• Users Online: 205
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 5  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 132-139

Shelf-life evalution of Agastyharitaki Avaleha and its granule: A preliminary study


1 Department of Rasa Shastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana, IPGT and RA, Rshastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India
2 MS Scholar Department of ENT, National Institute of Ayurveda, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
3 Phd Scholar, Department of Rasa Shastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana, IPGT and RA, Rshastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana, Jamnagar, Gujarat, India

Date of Submission26-Sep-2019
Date of Decision22-Jun-2020
Date of Acceptance03-Jul-2020
Date of Web Publication18-Dec-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vasundhara Jaluthriya
Department of Rasa Shastra and Bhaishjya Kalpana, IPGT and RA, Jamnagar, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/bjhs.bjhs_56_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


BACKGROUND: Shelf life is the indication of best before use duration, the importance of quality of package and storage condition is also emphasized in classics. Nowadays, due to the development and adaptation of packaging and storage technology by Ayurvedic industries, a need arise to restudy and re-establish the newer ones criteria.
AIM AND OBJECTIVES: The aim and objectives of the study were to evaluate the shelf life of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha (AHA) and its granule prepared with Khanda Sharkara through accelerated stability study.
SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Physicochemical parameters were measured at 40°C ± 2°C temperature and 75% ± 5% relative humidity. The analysis was repeated at intervals of 1, 3, and 6 months, and average 10% degradation of both the test drug samples was calculated and extrapolated to find the shelf life.
RESULTS: Agastyaharitaki granule (AHG) prepared with Khanda Sharkara showed more extractive values and sugar contents and found to have a longer shelf life (5.28 years) than AHA?(1.57 years). AHG is comparatively more stable than AHA.

Keywords: Agastyaharitaki Avaleha, granule, self-life


How to cite this article:
Jaluthriya V, Jawanjal P, Goud PK, Patgiri B J, Bedarkar P. Shelf-life evalution of Agastyharitaki Avaleha and its granule: A preliminary study. BLDE Univ J Health Sci 2020;5:132-9

How to cite this URL:
Jaluthriya V, Jawanjal P, Goud PK, Patgiri B J, Bedarkar P. Shelf-life evalution of Agastyharitaki Avaleha and its granule: A preliminary study. BLDE Univ J Health Sci [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 24];5:132-9. Available from: https://www.bldeujournalhs.in/text.asp?2020/5/2/132/303973




  Introduction Top


In Ayurvedic literature, “Saviryata avadhi” refers to the time period during which the drug remains potent. Although this concept was known to earlier scholars, exclusively described in later texts such as Vangasena Samhita,[1] Sharangadhara Samhita,[2] and Yogaratnakara[3] for different Ayurvedic dosage forms. As per Sushruta Samhita, a drug can be utilized for various therapeutic purposes unless it remains in an intact state, i.e., maintaining its appearance, taste, smell, and qualities.[4] Ayurvedic Formulary of India also has given the time period from the date of manufacture within which the formulations should be consumed for best results.[5] The term “Shelf life” is used to indicate the time period during which an active pharmaceutical ingredient or finished pharmaceutical product is expected to remain within the approved stability specification, provided that it is stored under the conditions defined on the container label.[6] These parameters are the quality parameters of the present era. Shelf life of the drug can be considered up to the period it gets deteriorated and does not get any alteration in its physical state.[7]


  Subjects and Methods Top


Collection of raw materials

The raw drugs Dashamoola, Atmagupta (Mucuna pruriens Bek.), Shankhapushpi (Convolvulus pluricaulis Linn.), Shati (Kaempferia galanga Linn.) Bala (Abutilon indicum Linn), Gajapippali (Scindapsus officinalis Schott.), Apamarga (Achyranthes aspera Linn.), Pippalimoola (Piper longum Linn.), Chitraka (Plumbago zeylanica Linn), Bharangi (Clerodendrum serratum), and Pushkarmoola (Inula racemosa Linn.) were procured from the Pharmacy, GAU, Jamnagar. One sample of Haritaki fruit to make Agastyaharitaki Avaleha (AHA) purchased from local market Jamnagar and another sample of Haritaki procured from the Pharmacy, GAU, Jamnagar. Gajapippli (S. Officinalis Linn.), Sarkara (Sugar candy), Yava (Hordeum Vulgare Linn.) Madhu and Guda were purchased from the local market in Jamnagar. All the herbal drugs were authenticated in Pharmacognosy Laboratory of IPGT and RA, Jamnagar.

Test drugs

From the raw materials, samples of AHA and its granules' main ingredient were prepared by following the classical guidelines[8] in the laboratory of Department of Rasashastra and Bhaishajya Kalpana, IPGT and RA. Agastyaharitaki Granule (AHG) is the modified form of Avaleha. Khanda sharkara was used as the sweating agent and Go-ghrita and Tila taila were not used in making the process of granule. Haritaki churna and Pippali churna were used as prakshepa dravya.

Preparation of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha

Ingredients

AHA was prepared by using Haritaki, Dashmoola, kwatha dravya, Goghrita, Tila taila. Guda and Madhu as a sweatning agent.

AHG (modified) was prepared using Dashamoola and 10 other Kwath dravya, Pippali and Haritaki powder as Prakshepa dravya, Goghrita and Tila taila were not used as Bharjana dravya, and Khanda sharkara used as a sweetening base at the place of Guda.

Packing

Both the samples (AHA and AHG) of 100 g each were packed in airtight food-grade plastic containers and stored in accelerated stability chambers.

Storage conditions

Accelerated stability study was conducted as per the International council of harmonisation (ICH) Guidelines Q1A (R2).[9] Temperature was maintained at 40°C ± 2°C while relative humidity was maintained at 75% ± 5%.

Frequency of withdrawal and analysis

Any changes in physicochemical profiles of samples at an interval of 0, 1, 3, and 6 months were observed. The parameters considered for evaluation of stability study are organoleptic characters (color, odor, and taste) and physicochemical parameters such as pH value,[10] moisture,[11] total ash,[12] acid-insoluble ash,[13] water-soluble extractive value,[14] methanol soluble extractive value,[13] total fat,[15] total solid,[16] total sugar,[9] total saponin, total alkaloids, and total tannins.[17] Microbial load[18] and determination of heavy metals were also estimated in test drug samples.

Based on the analytical values obtained before and after 6 months of storage, intercept and slope were calculated. Based on these, approximate 10% degradation was calculated and extrapolated to get shelf life.


  Results Top


Organoleptic characters

The comparative organoleptic characters of both the trial drugs are mentioned below.

Qualitative test

Qualitative tests are used to detect the presence of functional groups, which play a very important role in the expression of biological activity.

Physicochemical parameters

The comparative physicochemical parameters of both the trial drugs are mentioned below.

No significant change was noticed in color, odor, and taste of both the samples up to the storage of 6 months at accelerated conditions [Table 2]. On storing for 6 months at accelerated conditions, both the formulations were found to be free from heavy metal content, and the microbial growth is within the prescribed limits. This reveals the safety aspects of the product [Table 11] and [Table 12]. Changes in physicochemical parameters at different intervals were found to be insignificant [Table 7]. Based on these values, intercept, slope, and approximate time for 10% of degradation were calculated which was 5.64 for AHA and 19.02 for AHG [Table 10]. As India comes under climatic Zone III, multiplication factor 3.3 was used for extrapolation of shelf life [Table 11]. Thus, the shelf life of AHA was found to be 1.57 years, whereas for AHG, it was 5.28 years.
Table 1: Details ingredients and their quantity

Click here to view
Table 2: Organoleptic characters of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and Agastyaharitaki Granule

Click here to view
Table 3: Comparative qualitative tests for various functional groups

Click here to view
Table 4: Physicochemical profile of Agatsyaharitaki Avaleha at different intervals

Click here to view
Table 5: Physicochemical profile of Agatsyaharitaki Granule at different intervals

Click here to view
Table 6: Comparative physicochemical parameters of both the test drugs

Click here to view
Table 7: Physicochemical profile of Agatsyaharitaki Avaleha at different intervals

Click here to view
Table 8: Physicochemical profile of Agastyaharitaki Granule at different interval

Click here to view
Table 9: Intercept and slope of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and AHG for different parameters

Click here to view
Table 10: Approximate period (months) for 10% degradation of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and Agastyaharitaki Granule

Click here to view
Table 11: Extrapolation of shelf life in Agatsyaharitaki Avaleha and its granules

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The results showed no significant change in color, odor, and taste of both the samples of AHA after storing for 180 days under accelerated conditions. Differences in physicochemical profiles of AHA and AHG were insignificant. Heavy metals and microbial count in both the samples were in prescribed limits. This reflects about quality and safety aspects of the product. It also reveals that due care has been taken during manufacturing of the formulation avoiding cross-contamination and strictly following classical guidelines.

In physicochemical analysis, organoleptic tests are very important parameter because palatability of a drug is dependent upon these characters. Both the drugs (AHA and AHG) were aromatic and have a similar taste (astringent and sweet). Avaleha was brownish black, while granules were dark brown. This difference may be because of the addition of sugar and Haritaki powder in granules. AHA color was brownish black and touch and appearance were sticky and semisolid, whereas AHG was rough and granular [Table 1].

AHA and AHG were analyzed by physicochemical parameters, and the average values of the parameters were recorded [Table 4]. pH shows that the 1% w/v aqueous solution of both the samples were acidic in nature, i.e., 4.09 and 3.54. As tannin is weak in acidic nature,[19] the acidic pH of the final product may be due to rich tannin content in the final product [Table 3]. As concentration of ingredients is more in Avaleha (AHA) than that of granules (AHG) (owing to less moisture content 14.59% than that of Avaleha), pH is more acidic in granules than that of Avaleha (AHA).

23.03% and 8.44% moisture % were found in AHA and AHG respectively. Moisture % of granules is less compared to AHA. The reason may be due to semisolid consistency of Avaleha that contains considerable portion of moisture and AHG is solid in consistency, so naturally the moisture in the product will be less. Another reason for less moisture in granule may be due to duration of heating during the process as compared to Avaleha preparation [Table 5].

Total ash values were 2.35 and 1.71 for AHA and AHG, respectively [Table 6]. Ash value depends on the total inorganic substances present in the particular drug; this parameter has importance in quality control and standardization of drugs. More the inorganic substances present in drugs higher will be the ash value [Table 9].

Granules have comparatively more water-soluble and alcohol-soluble extractive values than that of Avaleha which are 83.07% and 66.4% and 10.08% and 8.31%, respectively, in granules and Avaleha [Table 6]. More extractives were present in AHG due to more concentration of active ingredient because of less moisture content as compare to AHA. Another reason for comparatively more water-soluble extractive in granule than that of Avaleha is the absence of ghee which is nonaqueous hence insoluble in water, hence leads to an increase in concentration of water-soluble substances. In spite of the additional presence of honey in Avaleha, which is fairly water soluble, water-soluble extractive of Avaleha is less than that of granules, this suggests more effect of additional moisture content than that of concentration of honey in Avaleha. Although both the extractives of granules are more than in extractives of Avaleha, still there is less difference among alcohol-soluble extractives than that of water soluble extract (WSE) of both the formulations. This less difference in alcohol soluble extract (ASE) is due to the presence of ghee in Avaleha and its absence in granules. Ghee is soluble in alcohol; hence, in spite of less active ingredients (more moisture content in14 Avaleha) which should significantly reduce ASE of Avaleha as that of granules, still the difference in ASE values of formulation is less which may account for almost complete extraction of ghee content of Avaleha in ASE leading to comparatively less difference in ASE as that of granules.

Total sugar content (%) 60.73 and 59.62 were found in AHA and AHG, respectively [Table 9]. In spite of more moisture content and less concentration of sugar in jaggery than that of the same proportion of Sugar in granules, total sugar content of Avaleha is comparatively more which may be due to additional presence of honey in Avaleha. In spite of more moisture content, comparatively more fat percentage in Avaleha (AHA) than that of granules (AHG) is due to the additional presence of ghee in the formulation AHA. Total microbial count and heavy metal analyses were within the permissible limits [Table 10] and [Table 11]. The absence of microbial contamination and heavy metals content in permissible limits provides quality and safety aspects of the formulation.

More content of alkaloids, tannins, and saponins in AHG as that of AHA is due to more concentration of active ingredients in formulation due to less moisture. As tannins are fairly water soluble and for preparation of Avaleha, process of boiling with water was adopted (Kvathana) which has extracted water-soluble tannins efficiently and quantity-wise predominant drug, i.e., Haritaki contains quantity-wise predominant chemical, i.e., tannin content hence among all functional groups, i.e., tannins, saponins, and alkaloids, and there was a very significant difference in the content of tannin, i.e., it was very high in AHG than that of AHA. Very significant difference in tannin content among Avaleha and granules or significant less quantity of tannins in Avaleha (AHA) is less likely only due to more moisture content in Avaleha and this may be resultant of poor extraction or altered leaching behavior of tannins, as although tannins are freely water soluble, but addition of nonpolar liquid, i.e., ghee, in AHA might have altered leaching behavior of tannins which may be due to partial and probable formation of micelles/saponification [Table 14]. As these ingredient are not miscible to each other like decoction, ghee ,honey which may be separated by changing tempreture. The absence of phase separation (separation of ghee) suggests the physical stability of Avaleha.
Table 12: Microbial limit test of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and Agastyaharitaki Granule in different months

Click here to view
Table 13: Heavy metal analysis of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and Agastyaharitaki Granule in different months

Click here to view
Table 14: Comparative percent change in analyzed parameters during accelerated stability study (initial and after 6 months) of Agastyaharitaki Avaleha and Agastyaharitaki Granule

Click here to view


Insignificant differences were observed in basic physicochemical profiles in both the drugs at different stages of analysis [Table 6]. Loss on drying, pH, total ash and total sugar were decreased after 1, 3 and 6 months in AHA. In AHG, total ash was increased and loss on drying and total sugar was decreased. Reduction in pH of Avaleha can be correlated due to loss of moisture leading to increment in concentration of ingredients (predominant chemical constituents pH of decoction is acidic) during 1st, 3rd, and 6th months of the accelerated stability study. Loss of moisture is interrelated with a reduction in the level of detail (LOD) at 1st, 3rd, and 6th months of the accelerated stability study.

In spite of 15.41% and 34.24% reduction in LOD, i.e., loss of moisture, from AHG and AHA at the end of 6 months during stability study, there has been a reduction in total fat content (5.26% and 19.84%), total sugar (4.84% and 4.92%), and phytochemical markers of functional groups, i.e., total alkaloid content (2.70% and 38.46%), total tannin content (33.69% and 8.28%), and saponins (7.18% and 9.96%) in AHG and AHA, respectively [Table 14]. This change is significant; hence it suggests stringent control over the container closure system, packaging, and storage. Although comparatively more increase in total plate count in AHA matches with comparatively more reduction in total sugar, it may not be an alarming change in view of stability, as fungus (which may be responsible for reduction of sugar to alcohol) has been found absent from AHA at the end of 6 months of the accelerated stability study. Further organoleptic evaluation of AHA did not reveal a change in the odor of formulation or generation of odor of self-generated alcohol or fermentative odor. Although there is reduction in total sugar, still fungus is absent in either formulation after 6 months of stability study.

Although the shelf life of AHA in accelerated stability study has been found to be very less, i.e., 5.64 mean months, still, it may not be a major hurdle intervening its therapeutic efficacy as the major responsible factor for change is reduction in total alkaloids, total fats, and acid-insoluble ash, followed by a reduction in the loss on drying. Among these factors, reduction in loss on drying (suggesting loss of moisture) and reduction in acid-insoluble ash are therapeutically insignificant changes, as granules of the same formulation with slight alteration in composition which have very significant less amount of moisture and prepared at the same temperature (maximum 80°C–100°C) as that of temperature for preparation of Avaleha are also proven comparable and effective in the present clinical study, hence nullifying chance of adverse effect of instability of these parameters on its clinical efficacy.

In AGA, major factors responsible for less shelf life of granules in the present study are acid-insoluble ash, total tannins, and total ash, followed by loss on drying. Among them, there is a reduction in total fats and total ash and loss on drying, whereas increase in acid-insoluble ash in order of contribution toward the reduction of shelf life in terms of mean months. Although there is a reduction in total fats after 6 months of stability study, still, this change might not be chemically significant as there is an increment noted after 1st and 3 months during stability study, which is nonuniform change. Further, total fats are an inherent fat content of formulation ingredients whose contribution in the formulation is very less (0.38%) as principally water-soluble part of these drugs susceptible for extraction into decoction was used in granules (AHA). There are less chances of loss of fats by conversion in to volatile by-products which may also possible due to rancidification of fats and oils, but this was less likely in formulation AHG of the present study, as there were no organoleptic changes (rancid odor) after 6 months of the stability study. Prima facie, there is no probable justification for a reduction in total ash content of formulation AHG, as total ash suggests inorganic content, which might notice increased with the loss of moisture, but the inverse finding was noted in case of AHG. This change may not also possess much therapeutic significance.

Increase in acid-insoluble ash does not correlates with change (reduction in ash value) of AHG, after 6 months of accelerated stability protocol. There is no justifiable reason for increment in acid-insoluble ash of AHG after accelerated stability protocol. Hence, the change may not be therapeutically significant as it reflects inorganic content which is acid insoluble mostly siliceous matter, clay, etc.; hence, there is no reason for further addition of such inorganic elements into the formulations kept in tight closure during stability testing, hence may not be a significant change.

After extrapolating the data, it has been found that the shelf life of AHA is 5.64 mean months and AHG is 19.02 months [Table 11]. The Gazette of Government of India provides a limit of 3 years as shelf life for the formulations under Avaleha and granules.[20] The current study implies that granules are more stable than Avaleha. This observation may be specific for AHA, as earlier studies with Kamsaharitaki Avaleha, Vasa Avaleha, and its granules reported vice versa.[21] Studies involving all Avaleha and their granules are needed to substantiate the observations of the current study.


  Conclusion Top


The profiles developed for the sample prepared AHG showed more extractive values and sugar contents and has longer shelf life (5.28 years) than AHA (1.57 years) [Table 11]. Microbial count and heavy metals were within permissible limits in both the samples, indicating their standards and safety for therapeutic utilization [Table 13]. This study also provided certain leads toward using different solvents in Ayurveda pharmaceuticals. However, extensive studies focusing on the exact mechanism pharmacodynamically and pharmacokinetically should be carried out, and changes that take place with the change in liquid media are needed.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Tripathi H, editor. Vangasena Samhita. Jwaradhikara. Ch. 2., Ver. 677., 1st ed. Varanasi: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office; 2009. p. 71.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Vidyasagar PS, editor. Sharangadhara Samhita of Sharangadhara A. Paribhasanam Prathamadhaya, Poorva Khanda In: Reprinted. Ch. 1., Ver. 51-3., Varanasi: Chaukhamba Surbharati Prakashan; 2013. p. 13.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Shastri L, editor. Yoga Ratnakara. Anonymous. Jwara Chikitsa. 1st ed. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan; 2005. p. 203.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Shastri AD, editor. Sushruta Samhita. Sushruta A. Bhumipravibhagiyamadhayam Sutra Sthana. Ch. 37., Ver. 16., 1st ed. Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan; 2009. p. 142.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Anonymous. In: Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy. Unani S, Homoeopathy, editors. Ayurvedic Formulary of India. Part I. 1st ed., Vol. 1. New Delhi: The Controller of Publications Civil Lines; 2001.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Dekker T, Stability Studies (emphasis on FPPs), Workshop on GMP and Quality Assurance of Multisource Tuberculosis Medicines, Kuala Lumpur – Malaysia; 2005. p. 21-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Gupta A, Jaiswal M. Prajapati PK. Shelf life of Ayurvedic dosage forms Traditional view, current status and prospective need. Indian J Tradit Knowledge 2011;10:672-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Sharangadhara. Samhita Madhyama Khanda with Dipika of Adhamalla and Gudarthadipika of Kasiramavaidya. 8/3. 4th ed. Varanasi: Chaukambha Orientalia; 2000.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2007: Appendix-2 (2.2.15); 2008. p. 147.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (3.3); 2008. p. 191.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (2.2.10); 2008. p. 141.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008:Appendix-2 (2.2.3); 2008. p. 140.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (2.2.4); 2008. p. 140.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (2.2.7); 2008. p. 141.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (2.2.8); 2008. p. 141.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Anonymous, The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2 (2.2.16); 2008. p. 18.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2008: Appendix-2; 2008. p. 263.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Anonymous. The Ayurvedic Pharmacopoeia of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. Part. 2. Vol. 2., 1st ed. 2007: Appendix-2 (2.4); 2007. p. 163.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannic_acid. [Last accessed on 2014 Sep 26].  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
The Gazette of Government of India on Drugs and Cosmetic Acts. India: Published on; 2009.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Paneliya AM. Pharmaceutical Standardization of Vasa Avaleha and its Granules with Their Effects on Tamaka Swasa (Bronchial Asthma)” MD Thesis (Doctor of Ayurvedic Medicine). IPGT & RA, Jamnagar; 2014.  Back to cited text no. 21
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8], [Table 9], [Table 10], [Table 11], [Table 12], [Table 13], [Table 14]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Subjects and Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed200    
    Printed8    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded30    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]