Concerns over natural toxins produced both by plants and fungi have been emphasised in recent years, mostly due to their detrimental effect on food and feed safety. Among plant toxins, different groups of alkaloids have been identified as causes of human and animal intoxication. Alkaloids are natural compounds, produced mainly by plants as their secondary metabolites (22). Toxic effects in general depend on specific dosage, exposure time, and individual characteristics such as sensitivity or site of action. At different times, toxicity effects can be harmful or beneficial depending on the ecological or pharmacological context (26). In the context of food safety, only the harmful effect is considered relevant, and among different groups of alkaloids, pyrrolizidine and tropane compounds have been highlighted as particularly important for their injurious toxicity.
Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) are some of the most widespread toxins of natural origin. Plants containing them originate mostly from the
Acute intoxications in humans and animals caused by PAs are highly rare. However, the main health concern attaches to chronic disease that can be initiated by even low-level dietary exposure to 1,2-unsaturated PAs. The consequences of chronic or intermittent exposure include cancerous diseases, progressive liver disorders leading to cirrhosis, congenital anomalies, and pulmonary arterial hypertension (11).
Plants containing tropane alkaloids (TAs) are found in numerous families such as
In humans, TAs prevent the interaction of acetylcholine with its receptor, which may affect the heart rate, respiration and functions of the central nervous system. As scopolamine is a competitive antagonist of acetylcholine at both peripheral and central muscarinic receptors, it may impart toxicological effects in humans and animals severe enough in some cases to cause death due to respiratory failure (3).
Pyrrolizidine alkaloid and TA containing plants can be found almost all over the world. Often, they are perceived as invasive and noxious weeds, which can infest cultivated fields, meadows, pastures or open ranges replacing nutritious plants (31). The spread of such weeds from eastern and southern to northern European countries has been observed and is suggested to have occurred as a result of climate change (1). Content of PAs and TAs differs between species, and the TAs and PAs profiles may be different in different parts of the same plant (17, 20). The presence of scopolamine and atropine has also been confirmed in the floral nectar of
Consumption of honey is constantly increasing worldwide, and in the case of Poland, it has doubled within the last 15 years (35). Even though the number of bee colonies and the production of Polish honey have been growing, the demand cannot be fully covered by domestic production. Like many other countries, Poland imports honey from all over the world, and in 2018 the amount of imported honey was estimated at 25,712 tonnes (28). It was found that honey originating from Central and South America or Australia can contain elevated rates of PAs. Testing of samples from these regions revealed some to be contaminated with high individual PA levels (9, 16, 34). Because a considerable part of the honey available on the market is imported and some foreign honey has been demonstrated to have alkaloid impurities as noted, there is a need to test the product for the presence of different contaminants including PAs and TAs. For that reason, suitable analytical methods are needed.
Numerous methods for the determination of only PAs in honey can be found in the literature (4, 15, 21, 24, 25), and several have also been developed for the simultaneous determination of PAs and TAs in plant based foods (10, 30, 33). However, according to the authors’ knowledge, a very limited number of protocols have been designed for PAs and TAs analysis in honey (25). Procedures for the determination of single TAs group in honey could also only be found in inconsiderable number (29, 32). Most of the developed methods were based on high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) combined with liquid chromatography, which enables high selectivity and specificity; however, the drawback of the technique is still its high price. The technique is not always affordable for official laboratories focused on routine analysis.
The study aimed to develop and validate an alternative method based on liquid chromatography– mass spectrometry suitable for the determination of PAs and TAs alkaloids in honey. The selection of the compounds to determine sought to comprehend representatives of particular types of PAs, including jacobine, erucifoline, retrorsine, senecionine, senecivernine and seneciphylline as senecionine types; lycopsamine, intermedine, and echimidine as lycopsamine types; europine, heliotrine and lasiocarpine as heliotrine types; and monocrotaline and trichodesmine as monocrotaline types. Senkirkine was also included. Scopolamine and atropine were selected as representatives of the TAs.
Monitored ions (m/z), retention time, matrix effect, determination coefficient (R2), limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of analysed pyrrolizidine and tropane alkaloids
Monitored ion (m/z) | Retention time (min) | Matrix effect (%) | Linearity R2 | LOD μg kg−1 | LOQ μg kg−1 | Uncertainty (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monocrotaline | 326.1 | 5.26 | 101 | 0.9924 | 0.16 | 0.52 | 9.8 |
Erucifoline | 350.1 | 7.60 | 95 | 0.9933 | 0.10 | 0.35 | 12.9 |
Intermedine | 300.1 | 8.14 | 115 | 0.9900 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 19.0 |
Europine | 330.1 | 8.37 | 115 | 0.9929 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 24.3 |
Lycopsamine | 300.1 | 8.54 | 116 | 0.9877 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 22.1 |
Jacobine | 352.1 | 9.07 | 94 | 0.9922 | 0.13 | 0.44 | 17.6 |
Retrorsine | 352.1 | 11.49 | 97 | 0.9904 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 21.4 |
Trichodesmine | 354.1 | 11.65 | 101 | 0.9945 | 0.13 | 0.44 | 13.7 |
Heliotrine | 314.1 | 12.19 | 119 | 0.9952 | 0.11 | 0.37 | 17.7 |
Seneciphylline | 334.1 | 12.79 | 96 | 0.9944 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 13.7 |
Senecivernine | 336.1 | 15.47 | 98 | 0.9940 | 0.13 | 0.43 | 14.2 |
Senecionine | 336.1 | 15.73 | 91 | 0.9901 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 17.1 |
Echimidine | 398.1 | 17.25 | 103 | 0.9941 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 25.5 |
Senkirkine | 366.1 | 17.44 | 113 | 0.9939 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 5.6 |
Lasiocarpine | 412.1 | 18.89 | 115 | 0.9935 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 13.4 |
Scopolamine | 304.1 | 10.28 | 105 | 0.9922 | 0.15 | 0.49 | 15.5 |
Atropine | 290.1 | 14.36 | 127 | 0.9942 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 14.7 |
All matrix effect results are presented in Table 1. For most of the investigated compounds signal enhancement was observed, with the highest for atropine and heliotrine. Slight signal suppression was noticeable for senecionine, jacobine, erucifoline retrorsine, seneciphylline and senecivernine.
The LODs and LOQs ranged from 0.05 to 0.17 μg/kg and from 0.17 to 0.58 μg/kg, respectively. The LODs of scopolamine and atropine were 0.15 and 0.11 μg/kg and the LOQs were 0.49 and 0.36 μg/kg, respectively. Recovery of the analysed compounds varied from 81.2 % to 106.3 % for PAs and from 83.9 % to 102.5 % for TAs.
Adequate repeatability expressed as the coefficient of variation was observed for all validation assays, with CVs between 1.5% and 13.3% for analysed PAs and between 3.5% and 10.4% in the case of TAs, depending on each concentration level investigated. Coefficients of variations for reproducibility were in the range of 3.3% to 17.8% in case of PAs and for TAs ranged from 5.1% to 10.3% (Table 2).
The uncertainty of the method depending on the compound varied from 5.6% to 25.5%. The highest value of 25.5% was adopted as the overall method uncertainty.
Validation results for recovery, repeatability and within-laboratory reproducibility
Recovery (%) | Repeatability CV (%) | Reproducibility CV (%) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Concentration | 5 | 50 | 200 | 5 | 50 | 200 | 5 | 50 | 200 | |
Monocrotaline | 92.6 | 96.5 | 91.2 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 7.6 | |
Erucifoline | 90.6 | 96.9 | 94.9 | 5.4 | 4.1 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 6.2 | 7.9 | |
Intermedine | 100.2 | 98.2 | 88.6 | 5.2 | 9.6 | 13.3 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 12.6 | |
Europine | 98.6 | 95.9 | 81.2 | 3.9 | 11.4 | 12.9 | 8.5 | 11.1 | 17.4 | |
Lycopsamine | 97.1 | 95.6 | 84.5 | 4.7 | 11.6 | 12.4 | 9.5 | 11.8 | 15.4 | |
Jacobine | 94.0 | 100.6 | 92.1 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 6.7 | 9.6 | |
Retrorsine | 83.9 | 97.7 | 92.1 | 7.2 | 12.7 | 11.0 | 17.8 | 13.9 | 12.8 | |
Trichodesmine | 94.7 | 97.2 | 89.4 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 11.9 | 7.5 | 8.8 | |
Heliotrine | 99.9 | 100.3 | 92.8 | 7.4 | 5.7 | 9.7 | 6.7 | 7.5 | 9.8 | |
Seneciphylline | 90.3 | 99.4 | 95.5 | 7.7 | 3.5 | 8.2 | 9.9 | 8.0 | 8.1 | |
Senecivernine | 100.0 | 104.0 | 96.1 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 8.3 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 8.8 | |
Senecionine | 96.2 | 100.1 | 90.9 | 1.7 | 7.0 | 8.9 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 11.1 | |
Echimidine | 98.9 | 99.6 | 89.0 | 6.5 | 9.1 | 13.3 | 8.3 | 9.8 | 16.4 | |
Senkirkine | 99.4 | 104.2 | 92.9 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 7.6 | 6.5 | 3.4 | 7.6 | |
Lasiocarpine | 106.3 | 103.1 | 93.0 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 10.6 | |
Scopolamine | 83.9 | 102.5 | 90.7 | 8.9 | 3.5 | 7.8 | 9.4 | 8.1 | 7.8 | |
Atropine | 88.6 | 102.2 | 89.0 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 10.4 | 7.3 | 5.1 | 10.3 |
As far as the reduction rates of
Fig. 1
Results of honey sample alkaloid investigation expressed as percentage of samples contaminated and not contaminated and percentage distribution of determined alkaloids in the contaminated samples

Alkaloid contamination results for the honey samples tested
Intermedine | Lycopsamine | Senecionine | Senecivernine | Echimidine | Retrorsine | Seneciphylline | Erucifoline | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
02/p | 3.0 | 1.9 | 6.9 | 11.8 | |||||
03/p | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 14.5 | ||||
06/f | 23.3 | 22.5 | 101.2 | 147.0 | |||||
07/p | 2.2 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 7.3 | |||||
09/f | 2.9 | 10.2 | 13.1 | ||||||
10/p | 3.0 | 2.1 | 4.1 | 9.2 | |||||
11/f | 1.8 | 4.0 | 5.8 | ||||||
14/f | 120.0 | 120.0 | |||||||
15/p | 5.9 | 5.9 | |||||||
16/p | 9.2 | 14.1 | 2.0 | 6.3 | 31.6 | ||||
19/f | 2.7 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 14.5 | ||||
22/p | 7.1 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 16.7 | |||||
25/p | 8.7 | 8.7 | |||||||
27/p | 2.2 | 2.2 | |||||||
28/p | 2.5 | 2.5 |
p – honey sample of Polish origin; f – honey sample of foreign origin. Results expressed in μg/kg
Echimidine occurred in a concentration ranging from 2.2 to 120.0 μg/kg. Intermedine and lycopsamine content ranged from 2.2 to 23.3 μg/kg and from 2.3 to 22.5 μg/kg, respectively. Senecionine, senecivernine, seneciphylline, retrorsine and erucifoline occurred in relatively low concentrations, mostly of below 5 μg/kg (Fig. 2).
Fig. 2
Boxplots of the concentration of determined alkaloids

With respect to the total content of PAs, only in two samples were high concentrations of the alkaloids determined, those contents being 147.0 μg/kg and 120 μg/kg. Total PA concentrations in a range of 11.8–16.7 μg/kg were detected in five analysed honeys, and one sample contained 31.6 μg/kg of PAs. In addition, five other samples were contaminated in a range of 5.8–9.2 μg/kg and two samples revealed relatively low contamination of 2.2 μg/kg and 2.5 μg/kg. The average concentration was evaluated as 14.2 μg/kg and the median as 2.2 μg/kg. Scopolamine and atropine were not detected in any of the analysed samples. The average and median content of PAs in Polish honey were 5.3 μg/kg and 0 μg/kg, and the content range was 2.2–31.6 μg/kg. The average and median concentrations of PAs in honeys of foreign origin were 37.6 μg/kg and 9.5 μg/kg, respectively. The total content of the monitored PAs in all foreign honeys was in the range of 5.8–147.0 μg/kg.
A founding premise of this research was that it was considered desirable to achieve chromatographic resolution of all investigated compounds. However, because of the occurrence of some PAs in the form of isomers, their chromatographic separation was expected to pose additional challenges.
The first attempts involved the separation of the compound with a Gemini 3 μm NX-C18, 150 mm × 4.6 mm column, (Phenomenex,) and a mobile phase consisting of 0.2% formic acid in water (A) and a mixture of methanol and acetonitrile (1 : 1,
Among the columns evaluated were the same Gemini column; Kinetex C18, 2.6 μm, 100 mm × 4.6 mm and Kinetex C8, 2.6 μm, 100 mm × 4.6 mm. In optimising the mobile phase we evaluated various concentrations of formic acid in water as phase A, with phase B consisting of different volume ratios of methanol and acetonitrile. A combination of varying proportions of methanol and acetonitrile effectively modified the elution strength of the mobile phase. With the appropriate gradient, elution strength control allowed the separation of all PAs and TAs. Separation was achieved with a mobile phase consisting of 0.3% formic acid in water (A) and a mixture of methanol and acetonitrile (2:1,
Fig. 3
a) SIM chromatogram obtained for honey matrix spiked at a concentration of 5 μg kg−1. 1 – monocrotaline, 2 – erucifoline, 3 – intermedine, 4 – europine, 5 – lycopsamine, 6 – jacobine, 7 – scopolamine, 8 – retrorsine, 9 – trichodesmine, 10 – heliotrine, 11 – seneciphylline, 12 – atropine, 13 – senecivernine, 14 – senecionine, 15 – echimidine, 16 – senkirkine, 17 – lasiocarpine; b) chromatogram of a blank honey sample

For the extraction and purification of the extracts, different approaches have been described in the literature. The procedure used by Martinello
As the first specification, MCX cartridges with an elution mixture consisting of ethyl acetate, methanol, acetonitrile, triethylamine and ammonium (8 : 1 : 1 : 0.1 : 0.1
Among the solvents, only the increase of ammonia volume improved the recovery rates of all the analysed alkaloids. However, it also caused the elution of some other matrix constituents, leading to the deterioration of the chromatogram quality. A satisfactory balance between acceptable recoveries, especially of europine and erucifoline, and the quality of chromatograms was achieved when ammonia was used in a volume of 0.3 mL.
The MCX and PCX columns gave some of the best results for both groups of analysed alkaloids; however, with PCX cartridges the clean-up effect, and therefore the quality of the chromatograms obtained, were worse than those offered by MCX or HF cartridges.
To enhance the sensitivity of the method, a relatively high volume of honey extract was subjected to SPE purification and concentration. For this reason, the clogging problem was considered as another relevant factor affecting the choice of SPE cartridges. Most of the tested SPE columns, including SCX, Strata-X-C, and PCX, became clogged while the honey solution was being passed through them, decreasing the efficiency of the SPE step. Thus, the selection of the most effective cartridge was a compromise between recovery rate, purification effect and avoidance of clogging. Only MCX cartridges provided acceptable recovery rates of all analysed alkaloids, good clean-up effect, and crucially, the capacity to pass extracts without clogging.
Even though the
According to European Commission Decision 2002/657/EC (7), the recovery should be in the range of 70% to 110% for spike levels between 1.0 and 10.0 μg/kg, and in the range of 80%–110% for concentrations greater than or equal to 10.0 μg/kg. All the obtained recovery values are in line with these requirements, proving the efficient extraction of the compounds. Also, adequate repeatability and within-laboratory reproducibility (CV %) values below 20% were achieved. The method proved to be selective (Fig. 3b) and linear in the investigated range (R2 > 0.98).
Matrix effects are generally expressed as a suppression or enhancement of the analytical signal due to co-eluting matrix components. Matrix effects have been extensively studied and documented as a source of error in quantitative liquid chromatography– mass spectrometry analysis of food samples (8). For most of the investigated compounds, signal enhancement was observed, as the matrix effect values exceeded 100%. The highest signal enhancement was visible in the cases of atropine and heliotrine; however, slight signal suppression was also observed for some of the compounds.
The obtained LOQ values for PAs and TAs were relatively low, and are comparable to the LOQ of other methods based on HRMS (25) and even lower than the LOQ obtained for tropane alkaloids by Romera-Torres
The finding that echimidine, intermedine, and lycopsamine were among the most abundant alkaloids is in concurrence with the results reported by the European Food Safety Authority, Huybrechts
The PA concentrations determined in Polish honey, which fell in a 2.2–31.6 μg/kg range, are comparable with the results obtained in the authors’ previous study on honey from Poland (23). These results are also consistent with the findings of other authors who tested honey of European origin. Bodi
However, contrary to the findings of Martinello
As all analysed honeys were free of TAs, the safety assessment was focused on PAs only. To assess the safety of analysed honeys, a benchmark dose lower confidence limit for a 10% excess cancer risk (BMDL10) of 237 μg/kg b.w. per day was used as a reference point. This was derived from the study of the incidence of liver haemangiosarcoma in female rats exposed to riddelliine implementing margin of exposure (MOE) of 10,000 (14). For the calculation of dietary exposure, an average consumption of 20 g of honey, an average adult weight of 70 kg and an average child weight of 20 kg were adopted. Taking into consideration the BMDL10 and MOE, it was assessed that the maximum content of PAs in honey should not exceed 83.0 μg kg−1 for adults and 23.7 μg kg−1 for children. Based on the determined concentrations of PAs, it can be stated that only two samples would exceed the threshold of 83.0 μg/kg. Three analysed honeys were contaminated above the safe level of 23.7 μg/kg, and could pose a risk to children if consumed in the amount of 20 g per day or more. Most of the analysed honeys contained PA concentrations below 23.7 μg/kg, and therefore ingestion of 20 g should not pose any risk to child or adult consumers.
A sensitive method suitable for simultaneous determination of PAs and TAs in honey was developed and validated. All the assessed parameters met the prerequisites for analytical methods, which proved the utility of the developed protocol. The method was applied in the analysis of 29 honey samples, of which 52% were positive for the presence of at least one of the monitored PAs. Echimidine, lycopsamine, intermedine and senecionine were the most abundant alkaloids; however, scopolamine and atropine were not detected in any of the analysed honey. The risk assessment revealed that the ingestion of three analysed honeys, could pose a potential risk to their consumers, especially children. All three honeys were bound for retail distribution; in light of the demonstrable potential for this product to be injurious to health, it is hoped that the analytical method developed will contribute to food safety surveillance in the honey category.
Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Alkaloid contamination results for the honey samples tested
Intermedine | Lycopsamine | Senecionine | Senecivernine | Echimidine | Retrorsine | Seneciphylline | Erucifoline | Total | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
02/p | 3.0 | 1.9 | 6.9 | 11.8 | |||||
03/p | 2.2 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 7.3 | 14.5 | ||||
06/f | 23.3 | 22.5 | 101.2 | 147.0 | |||||
07/p | 2.2 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 7.3 | |||||
09/f | 2.9 | 10.2 | 13.1 | ||||||
10/p | 3.0 | 2.1 | 4.1 | 9.2 | |||||
11/f | 1.8 | 4.0 | 5.8 | ||||||
14/f | 120.0 | 120.0 | |||||||
15/p | 5.9 | 5.9 | |||||||
16/p | 9.2 | 14.1 | 2.0 | 6.3 | 31.6 | ||||
19/f | 2.7 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 14.5 | ||||
22/p | 7.1 | 5.3 | 4.3 | 16.7 | |||||
25/p | 8.7 | 8.7 | |||||||
27/p | 2.2 | 2.2 | |||||||
28/p | 2.5 | 2.5 |
Monitored ions (m/z), retention time, matrix effect, determination coefficient (R2), limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantification (LOQ) of analysed pyrrolizidine and tropane alkaloids
Monitored ion (m/z) | Retention time (min) | Matrix effect (%) | Linearity R2 | LOD μg kg−1 | LOQ μg kg−1 | Uncertainty (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Monocrotaline | 326.1 | 5.26 | 101 | 0.9924 | 0.16 | 0.52 | 9.8 |
Erucifoline | 350.1 | 7.60 | 95 | 0.9933 | 0.10 | 0.35 | 12.9 |
Intermedine | 300.1 | 8.14 | 115 | 0.9900 | 0.09 | 0.31 | 19.0 |
Europine | 330.1 | 8.37 | 115 | 0.9929 | 0.17 | 0.58 | 24.3 |
Lycopsamine | 300.1 | 8.54 | 116 | 0.9877 | 0.09 | 0.28 | 22.1 |
Jacobine | 352.1 | 9.07 | 94 | 0.9922 | 0.13 | 0.44 | 17.6 |
Retrorsine | 352.1 | 11.49 | 97 | 0.9904 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 21.4 |
Trichodesmine | 354.1 | 11.65 | 101 | 0.9945 | 0.13 | 0.44 | 13.7 |
Heliotrine | 314.1 | 12.19 | 119 | 0.9952 | 0.11 | 0.37 | 17.7 |
Seneciphylline | 334.1 | 12.79 | 96 | 0.9944 | 0.10 | 0.34 | 13.7 |
Senecivernine | 336.1 | 15.47 | 98 | 0.9940 | 0.13 | 0.43 | 14.2 |
Senecionine | 336.1 | 15.73 | 91 | 0.9901 | 0.09 | 0.29 | 17.1 |
Echimidine | 398.1 | 17.25 | 103 | 0.9941 | 0.16 | 0.53 | 25.5 |
Senkirkine | 366.1 | 17.44 | 113 | 0.9939 | 0.05 | 0.17 | 5.6 |
Lasiocarpine | 412.1 | 18.89 | 115 | 0.9935 | 0.06 | 0.21 | 13.4 |
Scopolamine | 304.1 | 10.28 | 105 | 0.9922 | 0.15 | 0.49 | 15.5 |
Atropine | 290.1 | 14.36 | 127 | 0.9942 | 0.11 | 0.36 | 14.7 |
Validation results for recovery, repeatability and within-laboratory reproducibility
Recovery (%) | Repeatability CV (%) | Reproducibility CV (%) | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Concentration | 5 | 50 | 200 | 5 | 50 | 200 | 5 | 50 | 200 | |
Monocrotaline | 92.6 | 96.5 | 91.2 | 5.7 | 3.8 | 4.6 | 7.9 | 8.6 | 7.6 | |
Erucifoline | 90.6 | 96.9 | 94.9 | 5.4 | 4.1 | 8.0 | 8.6 | 6.2 | 7.9 | |
Intermedine | 100.2 | 98.2 | 88.6 | 5.2 | 9.6 | 13.3 | 7.8 | 9.8 | 12.6 | |
Europine | 98.6 | 95.9 | 81.2 | 3.9 | 11.4 | 12.9 | 8.5 | 11.1 | 17.4 | |
Lycopsamine | 97.1 | 95.6 | 84.5 | 4.7 | 11.6 | 12.4 | 9.5 | 11.8 | 15.4 | |
Jacobine | 94.0 | 100.6 | 92.1 | 3.3 | 4.5 | 10.0 | 8.0 | 6.7 | 9.6 | |
Retrorsine | 83.9 | 97.7 | 92.1 | 7.2 | 12.7 | 11.0 | 17.8 | 13.9 | 12.8 | |
Trichodesmine | 94.7 | 97.2 | 89.4 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 7.3 | 11.9 | 7.5 | 8.8 | |
Heliotrine | 99.9 | 100.3 | 92.8 | 7.4 | 5.7 | 9.7 | 6.7 | 7.5 | 9.8 | |
Seneciphylline | 90.3 | 99.4 | 95.5 | 7.7 | 3.5 | 8.2 | 9.9 | 8.0 | 8.1 | |
Senecivernine | 100.0 | 104.0 | 96.1 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 8.3 | 5.7 | 6.5 | 8.8 | |
Senecionine | 96.2 | 100.1 | 90.9 | 1.7 | 7.0 | 8.9 | 7.8 | 8.2 | 11.1 | |
Echimidine | 98.9 | 99.6 | 89.0 | 6.5 | 9.1 | 13.3 | 8.3 | 9.8 | 16.4 | |
Senkirkine | 99.4 | 104.2 | 92.9 | 3.8 | 1.5 | 7.6 | 6.5 | 3.4 | 7.6 | |
Lasiocarpine | 106.3 | 103.1 | 93.0 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 6.8 | 5.0 | 4.6 | 10.6 | |
Scopolamine | 83.9 | 102.5 | 90.7 | 8.9 | 3.5 | 7.8 | 9.4 | 8.1 | 7.8 | |
Atropine | 88.6 | 102.2 | 89.0 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 10.4 | 7.3 | 5.1 | 10.3 |