標準曲線在濃度124.2、103.5、82.8、62.1、41.4、20.7 μg/ml 下， 20.7、
62.1、 103.5 μg/ml 三種濃度，連續分析 6 次，變異系數分別為 2.49 % 、 2.12%、1.9%，標準誤差分別為 1.5%、0.9%、0.6%，精確度良好如（圖 22）， 線性迴歸分析濃度與圖譜面積得到良好的線行關係，相關系係數數為
酸、鹼溶液下動力學變化是依照零次模式如（圖 23），酸性及鹼性溶液中 所得到的斜率分別是-82.8 μg/ml/hr、-311.6μg/ml/hr，而相關係數分別是 0.996、0.997，由此可看出[6]-gingerol 在酸性溶液中較鹼性溶液中安定。
薑汁及所含[6]-gingerol 在 pH = 2.64 - 8.7 下高效液相層析儀進行動力 學分析如（圖25）、（圖26）。薑汁在不同酸鹼度下，4 天後物理表現如（表 9），薑汁在 pH=4-5 時展現較佳的物理及化學安定性，薑汁在第四天酸鹼 度亦大多呈現在pH 4-5 之間如（表 8）。
五. 薑汁外觀變化
由（表 7）觀查薑汁在 pH 2.64-8.70 後的化變化，pH 2.64-4.36 時，液 體分為兩層，酸度越大沉澱越多，顏色微黃至粉紅，氣味可，pH 5.46-8.7 時液體呈懸浮狀，鹼度越大沉澱越少，顏色微黃至暗黃，氣味難聞。
六. 薑不同部位[6]-薑辣醇濃度差異
薑不同部位之萃取液經由高效液相層析儀進行分析圖形如（圖27），
共產生8 個積分波峰，波峰 1 是[6]-gingerol 濃度表現，其餘 7 個尚待進一 部分析，由（圖27.）中可看出薑皮[6]-gingerol 濃度高於薑芽，但薑皮驗不 出波峰5、8，而薑芽驗不出波峰 7、8，[6]-gingerol 濃度在薑的根莖及皮中 含量約為薑芽的1.67 倍、薑葉的 39 倍，1 公克薑皮含 0.823 mg [6]-gingerol 濃度，1 公克生薑根莖含有 0.806 mg [6]-gingerol。
Table 7. The physical properties of ginger aqueous solutions in various pH media
Suspension Suspension Suspension Suspension
Clarity ++++ +++ ++ +
Height of ppt. +++ ++++ ++ ++ + + +
Odor +++ + + Unpleasent Unpleasent Color Light yellow
to pink
Light yellow to pink
Light yellow
Light yellow Light yellow to yellow
Light yellow to yellow
Light yellow to deep yellow Number of “+” represent the strength of that item.
Table 8. The pH measurements of ginger solution at different time
pH at t=0 hr 2.64 3.56 4.36 5.46 6.76 7.58 8.7 pH after 22.17 hrs 2.75 3.78 4.58 5.13 5.29 5.25 5.35 pH after 93.83 hrs 2.70 4.49 4.76 5.09 6.45 5.39 4.77
Fig. 22. The calibration graph of Gin determined by HPLC assay
Fig. 23 Apparent zero-order plots for the degradation of 103.5 μg/mL Gin at acid /alkaline medium and determined by HPLC assay.
Fig. 24 The chromatogram of ginger solution in pH 4.0 acetate buffer at 36℃ and the kinetic profile of peak No. 1-5.
Fig. 25 The kinetic profiles of 6-gingerol in pH = 2~5 ginger solutions at 25℃.
Fig.26 The kinetic profiles of 6-gingerol in pH = 6~8 ginger solutions at 25℃.
Fig. 27 The chromatograms and the finger-prints of different parts of ginger.
第二節 [6]-薑辣醇抗血小板凝集研究
一. [6]-薑辣醇對小鼠流血時間之影響
小鼠腹腔注射不同劑量 (12.5, 25, 50 mg/kg) Gin 溶液，對照組樣本 10 隻公小鼠給予ASA(30 mg/kg)，控制組樣本給予同量的生理食鹽水，注射 Gin(25-50 mg/kg）、ASA (30 mg/kg)溶液及控制組的小鼠流血時間（秒）分 別為6.4 ± 0.9, 7.9 ± 0.5, 6.6 ± 0.8, 4.25 ± 0.8，與控制組分析比較結果 Gin 明
Fig. 28 Maximal intensity and velocity of collagen (10 μg/ml) induced platelet aggregation after（12.5 mg/kg, ip）treatment [6]-gingerol in rats.
Fig. 29 Maximal intensity and velocity of ADP (2 mM) induced platelet aggregation after（25 mg/kg, ip）treatment [6]-gingerol in rats
Fig. 30 Maximal intensity and velocity of AA (200 μM) induced platelet aggregation after（50 mg/kg, ip）treatment [6]-gingerol in rats.
]
Fig. 31 Maximal intensity and velocity of ADP ( 2 mM) induced platelet aggregation after i.p. application normal saline in rats.
Fig. 32 Effect of [6]-gingerol on bleeding time in mice, Data represented as mean
± S.E.M. (n = 10). ***P <0.001 as compared with the control group.
Table 9. Effect of [6]-gingerol on ex vivo platelet aggregation in rats.
Max light transmission rate % Group Dose
(mg/kg) ADP Collagen AA
Control — 65.4 ± 1.91 63.2 ± 1.70 56.2 ±1..56 ASA 30 26.4 ± 1.18*** 22.0 ± 1.31*** 20.4 ± 1.19***
[6]-gingerol 12.5 47.4 ± 1.28*** 39.8 ± 1.19*** 33.8 ± 1.09***
25 22.9 ± 0.94*** 21.4 ± 0.86*** 19.4 ± 0.64***
50 15.1 ± 0.86*** 12.0 ± 1.26*** 16.3 ± 1.02***
Data are expressed as Mean ± SEM (n=10). *P＜0.05, **P＜0.01, ***P＜0.001, as compare with nifedipine group.
Fig. 33 Effect of [6]-gingerol on ADP-induced platelet aggregation t ime course in rabbits.Data represented as mean ± S.E.M.
(n=10), ***P < 0.001 as compared with the control group.
0
第三節 生薑和 nifedipine 對抗血小板凝集協同反應探討-以正 常志願者與高血壓患者研究分析
一. 血小板功能測試（Platelet function tests）：
1. 正常樣本與高血壓樣本未服藥前用抗血小板抑制劑濁度反應：如
（Table ），正常樣本血小板在 collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導凝集後 濁度反應各為44.1%, 44.5%, 42.1%，高血壓樣本結果分別為 64.2%, 67.7%, 62.9%，數據顯示高血壓患者血小板凝集反應明顯高於正常樣 本（表10）、（圖 34）、（圖 35）。
2. 正常樣本併用 ginger 及 nifedipine 如（表 11）正常樣本服用 nifedipine 10 mg後在collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導的濁度抑制反應分別為20.2
± 0.7,%, 22.6 ± 0.6%, 23.4 ± 1.0%，服用aspirin 抑制百分比分別為37.2 ± 0.7%, 39.7 ± 0.8%, 34.9 ± 0.5% 。正常樣本併用aspirin , 及nifedipine 在 collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導的濁度抑制反應分別為 82.8 ± 8.5%, 78.2 ± 9.15%, 72.2 ± 8.5%，正常樣本服用生薑抑制百分比分別為 35.3 ± 壓樣本服用nifedipine 在 collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導的濁度抑制 反應分別為20.5 ± 0.7%, 22.3 ± 0.7%, 19.2 ± 1.0%，併用 aspirin 及 nifedipine 在 collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導的濁度抑制反應分別為 65.2 ± 0.7%, 64.6 ± 1.1%, 62.8 ± 1.1%，併用生薑及 nifedipine 在 collagen, ADP, epinephrine 引導的濁度抑制反應結果分別為 64.2 ± 0.5%, 63.8 ± 0.4%, 61.1 ± 0.8% 。高血壓患者血小板凝集反應數值高於
正常樣本，所以高血壓患者所的血小板較具活性，凝集能力較強如（圖 36）、（圖 37）。
Table 10. Mean (±SEM) percentage of platelet aggregation with collagen, ADP and epinephrine in normal volunteers and hypertensive patients.
Percentage of aggregation (%)
Normal volunteers Hypertensive patients
Collagen 44.1±0.2 64.2±0.5***
ADP 44.5±0.4 67.7±0.4***
Epinephrine 42.1±0.3 62.9±0.7***
Data are expressed as Mean±SEM (n=10),*** P < 0.001 as compared with the Normal volunteer group
Table 11. Synergistic effect of ginger and nifedipine on platelet aggregation in normal volunteers.
Percentage of inhibition of platelet aggregation Nifedipine Aspirin Nifedipine +
Aspirin
Ginger Nifedipine + Ginger
Collagen 20.2±0.7 37.2±0.7 82.8±8.5*** 35.2±0.8 79.8±0.6***
ADP 22.6±0.6 39.7±0.8 78.2±9.15*** 37.8±0.8 75.2±0.8***
Epinephrine 23.4±1.0 34.9±0.5 72.2±8.5** 35.9±0.7 69.3±0.5**
Data are expressed as Mean±SEM (n=10). *P＜0.05, **P＜0.01, ***P＜0.001, as compare with nifedipine group.
Table 12. Synergistic effect of ginger, aspirin and nifedipine on platelet aggregation in hypertensive patients.
Percentage of inhibition of platelet aggregation
Nifedipine Nifedipine + Aspirin Nifedipine + Ginger
Collagen 20.5±0.7 65.2±0.7*** 64.2±0.5***
ADP 22.3±0.7 64.6±1.1*** 63.8±0.4***
Epinephrine 19.2±1.0 62.8±1.1*** 61.1±0.8***
Data are expressed as Mean±SEM (n=10). *P＜0.05, **P＜0.01, ***P＜0.001, as compare with nifedipine group.
Fig. 34 Maximal intensity and velocity of ADP （2 mM）induced platelet aggregation in normal volunteers
Fig. 35 Maximal intensity and velocity of ADP（2 mM）induced platelet aggregation in hypertensive patients.
Fig. 36 Maximal intensity and velocity of epinephrine （0.4 mM）induced platelet aggregation after oral administration of nifedipine 10mg and ginger 1 gm.
in patient.
Fig. 37 Maximal intensity and velocity of epinephrine （0.4 mM） induced platelet aggregation after oral administration of nifedipine 10mg and aspirin 75 mg. in patient.
第四節 [6]-薑辣醇鎮痛及抗發炎之研究
一. [6]-薑辣醇對小鼠醋酸扭體反應之影響（writhing response）（111）
累計老鼠腹部伸縮次數.，控制組在 10 分鐘的實驗中計 38.2 ± 3.6
（n = 8）次，腹腔注射〔6〕-gingerol（25 mg/kg、50 mg/kg），後分別為 22.2 ± 4.1, 18.1 ± 3.0 有明顯的抑至疼痛效果，〔6〕-gingerol（25mg/kg）
和正對照品indomethacin（10mg/kg）為 23.0 ± 3.5，〔6〕-gingerol 得到劑 量依賴性的抑制反應，〔6〕-gingerol（25 mg/kg ）較接近 indomethacin（10 mg/kg）結果如（圖 38）。
二. [6]-薑辣醇對小鼠福馬林舔蹠之影響（formalin test）（111）
Gin（25mg/kg、50mg/kg）在疼痛後期亦顯現劑量依賴性的疼痛抑制作 用，正對照在組腹腔注射indomethacin（10mg/kg）後和控制組統計分析 結果舔蹠時間（秒）分別為76.1 ± 7.1, 68.2 ± 4.1, 51 ± 7.9, 118.3 ± 12.2，Gin
（25mg/kg、50mg/kg）皆產生明顯的止痛作用（p < 0.001）如（圖 39）。
三. [6]-薑辣醇對大鼠足蹠浮腫之影響（Hindpaw edema test）（111） 在足蹠後皮下注射致炎劑50μl，1% λ-carrageenin，5 小時利用
plethysmometer 測其排水量監測期間在第3 小時產生最大浮腫狀況，以〔6〕
-gingerol（25 mg/kg、50 mg/kg、100 mg/kg）和 indomethacin（10 mg/kg, 0.1 ml/100g）與控制組在實驗過程中均展現名顯的抗發炎反應（p < 0.001）。
〔6〕-gingerol（50 mg/kg、100 mg/kg）較 indomethacin（10 mg/kg）得到 更有效的結果（p < 0.01）如（圖 40）。
Fig. 38 The effects of i.p. [6]-gingerol administration on 1% acetic Acid- induced writhing response in mice. Data represented as mean ± SEM (n=8).
***P< 0.001 as compared with the control group.（113）
Control Indo 12.5 25 50 (mg/kg)
Writhing response
0 10 20 30 40
*** *** ***
Gingerol
Fig. 39 The effects of i.p. [6]-gingerol administration on 20μl of 1% formalin the early phase and late phase in mice. Data represented as mean ± SEM (n=8). ***P< 0.001 as compared with the Formalin group. （113）
Formalin Indo 25 50 (mg/kg)
Licking times (sec.)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Early phase Late phase
Gingerol
*** *** ***
Fig. 40 The effects of [6]-gingerol (Gin) and indomethacin (Indo) on
λ-carrageenin induced (CARR).rat’s hind paw edema. Data represented as mean ± SEM (n=8). **P <0.01, ***P< 0.001 as compared with the CARR group.（113）
Times (hr)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Changes of edema volume (mL)
0.0