论文部分内容阅读
我在实际工作中使用《中国药典一部》(1977年版),发现一些不足之处,提出来供讨论参考。中草药饮片,一般都靠外观经验鉴别、显微鉴别和理化鉴别。但药典没有列鉴别项目的品种很多,还有只有一般化学鉴别而无显微鉴别,也有只有显微鉴别而无理化鉴别。这就使药典作为检验药材的依据感到不足了。其中所载理化鉴别多是某一大类化学成分的共同反应,缺乏特异性、专属性。因而可能造成外形相似品种的混淆或伪品入药。举例来说。(1)所载甘肃青兰、全叶青兰、铁苋菜、银杏叶、猫眼草、照山白等理化鉴别均为黄酮类的共同反应。我们自采罗布麻叶证明其含黄酮甙按药典鉴别法可与
I used the “Chinese Pharmacopoeia Part 1” (1977 edition) in practical work and found some deficiencies that I proposed for discussion. Chinese herbal medicines generally rely on the appearance of experience in identification, microscopic identification and physical and chemical identification. However, there are many types of identification items not listed in the Pharmacopoeia. There are only general chemical identification and no microscopic identification, and there are only microscopic identification and irrational identification. This makes the Pharmacopoeia feel inadequate as a basis for testing medicinal herbs. The physicochemical identification contained therein is a common reaction of a large class of chemical components, lacking specificity and specificity. As a result, it may cause confusion or fake medicines of similar appearance. for example. (1) The physicochemical identification of Gansu blue orchid, whole leaf blue orchid, iron leek, ginkgo leaf, cat’s eye grass and Zhaoshanbai are common reactions of flavonoids. Our self-enlisting Apocynum leaf proves that its flavonoids can be identified by Pharmacopoeia