Background
Rhodiola rosea L. Crassulaceae, root (Golden Root, Arctic Root) is a high-value herbal medicinal product, registered in the UK for the treatment of stress-induced fatigue, exhaustion and anxiety based on traditional use and used throughout Europe as a herbal medicinal product for similar indications. Numerous unregistered supplements are also available. There are several Chinese species used in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), including Rhodiola crenulata (Hook.f. & Thomoson) that is believed to be a common adulterant in the R. rosea value chain. Aims
The project is embedded in a larger study aiming to investigate the diverse value chains that lead to the production of R. rosea as an herbal medicinal product or supplement. Here we focus on a comparison of the quality of the finished products and assess any phytochemical variation between products registered under the Traditional Herbal Medicine Products Directive (THMPD) and products obtained from the market without any registration (i.e. generally unlicensed supplements). Our key aim is to establish the extent of the problem in terms of adulteration of consumer products claiming to contain R. rosea (or R. crenulata). Methods
Approximately 40 commercial products (granulated powders and extracts) were sourced from different suppliers. We analysed these samples using high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC), mass spectrometry (MS) and 1H NMR spectroscopy coupled with multi-variate analysis software following a method previously developed by our group for the analysis of turmeric products. Results
We investigate the phytochemistry of the different species and assess the potential of R. crenulata as an adulterant at the end of the R. rosea value chains. The consistency of the products varies significantly. Approximately one fifth of commercial products that claimed to be R. rosea did not contain rosavin (the key reference markers used to distinguish R. rosea from related species). Moreover some products appeared not to contain salidroside, another marker compound found in other Rhodiola species. Approximately 80% of the remaining commercial products were lower in rosavin content than the registered products and appeared to be adulterated with other Rhodiola species. Conclusions
The variation in phytochemical constituents present in Rhodiola products available to European buyers via the internet and other sources is a major cause for concern. Adulteration with different species, and other sometimes unknown adulterants, appears to be commonplace. Good quality systems and manufacturing practices, including those required under the THMPD, enable consumers to have confidence that products are authentic and meet a high specification for quality and safety. |