Brand-to-Brand Quality of Marketed Triphala Churna: Pharmacopoeial Tests, Gallic Acid TLC Fingerprint and Phenolics

Triphala churna is one of the most widely sold classical Ayurvedic formulations in India: an equal-parts powder of the fruit rinds of Amalaki (Emblica officinalis), Bibhitaki (Terminalia bellirica) and Haritaki (Terminalia chebula). Every pharmacy and supermarket stocks several brands at very different prices, and consumers assume the powder in each pack is the same. Published standardisation studies of polyherbal products often find otherwise: differences in moisture, ash, extractive values, marker content and sometimes microbial load.

This B.Pharm final-year project compares six marketed brands of Triphala churna (coded A–F, two batches each, bought from pharmacies and supermarkets in Bengaluru and Mysuru) with a laboratory reference churna prepared from authenticated fruit rinds. Each sample is tested for organoleptic characters, powder microscopy to confirm all three ingredients, loss on drying, total ash, acid-insoluble ash, water- and alcohol-soluble extractives and pH, and compared with the limits in the official monograph. A TLC fingerprint with gallic acid as the reference marker (and HPTLC densitometry where the college has access) shows qualitative similarity, and total phenolic content by the Folin–Ciocalteu method gives a quantitative comparison.

Results are analysed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's test in GraphPad Prism. The project fits PCI BP813PW Project Work in Semester 8, linked to the elective BP806ET Quality Control and Standardization of Herbals, and is written as a group report.

Abstract

Six marketed brands of Triphala churna and a laboratory-prepared reference were evaluated for pharmacognostic, physicochemical and phytochemical quality. Parameters included powder microscopy, loss on drying, ash values, extractive values, pH, TLC fingerprinting with gallic acid as marker, and total phenolic content. Results were compared with the official monograph limits and between brands using one-way ANOVA. The study shows the extent of brand-to-brand variation in a widely used polyherbal formulation and the value of simple pharmacopoeial tests for quality assurance.

Introduction

Herbal medicines face quality problems that synthetic drugs largely avoid: variable raw materials, adulteration or substitution, improper drying and storage, and microbial contamination. India's official standards for Ayurvedic drugs are published in the Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India (API) and the Ayurvedic Formulary of India, and the WHO has issued guidelines on quality-control methods for herbal materials. Triphala is a good test case: its composition is simple and defined, it is widely consumed, and gallic acid, a major phenolic constituent of all three fruits, provides an accessible marker.

Literature gap

Several studies have standardised Triphala or reported marker content, but many analyse one product or use instrumental methods unavailable in most B.Pharm colleges. Fewer compare multiple current market brands with a reference using a full set of pharmacopoeial tests and statistics. This project fills that gap with methods taught in the B.Pharm curriculum.

Proposed work

• Procure, code and store six brands (two batches each) and prepare the reference churna.
• Perform pharmacopoeial, microscopic, TLC and phenolic analyses in triplicate.
• Compare results with monograph limits and between brands statistically.

Feasibility

• Technical: ash furnace, hot-air oven, Soxhlet or maceration set-up, TLC chamber, UV-visible spectrophotometer and microscope are standard in B.Pharm labs.
• Economic: brands cost under ₹2,000 in total; reagents are routine.
• Ethical: no human or animal subjects; brands are coded to avoid commercial disclosure.

Triphala churna is sold by many manufacturers at widely different prices, and consumers and pharmacists cannot judge quality from the label. Ash, moisture and extractive values affect stability and potency; missing or substituted ingredients defeat the purpose of a three-fruit formulation; and microbial contamination is a safety risk for a powder taken by mouth. Routine market surveillance of such products is limited. Pharmacy students are taught these pharmacopoeial tests but rarely apply them to products actually on the shelf. The problem addressed is to determine whether marketed brands of Triphala churna differ significantly in pharmacognostic, physicochemical and phytochemical quality, and whether they meet official monograph limits, using tests available in a B.Pharm laboratory.

The study covers six brands of Triphala churna (powder form only, not tablets or capsules) available in Bengaluru and Mysuru, two batches each. Heavy metals, pesticide residues and aflatoxins are outside scope unless an external testing lab is available. Gallic acid is used as a marker for comparison, not as a measure of therapeutic efficacy. Findings describe the sampled batches and do not rate any manufacturer publicly.

Research design

Comparative, laboratory-based analytical study with a reference standard and replicate measurements.

Materials

• Market samples: six brands (A–F), two batches each, purchased from different outlets; label details (manufacturer licence, batch, manufacturing and expiry dates, composition) recorded and photographed; packs coded by a team member not doing the analysis.
• Reference churna: dried fruits of Amalaki, Bibhitaki and Haritaki procured from a reputed crude-drug supplier, authenticated by a botanist or pharmacognosy faculty, de-seeded, powdered and mixed in equal parts, passed through a fine sieve as for churna preparation.
• Standards and reagents: gallic acid reference standard, Folin–Ciocalteu reagent, silica gel 60 F254 plates, analytical-grade solvents.

Tests (each in triplicate)

Statistical analysis

Mean ± SD; one-way ANOVA across the seven samples for each quantitative parameter, Tukey's multiple-comparison test (α = 0.05); batch-to-batch comparison within brands by t-test; compliance table against monograph limits; correlation between total phenolics and alcohol-soluble extractive.

Timeline (14 weeks)