GB/T 35949-2018 in English

GB/T 35949—2018 Standard Interpretation

This standard specifies the high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) determination method for aristolochic acid A, a banned substance in cosmetics, and is applicable to the detection of skin care cosmetics such as creams and lotions.

Background of Standard Formulation

Aristolochic acid A is listed as a banned substance in my country's "Technical Specifications for Cosmetic Safety" due to its toxicity. The formulation of this standard aims to provide a scientific basis for the detection of aristolochic acid A in cosmetics and ensure product safety.

Technical Evolution Analysis

High performance liquid chromatography combined with ultraviolet detector (HPLC-UV) is currently a relatively mature separation and detection technology. The ultrasonic extraction and external standard quantitative methods in the standard reflect the technological progress in this field and ensure the high sensitivity and accuracy of the detection.

Instrument and reagent specifications

High performance liquid chromatograph (HPLC): equipped with a UV detector, Eclipse Plus is recommended C₁₈ chromatographic column. The mobile phase is 70% methanol and 30% glacial acetic acid solution, the flow rate is 1.0 mL/min, and the column temperature is 25°C.

Analytical balance: Sensitivity 0.0001g, used to accurately weigh samples and standards.

Detailed analysis steps

1. Sample pretreatment: Weigh 1g of cosmetic sample, add 10mL of methanol and ultrasonically extract for 15 minutes, filter and test.
2. Calibration curve drawing: Use aristolochic acid A standard stock solution to prepare working solutions of different concentrations, record the peak area and draw a calibration curve.
3. Sample determination and qualitative confirmation: Inject the sample solution, perform qualitative analysis based on the retention time and UV spectrum, and use the calibration curve for quantitative analysis.

Recovery and precision

Within the 15-100 μg/g spike concentration range, the recovery was 89%-106%, and the relative standard deviation was less than 6%, ensuring the accuracy of the method.