Authors:
En Zhang Clinical Laboratory, Ningbo Medical Treatment Center Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by En Zhang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Junying Chen Analytical and Testing Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China

Search for other papers by Junying Chen in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Xia Li Clinical Laboratory, Ningbo Medical Treatment Center Lihuili Hospital, Ningbo, China

Search for other papers by Xia Li in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Lvqi Luo Analytical and Testing Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China

Search for other papers by Lvqi Luo in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Yizhe Ma Analytical and Testing Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China

Search for other papers by Yizhe Ma in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Qingwei Zhang Shanghai Institute of Pharmaceutical Industry Co., Ltd., Shanghai, China

Search for other papers by Qingwei Zhang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2008-1755
, and
Xianqin Wang Analytical and Testing Center, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Wenzhou Medical University, Wenzhou, China

Search for other papers by Xianqin Wang in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9821-3770
Open access

Abstract

Flavonoids are the most abundant components in Salvia plebeia, with significant pharmacological antioxidant and hepatoprotective properties. Hispidulin and homoplantaginin are the main flavonoid components in S. Plebeia. In this study, we established an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) to determine hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma samples, which were precipitated using acetonitrile-methanol (9:1, v/v). We used a UPLC HSS T3 (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm diameter) chromatographic column, an acetonitrile-water (containing 0.1% formic acid) mobile phase, and a gradient elution flow rate of 0.4 mL min−1 in an elution time of 4 min. We used electrospray ionization (ESI) detection in positive ion mode, and multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM) for quantitative analysis: m/z 301 → 286 for hispidulin, m/z 463 → 301 for homoplantaginin, and m/z 465 → 303 for internal standard (IS). In pharmacokinetic studies, 24 rats were orally administered hispidulin and homoplantaginin (5 mg kg−1) and received sublingual intravenous injections (1 mg kg−1) at two different doses, four groups with six rats/group. Differences in hispidulin and homoplantaginin pharmacokinetics in rat plasma were evaluated. The calibration curve showed good linearity in the 0.5–1,000 ng mL−1 range, with r > 0.99. Precision, accuracy, recovery, matrix effects, and stability results all met standard biological sample detection requirements. Our pharmacokinetic studies showed hispidulin bioavailability was much higher than homoplantaginin at 17.8% and 0.1%, respectively.

Abstract

Flavonoids are the most abundant components in Salvia plebeia, with significant pharmacological antioxidant and hepatoprotective properties. Hispidulin and homoplantaginin are the main flavonoid components in S. Plebeia. In this study, we established an ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) to determine hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma samples, which were precipitated using acetonitrile-methanol (9:1, v/v). We used a UPLC HSS T3 (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm diameter) chromatographic column, an acetonitrile-water (containing 0.1% formic acid) mobile phase, and a gradient elution flow rate of 0.4 mL min−1 in an elution time of 4 min. We used electrospray ionization (ESI) detection in positive ion mode, and multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM) for quantitative analysis: m/z 301 → 286 for hispidulin, m/z 463 → 301 for homoplantaginin, and m/z 465 → 303 for internal standard (IS). In pharmacokinetic studies, 24 rats were orally administered hispidulin and homoplantaginin (5 mg kg−1) and received sublingual intravenous injections (1 mg kg−1) at two different doses, four groups with six rats/group. Differences in hispidulin and homoplantaginin pharmacokinetics in rat plasma were evaluated. The calibration curve showed good linearity in the 0.5–1,000 ng mL−1 range, with r > 0.99. Precision, accuracy, recovery, matrix effects, and stability results all met standard biological sample detection requirements. Our pharmacokinetic studies showed hispidulin bioavailability was much higher than homoplantaginin at 17.8% and 0.1%, respectively.

Introduction

Salvia plebeia is also known as snow capsicum, fly grass, and holly, and comprises the whole grass component of S. plebeia R. Br [1–3]. It is cooling in nature and pungent to taste, effectively clears away heat and toxins, cools the blood, and dissipates blood stasis, diuresis, and swelling [4–7]. Previous pharmacological studies have shown that S. plebeia has anti-asthmatic, anti-bacterial, and anti-oxidant effects [8–12]. The plant mainly contains flavonoids, terpenes, phenolic acids, volatile oils, phytosterols, and other compounds [12, 13]. Flavonoids are the most abundant component in the plants and have significant pharmacological activities such as antioxidant and liver protective effects [14]. Hispidulin and homoplantaginin are the main flavonoid components in S. Plebeia. Homoplantaginin can be used to treat liver damage, improve endothelial insulin resistance, and inhibit tumor growth [15]. Hispidulin is the aglycone form of homoplantaginin; it has anti-osteoporosis properties, induces apoptosis in cancer cells, and is used to treat asthma [16, 17].

Previous studies reported that hispidulin and homoplantaginin levels in rat plasma could be determined using high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [18, 19], and their pharmacokinetics assessed after oral or intravenous (iv) intake. However, HPLC sensitivity is low, whereas ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS/MS) technology exhibits high sensitivity, low detection limits, low sample consumption, and is widely used for chemical composition, drug metabolism, and impurity identification analyses [20–23]. To the best of our knowledge, no study has reported the quantitation of hispidulin and homoplantaginin in plasma by UPLC-MS/MS. In this study, we established an UPLC-MS/MS method to determine hispidulin and homoplantaginin levels in rat plasma, investigated their pharmacokinetics, and calculated the absolute bioavailability of these compounds. The pharmacy basic research of hispidulin and homoplantaginin could provide scientific experimental basis.

Materials and methods

Reagents

Hispidulin (purity ≥98%, batch: MUST-21083002, Fig. 1a), homoplantaginin (purity ≥98%, batch: MUST-21010208, Fig. 1b), and spiraeoside (internal standard (IS), purity ≥98%, batch number: MUST-21042912, Fig. 1c) were purchased from Chengdu MUST Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (Chengdu, China). Chromatographically pure acetonitrile and methanol were purchased from Merck Ltd (Darmstadt, Germany). Ultra-pure water (resistance >18 mΩ) was obtained from a Milli-Q purification system (Millipore, USA).

Fig. 1.
Fig. 1.

Chemical structure of hispidulin (a), homoplantaginin (b), and the internal standard (c)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01082

Animals

Sprague Dawley rats (male, 220–250 g) were obtained from the Animal Experiment Center of Wenzhou Medical University (Wenzhou, China) and housed in separate cages with a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle for a week, under a temperature- and humidity-controlled laboratory conditions (23−25 °C and 50−70%, respectively). Diet was prohibited for 12 h prior to dosing of hispidulin and homoplantaginin while water was freely taken.

Instrument conditions

A Waters Acquity H-class UPLC and XEVO TQ-S micro-triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer was used to detect hispidulin and homoplantaginin (Milford, Ma, USA). Data acquisition and instrument control were performed using Masslynx 4.1 software (Waters Corp.).

Chromatographic conditions: chromatographic column was UPLC HSS T3 (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 μm) and column temperature was set at 40 °C. The mobile phase was acetonitrile-water (containing 0.1% formic acid), gradient elution flow rate was 0.4 mL min−1, and elution time was 4 min. Gradient elution procedure was: 0–0.2 min, acetonitrile 10%; 0.2–1.2 min, acetonitrile 10%–85%; 1.2–2.0 min, acetonitrile 85%; 2.0–2.5 min, acetonitrile 85%–10%; and 2.5–4.0 min, acetonitrile 10%.

Mass spectrometry conditions: nitrogen was used as a cone (50 L h−1) and desolvation gas (900 L h−1). Capillary voltage was 2.5 kV, ion source temperature was 150 °C, desolvation temperature was 450 °C, electrospray ionization (ESI) in positive ion mode detection, multiple reaction monitoring mode (MRM) was used for quantitative analysis, hispidulin m/z 301 → 286 (cone voltage 56 v, collision voltage 16 v), homoplantaginin m/z 463 → 301 (cone voltage 38 v, collision voltage 12 v), and IS m/z 465 → 303 (cone voltage 36 v, collision voltage 16 v) (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.
Fig. 2.

Mass spectra of hispidulin (a), homoplantaginin (b), and the internal standard (c)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01082

Standard curves

Stock solutions (500 μg mL−1) of hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and the IS, spiraeoside were prepared in methanol. Solutions were diluted in methanol to generate working solutions over a range of concentrations. All solutions were stored at 4 °C. Appropriate hispidulin and homoplantaginin working solution were added to blank rat plasma samples to generate 0.5, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 ng mL−1 concentrations. The standard curve range was 0.5–1,000 ng mL−1. Quality control (QC) samples at three plasma concentrations (1, 90, and 900 ng mL−1) were similarly prepared.

Sample processing

To a tube, 50 μL plasma plus 150 μL acetonitrile-methanol (9:1, v/v) (containing 100 ng mL−1 IS) were added. Tubes were vortexed for 1 min and centrifuged (13,000 rpm at 4 °C for 10 min). Then, 100 μL supernatant was removed into the liner tube of an injection bottle. The injection volume for UPLC-MS/MS analysis was 2 μL.

Method validation

The selectivity was evaluated by analyzing a blank rat plasma, a blank rat plasma spiked with hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and the IS, and a rat plasma sample after oral administration of hispidulin and homoplantaginin spiked with IS.

A series of standard solutions of hispidulin and homoplantaginin (0.5–1,000 ng mL−1) with 100 ng mL−1 for IS were assayed under the same conditions as the plasma sample. The peak-area ratios of hispidulin and homoplantaginin to IS were detected, and the standard curve was developed by least squares linear fitting of the peak-area ratios to evaluate linearity.

The accuracy and precision were evaluated by determining six QC samples at the three levels of 1, 90, and 900 ng mL−1. The precision was expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD). The intra-day and inter-day precision of QC samples were calculated by measuring QC samples for three consecutive days. The accuracy of the intra-day and inter-day was then determined by the average value and the true value of QC samples.

The recovery was calculated by comparing the measured peak area of QC samples with that of the corresponding standard solution. The matrix effect was determined by comparing the measured peak area of the standard solution containing blank rat plasma after extraction with that of the corresponding standard solution.

Stability of hispidulin and homoplantaginin in plasma was investigated by analysis of QC samples at room temperature for 2 h, the frozen condition at −20 °C for 30 days and freeze/thaw cycles, respectively.

Pharmacokinetics

The sublingual iv. administration of hispidulin at 1 mg kg−1 and oral administration of 5 mg kg−1 was performed on six rats in two groups, respectively. The sublingual iv. administration of homoplantaginin at 1 mg kg−1 and oral administration of 5 mg kg−1 was performed on six rats in two groups, respectively. All experimental procedures and protocols were approved by the Animal Care Committee of Wenzhou Medical University (Wydw 2019-0982). At 0.0833, 0.25, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, and 24 h, we collected 0.2 mL tail vein blood into heparinized test tubes and centrifuged samples at 13,000 rpm for 10 min. Then, 50 μL plasma was transferred to a new tube and stored at −80 °C. Pharmacokinetic parameters were statistically calculated using pharmacokinetic software (DAS version 2.0).

Results

Selectivity

As indicated (Fig. 3), hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and IS retention time were 2.30, 1.98, and 1.92 min, respectively. They were effectively separated using optimized gradient elution procedures, and no interference from endogenous components was encountered during retention time.

Fig. 3.
Fig. 3.

Ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry of hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and the internal standard in rat plasma, (a) blank rat plasma, (b) blank rat plasma spiked with hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and internal standard, and (c) a rat plasma after oral administration of homoplantaginin

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01082

Standard curves

Hispidulin and homoplantaginin calibration curves in rat plasma showed good linearity in the 0.5–1,000 ng mL−1, with r > 0.99. The regression equation for hispidulin in rat plasma was: y1 = 0.0025 × 1 − 0.0018 (r = 0.9992), where ×1 was hispidulin concentration in plasma and y1 was the ratio of the hispidulin peak area to the IS. The regression equation for homoplantaginin in rat plasma was: y2 = 0.0019 × 2 + 0.0014 (r = 0.9984), where ×2 was homoplantaginin concentration in plasma and y2 was the ratio of the homoplantaginin peak area to the IS. The lower limit of hispidulin and homoplantaginin quantification in rat plasma was 0.5 ng mL−1 with the signal/noise ratio was 10, the detection limit was 0.1 ng mL−1 with the signal/noise ratio was 3.

Precision, accuracy, recovery, and matrix effects

The intra- and inter-day precision for hispidulin was within 13%, intra- and inter-day accuracies ranged from 90% to 104%, recovery was >87%, and matrix effects ranged from 88% to 100%. The intra- and inter-day precision for homoplantaginin was within 13%, intra- and inter-day accuracies ranged from 91% to 110%, recovery was >85%, and matrix effects ranged from 90% to 98% (Table 1).

Table 1.

Accuracy, precision, matrix effects and recovery of hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma

Compound Concentration (ng mL−1) Accuracy (%) Precision (RSD%) Matrix effects (%) Recovery (%)
Intra-day Inter-day Intra-day Inter-day
0.5 93.1 90.2 12.8 11.6 88.0 89.6
Hispidulin 1 95.8 101.4 8.9 5.7 95.6 91.7
90 98.2 103.3 8.3 6.0 99.7 87.8
900 103.7 98.9 9.9 9.0 95.7 91.5
0.5 91.1 109.2 12.6 13.0 93.0 92.9
Homoplantaginin 1 96.0 105.2 7.1 10.7 90.6 91.9
90 103.5 94.9 5.3 9.9 97.3 85.6
900 98.2 106.3 9.1 5.9 97.5 85.4

Stability

Plasma samples were placed in an autosampler for 2 h, and were pretreated and placed at room temperature for 24 h. After three freeze-thaw cycles, stability tests were performed at −20 °C for 30 d. Accuracy of hispidulin was between 90% – 112% and the RSD was within 12%. Accuracy of homoplantaginin was between 88% – 113% and the RSD was within 10% (Table 2). These data indicated hispidulin and homoplantaginin displayed good stability.

Table 2.

Stability of hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma

Compound Concentration (ng mL−1) Autosampler (4 °C, 12 h) Ambient (2 h) −20 °C (30 d) Freeze-thawing
Accuracy RSD Accuracy RSD Accuracy RSD Accuracy RSD
1 96.1 5.2 104.0 7.5 111.1 10.9 111.0 10.1
Hispidulin 90 98.1 4.4 93.0 4.5 90.3 7.2 98.0 4.5
900 101.2 7.2 97.9 9.4 100.4 7.0 102.6 7.1
1 104.5 4.2 107.1 8.4 112.6 7.7 95.5 8.2
Homoplantaginin 90 103.7 7.7 104.1 8.9 91.3 9.7 108.5 7.8
900 97.3 2.0 99.8 6.9 94.1 9.0 88.2 8.1

Pharmacokinetics

Concentration-time curves for hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma were shown in Fig. 4. The main pharmacokinetic parameters are listed in Table 3. The oral bioavailability of hispidulin and homoplantaginin was low, at 17.8% and 0.1%, respectively.

Fig. 4.
Fig. 4.

Concentration-time curves in rats after intravenous (iv, 1 mg kg−1) and oral (po, 5 mg kg−1) administration of hispidulin (a) and homoplantaginin (b)

Citation: Acta Chromatographica 2022; 10.1556/1326.2022.01082

Table 3.

Main pharmacokinetic parameters after intravenous (IV) and oral administration (PO) hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rats

Compound Groups AUC(0–t) ng mL−1*h AUC(0–∞) ng mL−1 *h t 1/2z h CLz/F L/h/kg V z/F L kg−1 C max ng mL−1
Hispidulin PO, 5 mg kg−1 33.1 ± 4.2 34.3 ± 4.5 2.3 ± 0.4 148.0 ± 22.7 486.5 ± 73.4 7.1 ± 0.9
IV, 1 mg kg−1 37.2 ± 4.1 38.4 ± 4.0 2.6 ± 0.8 26.3 ± 2.5 97.1 ± 33.1 20.2 ± 3.1
Homoplantaginin PO, 5 mg kg−1 2.7 ± 0.7 2.8 ± 0.7 1.4 ± 0.2 1868.5 ± 430.2 3736.4 ± 1281.9 1.3 ± 0.3
IV, 1 mg kg−1 472.5 ± 68.2 510.0 ± 83.0 9.1 ± 2.1 2.0 ± 0.4 26.0 ± 5.2 553.8 ± 31.2

Discussion

To generate optimized UPLC-MS/MS conditions, both positive and negative ion modes were tested [24, 25]. Hispidulin and homoplantaginin displayed higher response in positive ion mode, mass conditions indicated better sensitivity and signal intensities. After this, mass parameters adequately met the requirements for the accurate quantification of substances in biological samples. Using standard samples, capillary voltage and energy were optimized, and finally, hispidulin m/z 301 → 286 (cone voltage 56 v, collision voltage 16 v), homoplantaginin m/z 463 → 301 (cone voltage = 38 v, collision voltage 12 v), and IS m/z 465 → 303 (cone voltage 36 v, collision voltage 16 v).

Chromatographic separation conditions greatly influenced retention time, peak shape, and response values. We also investigated different BEH C18 and HSS T3 chromatographic columns combined with different mobile phases, and found that HSS T3 (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.8 μm) and an acetonitrile-0.1% formic acid mobile phase displayed good chromatographic peaks. Elution gradients were also optimized to determine final elution conditions. Thus, our column and mobile conditions generated relatively good hispidulin, homoplantaginin, and IS separation.

For biological sample analyses, IS should display good solubility, have no chemical reactions with test samples, and peak positions should be close to analyte peak positions. We tested spiraeoside, isoscoparin, and flavanomarein, however, only spiraeoside generated good results. Hispidulin and homoplantaginin retention time were 2.30 and 1.98 min, respectively, while spiraeoside peaked at 1.92 min. Similarly, recoveries were stable. Therefore, spiraeoside was selected as an effective IS.

Commonly used biological sample pretreatment methods include: liquid-liquid extraction (LLE), solid phase extraction (SPE), and protein sedimentation (PPT). SPE has complicated operation steps, extraction cartridges were expensive, and the cost burden was high. LLE operations required specific professional skills. PPT was advantageous in terms of simple operation and good extraction recovery. In our study, the effect of different protein precipitants on extraction efficiency was investigated. Blank rat plasma was used to prepare plasma samples containing 100 ng mL−1 hispidulin and homoplantaginin. Acetonitrile, methanol, 10% trichloroacetic acid, and methanol-acetonitrile (1:1, v/v) precipitants were also investigated. Methanol-acetonitrile (1:9, v/v) had the highest extraction efficiency, so it was used for further analyses.

Flavonoids were mainly absorbed after hydrolysis to aglycones by β-D-glucuronidases in gastrointestinal flora, with most flavonoid glycosides bio-transformed by intestinal bacteria, thereby enhancing metabolite biological activity, improving water solubility, and increasing bioavailability [19]. Lee et al. observed that hesperidin produced during intestinal flora metabolism displayed strong anti-allergic effects when compared with normal hesperidin which had no such effects [26]. Gong et al. administered the same quantity of baicalein and baicalin to rats, and observed that the relative bioavailability of baicalein was 200.9% that of baicalin, suggesting baicalin was more easily absorbed after hydrolysis to aglycone baicalein [27]. In our study, after hispidulin and homoplantaginin gavage, hispidulin levels were approximately 10 times higher than homoplantaginin, suggesting hispidulin adsorption was much better than homoplantaginin. Whether post-drug efficacy was enhanced remains unclear, therefore more research is required in this area.

Conclusion

We established a UPLC-MS/MS method to determine hispidulin and homoplantaginin in rat plasma. Accuracy, precision, selectivity, and linearity were all verified and acceptable. The method was applied to pharmacokinetics in rat plasma and showed that bioavailability of hispidulin was much higher than homoplantaginin.

Conflict of interest statement

The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Data availability statement

The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Ningbo Natural Science Foundation (202003N4265).

References

  • 1.

    Kim, J. K. ; Kim, W. J. ; Hyun, J. M. ; Lee, J. S. ; Kwon, J. G. ; Seo, C. ; Song, M. J. ; Choi, C. W. ; Hong, S. S. ; Park, K. ; Kim, P. ; Sung, H. ; Lee, J. K. ; Choi, Y. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 13351341.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Xu, J. ; Wang, M. ; Sun, X. ; Ren, Q. ; Cao, X. ; Li, S. ; Su, G. ; Tuerhong, M. ; Lee, D. ; Ohizumi, Y. ; Bartlam, M. ; Guo, Y. J. Nat. Prod. 2016, 79, 29242932.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Kim, M. H. ; Jung, K. ; Nam, K. H. ; Jang, H. J. ; Lee, S. W. ; Kim, Y. ; Park, C. S. ; Lee, T. H. ; Park, J. H. ; Choi, J. H. ; Rho, M. C. ; Oh, H. M. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2016, 39, 16711681.

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

    Jang, H. J. ; Oh, H. M. ; Hwang, J. T. ; Kim, M. H. ; Lee, S. ; Jung, K. ; Kim, Y. H. ; Lee, S. W. ; Rho, M. C. Phytochemistry 2016, 130, 335342.

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

    Ren, D. B. ; Qin, Y. H. ; Yun, Y. H. ; Lu, H. M. ; Chen, X. Q. ; Liang, Y. Z. J. Sep. Sci. 2014, 37, 21182125.

  • 6.

    Chen, L. ; Kang, Y. H. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 21902197.

  • 7.

    Cao, S. Y. ; Ke, Z. L. ; Xi, L. M. J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res. 2013, 15, 404407.

  • 8.

    Nhoek, P. ; Chae, H. S. ; Kim, Y. M. ; Pel, P. ; Huh, J. ; Kim, H. W. ; Choi, Y. H. ; Lee, K. ; Chin, Y. W. J. Nat. Prod. 2021, 84, 220229.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Kim, M. ; Kim, J. Y. ; Yang, H. S. ; Choe, J. S. ; Hwang, I. G. Antioxidants (Basel) 2021, 10.

  • 10.

    Dai, Y. ; Sun, X. ; Li, B. ; Ma, H. ; Wu, P. ; Zhang, Y. ; Zhu, M. ; Li, H. M. ; Qin, M. ; Wu, C.Z. Molecules 2021, 26.

  • 11.

    Shin, J. ; Kim, O. K. ; Kim, S. ; Bae, D. ; Lee, J. ; Park, J. ; Jun, W. Nutrients 2020, 12.

  • 12.

    Liang, Y. Y. ; Wan, X.H. ; Niu, F. J. ; Xie, S. M. ; Guo, H. ; Yang, Y. Y. ; Guo, L.Y. ; Zhou, C.Z. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 121, 109589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Jin, X. F. ; Lu, Y. H. ; Wei, D. Z. ; Wang, Z. T. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2008, 48, 100104.

  • 14.

    Jang, H. J. ; Lee, S. J. ; Kim, C. Y. ; Hwang, J. T. ; Choi, J. H. ; Park, J. H. ; Lee, S. W. ; Rho, M.C. Molecules 2017, 22.

  • 15.

    He, B. ; Zhang, B. ; Wu, F. ; Wang, L. ; Shi, X. ; Qin, W. ; Lin, Y. ; Ma, S. ; Liang, J. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2016, 67, 93101.

  • 16.

    Ashaq, A. ; Maqbool, M. F. ; Maryam, A. ; Khan, M. ; Shakir, H. A. ; Irfan, M. ; Qazi, J. I. ; Li, Y. ; Ma, T. Phytother Res. 2021, 35, 771789.

  • 17.

    Kang, J. ; Lee, S. ; Kim, N. ; Dhakal, H. ; Choi, Y. A. ; Kwon, T. K. ; Khang, D. ; Kim, S.H. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 137, 111359.

  • 18.

    Cong, Y. ; Wu, S. ; Han, J. ; Chen, J. ; Liu, H. ; Sun, Q. ; Wu, Y. ; Fang, Y. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2016, 129, 405409.

  • 19.

    Song, W. U. ; Shanshan, L. U. ; Wang, R. ; Cong, Y. ; Han, J. ; Fang, Y. ; Chen, J. Traditional Chin. Drug Res. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 26, 210213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Lin, Z. ; Lu, X. ; Yu, H. ; Jiang, H. ; Ma, J. ; Bao, S. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2020, 39, 22212225.

  • 21.

    Yao, Y. ; Wang, H. ; Ma, J. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2021, 40, 17271731.

  • 22.

    Ma, J. ; Wang, X. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2021, 195, 113894.

  • 23.

    Yang, J. ; Zeng, G. ; Ma, J. ; Wang, X. ; Zhou, Q. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2021, 2021, 6640184.

  • 24.

    Chen, H. ; Wang, H. ; Liu, H. ; Xu, X. ; Wen, C. ; Li, X. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2019, 38, 24282433.

  • 25.

    Li, F. ; Chen, Y. ; Liu, J. ; Jin, Y. ; Shao, L. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2019, 38, 21272130.

  • 26.

    Lee, N. K. ; Choi, S. H. ; Park, S. H. ; Park, E. K. ; Kim, D. H. Pharmacology 2004, 71, 174180.

  • 27.

    Gong, M. ; Yu, L. ; Chen, Q. ; Xie, B. ; Lu, W. Chin. Traditional Herbal Drugs 2009, 40, 392394.

  • 1.

    Kim, J. K. ; Kim, W. J. ; Hyun, J. M. ; Lee, J. S. ; Kwon, J. G. ; Seo, C. ; Song, M. J. ; Choi, C. W. ; Hong, S. S. ; Park, K. ; Kim, P. ; Sung, H. ; Lee, J. K. ; Choi, Y. Planta Med. 2017, 83, 13351341.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Xu, J. ; Wang, M. ; Sun, X. ; Ren, Q. ; Cao, X. ; Li, S. ; Su, G. ; Tuerhong, M. ; Lee, D. ; Ohizumi, Y. ; Bartlam, M. ; Guo, Y. J. Nat. Prod. 2016, 79, 29242932.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Kim, M. H. ; Jung, K. ; Nam, K. H. ; Jang, H. J. ; Lee, S. W. ; Kim, Y. ; Park, C. S. ; Lee, T. H. ; Park, J. H. ; Choi, J. H. ; Rho, M. C. ; Oh, H. M. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2016, 39, 16711681.

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

    Jang, H. J. ; Oh, H. M. ; Hwang, J. T. ; Kim, M. H. ; Lee, S. ; Jung, K. ; Kim, Y. H. ; Lee, S. W. ; Rho, M. C. Phytochemistry 2016, 130, 335342.

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

    Ren, D. B. ; Qin, Y. H. ; Yun, Y. H. ; Lu, H. M. ; Chen, X. Q. ; Liang, Y. Z. J. Sep. Sci. 2014, 37, 21182125.

  • 6.

    Chen, L. ; Kang, Y. H. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2014, 62, 21902197.

  • 7.

    Cao, S. Y. ; Ke, Z. L. ; Xi, L. M. J. Asian Nat. Prod. Res. 2013, 15, 404407.

  • 8.

    Nhoek, P. ; Chae, H. S. ; Kim, Y. M. ; Pel, P. ; Huh, J. ; Kim, H. W. ; Choi, Y. H. ; Lee, K. ; Chin, Y. W. J. Nat. Prod. 2021, 84, 220229.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Kim, M. ; Kim, J. Y. ; Yang, H. S. ; Choe, J. S. ; Hwang, I. G. Antioxidants (Basel) 2021, 10.

  • 10.

    Dai, Y. ; Sun, X. ; Li, B. ; Ma, H. ; Wu, P. ; Zhang, Y. ; Zhu, M. ; Li, H. M. ; Qin, M. ; Wu, C.Z. Molecules 2021, 26.

  • 11.

    Shin, J. ; Kim, O. K. ; Kim, S. ; Bae, D. ; Lee, J. ; Park, J. ; Jun, W. Nutrients 2020, 12.

  • 12.

    Liang, Y. Y. ; Wan, X.H. ; Niu, F. J. ; Xie, S. M. ; Guo, H. ; Yang, Y. Y. ; Guo, L.Y. ; Zhou, C.Z. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2020, 121, 109589.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Jin, X. F. ; Lu, Y. H. ; Wei, D. Z. ; Wang, Z. T. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2008, 48, 100104.

  • 14.

    Jang, H. J. ; Lee, S. J. ; Kim, C. Y. ; Hwang, J. T. ; Choi, J. H. ; Park, J. H. ; Lee, S. W. ; Rho, M.C. Molecules 2017, 22.

  • 15.

    He, B. ; Zhang, B. ; Wu, F. ; Wang, L. ; Shi, X. ; Qin, W. ; Lin, Y. ; Ma, S. ; Liang, J. J. Cardiovasc. Pharmacol. 2016, 67, 93101.

  • 16.

    Ashaq, A. ; Maqbool, M. F. ; Maryam, A. ; Khan, M. ; Shakir, H. A. ; Irfan, M. ; Qazi, J. I. ; Li, Y. ; Ma, T. Phytother Res. 2021, 35, 771789.

  • 17.

    Kang, J. ; Lee, S. ; Kim, N. ; Dhakal, H. ; Choi, Y. A. ; Kwon, T. K. ; Khang, D. ; Kim, S.H. Biomed. Pharmacother. 2021, 137, 111359.

  • 18.

    Cong, Y. ; Wu, S. ; Han, J. ; Chen, J. ; Liu, H. ; Sun, Q. ; Wu, Y. ; Fang, Y. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2016, 129, 405409.

  • 19.

    Song, W. U. ; Shanshan, L. U. ; Wang, R. ; Cong, Y. ; Han, J. ; Fang, Y. ; Chen, J. Traditional Chin. Drug Res. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 26, 210213.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Lin, Z. ; Lu, X. ; Yu, H. ; Jiang, H. ; Ma, J. ; Bao, S. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2020, 39, 22212225.

  • 21.

    Yao, Y. ; Wang, H. ; Ma, J. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2021, 40, 17271731.

  • 22.

    Ma, J. ; Wang, X. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2021, 195, 113894.

  • 23.

    Yang, J. ; Zeng, G. ; Ma, J. ; Wang, X. ; Zhou, Q. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2021, 2021, 6640184.

  • 24.

    Chen, H. ; Wang, H. ; Liu, H. ; Xu, X. ; Wen, C. ; Li, X. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2019, 38, 24282433.

  • 25.

    Li, F. ; Chen, Y. ; Liu, J. ; Jin, Y. ; Shao, L. Latin Am. J. Pharm. 2019, 38, 21272130.

  • 26.

    Lee, N. K. ; Choi, S. H. ; Park, S. H. ; Park, E. K. ; Kim, D. H. Pharmacology 2004, 71, 174180.

  • 27.

    Gong, M. ; Yu, L. ; Chen, Q. ; Xie, B. ; Lu, W. Chin. Traditional Herbal Drugs 2009, 40, 392394.

  • 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 12 2
Oct 2022 0 95 33
Nov 2022 0 26 15
Dec 2022 0 0 0