steroids and carbohydrates were identified in aqueous extracts of all formulation.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All the formulations of Lohasava were evaluated as per WHO guidelines. Botanical parameters revealed that the formulations were reddish brown in color, with alcoholic odor and bitter taste Table 1. The values for percentage of total solid content, specific gravity, viscosity, refractive index, acid value, alcohol content, sugar content and pH of all formulations of are presented in Table 2. Table 3 represents the various phytoconstituents present in the formulation.
TABLE 1: BOTANICAL PARAMETERS
|Colour||Dark brown||Dark reddish brown||Dark reddish brown||Dark brown|
TABLE 2: PHYSIO-CHEMICAL PARAMETERS
|Total Solid Content (%)||8.69±0.02||7.96±0.04||8.56±0.03||8.03±0.03|
|Alcohol content (%)||10±0.02||10±0.02||10±0.05||10±0.04|
|Sugar Content (%)||85±0.01||85±0.03||84±0.01||85±0.01|
|Acid Value (%)||3.01±0.03||3.27±0.03||2.95±0.03||3.54±0.01|
Values are mean ± SEM of three experiments
TABLE 3: PHYTOCHEMICAL SCREENING
|S. no.||Chemical Test||L1||L2||L3||L4|
|5% FeCl3 solution||+||+||+||+|
|Lead acetate solution (5%):||+||+||+||+|
CONCLUSION: The outcome obtains in this research work may be considered as tools for assistance to the regulatory authorities, scientific organization and manufacturers for developing standards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The authors sincerely thank the management of Acropolis Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Indore for providing the necessary facilities to carry out the research work.
CONFLICT OF INTERSET: Nil
- Chakravarthy BK: Standardization of Herbal products, Ind. J. Nat. Products 1993; 9: 23-26.
- Mohapatra P, Shirwaikar A and Ram HN: Standardization of Polyherbal Formulation. Pharmacog. Magazine 2008; 4: 65-69.
- Quality control methods for medicinal plant materials: World Health Organization Geneva, AITBS publishers and distributors 2002; 65-67.
- Agarwal SS: Herbal drug technology, University Press (India) Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad 2007.
- Indian Pharmacopoeia. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi 1996.
- Subrahmanayam CVS: Textbook of Physical Pharmaceutics, Vallabh Prakashan Delhi 1998.
- Khandelwal KR, Practical Pharmacognosy, (Nirali Prakashan., Pune 2006; 16: 149-153, 157-161.
- Jain S, Srivastava S, Barik R and Kumar P: Standardization of ‘Dashamularishta’: A Polyherbal Formulation, Phcog J 2009; 1(3): 215-220.
- Dwivedi SK and Dey S: Medicinal herbs: a potential source of toxic metal exposure for man and animals in India. Arch Environ Health 2002; 57: 229-231.
How to cite this article:
Koka SS, Jain VK, Pillai S and Darwhekar GN: Qualitative assessment of different marketed brands of lohasava. Int J Pharmacognosy 2018; 5(9): 627-29. doi link: http://dx.doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.IJP.5(9).627-29.
This Journal licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-commercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
S. S. Koka *, V. K. Jain, S. Pillai and G. N. Darwhekar
Acropolis Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
20 June, 2018
04 July, 2018
09 July, 2018
01 September, 2018