Skip Navigation



eCAM Advance Access published online on October 6, 2004
eCAM, doi:10.1093/ecam/neh040
Copyright © 2004 by the Oxford University Press.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
1/3/305    most recent
neh040v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krochmal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Heber, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Krochmal, R.
Right arrow Articles by Heber, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Received May 6, 2004
Accepted August 20, 2004

Original Articles

Phytochemical Assays of Commercial Botanical Dietary Supplements

Robert Krochmal 1*, Mary Hardy 1, Susan Bowerman 1, Qing-Yi Lu 1, H. -J. Wang 1, R. M. Elashoff 1, and David Heber 1

1 UCLA Center for Human Nutrition, UCLA, USA

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Robert Krochmal, E-mail: rkrochmal{at}mednet.ucla.edu


  Abstract

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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid Based Complement Alternat MedHome page
H. Azaizeh, P. Ljubuncic, I. Portnaya, O. Said, U. Cogan, and A. Bomzon
Fertilization-Induced Changes in Growth Parameters and Antioxidant Activity of Medicinal Plants Used in Traditional Arab Medicine
Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., December 1, 2005; 2(4): 549 - 556.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.