Authors:
Tiantian Lu School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Tiantian Lu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Xiaohong Wang School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Xiaohong Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Qi Zhang School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Qi Zhang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Kun Liu School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Kun Liu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Tongxin Xu School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Tongxin Xu in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Quande Wang State Key Laboratory for Chemistry and Molecular Engineering of Medicinal Resources, School of Chemistry and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangxi Normal University, 15 Yucai Road, Qixing District, Guilin, Guangxi 541004, China

Search for other papers by Quande Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Pengfei Zhao Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Weifang People's Hospital, 151 Guangwen Street, Kuiwen District, 261031, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Pengfei Zhao in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Zhongzhe Cheng School of Pharmacy, Weifang Medical University, 7166 Baotong West Street, Weifang, Shandong 261053, China

Search for other papers by Zhongzhe Cheng in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

Solasodine, a steroidal alkaloid, is distributed extensively in Solanaceae plants with multiple biological activities such as neuroprotection, antineoplastic and anticonvulsant activities. However, there is little information about the excretion of intact solasodine in vivo. To investigate its excretion, a reliable LC-MS/MS method for quantitation solasodine in rat urine and feces was established and validated. Sample preparation was carried out by liquid-liquid extraction using MTBE as extractant. Moreover, rat urine was preconditioned with BSA, an anti-adsorptive additive, to prevent the nonspecific binding of solasodine to containers and tubes. The method was validated over the range of 4–2000 ng mL−1. The correlation coefficient (r 2) were all above 0.999. The intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy were within 16.9% and between −11.0 and 8.9%, respectively. The recovery of solasodine in urine and feces was in the range of 72.5–80.3 and 75.7–80.2%, respectively. IS-normalized matrix factor ranged from 0.94 to 1.12 with RSD% ≤4.02%. This method was successfully applied to the excretion study of solasodine following oral and intravenous administration.

Abstract

Solasodine, a steroidal alkaloid, is distributed extensively in Solanaceae plants with multiple biological activities such as neuroprotection, antineoplastic and anticonvulsant activities. However, there is little information about the excretion of intact solasodine in vivo. To investigate its excretion, a reliable LC-MS/MS method for quantitation solasodine in rat urine and feces was established and validated. Sample preparation was carried out by liquid-liquid extraction using MTBE as extractant. Moreover, rat urine was preconditioned with BSA, an anti-adsorptive additive, to prevent the nonspecific binding of solasodine to containers and tubes. The method was validated over the range of 4–2000 ng mL−1. The correlation coefficient (r 2) were all above 0.999. The intra- and inter-day precision and accuracy were within 16.9% and between −11.0 and 8.9%, respectively. The recovery of solasodine in urine and feces was in the range of 72.5–80.3 and 75.7–80.2%, respectively. IS-normalized matrix factor ranged from 0.94 to 1.12 with RSD% ≤4.02%. This method was successfully applied to the excretion study of solasodine following oral and intravenous administration.

Introduction

Solasodine is an abundant steroidal alkaloid in Solanaceae plants including eggplant (Solanum tuberosum) and Solanum nigrum L. etc. The medicinal potential of solasodine in the treatment of cancer has been well documented [1–5]. For example, solasodine exhibits anticancer effect on ovarian cancer cells [2], colorectal cancer HCT116 cells [3], lung cancer A549 cells [4] and pancreatic cancer SW1990 and PANC1 cells [5]. Furthermore, solasodine demonstrates promotion of neurogenesis, neuroprotection and anticonvulsant activities in vivo [6–8]. The pharmacokinetics, oral bioavailability and metabolic profiling of solasodine in mice were evaluated in our earlier work [9]. A poor bioavailability (1.28%) was observed in mice following oral administration [9]. Meanwhile, solasodine could be metabolized into 21 metabolites, indicating that solasodine was subjected to an extensive metabolism in vivo [9]. Moreover, the excretion of solasodine were investigated by injection of [3H]-solasodine [10]. The total tritium measured in urine and feces by liquid scintillation counting was only about 30% of the dose, which included metabolites as well as intact [3H]-solasodine [10]. To date, little information about the excretion of unchanged solasodine is available. Hence, the excretion of intact solasodine is required for further development of solasodine as a therapeutic agent.

Previously, the quantification of solasodine in rat plasma and mouse blood using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method were developed, respectively [9, 11]. However, there is little bioanalytical method for the determinatin of solasodine in urinary and fecal samples. In addition, bioanalysis of urine is commonly greater difficult than that of whole blood and plasma due to the lack of protein and lipids in urine samples [12]. It may lead to nonspecific binding or container surface adsorption of analytes [12]. As a result, this adsorption will cause the underestimation of analyte and poor precision and accuracy [12]. Thus, it is a challenge to diagnose analyte adsorption and resolve this problem for a urine assay. The sequential transfer test is very helpful to confirm the adsorption issue [9, 13–14]. On the other hand, in some instances, the addition of anti-adsorptive agents, such as 3-[3-cholamidopropyl)-dimethylammonio]-1-propane sulfonate (CHAPS) [13], Tween 20 [14] and bovine serum albumin (BSA) [9] can overcome the nonspecific binding. In this study, the adsorption of solasodine was identified firstly. Then some efforts in blocking the nonspecific binding of solasodine were conducted in urine assay.

Herein, the aim of the study was to develop and validate a bioanalytical method for quantification of solasodine in rats urinary and fecal samples and to apply it in a excretion study. In addition, we used BSA to prevent adsorption of solasodine to urine containers.

Experimental

Reagents and materials

Solasodine (purity >98%) and Cyclovirobuxin D (purity >98%), internal standard (IS) were obtained from Aladdin Biochemical Technology (Shanghai, China). Methanol was manufactured by Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). BSA was supplied by Kangchuyuan Biotechnolgy (Shenzhen, China). Ammonium acetate, Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) and K2-EDTA were manufactured by Sinopharm Chemistry Reagent Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China).

LC-MS/MS conditions

An API 6500+ Triple Quad (AB SCIEX, USA) coupled with LC-20ADXR, CTO-20AC column oven, SIL-20ACXR autosampler HPLC system (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) were employed for LC-MS/MS analysis. An analytical Ultimate XB-C18 (50.0 × 2.1 mm, 5 µM, Welch, Shanghai, China) was used. The mobile phase A was water containing 0.1% formic acid and 5 mM ammonium acetate and mobile phase B was methonal. The flow rate was 0.8 mL min−1. The gradient elution was as follow: 0–1.0 min, 30–95% methanol; 1.0–1.6 min, 95% methanol; 1.6–1.7 min, 95–30% methanol; 1.7–2.3 min, 30% methanol; The temperature of column oven was 35 °C, The temperature of the autosampler was kept at 4 °C.

Quantitation was conducted by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode in positive ion mode. The product ion mass spectra of solasodine and IS were shown in (Fig. 1). The MRM transitions were m/z 414.3→157.1 for solasodine (declustering potential, DP 70 V, collision energy, CE 45 eV) and m/z 403.4→372.3 for IS (DP 70 V, CE 25 eV), respectively, which were the same as our previous study [9]. Other MS parameters were as follows: TIS temperature, 600°C; ionspray voltage, 5500 V; curtain gas, 40; Gas1, 55; Gas2, 55.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Chemical structures and product ion mass spectra of solasodine (A) and IS (B)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01079

Calibration standards and quality control samples

The stock solutions of solasodine (1.0 mg mL−1) and IS (1.0 mg mL−1) were yielded in methanol and methanol: water (50:50, v/v), respectively. The stock solution of solasodine was then diluted using methanol: water (50:50, v/v) to achieve working solutions (80, 200, 1,000, 2,000, 10,000, 16,000, 32,000 and 40,000 ng mL−1).

Working solutions were diluted 20-fold with feces homogenates or blank urine to prepare calibration curve and quality control (QC) samples. Calibration standards were prepared at 4, 10, 50, 100, 500, 800, 1,600 and 2,000 ng mL−1, respectively. QC samples were prepared at 4, 12, 1,000 and 1,500 ng mL−1, respectively. In addition, blank urine was pretreated with BSA, an anti-adsorptive agent, at a ratio of 1/20 (g mL−1) prior to calibration curve and QC samples preparation.

Sample preparation

Firstly, 100 μL of urine samples or feces homogenate and 20 μL of IS (4,000 ng mL−1) were aliquoted into a tube. After that, 50 μL of 17% aqueous ammonia were added to samples. Then, 800 μL of MTBE was used to extract analyte and IS. The resulting solutions were centriguged at 10,000 rpm for 10 min. Next, the supernatant (700 μL) was evaporated to dryness at room temperature. The residue was dissolved in 200 μL of methanol.

Method validation

The method was validated according to the US Food and Drug Administration guideline [15]. The selectivity was assessed by comparing chromatograms of six different blank matrix obtained from rats with those of corresponding QC samples spiked with solasodine and IS and incurred samples after administration. Linearity was assessed over the range of 4–2000 ng mL−1. Calibration curves were stabilised on the theoretical concentration of solasodine (X-axis) and the peak area ratio of solasodine/IS (Y-axis) with calibration standards using (1/x2) as weighting factor. The four QC levels (4, 12, 1,000 and 1,500 ng mL−1) were employed to evaluate the accuracy (relative error RE%) and precision (relative standard deviation, RSD%) in three separate batches. Dilution integrity was assessed by dilution QC (DQC) samples (20,000 ng mL−1). The peak area ratio of QC samples (pre-extraction/post-extraction) were uesed to measure the recovery. The matrix effect was evaluated using matrix factor at three QC levels. The matrix factor presented a peak area ratio of solasodine in the presence of the matrix to that in the absence of matrix. Solasodine in the presence or absence of the matrix was obtained by post-extraction spiking standard solutions into the blank matrix extract or into the blank water extract. IS-normalized matrix factor was calculated as the matrix factor ratios of solasodine/IS. The short-term (freeze-thaw stability, room temperature stability), sample processed stability and long-term stability (−20 and −80 °C for 150 days) were assessed at low and high QC levels.

Animal experiments

Wistar rats (6 males, 6 females, body weight 190–230 g) were produced by Ji'nan Pengyue Laboratory Animal Breeding Co., Ltd (Ji'nan, China). The protocol was permitted by Animal Ethics Committee in Weifang Medical University (2019SDL105). All rats were fasted overnight, followed by oral and intravenous administration of solasodine (prepared with 0.5% carboxymethylcellulose sodium for oral study, prepared with normal saline: PEG 400: ethanol=6:3:1, v/v/v for intravenous study) at a dose of 20 mg kg−1 and 1.05 mg kg−1, respectively. BSA was added to the urine containers and vortex well prior to urine collection. Then, urine and feces were harvested at 0 (pre-dose), 0–4, 4–12, 12–24, 24–48 (for oral study), 48–72 and 72–96 h (for intravenous study), respectively. A final concentration of BSA (5%) was achieved by spiking with the blank urine. The storage temperature was −80 °C.

Results and discussion

Method optimization

The MRM transitions of solasodine and IS were selected according to our previous work [9]. Other MS parameters such as DP, CE etc. were re-optimized using API 6500+ Triple Quad (AB SCIEX, USA). In addition, compared with the isocratic elution (4.5 min run time) used in previous study [9], a faster run time (2.3 min) and sharper peak were obtained by a gradient elution (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Representative LC-MS/MS chromatograms. Extracts from (A) a blank feces sample; (B) LLOQ feces sample; (C) an incurred feces sample after oral administration of solasodine at 12–24 h; (D) an incurred feces sample after intravenous administration of solasodine at 4–12 h; (E) a blank urine sample; (F) LLOQ urine sample; (G) an incurred urine sample after oral administration of solasodine at 0–4 h; (H) an incurred urine sample after intravenous administration of solasodine at 0–4 h. The chromatograms of solasodine and IS were shown in the left and right column, respectively

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01079

Method validation

Figure 2 exhibited the representative chromatograms of a blank urine and feces samples. Compared with the chromatograms of blank matrix samples and LLOQ samples, no interfering peak was observed at the retention time of solasodine and IS in study samples following administration.

The typical regressions of the calibration curve (4–2000 ng mL−1) for urine and feces samples were y = 0.00237x + 0.0064 (r 2 = 0.9998) and y = 0.00293x + 0.0093 (r 2 = 0.9992), respectively.

The data for intra- and inter- day precision at the four QC levels ranged from 1.0 to 16.9 (LLOQ of feces samples, Day 2), and RE were −11.0 to 8.9% (Table 1).

Table 1.

Precision and accuracy of QC samples of solasodine in rat urinary and fecal samples

Matrix Urine Feces
Nominal concentration (ng mL−1) 4 12 1,000 1,500 20,000 4 12 1,000 1,500 20,000
Day1 Mean (n = 6) 4.1 12.1 1,019.0 1,386.7 21,133.3 4.4 12.4 1,002.7 1,635.0 20,683.3
RSD (%) 7.9 4.7 5.4 2.7 8.7 1.6 2.4 8.4 3.9 1.3
RE (%) 2.0 0.9 1.9 −7.7 5.7 −11.0 −3.7 −0.3 −5.4 3.5
Day2 Mean (n = 6) 4.2 11.9 1,024.0 1,463.3 3.9 12.3 1,065.7 1,478.6
RSD (%) 6.9 2.5 2.7 3.2 16.9 10.3 7.2 12.6
RE (%) 4.9 −0.7 2.4 −2.3 1.3 −2.3 −6.6 3.5
Day3 Mean (n = 6) 4.3 12.2 917.0 1,576.7 4.3 11.9 1,066.7 1,466.7
RSD (%) 5.7 5.7 1.0 3.2 12.1 2.4 6.9 12.4
RE (%) 7.3 1.4 −8.3 4.7 −7.5 0.7 −6.7 8.9
Inter-day Mean (n = 18) 4.2 12.1 986.7 1,475.6 4.2 12.2 1,045.0 1,526.7
RSD (%) 6.8 4.3 3.0 3.0 10.2 5.0 7.5 9.6
RE (%) 4.7 0.5 −1.3 −1.8 −5.7 −1.7 −4.5 2.3

In fact, concentrations of some incurred samples were beyond ULOQ (e.g. an incurred feces sample after oral administration of solasodine at 4–12 h was 14,300 ng mL−1). To quantify these samples accurately, the appropriate dilution with blank matrix was required. Thus, the precision and accuracy of DQC samples with 10-fold dilution factor were estimated. As a result, RE were 5.7 and 1.3% for urinary and fecal DQC samples after 10-fold dilution with corresponding blank matrix. The RSD% was 8.7 and 1.3%, respectively. It was indicated that incurred samples could be measured if their concentrations were more than curve range within 10-fold (Table 1).

The recovery of solasodine in urine and feces was in the range of 72.5–80.3 and 75.7–80.2%, respectively (Table S1). There was little difference between the recovery of urine and feces samples. During the method development, MTBE was employed to extract solasodine from urinary and fecal samples. A good recovery was obtained when MTBE was used to extract it from urine and feces (Table S1). In addition, the nonspecific binding could be observed, particularly in urine bioanalysis, owing to lack of proteins and lipids in this matrix [12]. To evaluate the nonspecific binding of solasodine, a transfer experiment was conducted which was similar to our previous study [13]. Figure 3 showed the peak area ratio of solasodine in rat urine with or without BSA (an anti-adsorptive reagent) following a serial tube transfer test. The addition of BSA (5–15%) could efficiently prevent the loss of solasodine after five transfers. Therefore, BSA (at 5% level) was used as an anti-adsorptive additive in this study.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Investigation of adsorption of solasodine in rat urine with or without BSA following a transfer test (mean ± SD, n = 3)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01079

Although ethyl acetate was proven to be an effective extractant for solasodine extraction from rat plasma (recovery 86.7–94.2%) [11], the matrix effect was observed when used in this study. MTBE was tried to extract solasodine and minimize the matrix effect. In this study, the matrix effect was assessed by matrix factor and IS-normalized matrix factor at three concentration levels. As a result, the matrix factor of solasodine and IS were close to one, respectively (Table 2). Furthermore, IS-normalized matrix factor was employed to assessed the matrix effect [16, 17]. It was calculated as the matrix factor ratios of solasodine/IS. The results were 1.11 (RSD 2.03%), 1.06 (RSD 2.68%), 1.12 (RSD 1.58%) at 12, 1,000 and 1,500 ng mL−1 for urine samples, respectively. The data for feces samples were 0.99 (RSD 3.29%), 0.94 (RSD 4.02%), 0.96 (RSD 2.65%), respectively (Table 2). It was indicated that MTBE could elimininate matrix effect when it was applied to extract solasodine from rat urine and feces samples.

Table 2.

Matrix effect of solasodine in rat urine and feces samples (n = 6)

Urine Feces
Solasodine (ng mL−1) IS (ng mL−1) Solasodine (ng mL−1) IS (ng mL−1)
12 1,000 1,500 4,000 12 1,000 1,500 4,000
Matrix factor (mean) 1.01 0.99 1.02 1.09 1.00 1.01 1.04 0.98
IS-normalized matrix factor (mean) 1.11 1.06 1.12 - 0.99 0.94 0.96 -
RSD% 2.03 2.68 1.58 - 3.29 4.02 2.65 -

Analyte stability is an important pre-analytical variable for quantitative LC-MS/MS analysis. It was necessary to confirm the stability of solasodine in any stage of the bioanalysis process, including short-term stability (freeze-thaw and room temperature), sample processed stability and long-term stability. As a result, Solasodine was stable in urine and feces under all storage conditions in this study (Table 3).

Table 3.

Stability of solasodine in rat urine and feces at different storage conditions (n = 6)

Matrix Urine Feces
QC samples (ng mL−1) 12 1,500 12 1,500
Stability after five freeze-thaw cycles (–20 °C)
Mean (ng mL−1) 12.5 1,640.0 11.2 1,523.3
RSD (%) 2.5 6.4 0.1 0.1
RE (%) 4.0 9.7 6.6 –1.3
Stability after five freeze-thaw cycles (–80 °C)
Mean (ng mL−1) 12.7 1,486.7 11.2 1,526.7
RSD (%) 3.4 1.0 0.1 0.0
RE (%) 5.7 −0.8 6.7 –1.3
Room temperature stability (24 h)
Mean (ng mL−1) 11.9 1,630.0 12.0 1,550.0
RSD (%) 5.1 52.0 0.1 0.1
RE (%) –1.0 8.7 0.0 –3.5
Storage at –20 °C for 150 days
Mean (ng mL−1) 12.7 1,430.0 12.3 1,610.0
RSD (%) 3.4 6.9 0.1 0.1
RE (%) 6.0 –4.7 –2.5 –7.3
Storage at –80 °C for 150 days
Mean (ng mL−1) 12.1 1,576.7 11.8 1,633.3
RSD (%) 2.6 10.1 0.1 0.1
RE (%) 1.0 5.0 1.8 –8.6
Processed sample stability stored at 4 °C for 92 h
Mean (ng mL−1) 12.1 1,443.3 11.8 1,466.7
RSD (%) 4.7 2.9 0.0 0.1
RE (%) 0.9 –3.6 1.7 2.0

To verify the reliability of the reported study sample analyte concentrations, the incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) is required. It is the repeated measurement of an analyte's concentration from study samples to demonstrate reproducibility [15]. To investigate the ISR, 6 urine and 6 feces samples were chosen. Figure S1 showed that less than 20% difference of ISR samples were observed indicating a reliable result.

Excretion study

The cumulative urinary and fecal excretion of solasodine following intravenous and oral administration were shown graphically in Fig. 4. Rats excreted solasodine mostly in feces (38.81 and 7.32% after oral and intravenous administration of solasodine). Only 0.00259 and 0.028% of solasodine were excreted in urine following oral and intravenous administration, respectively. It was indicated that kidney was not mainly responsible for the excretion of solasodine. Totally, 38.81% (PO) and 7.35% (IV) of unchanged solasodine were recovered in excreta, respectively. Furthermore, our previous report showed that 21 metabolites of solasodine were characterized in mice [9]. Similarly, only 30% of urinary and fecal excretion of tritium was detected after injection of [3H]-solasodine in human [10]. Taken together, these results suggested that solasodine was subjected to an extensive metabolism in vivo.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

The rat (A) urinary and (B) fecal cumulative ratio of solasodine (mean ± SD, n = 6) following intravenous administration at a dose of 1.05 mg kg−1 and oral administration at a dose of 20 mg kg−1

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01079

Conclusions

To accurately and reliably quantify solasodine in rat urinary and fecal samples, we developed and validated a bioanalytical method using LC-MS/MS. BSA, as an anti-adsorptive additive, could prevent the nonspecific adsorption of solasodine in urine assays effectively. In the light of this, excretion studies were carried out in rats after oral and intravenous administration of solasodine. The urinary and fecal cumulative ratios of unchanged solasodine were only 38.81% (PO) and 7.35% (IV), suggesting that most of solasodine was metabolized prior to excretion. To our knowledge, it was the first time to determine the solasodine in rat urine and feces using LC-MS/MS method. Moreover, the excretion of unchanged solasodine in vivo was elucidated for the first time. The results updated the preclinical excretion study of solasodine, which provide additional information for better understanding efficacy and safety.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81803704) and Talents Program of the Guangxi Science and Technology Department (guike AD20297033).

Supplementary material

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1556/1326.2022.01079.

Abbreviations

IS

internal standard

LC-MS/MS

Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry

BSA

bovine serum albumin

MTBE

Methyl tert-butyl ether

CE

collision energy

QC

quality control

DQC

dilution quality control

RSD

relative standard deviation

RE

relative error

ISR

incurred sample reanalysis

References

  • 1.

    Milner, S. E. ; Brunton, N. P. ; Jones, P. W. ; O'Brien, N. M. ; Collins, S. G. ; Maguire, A. R. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 34543484.

  • 2.

    Xu, X. H. ; Zhang, L. L. ; Wu, G. S. ; Chen, X. ; Li, T. ; Chen, X. ; Wang, Y. T. ; Lu, J. J. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 254260.

  • 3.

    Zhuang, Y. W. ; Wu, C. E. ; Zhou, J. Y. ; Zhao, Z. M. ; Liu, C. L. ; Shen, J. Y. ; Cai, H. ; Liu, S. L. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 505, 485491.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Shen, K. H. ; Hung, J. H. ; Chang, C. W. ; Weng, Y. T. ; Wu, M. J. ; Chen, P. S. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2017, 268, 129135.

  • 5.

    Fan, Y. ; Li, Z. ; Wu, L. ; Lin, F. ; Shao, J. ; Ma, X. ; Yao, Y. ; Zhuang, W. ; Wang, Y . Drug Des. Devel Ther. 2021, 15, 15091519.

  • 6.

    Lecanu, L. ; Hashim, A. I. ; McCourty, A. ; Giscos-Douriez, I. ; DincaI. ; Yao, W. ; Vicini, S. ; Szabo, G. ; Erdélyi, F. ; Greeson, J. ; Papadopoulos, V . Neuroscience 2011, 183, 251264.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Sharma, T. ; Airao, V. ; Panara, N. ; Vaishnav, D. ; Ranpariya, V. ; Sheth, N. ; Parmar, S. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014, 725, 4046.

  • 8.

    Chauhan, K. ; Sheth, N. ; Ranpariya, V. ; Parmar, S . Pharm. Biol. 2011, 49, 194199.

  • 9.

    Qu, M. ; Xue, P. ; Zhang, Q. ; Lu, T. ; Liu, K. ; Hu, B. ; Pang, J. ; Xiao, Q. ; Xu, T. ; Wang, Q. ; Cheng, Z . J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2022, 210, 114542.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Claringbold, W. D. ; Few, J. D. ; Brace, C. J. ; Renwick, J. H. J. Steroid Biochem. 1980, 13, 889895.

  • 11.

    Ma, J. ; Ding, X. ; Sun, C. ; Lin, C. ; An, X. ; Lin, G. ; Yang, X. ; WangX . J. Chromatogr. B Analyt Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2014, 963, 2428.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Ji, A. J. ; Jiang, Z. ; Livson, Y. ; Davis, J. A. ; Chu, J. X. ; Weng, N. Bioanalysis 2010, 2, 15731586.

  • 13.

    Cheng, Z. ; Zhou, X. ; Li, W. ; Hu, B. ; Zhang, Y. ; Xu, Y. ; Zhang, L. ; Jiang, H . J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2016, 131, 612.

  • 14.

    Pang, J. ; Xiao, Q. ; Yan, H. ; Cao, Y. ; Miao, J. ; Wang, S. ; Li, X. ; Li, H. ; Cheng, Z . J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 892898.

  • 15.

    US department of health and human services, Food and Drug Administration of the United States , Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Cheng, Z. ; Zhang, L. ; Zhang, Y. ; Chen, G. ; Jiang, H . Bioanalysis 2014, 6, 935945.

  • 17.

    Hu, B. Y. ; Sun, Y. Y. ; Wang, M. ; He, Z. S. ; Chen, S. S. ; Qi, D. ; Ge, Z. ; Fan, L. L. ; Chen, J. F. ; Wei, Y. Acta Chromatogr. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1556/1326.2021.00962.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Supplementary Materials

  • 1.

    Milner, S. E. ; Brunton, N. P. ; Jones, P. W. ; O'Brien, N. M. ; Collins, S. G. ; Maguire, A. R. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2011, 59, 34543484.

  • 2.

    Xu, X. H. ; Zhang, L. L. ; Wu, G. S. ; Chen, X. ; Li, T. ; Chen, X. ; Wang, Y. T. ; Lu, J. J. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 254260.

  • 3.

    Zhuang, Y. W. ; Wu, C. E. ; Zhou, J. Y. ; Zhao, Z. M. ; Liu, C. L. ; Shen, J. Y. ; Cai, H. ; Liu, S. L. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 505, 485491.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Shen, K. H. ; Hung, J. H. ; Chang, C. W. ; Weng, Y. T. ; Wu, M. J. ; Chen, P. S. Chem. Biol. Interact. 2017, 268, 129135.

  • 5.

    Fan, Y. ; Li, Z. ; Wu, L. ; Lin, F. ; Shao, J. ; Ma, X. ; Yao, Y. ; Zhuang, W. ; Wang, Y . Drug Des. Devel Ther. 2021, 15, 15091519.

  • 6.

    Lecanu, L. ; Hashim, A. I. ; McCourty, A. ; Giscos-Douriez, I. ; DincaI. ; Yao, W. ; Vicini, S. ; Szabo, G. ; Erdélyi, F. ; Greeson, J. ; Papadopoulos, V . Neuroscience 2011, 183, 251264.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Sharma, T. ; Airao, V. ; Panara, N. ; Vaishnav, D. ; Ranpariya, V. ; Sheth, N. ; Parmar, S. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 2014, 725, 4046.

  • 8.

    Chauhan, K. ; Sheth, N. ; Ranpariya, V. ; Parmar, S . Pharm. Biol. 2011, 49, 194199.

  • 9.

    Qu, M. ; Xue, P. ; Zhang, Q. ; Lu, T. ; Liu, K. ; Hu, B. ; Pang, J. ; Xiao, Q. ; Xu, T. ; Wang, Q. ; Cheng, Z . J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2022, 210, 114542.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Claringbold, W. D. ; Few, J. D. ; Brace, C. J. ; Renwick, J. H. J. Steroid Biochem. 1980, 13, 889895.

  • 11.

    Ma, J. ; Ding, X. ; Sun, C. ; Lin, C. ; An, X. ; Lin, G. ; Yang, X. ; WangX . J. Chromatogr. B Analyt Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2014, 963, 2428.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Ji, A. J. ; Jiang, Z. ; Livson, Y. ; Davis, J. A. ; Chu, J. X. ; Weng, N. Bioanalysis 2010, 2, 15731586.

  • 13.

    Cheng, Z. ; Zhou, X. ; Li, W. ; Hu, B. ; Zhang, Y. ; Xu, Y. ; Zhang, L. ; Jiang, H . J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2016, 131, 612.

  • 14.

    Pang, J. ; Xiao, Q. ; Yan, H. ; Cao, Y. ; Miao, J. ; Wang, S. ; Li, X. ; Li, H. ; Cheng, Z . J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 892898.

  • 15.

    US department of health and human services, Food and Drug Administration of the United States , Guidance for industry: bioanalytical method validation, 2018.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Cheng, Z. ; Zhang, L. ; Zhang, Y. ; Chen, G. ; Jiang, H . Bioanalysis 2014, 6, 935945.

  • 17.

    Hu, B. Y. ; Sun, Y. Y. ; Wang, M. ; He, Z. S. ; Chen, S. S. ; Qi, D. ; Ge, Z. ; Fan, L. L. ; Chen, J. F. ; Wei, Y. Acta Chromatogr. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1556/1326.2021.00962.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
  • Top
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)
  • A. Gumieniczek (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • U. Hubicka (Jagiellonian University, Kraków, Poland)
  • K. Kaczmarski (Rzeszow University of Technology, Rzeszów, Poland)
  • H. Kalász (Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary)
  • K. Karljiković Rajić (University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia)
  • 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)
  • Á. M. Móricz (Centre for Agricultural Research, Budapest, Hungary)
  • G. Morlock (Giessen University, Giessen, Germany)
  • A. Petruczynik (Medical University of Lublin, Lublin, Poland)
  • 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)
  • I.G. Zenkevich (St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation)

 

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

2021  
Web of Science  
Total Cites
WoS
652
Journal Impact Factor 2,011
Rank by Impact Factor Chemistry, Analytical 66/87
Impact Factor
without
Journal Self Cites
1,789
5 Year
Impact Factor
1,350
Journal Citation Indicator 0,40
Rank by Journal Citation Indicator Chemistry, Analytical 72/99
Scimago  
Scimago
H-index
29
Scimago
Journal Rank
0,27
Scimago Quartile Score Chemistry (miscellaneous) (Q3)
Scopus  
Scopus
Cite Score
2,8
Scopus
CIte Score Rank
General Chemistry 210/409 (Q3)
Scopus
SNIP
0,586

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
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
Apr 2022 0 0 0
May 2022 0 0 0
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 0 0
Aug 2022 0 0 0
Sep 2022 0 54 20
Oct 2022 0 0 0