ABSTRACT
Panchagavya Ghritha is a widely used Ayurvedic formulation mentioned in Ashtanga Hridaya Utharastana Apasmara Patishedha indicated in conditions like Apasmara (epilepsy), Jwara (pyrexia), and Kamala (jaundice). It contains 5 ingredients namely Goshakrit rasa (cow dung juice), Amladadhi (sour curd), Goksheera (cow’s milk), Gomutra (cow’s urine) and Goghritha (ghee). Authentic sources of cow products are not often obtained and found adulterated. Collection and processing of fresh raw materials are an important area in this formulation This study was conducted to find out the non conformances and quality issues in Panchagavya ghritha production in industrial level. The comparative analysis of prepared and market samples based on standard analytical parameters proposed by PLIM reveals the variation in different organoleptic characters and physico-chemical parameters. The physico-chemical parameters among prepared and different companies were statistically analysed with ANOVA test and Scheffe’s pair wise comparison, showed significant difference at 0.01 levels.
ABSTRACT
Backgorund: The three stages of Snehapaka formulations namely Mridu, Madhyama and Khara Paka have been characteristically advocated for different routes of administration—Nasya, Pana/Basti and Abhyanga, respectively. Guidelines or established method for post-formulation characterization for the same is hardly available. Objective: The present communication is the comparative study of Mridu, Madhyama and Khara Paka of Panchagavya ghrita (PGG). Materials and Methods: Laboratory prepared samples of PGG following classical method were analyzed for different physicochemical, spectroscopic, chromatographic parameters, and antioxidant activity. Results: No significant difference was found among Mridu, Madhyama and Khara Paka in physicochemical parameters as well as chromatographic profiles. The ratio of absorbance at 240 and 294 nm showed steady increase from Mridu to Madhyama to Khara Paka in the ultraviolet (UV)-visible spectra of unsaponifiable matter. The high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC)-2,2 Diphenyl-1-picryl hydrazil (DPPH) bioautography assay revealed presence of two antioxidant compounds in low concentration in all the samples. This was further supported by estimation of total reducing power and DPPH assay. No significant difference was found among the three samples. Conclusion: Comparison of various physicochemical parameters, chromatographic profiles, and in vitro antioxidant activity determination is of little help in establishing any significant difference among the samples. However, spectrophotometric analysis of unsaponifiable matter reveals some encouraging characteristic findings which will be useful in establishing difference among the three stages of processing of PGG as well as Snehapaka in general.