View More View Less
  • a Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
  • | b Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
  • | c Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil
Open access

The present study aimed to develop and validate an analytical method for determination of marbofloxacin (MAR) in veterinary chewable tablets. The isocratic reversed-phase chromatographic method was developed and validated using a Vertisep®, RP C18 column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 μm). The mobile phase was composed of water–acetonitrile (55:45, v/v) with pH adjusted to 3.0 with ortho-phosphoric acid and a flow rate set at 0.4 mL/min. The proposed method was validated for linearity in a concentration range of 2.5 to 17.5 μg/mL with a correlation coefficient of 0.99991. The mean content of MAR found in chewable tablets was 104.40% with RSD below 2%. The accuracy expressed as average recovery of the proposed method was 98.74%, and the precision expressed as relative standard deviation among repeated analysis was 0.55%. The method has adequate sensitivity with detection and quantitation limits of 0.25 and 0.81 μg/mL, respectively. Based on the presented results and according to the ICH and AOAC guidelines on validation of analytical methods, the proposed method was considered precise, accurate with adequate sensitivity, and robust in the MAR quantitative analysis. Therefore, the method can be used in the quality control of chewable veterinary tablets containing MAR.

Abstract

The present study aimed to develop and validate an analytical method for determination of marbofloxacin (MAR) in veterinary chewable tablets. The isocratic reversed-phase chromatographic method was developed and validated using a Vertisep®, RP C18 column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 μm). The mobile phase was composed of water–acetonitrile (55:45, v/v) with pH adjusted to 3.0 with ortho-phosphoric acid and a flow rate set at 0.4 mL/min. The proposed method was validated for linearity in a concentration range of 2.5 to 17.5 μg/mL with a correlation coefficient of 0.99991. The mean content of MAR found in chewable tablets was 104.40% with RSD below 2%. The accuracy expressed as average recovery of the proposed method was 98.74%, and the precision expressed as relative standard deviation among repeated analysis was 0.55%. The method has adequate sensitivity with detection and quantitation limits of 0.25 and 0.81 μg/mL, respectively. Based on the presented results and according to the ICH and AOAC guidelines on validation of analytical methods, the proposed method was considered precise, accurate with adequate sensitivity, and robust in the MAR quantitative analysis. Therefore, the method can be used in the quality control of chewable veterinary tablets containing MAR.

Introduction

Marbofloxacin (MAR) is a broad spectrum, second-generation fluoroquinolone drug, frequently prescribed in veterinary practices [1]. In Brazil, MAR is marketed as chewable tablets for small animals and is often prescribed against susceptible bacteria, especially in skin and urinary tract, gastrointestinal, and respiratory tract infections [2].

MAR is a carboxylic acid derivative fluoroquinolone and chemically known as 9-fluoro-2,3-dihydro-3-methyl-10-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-7-oxo-7H-pyrido[1,2,3ij] [1,2,4]benzoxadiazin-6-carboxylic acid (Figure 1). It has a molecular weight equivalent to 362.36 g/mol. MAR is pale yellow crystalline powder with pKa of 5.38 and 6.16 [4], soluble in water, slightly soluble in ethanol, and very soluble in methanol [3].

Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Molecular structure of MAR

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 31, 4; 10.1556/1326.2018.30305

Several analytical methods were found in the literature, which were successfully applied in the analysis of MAR, in different matrixes. MAR and other fluoroquinolones were determined in biological samples by high-performance liquid chromatography with UV detector (HPLC–UV) [5, 6, 7] and with fluorescence detector (HPLC–FL) [8, 9, 10, 11] and by capillary electrophoresis with UV detection (CE–UV) [12] and electrospray mass spectrometry (CE–MS) [13].

In food of animal origin, various fluoroquinolones were detected including MAR by HPLC–UV [14, 15], liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC–MS) or liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry LC–MS/MS [16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21], by ultra-performance liquid chromatography (UPLC) coupled to MS (UPLC–MS) [22, 23], and high-performance thin-layer chromatography [24]. Few methods were applied in the determination of MAR in infant foods [25] and in environment samples [26, 27].

The British Pharmacopoeia describes a HPLC method with detection in the infrared region for identification and determination of MAR and its related impurities in raw material [28, 29].

However, no analytical method was found for the determination of MAR in chewable tablets for veterinary use. Thus, the aim of this paper was to develop and validate an efficient, precise, accurate, and robust HPLC–UV method for quality control of MAR in chewable veterinary tablets.

Experimental

Material and Reagents

The raw material of MAR (100.2%) was kindly provided by a local veterinary industry (CEVA LTDA, São Paulo – Brazil) and was used as a reference standard, without further purification. Chewable tablet samples (Marbopet® 27.5 mg, CEVA) were acquired from the local market. The samples and standard were stored in light-resistant containers.

The HPLC-grade acetonitrile (Vetec Química Fina Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), ortho-phosphoric acid (Synth, Brazil), and ultrapure water obtained from Direct-Q 3 UV (EMD Millipore) were used in the analyses.

Instrumentation and Chromatographic Conditions

All analyses were carried out on a Dionex® HPLC system, model ultimate 3000 (Thermo fisher scientific, USA), equipped with an UV diode array detector (photodiode array). The chromatograms were obtained in the software Chromeleon® 7.1.

The chromatographic conditions were optimized, and adequate separations were obtained with a Vertisep® C-18 column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm). The system operated in the isocratic mode with a mobile phase composed of acetonitrile–water (55:45 v/v; pH 3.0; adjusted with ortho-phosphoric acid), with a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min. The injection volume was set at 20 μL, and UV detection at 298 nm. All analyses were conducted at room temperature (24 ± 2 °C).

Standard Solution Preparation

A mass equivalent to 10.0 mg of MAR standard was transferred to a 100-mL volumetric flask, and the volume was completed with the mobile phase. A 15-min ultrasound bath was used to solubilize the drug, and the final concentration was 100.0 μg/mL. The last solution was diluted again in the mobile phase to obtain final concentration of 25.0 μg/mL.

Sample Solution Preparation

Twenty tablets were weighed and were crushed to obtain homogeneous powder. A mass equivalent to 10 mg of MAR was weighed and transferred to a 100 mL volumetric flask. The content was solubilized in mobile phase in an ultrasound water bath for 15 min and volume was completed with same solvent. An aliquot of 25 mL was transferred to a 100 mL volumetric flask and volume was completed with mobile phase. The final concentration was 25.0 μg/mL.

Solutions for Calibration Curve

The MAR calibration curve was constructed from a standard solution of 25.0 μg/mL, from which successive dilutions were made using aliquots of this solution to obtain concentrations in the range of 2.5 μg/mL to 17.5 μg/mL.

Method Validation

The proposed method was validated according to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) and AOAC guidelines on validation of analytical methods [30, 31]. The analyzed parameters such as specificity, precision, accuracy, linearity, robustness, limit of detection, and quantitation are briefly described in the following sections [30, 31].

Specificity

The selectivity of the proposed method was demonstrated through the analysis of a placebo (excipients mixture) equivalent to commercial formulation, through proposed method.

Linearity

The linearity of the method was determined through the calibration curve, constructed in the concentration range from 2.5 μg/mL to 17.5 μg/mL. Linearity parameters were calculated using the least squares method.

Detection and Quantitation Limits

The detection limit (LOD) and quantitation limit (LOQ) are defined as the lowest concentration that can be detected and quantified with acceptable accuracy and precision, respectively. The estimated LOD and LOQ concentrations were crosschecked by actual analysis by proposed method.

Precision

The precision of the method is its ability to repeat the same responses when a single sample is analyzed in replicates, on the same day (intra-day) or on subsequent days (inter-day). The accuracy of the proposed method was estimated by analyzing replicates of a 10.0 μg/mL sample solution, and the result will be expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD) between the values found.

Accuracy

The accuracy of the proposed method was estimated by the recovery of the standard from fortified sample solutions. A series of sample solutions were spiked with standard solution to obtain final solution concentrations of 10.0, 12.0, and 14.0 μg/mL. The percent recovery of the standard from the sample solution demonstrates the accuracy of the proposed method.

Robustness

The robustness of the method was determined by deliberate changes in the analytical parameters. The capacity of the proposed method to resist against these deliberate changes demonstrates the robustness of the proposed method. The following parameters were selected to evaluate robustness: mobile phase composition (±1 v/v), mobile phase pH (±0.1), flow rate (±0.03 mL/min), column temperature (±2 °C), and column type (Vertisep® C18 and Kinetex® C18).

Results and Discussion

A simple HPLC assay method was developed and applied in the analysis of MAR in veterinary chewable tablets. The method was fully validated, and the assay parameters are presented in the following section.

The specificity of the method is indicated from chromatograms obtained in the analysis of standard, sample, and placebo solutions (Figure 2). There was no interfering peak with the same retention time as that of main MAR peak. Moreover, peak purity data (not shown) proves the specificity of the proposed method.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

MAR and placebo's mix chromatogram obtained in the analysis of MAR and placebo mixture. Chromatographic conditions were obtained using a VertiSep® C18 column (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) with a mobile phase composed of acetonitrile–water (55:45, v/v) with pH 3.0, adjusted with ortho-phosphoric acid. The mobile phase was pumped at a flow rate of 0.4 mL/min and a fixed injection volume of 20 μL

Citation: Acta Chromatographica Acta Chromatographica 31, 4; 10.1556/1326.2018.30305

The proposed method is linear, according to the results obtained by means of the calibration curve in the concentration range from 2.5 μg/mL to 17.5 μg/mL. The results obtained in the MAR analysis presented a linear correlation between the injected concentration and its peak area with a correlation coefficient (r2) greater than 0.9999 and a line equation of y = 5.3434x + 0.2334.

The experimental values of LOD and LOQ for MAR were 0.25 μg/mL and 0.81 μg/mL, respectively.

The RSD values obtained in intra- and inter-day analysis of MAR, by proposed method, were below 2%. This indicates an excellent precision of the proposed method (Table 1).

Table 1.

Results obtained in intra- and inter-day precision analysis

Theoretical concentration (μg/mL)Experimental concentration ± RSD (%)c
RepeatabilityaIntermediate precisionb
Day 1Day 2Day 3
10.0104.74% ± 0.34104.33% ± 0.07104.14% ± 0.26104.4 ± 0.29

Average of 6 determinations.

Average of 3 determinations.

Relative standard deviation.

The average recovery of standard from sample matrix was between 98.0–102.0%, which indicates acceptable accuracy of the proposed method. Moreover, the standard variation among the obtained results was below 2% (Table 2).

Table 2.

Results obtained in the recovery test

Final theoretical concentration (μg/mL)Final experimental concentrationa (μg/mL)Recovery
Results (%)Mean ± RSDb
10.010.01100.1
12.011.9699.6699.54 ± 0.55
14.013.8498.86

Average of 3 determinations.

Relative standard deviation.

The results obtained in the evaluation of robustness (Table 3) showed that a small variation in the composition of the mobile phase, its pH, flow rate, column temperature, and C18 column packing has an insignificant impact on the MAR chromatograms. There was a slight variation in the retention time, as well as asymmetry of MAR peak when different column type was used on the system (Vertisep® C18 verses Kinetex® C18). The influence of column temperature on retention time and peak asymmetry is unnoticeable.

Table 3.

Results obtained in the evaluation of robustness test

Chromatographic conditionsParameters
FactoraLevelPeak areaRetention time (min)Asymmetry
A: % acetonitrile in the mobile phase (v/v)
56+160.082.961.06
55060.282.981.03
54−159.242.951.08
B: Mobile phase pH
3.01+0.0166.442.961.04
3.000.0060.282.981.03
2.99−0.0157.182.940.99
C: Mobile phase flow rate (mL/min)
0.43+0.0355.302.761.08
0.400.0060.282.981.03
0.37−0.0363.503.211.08
D: Temperature (°C)
27 °C+260.282.981.02
25 °C060.282.981.03
23 °C−260.392.981.04
E: Column
Vertisep®60.282.981.03
C18
Kinetex® C1830.423.760.9

Factors (A e B) were changed at three levels (+1, 0, −1)

Moreover, such small deliberate changes in the mobile phase, column type, and temperature do not have negative influence on the quantitative determination of drug in chewable veterinary tablets.

Conclusions

A reversed-phase HPLC–UV method was successfully developed, validated, and applied in the analysis of MAR in veterinary chewable tablets. The obtained data on validation proves that the proposed method has adequate sensitivity, and analysis can be done, with accuracy and precision, in accordance to the AOAC and ICH guidelines. The method is especially useful in quick assays for determining content uniformity of MAR in quality control laboratories, due to short analysis time (<3.5 min) and simple binary mobile phase.

References

  • 1.

    Mahmood, A. H.; Medley, G. A.; Grice, J. E.; Liu, X.; Roberts, M. S. Determination of trovafloxacin and marbofloxacin in sheep plasma samples by hplc using uv detection J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 62, 220221.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Jiménez-Lozano, E.; Marqués, I.; Barrón, D.; Beltrán, J. L.; Baarbosa, J. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2002, 464, 3745.

  • 6.

    Barbosa, J.; Barrón, D.; Cano, J.; Jiménez-Lozano, E.; Sanz-Nebot, V.; Toro, I. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2001, 24, 10871098.

  • 7.

    Mahamood, A. H.; Medley, G. A.; Grice, J. E.; Liu, X.; Roberts, M. S. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 62, 220223.

  • 8.

    Garcia, M. A.; Solans, C.; Amarayona, J. J.; Rueda, S.; Bregante, M. A. J. Chromatogr. B. 1999, 729, 157161.

  • 9.

    Milanova, A.; Petrova, D. K.; Stanilova, S. A. J. Liq. Chromatogr. R T. 2012, 35, 11301139.

  • 10.

    Cañada-Cañada, F.; Arancibia, J. A.; Escandar, G. M.; Ibañez, G. A.; Mansilla, A. E.; Muñoz de La Peña, A.; Olivieri, A. C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 48684876.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    González, C.; Moreno, L.; Small, J.; Jones, D. G.; Bruni, S. F. S. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2006, 560, 227234.

  • 12.

    Hernández, M.; Borrull, F.; Calull, M. Trac-Trend Anal. Chem. 2003, 22, 416420.

  • 13.

    MacCourt, J.; Bordin, G.; Rodríguez, A. R. J. Chromatogr. A. 2003, 990, 259269.

  • 14.

    Galarini, R.; Fioroni, L.; Angelucci, F.; Tovo, G. R.; Cristofani, E. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 81588164.

  • 15.

    Marazuela, M. D.; Moreno-Bondi, M. C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2004, 1034, 2532.

  • 16.

    Di Garcia, A.; Nazzari, M. J. Chromatogr. A. 2002, 974, 5389.

  • 17.

    Hoff, N. V.; De Wasch, K.; Okerman, L.; Reybroeck, W.; Poelmans, S.; Noppe, H.; De Brabander, H. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2005, 529, 265272.

  • 18.

    Kaklamanos, G.; Vincent, U.; Von Holst, C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2013, 1293, 6074.

  • 19.

    Dasenaki, M. E.; Thomaidis, N. S. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2015, 880, 103121.

  • 20.

    Rubies, A.; Vaquerizo, R.; Centrich, F.; Compaño, R.; Granados, M.; Prat, M. D. Talanta 2007, 72, 269276.

  • 21.

    Cepurnieks, G.; Rjabova, J.; Zacs, D.; Baartkevics, V. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2015, 102, 184192.

  • 22.

    Zhan, J.; Yu, X. J.; Zhong, Y. Y.; Zhang, Z. T.; Cui, X. M.; Peng, J. F.; Feng, R.; Liu, X. T.; Zhu, Y. J. Chromatogr. B. 2012, 906, 4857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Chen, Y.; Schwack, W. J. Chromatogr. A. 2014, 1356, 249257.

  • 24.

    Shao, B.; Chen, D.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Y.; Sun, C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 83128318.

  • 25.

    Kemper N. Ecological Indicators 2008, 8, 113.

  • 26.

    Saifrtová, M.; Nováková, L.; Lino, C.; Pena, A.; Solich, P. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2009, 649, 158179.

  • 27.

    Prat, M. D.; Benito, J.; Compaño, R.; Hernández-Arteseros, J. A.; Granados, M. J. Chromatogr. A. 2004, 1041, 2733.

  • 28.

    Indian Pharmacopoeia. The Controller of Publication, 5th ed. New Delhi, 2007.

  • 29.

    United States Pharmacopeia. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 32ª ed. Rockville, United States of America, 2008.

  • 30.

    AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Official Methods of Analysis, 18 ed. 2006.

  • 31.

    Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. Validation of analytical methods: definitions and terminology, ICH Topic Q2A. London, 1994, 6 p.

  • 1.

    Mahmood, A. H.; Medley, G. A.; Grice, J. E.; Liu, X.; Roberts, M. S. Determination of trovafloxacin and marbofloxacin in sheep plasma samples by hplc using uv detection J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 62, 220221.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Jiménez-Lozano, E.; Marqués, I.; Barrón, D.; Beltrán, J. L.; Baarbosa, J. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2002, 464, 3745.

  • 6.

    Barbosa, J.; Barrón, D.; Cano, J.; Jiménez-Lozano, E.; Sanz-Nebot, V.; Toro, I. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2001, 24, 10871098.

  • 7.

    Mahamood, A. H.; Medley, G. A.; Grice, J. E.; Liu, X.; Roberts, M. S. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 62, 220223.

  • 8.

    Garcia, M. A.; Solans, C.; Amarayona, J. J.; Rueda, S.; Bregante, M. A. J. Chromatogr. B. 1999, 729, 157161.

  • 9.

    Milanova, A.; Petrova, D. K.; Stanilova, S. A. J. Liq. Chromatogr. R T. 2012, 35, 11301139.

  • 10.

    Cañada-Cañada, F.; Arancibia, J. A.; Escandar, G. M.; Ibañez, G. A.; Mansilla, A. E.; Muñoz de La Peña, A.; Olivieri, A. C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 48684876.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    González, C.; Moreno, L.; Small, J.; Jones, D. G.; Bruni, S. F. S. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2006, 560, 227234.

  • 12.

    Hernández, M.; Borrull, F.; Calull, M. Trac-Trend Anal. Chem. 2003, 22, 416420.

  • 13.

    MacCourt, J.; Bordin, G.; Rodríguez, A. R. J. Chromatogr. A. 2003, 990, 259269.

  • 14.

    Galarini, R.; Fioroni, L.; Angelucci, F.; Tovo, G. R.; Cristofani, E. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 81588164.

  • 15.

    Marazuela, M. D.; Moreno-Bondi, M. C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2004, 1034, 2532.

  • 16.

    Di Garcia, A.; Nazzari, M. J. Chromatogr. A. 2002, 974, 5389.

  • 17.

    Hoff, N. V.; De Wasch, K.; Okerman, L.; Reybroeck, W.; Poelmans, S.; Noppe, H.; De Brabander, H. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2005, 529, 265272.

  • 18.

    Kaklamanos, G.; Vincent, U.; Von Holst, C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2013, 1293, 6074.

  • 19.

    Dasenaki, M. E.; Thomaidis, N. S. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2015, 880, 103121.

  • 20.

    Rubies, A.; Vaquerizo, R.; Centrich, F.; Compaño, R.; Granados, M.; Prat, M. D. Talanta 2007, 72, 269276.

  • 21.

    Cepurnieks, G.; Rjabova, J.; Zacs, D.; Baartkevics, V. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2015, 102, 184192.

  • 22.

    Zhan, J.; Yu, X. J.; Zhong, Y. Y.; Zhang, Z. T.; Cui, X. M.; Peng, J. F.; Feng, R.; Liu, X. T.; Zhu, Y. J. Chromatogr. B. 2012, 906, 4857.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Chen, Y.; Schwack, W. J. Chromatogr. A. 2014, 1356, 249257.

  • 24.

    Shao, B.; Chen, D.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Y.; Sun, C. J. Chromatogr. A. 2009, 1216, 83128318.

  • 25.

    Kemper N. Ecological Indicators 2008, 8, 113.

  • 26.

    Saifrtová, M.; Nováková, L.; Lino, C.; Pena, A.; Solich, P. Anal. Chim. Acta. 2009, 649, 158179.

  • 27.

    Prat, M. D.; Benito, J.; Compaño, R.; Hernández-Arteseros, J. A.; Granados, M. J. Chromatogr. A. 2004, 1041, 2733.

  • 28.

    Indian Pharmacopoeia. The Controller of Publication, 5th ed. New Delhi, 2007.

  • 29.

    United States Pharmacopeia. United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 32ª ed. Rockville, United States of America, 2008.

  • 30.

    AOAC. Association of Official Analytical Chemists Official Methods of Analysis, 18 ed. 2006.

  • 31.

    Harmonized Tripartite Guideline. Validation of analytical methods: definitions and terminology, ICH Topic Q2A. London, 1994, 6 p.

The author instruction is available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 
The Open Access statement together with the description of the Copyright and License Policy are available in PDF.
Please, download the file from HERE.
 

 

Senior editors

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Kowalska, Teresa

Editor(s)-in-Chief: Sajewicz, Mieczyslaw

Editors(s)

  • Danica Agbaba (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • Ivana Stanimirova-Daszykowska (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • Monika Waksmundzka-Hajnos (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)

Editorial Board

  • R. Bhushan (The Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India)
  • J. Bojarski (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • B. Chankvetadze (State University of Tbilisi, Tbilisi, Georgia)
  • M. Daszykowski (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • T.H. Dzido (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • A. Felinger (University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary)
  • K. Glowniak (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Glód (Siedlce University of Natural Sciences and Humanities, Siedlce, Poland)
  • U. Hubicka (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • K. Kaczmarski (Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszów, Poland)
  • H. Kalász (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • I. Klebovich (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • A. Koch (Private Pharmacy, Hamburg, Germany)
  • Ł. Komsta (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • P. Kus (Univerity of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • D. Mangelings (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • E. Mincsovics (Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary)
  • G. Morlock (Giessen University, Giessen, Germany)
  • A. Petruczynik (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • J. Sherma (Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA)
  • R. Skibiński (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • B. Spangenberg (Offenburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany)
  • T. Tuzimski (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • Y. Vander Heyden (Free University of Brussels, Brussels, Belgium)
  • A. Voelkel (Poznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland)
  • B. Walczak (University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland)
  • W. Wasiak (Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland)

 

KOWALSKA, TERESA
E-mail: kowalska@us.edu.pl

SAJEWICZ, MIECZYSLAW
E-mail:msajewic@us.edu.pl

Indexing and Abstracting Services:

  • Science Citation Index
  • Sci Search
  • Research Alert
  • Chemistry Citation Index and Current Content/Physical
  • Chemical and Earth Sciences
  • SCOPUS
  • GoogleScholar
  • Index Copernicus
  • CABI
2020
 
Total Cites
650
WoS
Journal
Impact Factor
1,639
Rank by
Chemistry, Analytical 71/83 (Q4)
Impact Factor
 
Impact Factor
1,412
without
Journal Self Cites
5 Year
1,301
Impact Factor
Journal
0,34
Citation Indicator
 
Rank by Journal
Chemistry, Analytical 75/93 (Q4)
Citation Indicator
 
Citable
45
Items
Total
43
Articles
Total
2
Reviews
Scimago
28
H-index
Scimago
0,316
Journal Rank
Scimago
Chemistry (miscellaneous) Q3
Quartile Score
 
Scopus
393/181=2,2
Scite Score
 
Scopus
General Chemistry 215/398 (Q3)
Scite Score Rank
 
Scopus
0,560
SNIP
 
Days from
58
submission
 
to acceptance
 
Days from
68
acceptance
 
to publication
 
Acceptance
51%
Rate

2019  
Total Cites
WoS
495
Impact Factor 1,418
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,374
5 Year
Impact Factor
0,936
Immediacy
Index
0,460
Citable
Items
50
Total
Articles
50
Total
Reviews
0
Cited
Half-Life
6,2
Citing
Half-Life
8,3
Eigenfactor
Score
0,00048
Article Influence
Score
0,164
% Articles
in
Citable Items
100,00
Normalized
Eigenfactor
0,05895
Average
IF
Percentile
20,349
Scimago
H-index
26
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,255
Scopus
Scite Score
226/167=1,4
Scopus
Scite Score Rank
Chemistry (miscellaneous) 240/398 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,494
Acceptance
Rate
41%

 

Acta Chromatographica
Publication Model Online only
Gold Open Access
Submission Fee none
Article Processing Charge 400 EUR/article
Regional discounts on country of the funding agency World Bank Lower-middle-income economies: 50%
World Bank Low-income economies: 100%
Further Discounts Editorial Board / Advisory Board members: 50%
Corresponding authors, affiliated to an EISZ member institution subscribing to the journal package of Akadémiai Kiadó: 100%
Subscription Information Gold Open Access
Purchase per Title  

Acta Chromatographica
Language English
Size A4
Year of
Foundation
1992
Publication
Programme
2021 Volume 33
Volumes
per Year
1
Issues
per Year
4
Founder Institute of Chemistry, University of Silesia
Founder's
Address
PL-40-007 Katowice, Poland, Bankowa 12
Publisher Akadémiai Kiadó
Publisher's
Address
H-1117 Budapest, Hungary 1516 Budapest, PO Box 245.
Responsible
Publisher
Chief Executive Officer, Akadémiai Kiadó
ISSN 2083-5736 (Online)

Monthly Content Usage

Abstract Views Full Text Views PDF Downloads
Jun 2021 0 26 27
Jul 2021 0 68 28
Aug 2021 0 59 17
Sep 2021 0 85 24
Oct 2021 0 43 22
Nov 2021 0 28 22
Dec 2021 0 0 0