比較總重金屬（以鉛計）與感應耦合電漿放射光譜法所檢測中草藥中重金屬之含量

A Comparison of the Heavy Metal Contents in Chinese Herbs as Determined by the Total Heavy Metals Measuring as Lead and the Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry (ICP-OES)

郭長智(Chang-Zhi Guo) ； 楊富婷(Fu-Ting Yang) ； 邱閔絹(Min-Chuan Chiou) ； 林哲宇(Jhe-Yu Lin) ； 林展立(Chan-Li Lin) ； 張勝祺(Shenq-Chyi Chang) ； 蔡岳廷(Yueh-Ting Tsai)

《檢驗及品保雜誌》 4卷2期 (2015/05) Pp. 91-99

https://doi.org/10.6573/JTQA.201505_4(2).06

摘要

本研究係依據食品藥物管理署(TFDA) 所公佈之重金屬檢測方法中選擇感應耦合電漿放射光譜法(Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectrometry, ICP-OES)與臺灣中藥典中總重金屬（以鉛計）之檢驗方法，進行市售中草藥中重金屬之含量及檢驗方法之探討。從3 家中藥行取樣10 種常見中藥材總計30 件檢體，針對檢體分別進行總重金屬及重金屬五項鉛、銅、鎘、汞與砷之含量檢測。經由ICP-OES檢測結果指出30 件檢體所檢測出重金屬五項砷、鉛、鎘、汞與銅之含量皆在法規限制內。總重金屬含量由於以鉛計與ICP-OES檢測結果出現差異性，其中有4 件檢體在以鉛計之反應結果呈現陽性而ICP-OES之五項總和小於總重金屬限量標準，以及2 件檢體在以鉛計之結果呈現陰性而ICP-OES 之五項總和大於總重金屬限量標準，總合兩種方法之檢測結果，此次檢體之總重金屬含量只要其中一種方法檢測超過限量標準則視為不合格，所以此次檢體中總重金屬之含量超過其法規限量有8 件，不合格率為26.7% (8/30)，但法規所限制之重金屬五項皆未超過標準，造成兩種方法結果之差異性可能是因為檢體基質對以鉛計之呈色有所影響或造成ICP-OES 在檢測時產生光譜性或非光譜性之干擾。

關鍵字

中草藥 ； 重金屬 ； 以鉛計

並列摘要

We determined the heavy metal contents of Chinese herbs sold in markets and compared the heavy metal contents obtained between the test methods in food using inductively coupled plasma-optical emission spectrometry (ICPOES) promulgated by the Taiwan Food and Drug Management Bureau (TFDA) and the test method of “total heavy metals measuring as lead” promulgated by the Taiwan pharmacopeia for Chinese herbs. We purchased each of the 10 specimens in which most frequently encountered Chinese herbs from each of three Chinese herbs stores. There were 30 specimens in total. We determined “total heavy metal measuring as lead” and by the sum of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and copper concentrations obtained by ICP-OES. Based on the results obtained by ICPOES for the sum of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and copper concentrations for all 30 specimens, there are 5 specimens lowered than the limit of Act. In addition, discrepancies between the results obtained by the two methods were found. First, there were 4 specimens that tested positive according to the “total heavy metals measuring as lead” method, but not according to the ICP-OES. On the other hand, there are 2 specimens tested negative by the “total heavy metals measuring as lead” method, but tested positive (higher than the limit for heavy metals) as determined by the sum of arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and copper concentrations measured by ICP-OES. If we considered exceeding the limit of the Act according to either of these two methods to be non-compliance, there were eight (26.7%, 8/30) non-compliant specimens. However, the individual concentrations for arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and copper were not over the limit set by the Act. The discrepancies between the results for these two methods may have been due to the substrates of each specimen affecting the color appearance for the method of “total heavy metals measuring as lead” or the spectrophotometric or non-spectrophotometric interferences when determined by ICP-OES.

並列關鍵字

Heavy metal contents of Chinese Herbs ； ICP-OES ； Total heavy metals measuring as lead