PHARMACOGNOSTICAL EVALUATION OF EMBELIA RIBES AND CAMELLIA SINENSIS: COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF THEIR ANTHELMINTIC ACTIVITY

  • SEEMA Department of Pharmacy, SD College of Pharmacy and Vocational Studies, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh 251001
  • ARVIND KUMAR Department of Pharmacy, SD College of Pharmacy and Vocational Studies, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh 251001
  • KSHITIZ AGGARWAL Department of Pharmacy, SD College of Pharmacy and Vocational Studies, Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh 251001
  • ASHOK KUMAR Glocal School of Pharmacy, the Glocal University, Delhi-Yamunotri Marg (State Highway 57), Mirzapur Pole, Saharanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India 247121

Abstract

Objective: The present research work deals with the establishment of a standardization parameter for the Pharmacognositical evaluation of the plant Embelia Ribes and Camellia sinensis. Embelia Ribes is widely using in parasitic intestinal infection, however; Camellia sinensis is mainly used in the beverage preparation, for their Antioxidant activity but their anthelmintic effect is unknown. The present study aims to find out the effect of Camellia sinensis against pheritima Posthuma and compare their anthelmintic effect with Embelia Ribes.


Methods: The study has been performed under the different parameters 1). The physicochemical parameter includes total Ash value, acid insoluble ash value, water-soluble ash value, moisture content, and foreign organic matter 2). The phytochemical investigation includes the Extraction of Embelia Ribes and Camellia sinensis in different solvents in the increasing order of their polarity with Petroleum ether, chloroform, ethanol, distilled respectively and showed the presence of Alkaloids, carbohydrates, glycosides, tannins, flavonoids, phenolic compounds. 3) The pharmacological studies include the In vitro anthelmintic effect of Embellia Ribes and Camellia sinensis (ethanolic extract) against Pheritima Posthuma. The paralysis time and death time were studied.


Results: Shows the physic-chemical parameters such as total Ash value, acid insoluble ash value, water-soluble ash value, moisture content and foreign organic matter, which was determined to be not more than 8.98%, 1.5%, 7.8%, 3.2% and 0.25% in Embelia ribes as well as 7.78%, 1.6%, 8%, 2.2% and 0.21% in Camellia sinensis. Anthelemintic effect of Embellia ribes and Camellia sinensis (ethanolic extract) were investigated by measuring the paralysis time (75+3.76, 60+4.30, 48+4.40 and 73.32+3.80, 53.34+2.50, 38.55+3.45 respectively) and death time (140+2.82, 135+9.95, 97.55+4.25 and 124.85+5.30, 110.82+5.80, 80.30+2.80) at three different concentration 25 mg, 50 mg, 100 mg, against Pheritima posthuma and compares with the standard drug (Albendazole).


Conclusion: Camellia sinensis (ethanolic extract) extract and affords protection against helminthes (Pheritima Posthuma) and results show that Camellia sinensis is as effective as embellia ribes.

Keywords: Embelia ribes, Camellia sinensis, Antioxidant, Anthelmenitic, Pheritima posthuma

References

1. Uma Bhandari, Raman Kanojia, KK Pillai. Effect of ethanolic extract of embelia ribes on dyslipidemia in diabetic rats. Int J Exp Diab Res 2002;3:159–62.
2. A Sabitha Rani, K Saritha, V Nagamani, G Sulakshana. In vitro evaluation of antifungal activity of the seed extract of embelia ribes. Indian J Pharm Sci 2011;73:247–9.
3. Yuqiong Guo, Shanshan Zhao, Chen Zhu, Xiaojun Chang, Chuan Yue, Zhong Wang, et al. Identification of drought-responsive miRNAs and physiological characterization of tea plant (Camellia sinensis L.) under drought stress. BMC Plant Biol 2017;17:211.
4. Lenu B Fakae, Carl W Stevenson, Xing Quan Zhu, Hany M Elsheikha. In vitro activity of camellia sinensis (green tea) against trophozoites and cysts of Acanthamoeba castellanii anjin from Pongamia pinnata (L.) pierre and embelin from Embelia ribes Burm. f. Int J Parasitol: Drugs Drug Res 2017;38:76–81.
5. Maryam Esghaei. Evaluation of anticancer activity of camellia sinensis in the caco-2 colorectal cancer cell line. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2018;19:1697–701.
6. Rajani Srivastava. A review on phytochemical, pharmacological, and pharmacognostical profile of wrightia tinctoria: adulterant of kurchi. Pharmacogn Rev 2014;8:36–44.
7. Bigoniya P, Singh CS, Shukla A. Pharmacognostical and physicochemical standardization of ethnopharmacologically important seeds of Lepidium sativum linn. and Wrightia tinctoria R. Br. Indian J Nat Prod Resour 2011;2:464–71.
8. Ghosh T, Maity TK, Boseand A, Dash GK. Athelmintic activity of Bacopa monierr. Indian J Nat Prod 2005;21:16–9.
9. Rastogi T, Bhutda V, Moon K, Aswar PB, Khadabadi SS. Comparative studies on anthelmintic activity of Moringa oleifera and Vitex negundo. Asian J Res Chem 2009;2:181–2.
10. Shambaditya Goswami, Awanish Pandey, Poonam Tripathi, Asheesh Singh, Amrita Rai. An in vitro evaluation of the anthelmintic activity of Hedychium spichatum rhizomes and Zingiber zerumbet rhizomes on the Pheritima Posthuma model: a comparative study, Pharmacogn Res 2011;3:140–2.
11. Chandra Kala, Syed Salman, Sudhir Chaudhary. Comparative pharmacognostical evaluation of costus speciosus (Wild ginger) and zingiber officinale (ginger) rhizome. Int J Curr Pharm Res 2016;8:19-23.
12. Kumar S, Pandey AK. Chemistry and biological activities of flavonoids: an overview. Sci World J 2013. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/162750
13. Ananta Swargiary, Abhijita Daimari, Manita Daimari, Noymi Basumatary, Ezekiel Narzary. Phytochemicals, antioxidant, and anthelmintic activity of selected traditional wild edible plants of lower. Assam Indian J Pharmacol 2016;48:418–23.
14. M Sreejith, N Kannappan, A Santhiagu, Ajith P Mathew. Phytochemical, anti-oxidant and anthelmintic activities of various leaf extracts of Flacourtia sepiaria Roxb. Asian Pac J Trop Biomed 2013;3:947–53.
Statistics
32 Views | 40 Downloads
Citations
How to Cite
SEEMA, A. KUMAR, K. AGGARWAL, and A. KUMAR. “PHARMACOGNOSTICAL EVALUATION OF EMBELIA RIBES AND CAMELLIA SINENSIS: COMPARATIVE STUDIES OF THEIR ANTHELMINTIC ACTIVITY”. International Journal of Current Pharmaceutical Research, Vol. 13, no. 3, May 2021, pp. 42-45, doi:10.22159/ijcpr.2021v13i3.42092.
Section
Original Article(s)