Authors:
Hua Wang School of Environmental and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Taizhou Institute of Science & Technology, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Meilan East Road 8#, 225300, Taizhou, China

Search for other papers by Hua Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2614-6281
,
Changjuan Zhan School of Environmental and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Taizhou Institute of Science & Technology, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Meilan East Road 8#, 225300, Taizhou, China

Search for other papers by Changjuan Zhan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0925-1629
, and
Yi Wang School of Environmental and Pharmaceutical Engineering, Taizhou Institute of Science & Technology, Nanjing University of Science & Technology, Meilan East Road 8#, 225300, Taizhou, China

Search for other papers by Yi Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Open access

Abstract

Fuke Yangrong pill, a traditional Chinese patent medicine, with the functions of nourishing qi and blood, soothing liver and relieving depression, regulating menstruation and removing blood stasis, is composed of 16 Chinese medicinal herbs. For quality control purpose, an HPLC method was established for simultaneous quantification of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide in Fuke Yangrong pill. With acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid as mobile phase, gradient elution was carried out using Agilent ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 μm) at 1.0 mL min−1. Detection wavelength was set at 230 nm for paeoniflorin, 280 nm for hesperidin and ligustilide. The temperature was 30 °C. There was a good linearity between the peak area and the concentration of each component to be measured within their linear range (r ≥ 0.9994). The average recoveries were between 98.6% and 102.6% with RSDs no more than 2.93%. This method was validated to be accurate and convenient, which is suitable for the quality control of Fuke Yangrong pill.

Abstract

Fuke Yangrong pill, a traditional Chinese patent medicine, with the functions of nourishing qi and blood, soothing liver and relieving depression, regulating menstruation and removing blood stasis, is composed of 16 Chinese medicinal herbs. For quality control purpose, an HPLC method was established for simultaneous quantification of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide in Fuke Yangrong pill. With acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid as mobile phase, gradient elution was carried out using Agilent ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 μm) at 1.0 mL min−1. Detection wavelength was set at 230 nm for paeoniflorin, 280 nm for hesperidin and ligustilide. The temperature was 30 °C. There was a good linearity between the peak area and the concentration of each component to be measured within their linear range (r ≥ 0.9994). The average recoveries were between 98.6% and 102.6% with RSDs no more than 2.93%. This method was validated to be accurate and convenient, which is suitable for the quality control of Fuke Yangrong pill.

Introduction

In 1997, Fuke Yangrong pill (FYP) consisting of 16 traditional Chinese herbs was first included in Chinese Materia Medica preparation (Vol 15) of the drug standard published by the Department of Health of China, with NO. WS3-B-2893-98 [1]. In clinical practice, FYP is mainly used to treat Qi and blood insufficiency, liver depression and discomfort, irregular menstruation and other diseases. This product is now included in Chinese Pharmacopoeia (ChP) (2020, Vol 1) [2]. According to the website of the National Medical Products Administration of China (https://www.nmpa.gov.cn/), there are five manufacturers producing FYP.

In this prescription, Rehmanniae radix praeparata, Angelica sinensis radix, Paeoniae radix alba and Chuanxiong rhizoma are the components of Siwu Decoction [3]. Angelica sinensis radix is the king drug, and ligustilide is its main active component with various pharmacological activities such as neuroprotection, inhibition of cardiac hypertrophy, anti-cancer, anti-atherosclerosis, anti-inflammation and analgesia [4]. Paeoniae radix alba is processed with wine to reduce its cold nature and enhance its effect of enriching the blood. Paeoniflorin is the major component obtained from Paeoniae radix alba, clinically used to treat cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, nervous system disease, and liver disease in traditional Chinese medicine [5]. Hesperidin in Citri reticulatae pericarpium exerts a variety of pharmacological effects such as anti-oxidation, regulating blood lipids, inhibiting the proliferation of cancer cells in vitro, anti-microbial activity and anti-inflammatory activity [6].

Quantitative analysis of FYP is determining the content of paeoniflorin by HPLC in ChP (2020, Vol 1), specifying the content of paeoniflorin shall not be less than 0.8 mg g−1 [2]. However, quality control of single index component cannot reflect the overall role of multi-component, multi-effect and multi-target in Chinese patent drug, and the quality of preparations [7]. According to corresponding literatures [8, 9], HPLC wavelength switching method was developed to determine the contents of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide in FYP for the first time in this study, so as to provide the reference for the quality control of FYP. The structures of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide were shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Chemical structures of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01081

Experimental

Materials and reagents

Paeoniflorin (lot NO. AF20070752, 98.57%), hesperidin (lot NO. AF20091381, 98.88%), and ligustilide (lot NO. AF20041504, 98.62%) were acquired from Chengdu alfa biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Sichuan, China). Acetonitrile were purchased from Tedia Company, Inc. (Fairfield, USA), ethanol, phosphoric acid and formic acid were purchased from Sinopharm Chemical Reagent Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). Wahaha purified water (Hangzhou Wahaha Group) was used in this study.

FYP with different batch NO. (labeled S1–S10) were produced by Lanzhou Foci Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Jilin Hengjin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd and Lanzhou Taibao Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Angelicae sinensis radix (lot NO. 201202), Chuanxiong rhizoma (lot NO. 200701), Citri reticulatae pericarpium (lot NO. 201102), Atractylodis macrocephalae rhizoma (lot NO. 201103) and Ophiopogonis radix (lot NO. 201002) were purchased from Zequn traditional Chinese medicine Co., Ltd (Guangdong, China); Glycyrrhizae radix et rhizoma (lot NO. 201001) and Artemisiae argyi folium (lot NO. 201101) were purchased from Tiancheng traditional Chinese medicine Co., Ltd (Guangdong, China); Rehmanniae radix praeparata (lot NO. 210300189), Paeoniae radix alba (lot NO. 210200029), Leonuri herba (lot NO. 210100081), Cyperi rhizoma (lot NO. 210400259), Eucommiae cortex (lot NO. 201100781), Astragali radix (lot NO. 210101521), Poria (lot NO. 210100771) and Amomi fructus (lot NO. 200802061) were purchased from Kangmei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (Guangdong, China); Asini corii colla (lot NO. 0010191003) was purchased from Baoding Saixing Ejiao Co., Ltd (Hebei, China).

Instruments and chromatographic conditions

The analysis was performed by using an Agilent 1220 HPLC series (Agilent Technologies Singapore (international) pte.ltd) consisting of VWD, Agilent OpenLAB CDS ChemStation (version C.01.09) and Agilent ZORBAX Eclipse Plus C18 column (250 mm × 4.6 mm, 5.0 μm), with acetonitrile (A) and 0.1% formic acid (B) as the mobile phase. The flow rate was 1.0 mL min−1. The gradient elution program was as follows: 0–25 min, held at 15% A; 26–40 min, increased to 30% A; 41–50 min, increased to 100% A; 51–60 min, held at 100% A. The column temperature was maintained at 30 °C. The injection volume was 20 μL. The wavelength was set at 230 nm (0–20 min) for paeoniflorin; 280 nm (21–60 min) for hesperidin and ligustilide.

Preparation of standard solutions

Paeoniflorin, hesperidin, and ligustilide were precisely weighed and dissolved in 50% (v/v) ethanol to get the standard stock solution. Appropriate amounts of the stock solutions were taken to prepare mixed standard solution, in which the concentration of each component was 309.38, 81.60 and 131.20 μg mL−1 respectively. The mixed standard solution was diluted with the same solvent to get a series of solutions with different concentration for establishing the calibration curve. All the standard solutions were stored at 4 °C away from light. The solutions were filtered by 0.22 μm microporous filtering film before analysis.

Preparation of FYP sample solution

0.5 g dried FYP powder was accurately weighed and extracted with 25 mL 50% (v/v) ethanol in a conical flask with a stopper by an ultrasonic cleaner (400 W, 40 kHz) for 60 min at room temperature. In order to compensate for the weight loss, additional 50% (v/v) ethanol was added after the extracted solution was cooled to room temperature. FYP sample solution was filtered by 0.22 μm microporous filtering film before analysis and stored at 4 °C away from light.

Preparation of negative controls

Negative samples without Angelica sinensis radix, Paeoniae radix alba, and Citri reticulatae pericarpium were prepared respectively according to the preparation process of FYP in ChP (2020, Vol 1) [2]. Then negative controls were prepared as FYP sample solution using negative samples.

Method validation

Specificity, linearity, precision, repeatability, stability and accuracy of the method were validated.

Results and discussion

Optimization of the chromatographic conditions

According to the UV scanning spectrum, the maximum absorption wavelengths of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide were 230 nm, 284 nm and 323 nm. Within the range of 280–340 nm, the absorption value of ligustilide was relatively high. Considering the simultaneous determination of three components, combined with the literatures, the detection wavelength of paeoniflorin was set at 230 nm [10], and the detection wavelength of hesperidin and ligustilide was set at 280 nm [11, 12]. The mixed standard solution and FYP sample solution were analyzed using 230nm and 280 nm. Then, we set the time program of wavelength change according to the retention time of the peaks on the chromatograms detected by two different wavelengths.

In this paper, acetonitrile-water, acetonitrile-0.1% phosphoric acid solution and acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid solution were selected as mobile phases for gradient elution in order to detect the main components effectively. Acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid was the most appropriate mobile phase. The prescription of FYP is complex. In addition to the three components to be measured, there are many unknown components in FYP sample solution. The polarity of these components varies greatly, so the gradient elution program was optimized. The gradient elution time was increased so that the chromatographic peaks were completely separated and the baseline was as stable as possible.

Then different flow rate (0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 mL min−1) and column temperature (25, 30 and 35 °C) were selected to optimize. Effects of column temperature on retention time, resolution and tailing factor were shown in Table 1, with the flow rate set as 1.0 mL min−1. As the temperature increased, the retention time of each component advanced, and the tailing factors of the three components were better at 30 °C. The resolution of paeoniflorin was less than 1.5 at 35 °C. When the flow rate was 0.8 mL min−1, the retention time of the three components was prolonged, the peak width of paeoniflorin increased, and the number of theoretical plates decreased. While the flow rate was set to 1.2 mL min−1, the number of peaks in the chromatogram decreased. At last, 1.0 mL min−1 and 30 °C were chosen in this study.

Table 1.

Effects of column temperature on retention time, resolution and tailing factor

Evaluation index Component Column temperature (°C)
25 30 35
Retention time (min) Paeoniflorin 14.997 14.613 13.624
Hesperidin 38.595 38.418 37.698
Ligustilide 51.232 51.179 51.010
Resolution Paeoniflorin 5.00 4.87 1.22
Hesperidin 4.29 4.34 3.91
Ligustilide 1.90 1.87 1.81
Tailing factor Paeoniflorin 0.91 1.05 1.34
Hesperidin 0.98 1.02 1.11
Ligustilide 0.92 0.93 0.94

The HPLC chromatograms of mixed standard solution, FYP sample solution were shown in Fig. 2 (A, B). The retention times of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide were 14.613, 38.418 and 51.179 min. Each peak was separated with the resolution over 1.5, tailing factor between 0.9 and 1.1, and the number of theoretical plates greater than 5000.

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

HPLC chromatograms of mixed standard solution, FYP sample solution, and negative controls. (A) mixed standard solution; (B) FYP sample solution; (C) negative control without Angelica sinensis radix; (D) negative control without Paeoniae radix alba; (E) negative control without Citri reticulatae pericarpium; (1) paeoniflorin; (2) hesperidin; (3) ligustilide

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01081

Optimization of the preparation of FYP sample solution

Firstly, 50% (v/v) methanol and 50% (v/v) ethanol were used as extraction solvents respectively while the results showed that there was no significant difference between the extraction efficiency of two solvents. From the perspective of experimental safety, ethanol solution was selected. Secondly, the effects of ethanol solutions with different concentration (50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, v/v) on the extraction results of the three markers were tested. With the increase of ethanol concentration, the extraction rate of ligustilide increased, while the extraction rate of hesperidin decreased significantly. In view of this, 50% (v/v) ethanol was selected as the extraction solvent of FYP. At last, ultrasonic extraction time (40, 60, and 80 min) were compared. The results showed that the contents of the three components increased significantly after 60 min of extraction, but there was no significant difference among the contents in the solution extracted after 60 min and 80 min. Therefore, 0.5 g powdered FYP was extracted with 25 mL 50% (v/v) ethanol for 60 min by ultrasonication to prepare FYP sample solution.

Method validation

Specificity

Mixed standard solution, FYP sample solution and negative controls were analyzed. In the chromatogram of negative control without Angelica sinensis radix, there was no chromatographic peak of ligustilide (Fig. 2C); in the chromatogram of negative control without Paeoniae radix alba, there was no chromatographic peak of paeoniflorin (Fig. 2D); and in the chromatogram of negative control without Citri reticulatae pericarpium, there was no chromatographic peak of hesperidin (Fig. 2E), which suggested that other components had no interference to the determination of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide and the specificity was good.

Linearity

Calibration curves were obtained by plotting the peak area as the ordinate (y) and the concentration of each component in the mixed standard solutions as the abscissa (x, μg mL−1) [13]. The regression equations and the linear ranges of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide were as follows: y = 23.896x + 158.74, 19.34–309.38 μg mL−1; y = 32.594x + 43.894, 5.10–81.60 μg mL−1; y = 35.794x + 12.852, 8.20–131.20 μg mL−1. The correlation coefficients of the three components were ≥0.9994, indicating there was a good linearity between the peak area and the concentration of each component to be measured. The deviation (%) of three standard substances at each point was given in Table 2, which was within acceptable range.

Table 2.

The deviation (%) at each concentration of three standard substances

Component NO. Exp. peak areaa Cal. peak aerab Dev. (%)c
Paeoniflorin 1 613.61 620.79 −1.16%
2 1055.55 1082.84 −2.52%
3 2016.20 2006.95 0.46%
4 3902.61 3855.15 1.23%
5 7529.50 7551.57 −0.29%
Hesperidin 1 197.15 210.12 −6.17%
2 374.20 376.35 −0.57%
3 724.80 708.81 2.26%
4 1377.85 1373.73 0.30%
5 2698.60 2703.57 −0.18%
Ligustilide 1 302.65 306.36 −1.21%
2 598.75 599.87 −0.19%
3 1153.10 1186.88 −2.85%
4 2420.50 2360.91 2.52%
5 4688.00 4708.98 −0.45%

aExp. peak area is the peak area of each concentration measured by HPLC.

bCal. peak aera is the peak area of each concentration calculated according to regression equation.

cDev. (%) is the deviation (%) at each concentration, Dev. % = [(Exp. peak area−Cal. peak aera)/Cal. peak aera] × 100%.

Precision, repeatability and stability

The same mixed standard solution (77.34 μg mL−1 paeoniflorin, 20.40 μg mL−1 hesperidin and 32.80 μg mL−1 ligustilide) was injected six times in succession to validate precision. The relative standard deviation (RSD) values of peak area of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide were calculated which were 3.51%, 2.90% and 2.96%. Six sample solutions of S1 prepared in parallel were injected continuously to examine repeatability. One sample solution was analyzed at 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 24 h after the solution prepared to evaluate the stability. All the RSD values were no more than 3.58%.

Accuracy

Appropriate amount of three standard substances was added to sample S1 to evaluate the accuracy. The ratio of the added amount to the original amount of the sample solution was 0.5:1, 1:1 and 1.5:1. Each concentration was analyzed in triplicate. The average recoveries were 98.6% for paeoniflorin, 102.6% for hesperidin and 101.3% for ligustilide with the RSDs less than 2.93, suggesting this method was accurate. Results were shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

The results of recovery (n = 9)

Component Original amount (μg) Added amount (μg) Measured amount (μg) Recovery (%) Average recovery (%) RSD (%)
Paeoniflorin 34.96 17.82 52.41 97.9 98.6 1.27
34.96 17.82 52.70 99.5
34.96 17.82 52.86 100.4
34.96 34.65 69.13 98.6
34.96 34.65 69.61 100.0
34.96 34.65 68.50 96.8
34.96 54.45 88.0 97.4
34.96 54.45 88.1 97.6
34.96 54.45 88.9 99.1
Hesperidin 149.3 76.50 222.6 95.8 102.6 2.93
149.3 76.50 225.5 99.6
149.3 76.50 228.9 104.1
149.3 153.0 309.5 104.7
149.3 153.0 309.2 104.5
149.3 153.0 306.9 103.0
149.3 224.4 383.0 104.1
149.3 224.4 380.6 103.1
149.3 224.4 384.1 104.6
Ligustilide 76.42 39.36 116.2 101.0 101.3 2.67
76.42 39.36 117.0 103.1
76.42 39.36 116.2 101.1
76.42 78.72 158.5 104.2
76.42 78.72 158.1 103.7
76.42 78.72 158.5 104.2
76.42 111.5 186.0 98.3
76.42 111.5 186.3 98.5
76.42 111.5 185.1 97.4

Sample analysis

Ten batches of FYP (labeled S1–S10) were analyzed and the contents of three components were given in Table 4 and Fig. 3. The contents of paeoniflorin in 10 batches of samples are greater than 0.8 mg g−1. However, there were differences in content of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide between different manufacturers and batches. Therefore, it is necessary to establish a method to determinate three components in FYP, which can evaluate the quality of FYP more comprehensively.

Table 4.

The determination of 10 batches of FYP (mg g−1, n = 3)

No. Paeoniflorin Hesperidin Ligustilide
S1 1.986±0.043 2.651±0.071 2.063±0.023
S2 1.859±0.014 2.565±0.035 2.07±0.076
S3 1.848±0.028 2.449±0.070 1.966±0.057
S4 1.878±0.033 2.365±0.048 1.877±0.124
S5 1.272±0.029 3.662±0.075 1.953±0.030
S6 1.463±0.066 3.521±0.102 2.055±0.044
S7 1.357±0.017 3.354±0.049 2.109±0.016
S8 1.351±0.029 2.677±0.038 1.018±0.018
S9 1.496±0.032 3.336±0.042 1.302±0.009
S10 1.262±0.035 3.051±0.074 1.258±0.018
Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

The contents of three components in 10 batches of FYP

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01081

Conclusion

An accurate, convenient and stable HPLC method has been established and validated for simultaneously determination of paeoniflorin, hesperidin and ligustilide in FYP. This method can provide a comprehensive quality evaluation and control for the manufacture, administration and application in the future.

References

  • 1.

    Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission Pharmaceutical Standards of Traditional Chinese Medicine Formulas, Vol. 15; Minister of Health of the People's Republic of China: Beijing, 1997; pp 8485.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China, Vol. 1; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, 2020; pp 962963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Zhengbao Medical Education Network Summary of Fuke Yangrong pill, 2012. www.med66.com/new/201209/ly201209126407.shtml (accessed 9 December 2012).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Yang, F ; Lin, Z ; Huang, T ; Chen, T ; Cui, J ; Li, M . Ligustilide, a major bioactive component of Angelica sinensis, promotes bone formation via the GPR30/EGFR pathway. Sci. Rep.-UK. 2019, 9(1), 110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Ma, X ; Zhang, W ; Jiang, Y ; Wen, J ; Wei, S ; Zhao, Y . Paeoniflorin, a natural product with multiple targets in liver diseases—a mini review. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 531.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Jin, T ; Yu, M ; Cao, M ; Zhu, X . Optimization of mechanochemical-assisted extraction of hesperidin from pericarpium citri reticulatae. Food Sci. Tech.-Brazil. 2022, 42, e79821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Xue, L ; Liu, H ; Xiao, T ; Zhou, W ; Wu, L ; Qu, S ; Ma, Y ; Xu, Q . Simultaneous determination of morphine, codeine phosphate and bergenin in keqing capsules by HPLC. Chin. J. Mod. Appl. Pharm. 2022, 39(6), 783787.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Zhang, J ; Kang, K ; Zhao, Y ; Gao, S ; Hu, J . Determination of ferulic acid, ligustilide, levistolide A in Tianqi Tongjing capsule by RP-HPLC. Drug Eval. Res. 2018, 41(9), 16571660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Su, H ; Hui, H ; Xu, X ; Zhou, R ; Qin, L ; Shan, Q . Simultaneous determination of multiple components in formula and preparations of Xiaoyaosan. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 35(7), 12071211.

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

    Wang, L ; Zhang, X ; Zhang, S. Study on quality standard of Danzhi Qranules. Chin. J. Mod. Appl. Pharm. 2021, 38(22), 28362840.

  • 11.

    Peng, Y ; Li, J. Content determination of hesperidin in Sufo Shunqi Granules by HPLC. China Pharm. 2020, 29(15), 6264.

  • 12.

    Yang, Y ; Liu, Y ; Huang, Z ; Liu, Y ; Chen, Y ; Yang, C ; Yi, J . Determination of Senkyunolide A and ligustilide in Chuanxiong rhizoma and angelicae sinensis radix by QAMS. Chin. J. Exp. Tradit. Med. Form. 2015, 21(3), 5862.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Li, X ; Yang, H ; Sun, W ; Sun, G ; Zhang, H . Overall Quantified Fingerprints Combined with Super-Information Characteristics Digitized Parameters to Monitor the Quality Consistency of Rong'e Yishen Oral Liquid. Microchem. J. 2022, 173, 106958.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 1.

    Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission Pharmaceutical Standards of Traditional Chinese Medicine Formulas, Vol. 15; Minister of Health of the People's Republic of China: Beijing, 1997; pp 8485.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Chinese Pharmacopoeia Commission Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China, Vol. 1; Chemical Industry Press: Beijing, 2020; pp 962963.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Zhengbao Medical Education Network Summary of Fuke Yangrong pill, 2012. www.med66.com/new/201209/ly201209126407.shtml (accessed 9 December 2012).

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Yang, F ; Lin, Z ; Huang, T ; Chen, T ; Cui, J ; Li, M . Ligustilide, a major bioactive component of Angelica sinensis, promotes bone formation via the GPR30/EGFR pathway. Sci. Rep.-UK. 2019, 9(1), 110.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Ma, X ; Zhang, W ; Jiang, Y ; Wen, J ; Wei, S ; Zhao, Y . Paeoniflorin, a natural product with multiple targets in liver diseases—a mini review. Front. Pharmacol. 2020, 11, 531.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Jin, T ; Yu, M ; Cao, M ; Zhu, X . Optimization of mechanochemical-assisted extraction of hesperidin from pericarpium citri reticulatae. Food Sci. Tech.-Brazil. 2022, 42, e79821.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Xue, L ; Liu, H ; Xiao, T ; Zhou, W ; Wu, L ; Qu, S ; Ma, Y ; Xu, Q . Simultaneous determination of morphine, codeine phosphate and bergenin in keqing capsules by HPLC. Chin. J. Mod. Appl. Pharm. 2022, 39(6), 783787.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Zhang, J ; Kang, K ; Zhao, Y ; Gao, S ; Hu, J . Determination of ferulic acid, ligustilide, levistolide A in Tianqi Tongjing capsule by RP-HPLC. Drug Eval. Res. 2018, 41(9), 16571660.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Su, H ; Hui, H ; Xu, X ; Zhou, R ; Qin, L ; Shan, Q . Simultaneous determination of multiple components in formula and preparations of Xiaoyaosan. Nat. Prod. Res. 2021, 35(7), 12071211.

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

    Wang, L ; Zhang, X ; Zhang, S. Study on quality standard of Danzhi Qranules. Chin. J. Mod. Appl. Pharm. 2021, 38(22), 28362840.

  • 11.

    Peng, Y ; Li, J. Content determination of hesperidin in Sufo Shunqi Granules by HPLC. China Pharm. 2020, 29(15), 6264.

  • 12.

    Yang, Y ; Liu, Y ; Huang, Z ; Liu, Y ; Chen, Y ; Yang, C ; Yi, J . Determination of Senkyunolide A and ligustilide in Chuanxiong rhizoma and angelicae sinensis radix by QAMS. Chin. J. Exp. Tradit. Med. Form. 2015, 21(3), 5862.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Li, X ; Yang, H ; Sun, W ; Sun, G ; Zhang, H . Overall Quantified Fingerprints Combined with Super-Information Characteristics Digitized Parameters to Monitor the Quality Consistency of Rong'e Yishen Oral Liquid. Microchem. J. 2022, 173, 106958.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Collapse
  • Expand
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
Jun 2022 0 0 0
Jul 2022 0 0 0
Aug 2022 0 0 0
Sep 2022 0 103 32
Oct 2022 0 40 16
Nov 2022 0 35 6
Dec 2022 0 0 0