Simultaneous Determination of Fourteen Marker Compounds in the Traditional Herbal Prescription, Geumgwesingihwan, Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry
1
KM Science Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon 34054, Korea
2
KM Convergence Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon 34054, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Molecules 2022, 27(12), 3890; https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27123890
Submission received: 3 June 2022
/
Revised: 15 June 2022
/
Accepted: 15 June 2022
/
Published: 17 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Recent Advances in Bioactive Compounds from Medicinal Herbs)
Abstract
:Geumgwesingihwan (GSH) is a traditional herbal prescription composed of eight medicinal herbs: Rehmannia glutinosa (Gaertn.) DC., Dioscorea japonica Thunb., Cornus officinalis Siebold and Zucc., Poria cocos Wolf, Paeonia suffruticosa Andrews, Alisma plantago-aquatica subsp. orientale (Sam.) Sam., Achyranthes bidentate Blume, and Plantago asiatica L. This study developed and validated an ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC–MS/MS) method in the multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) mode for simultaneous determination of 14 compounds (allantoin, gallic acid, 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural, geniposidic acid, oxypaeoniflorin, loganin, geniposide, paeoniflorin, ecdysterone, verbascoside, cornuside, benzoylpaeoniflorin, paeonol, and alisol B acetate) in GSH. The chromatographic separation of all marker analytes was carried out on an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column (100 mm × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm) using gradient elution of a mobile phase of distilled water–acetonitrile containing 0.1% acetic acid. The newly established UPLC–MS/MS MRM method was validated by evaluating the linearity, the limits of detection and quantification, recovery, and precision. All markers were detected at concentrations of 6.94–4126.28 mg/kg. In addition, the recovery was 76.65–119.49% and the relative standard deviation value of the precision was 0.19–9.91%. The newly developed and validated UPLC–MS/MS assay will provide useful information for quality assessment of GSH.
1. Introduction
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), traditional Korean medicine (TKM), and Kampo medicine (KM) prescriptions are a complex composed of two or more herbal medicines. They have been widely manufactured and administered in Asian countries such as China, Korea, and Japan for the treatment of various diseases or health maintenance and promotion because of the multitarget feature by multicomponents [1].
Geumgwesingihwan (GSH) has been used for the treatment of edema [2]. GSH is recorded in “Bangyakhappyeon”, a medical book written by Hwang during the Joseon Dynasty, and consists of eight herbal medicines: Rehmannia glutinosa (Gaertn.) DC., Dioscorea japonica Thunb., Cornus officinalis Siebold and Zucc., Poria cocos Wolf, Paeonia suffruticosa Andrews, Alisma plantago-aquatica subsp. orientale (Sam.) Sam., Achyranthes bidentate Blume, and Plantago asiatica L. [2].
For the quality control of TCMs, TKMs, and KMs composed of several herbal medicines, it is by no means easy to analyze the numerous components contained in them at the same time. Nevertheless, many studies have been conducted to achieve standardization of raw materials using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled with an ultraviolet detector, evaporative light scattering detector, photodiode array detector, gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS), and liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC–MS/MS) methods [3,4,5,6,7]. Most of these methods took a long time to analyze, targeted specific components, or focused on qualitative analysis. In addition, simultaneous analysis studies on each herbal medicine constituting GSH were also reported using various analytical equipment such as HPLC and LC–MS [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. However, an assay for quality control of GSH has not been reported.
Therefore, in this study, 14 marker components—allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14)—in GSH were analyzed simultaneously using ultra-performance liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry (UPLC–MS/MS).
2. Results and Discussion
2.1. Selection of Marker Components for Simultaneous Analysis Using UPLC–MS/MS
We performed a profiling analysis using an UPLC–MS/MS multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) method on the following components to determine the marker analytes for quality control of GSH: 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural from R. glutinosa; allantoin and dioscin from D. japonica; gallic acid, loganin, morroniside, sweroside, cornin, and cornuside from C. officinalis; pachymic acid and polyporenic acid C from P. cocos; paeonol, paeoniflorin, benzoic acid, oxypaeoniflorin, and benzoylpaeoniflorin from P. suffruticosa; alisol B and alisol B acetate from A. orientale; ecdysterone from A. bidentate; and geniposide, geniposidic acid, and verbascoside from P. asiatica [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18]. We attempted to detect a total of 21 components selected from each constituent herbal medicine of GSH in the sample. Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials shows the UPLC–MS/MS MRM chromatograms of these marker candidates in the positive and negative ion modes, and only 14 components were detected in the GSH sample. Therefore, we selected these 14 detected components as marker analytes for quality control of GSH.
2.2. Optimization of UPLC Operation Conditions and UPLC–MS/MS MRM Parameters for Simultaneous Analysis
Compounds 1–14 were isolated and eluted from all markers within 20 min on an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 reversed-phase column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 µm; Waters, Milford, MA, USA) maintained at 40 °C and gradient elution of a mobile phase system of distilled water–acetonitrile (both containing 0.1% acetic acid) (Table S1). UPLC–MS/MS MRM conditions for simultaneous quantification of 14 marker analytes selected for the quality evaluation of GSH were explored. For quantification of the product ion (Q3) from the precursor ion (Q1) of each marker under the optimized MRM conditions of the markers, the MRM peak data were acquired for approximately 0.5 min at the retention time of each marker, and detailed parameters are presented in Table 1. Figure 1 shows the UPLC–MS/MS MRM chromatograms obtained in the positive and negative ion modes by applying optimized analysis conditions. The blank chromatogram of each analyte is shown in Figure S2.
2.3. Identification of Each Marker Analyte for UPLC–MS/MS MRM Quantification
MRM conditions were applied for simultaneous analysis of compounds 1–14 in GSH samples using UPLC–MS/MS. Compounds 1, 3, 6, 9–11, 13, and 14 were detected at 0.79, 2.19, 4.17, 5.25, 5.32, 5.92, 8.98, and 15.53 min at m/z 158.9, 126.9, 391.1, 481.2, 625.1, 543.1, 166.9, and 515.3 in the positive ion mode, respectively. The remaining six components, compounds 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 12, were detected at 1.47, 2.48, 3.53, 4.20, 4.76, and 7.99 min at m/z 169.0, 373.0, 495.0, 446.9, 478.9, and 583.0 in the negative ion mode, respectively. As shown in Table 1, Q1/Q3 peaks were set for each marker analyte for UPLC–MS/MS MRM simultaneous analysis. The Q3 peaks of compounds 1 and 2 were set to m/z 115.9 and 125.0 in the form of [M + H − CONH2]+ and [M − H − COO−]− in which CONH2 and COO− were lost from the Q1 peaks, respectively [19,20]. The Q3 ion peaks of compounds 3 and 9 were detected at m/z 109.0 ([M + H − H2O]+) and 445.1 ([M + H − 2H2O]+), respectively [21,22]. The Q3 peak of compound 4 was set at m/z 122.9 ([M − H − Glu−H2O]−) by Retro-Diels–Alder cleavage [23]. The Q3 ion peak of compound 5 was set at m/z 136.9 ([M − H − CH2O − (p-hydroxybenzoic acid) − Glu − CO]−) [24]. For compounds 6 and 7 of the iridoid series, Q1 peaks were detected at m/z 391.1 and 446.9 in the form of [M + H]+ and [M − H + CH3OO]−, respectively. There was an aglycone in which the glucose group was lost, and the Q3 peaks were detected at m/z 228.9 ([M + H − Glu]+) and 224.9 ([M − H − Glu]−), respectively [23,25]. The Q3 peaks for compounds 8 and 12 were set at m/z 448.9 ([M − H − CHOH]−) and 553.0 ([M − H − CHOH]−) with 30 Da (CHOH) removed, respectively [20]. The Q3 peaks for compounds 10, 13, and 14 were detected at m/z 163.0, 42.9, and 97.0 from which C20H29O12, C7H7O2, and C26H40O4 were eliminated, respectively [26,27]. In compound 11, the Q3 peak was detected at m/z 211.0 ([M + H − Glu − trihydroxybenzoic acid]+) from which glucose and trihydroxybenzoic acid groups were eliminated from the Q1 peak of m/z 543.1 in the form of [M + H]+ [28]. The Q1/Q3 mass spectra of 14 marker components are presented in Figure S3.
2.4. Method Validation of the Developed UPLC–MS/MS MRM Assay
The appropriateness of the UPLC–MS/MS MRM simultaneous analysis method developed for efficient quality control of GSH was validated by evaluating the linearity, limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantification (LOQ), recovery, and precision. In the newly developed analysis method, the linearity was evaluated by the coefficient of determination (r2) using the calibration curve of each marker analyte, and compounds 1–14 showed good linearity, with r2 ≥ 0.9905 and residuals < 10.0% (Table 2 and Figure S4). In addition, the LOD and LOQ values were calculated as 0.01–5.13 µg/L and 0.02–15.40 µg/L, respectively. Detailed results of each marker analyte are shown in Table 2. The LOD chromatogram is shown in Figure S5. The recoveries (%) of compounds 1–14 performed at three different concentrations were measured as 76.65–119.64% (Table 3). Table 4 and Table S2 show the validation values of repeatability and intra- and inter-day precision, which were evaluated using the coefficient of variation (CV, %). The CV values of the repeatability for the retention times of compounds 1–14 were 0.03–1.57% (Table S2) and intra- and inter-day precision showed CV values of <10.0% (Table 4). All validation parameters such as the linearity, LOD, LOQ, recovery, and precision showed good results, suggesting that the UPLC–MS/MS analysis method used for the simultaneous analysis of GSH in this study was properly developed.
2.5. Quantification of Compounds 1–14 in GSH Samples by UPLC–MS/MS MRM Assay
The newly developed UPLC–MS/MS method in this study was successfully applied to the quantitative analysis of compounds 1–14 in GSH samples. All marker analytes were completely eluted within 16 min in the positive and negative ion modes of the electrospray ionization source using the highly accurate and sensitive UPLC–MS/MS MRM analytical method (Table 1, Figure 1 and Figure S6). Compounds 1–14 were detected at concentrations of 6.94–4126.86 mg/kg, and among them, compounds 1–3, 6, 8, and 13 were contained in relatively large amounts in GSH samples compared with other marker analytes (Table 5).
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Plant Materials
As shown in Table S3, eight medicinal herbs constituting GSH were purchased from Kwangmyungdang Pharmaceutical (Ulsan, Korea) in November 2017. Each raw medicinal herb was morphologically identified according to the guideline “The Dispensatory on the Visual and Organoleptic Examination of Herbal Medicine” by Dr. Goya Choi, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (KIOM, Daejeon, Korea) [29]. Specimens (2018CA04–1 to 2018CA04–8) of each raw material have been deposited at the KM Science Research Division, KIOM.
3.2. Chemicals and Reagents
Fourteen reference standard components (compounds 1–14, Figure S7), which are marker analytes used for quality evaluation of GSH samples, were purchased from companies that specialize in standard compounds: compounds 1 (allantoin, 99.7%, Catalog No. 5670), 2 (gallic acid, 100.0%, Catalog No. G7384), 3 (5-(hydroxymethyl)-furfural, ≥99.9%, Catalog No. W501808), and 13 (paeonol, 99.9%, Catalog No. H35803) from Merck KgaA (Darmstadt, Germany); compounds 4 (geniposidic acid, ≥98.0%, Catalog No. 078-05841), 6 (loganin, 98.0%, Catalog No. 125-03621), 7 (geniposide, ≥98.0%, Catalog No. 073-05891), and 14 (alisol B acetate, 99.1%, Catalog No. 018-13231) from Fujifilm Wako Pure Chemical Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan); compounds 5 (oxypaeoniflorin, ≥98.0%, Catalog No. DR10581), 8 (paeoniflorin, 99.4%, Catalog No.DR10579), 11 (cornuside, 98.7%, Catalog No.DR10598), and 12 (benzoylpaeoniflorin, ≥98.0%, Catalog No. DR10582) from Shanghai Sunny Biotech Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China); and compounds 9 (ecdysterone, 98.1%, Catalog No. BP0262) and 10 (verbascoside, 99.7%, Catalog No. BP0124) from Biopurify Phytochemicals (Chengdu, China). HPLC-grade solvents, methanol and acetonitrile, were purchased from J.T. Baker Chemical Co (Phillipsburg, NJ, USA). Water was purified at 18.2 MΩ using an EXL®5 ultra water system (Vivagen Co., Ltd., Seongnam, Korea). Glacial acetic acid (≥100.0%, ACS reagent-grade) was purchased from Merck KgaA (Darmstadt, Germany).
3.3. Preparation of GSH Water Extract
GSH water extract (GSH–1) was prepared in KIOM according to the sample preparation protocol of a previously reported study [30,31]. Briefly, after mixing the eight herbal medicines based on the weight presented in Table S3, 50 L of water was added and extracted at 100 °C for 2 h. To obtain a powder sample, the extract was freeze-dried (GSH–1: 1355.6 g; yield: 27.1%). The prepared sample was refrigerated until use. Another water extract of GSH (GSH–2) was provided by the College of Oriental Medicine, Wonkwang University.
3.4. Preparation of Sample Solutions and Standard Solutions for UPLC–MS/MS MRM Analysis
Sample solutions for UPLC–MS/MS MRM analysis of compounds 1–14 in GSH samples were prepared at concentrations of 142.0 mg/100 mL (GSH–1) and 133.0 mg/100 mL (GSH–2) using 50% methanol as solvent. Compound 3 was used for quantitation by diluting the prepared sample solution 10-fold.
Standard solutions of each reference standard compound were prepared at the following concentrations using methanol as the solvent: compounds 1 and 8 (2600 µg/mL), compounds 2 and 3 (3600 µg/mL), compound 4 (3500 µg/mL), compound 5 (3700 µg/mL), compound 6 (2800 µg/mL), compounds 7, 11, and 12 (3000 µg/mL), compound 9 (2800 µg/mL), compound 10 (2300 µg/mL), compound 13 (5300 µg/mL), and compound 14 (3200 µg/mL) and diluted before use while refrigerated.
These prepared solutions were filtered through a 0.22 µm membrane filter (Pall Life Sciences, Ann Arbor, MI, USA) before UPLC–MS/MS analysis.
3.5. UPLC–MS/MS MRM Analysis Conditions for Simultaneous Determination of the 14 Marker Analytes in GSH
UPLC–MS/MS MRM analysis for quantitative analysis of compounds 1–14 was applied to GSH samples by modifying the previously reported analysis protocol [31]. Briefly, a Waters Acquity UPLC H-Class (Milford, MA, USA) coupled with Xevo TQ-S micro MS system (Milford, MA, USA) was used, which was data accumulated and controlled using MassLynx (version 4.2; Milford, MA, USA). Compounds 1–14 were separated and quantified using an Acquity UPLC BEH C18 column (2.1 mm × 100 mm, 1.7 µm; Milford, MA, USA) and gradient elution of a distilled water–acetonitrile mobile phase system both containing 0.1% (v/v) acetic acid. Detailed operating parameters of the equipment are shown in Table S1, and the MRM analysis conditions of each marker analyte for simultaneous analysis are summarized in Table 1.
3.6. Method Validation of the Established UPLC–MS/MS MRM Assay for Quality Control of GSH
Various factors such as the linearity, LOD, LOQ, recovery, and precision were investigated based on the guidelines to develop a simultaneous UPLC–MS/MS analysis method for compounds 1–14 in GSH samples and to validate the analysis method [32]. The linearity was validated by the r2 value of the calibration curve prepared in the linearity range of each marker analyte shown in Table 2, and ≥0.99 was set as an appropriate range. At the same time, the LOD and LOQ values were calculated using the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N): LOD = 3 × S/N and LOQ = LOD × 3. Next, the recovery was evaluated using the standard addition method. That is, extraction and analysis were conducted by adding three different concentrations (low, medium, and high) of each known marker analyte to the GSH sample, and the recovery was calculated: recovery (%) = (found amount/spiked amount) × 100. The repeatability was measured six times using a standard solution, and then the CV value for the retention time of each marker analyte was evaluated. In addition, intra- and inter-day precisions were assessed using the CV values of compounds 1–14 measured for one day and three consecutive days, respectively.
4. Conclusions
In the present study, a highly accurate and sensitive UPLC–MS/MS system was firstly developed for simultaneous analysis of compounds 1–14 and to use it as basic data for quality control of a traditional herbal prescription, GSH. The newly UPLC–MS/MS MRM analytical method was developed satisfactorily, and the developed assay was validated by examining the linearity, LOD, LOQ, recovery, and precision. Furthermore, this method will be used as basic data for setting up a method for evaluating the quality of other TCMs, TKMs, and KMs prescriptions as well as GSH.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/molecules27123890/s1, Figure S1: Total ion chromatograms of the 21 investigated standard component mixtures (A) and GSH sample (B) obtained using the UPLC–MS/MS MRM method in the positive and negative ion modes. Allantoin (a), gallic acid (b), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (c), geniposidic acid (d), morroniside (e), oxypaeoniflorin (f), loganin (g), geniposide (h), paeoniflorin (i), ecdysterone (j), verbascoside (k), cornuside (l), benzoic acid (m), benzoylpaeoniflorin (n), paeonol (o), dioscin (p), polyporenic acid C (q), sweroside (r), alisol B (s), alisol B acetate (t), and pachymic acid (u). Figure S2: Extracted ion chromatograms for blank of each marker compound. Figure S3: Q1 (A) and Q3 (B) mass spectra of 14 marker components. Allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14). Figure S4: Calibration curves and residuals of 14 marker components. A; allantoin, B; gallic acid, C; 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural, D; geniposidic acid, E; oxypaeoniflorin, F; loganin, G; geniposide, H; paeoniflorin, I; ecdysterone, J; verbascoside, K; cornuside, L; benzoylpaeoniflorin, M; paeonol, and N; alisol B acetate. Figure S5: Total ion chromatogram of LOD using the UPLC–MS/MS MRM method in the positive and negative ion modes. Figure S6: Extracted ion chromatograms of each marker compound (A) and GSH sample (B) using the UPLC–MS/MS MRM method in the positive and negative ion modes. Figure S7: Chemical structures of the 14 marker components in GSH. Table S1: UPLC–MS/MS conditions for simultaneous analysis of the 14 marker components in GSH samples. Table S2: Repeatability of retention time of the 14 marker analytes in the developed UPLC–MS/MS MRM assay (n = 6). Table S3: Composition of GSH.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, C.-S.S. and M.-Y.L.; performing experiments and analyzing data, C.-S.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.-S.S.; funding acquisition, M.-Y.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study was supported from the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (No. KSN2021220 and KSN2022220).
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
All data are available in this article.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
Sample Availability
Samples of the compounds are available from the authors.
References
- Mao, Q.; Xu, J.; Kong, M.; Shen, H.; Zhu, H.; Zhou, S.; Ki, S. LC–MS-based metabolomics in traditional Chinese medicines research: Personal experiences. Chin. Herb. Med. 2017, 9, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, D.Y. Bangyakhappyeon; Yeokang Publishing Co.: Seoul, Korea, 1993; p. 112. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.; Wu, C.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, S.; Gao, X. Baihe Zhimu formula attenuates the efficacy of tamoxifen against breast cancer in mice through modulation of CYP450 enzyme. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2019, 19, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kim, Y.J.; Jeong, S.J.; Seo, C.S.; Lim, H.S.; Sohn, E.; Yon, J.; Kim, B.Y. Simultaneous determination of the traditional herbal formula Ukgansan and the in vitro antioxidant activity of ferulic acid as an active compound. Molecules 2018, 23, 1659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Shu, Y.; Chem, Y.; Qin, K.; Liu, X.; Cai, B. A study on the chemical compositions of the Yinquaosan (Lonicerae and Forsythiae powder) at different time of later-decoction by gas chromatography mass spectrometry. Pharmacogn. Mag. 2016, 12, 134–138. [Google Scholar]
- Shaw, L.H.; Chem, W.M.; Tsai, T.H. Identification of multiple ingredients for a traditional Chinese medicine preparation (Bu-yang-huan-wu-tang) by liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry. Molecules 2013, 18, 11281–11298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, L.; Shang, Z.; Tian, Y.; Xiong, M.; Nijat, D.; Wang, Y.; Qiao, X.; Ye, M. Chemical variations among Shengmaisan-based TCM patent drugs by ultra-high performance liquid chromatography coupled with hybrid quadrupole orbitrap mass spectrometry. Molecules 2021, 26, 4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Won, T.H.; Liao, L.; Kang, S.S.; Shin, J. Simultaneous analysis of furfural metabolites from Rehmanniae radix preparata by HPLC–DAD–ESI–MS. Food Chem. 2014, 142, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, C.S.; Huang, D.S.; Lee, J.K.; Ha, H.K.; Kim, H.K.; Seo, Y.B.; Shin, H.K. Quantitative determination of the marker constituent of Dioscoreae Rhizoma by the packaging methods. Kor. J. Herbol. 2008, 23, 45–49. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, Y.; Chen, H.; Wang, L.; Zou, J.; Zheng, X.; Liu, Z. Quality evaluation of polar and active components in crude and processed Fucutus Corni by quantitative analysis of multicomponents with single marker. J. Anal. Methods Chem. 2016, 2016, 6496840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wu, L.F.; Wang, K.F.; Mao, X.; Liang, W.Y.; Chen, W.J.; Li, S.; Qi, Q.; Cui, Y.P.; Zhang, L.Z. Screening and analysis of the potential bioactive components of Poria cocos (Schw.) Wolf by HPLC and HPLC–MSn with the aid of chemometrics. Molecules 2016, 21, 227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Xiao, C.; Wu, M.; Chen, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhao, X.; Zheng, X. Revealing metabolomic variations in Cortex Moutan from different root parts using HPLC–MS method. Phytochem. Anal. 2015, 26, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, Y.W.; Li, Q.; Lv, C.X.; Liu, X.J.; Chen, X.H.; Bi, K.S. Simultaneous determination of four active components in Alisma orientale (Sam.) Juz. by HPLC–DAD using a single reference standard. J. Pharm. Anal. 2015, 5, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Zhao, B.T.; Jeong, S.Y.; Moon, D.C.; Son, K.H.; Son, J.K.; Woo, M.H. High performance liquid chromatography used for quality control of Achyranthis Radix. Arch. Pharm. Res. 2012, 35, 1449–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, D.; Qi, M.; Yang, Q.; Tong, R.; Wang, R.; Bligh, S.W.A.; Yang, L.; Wang, Z. Comprehensive metabolite profiling of Plantaginis Semen using ultra high performance liquid chromatography with electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry coupled with elevated energy technique. J. Sep. Sci. 2016, 39, 1842–1852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nam, D.H.; Son, K.H.; Kim, J.Y.; Kim, S.D.; Lim, S.K. Quantitative determination of dioscin from Dioscorea Rhizoma. Kor. J. Pharmacogn. 2006, 37, 33–36. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Lee, S.; Baek, J.Y.; Seo, C.S.; Yun, H.; Kim, S.N.; Kang, K.S.; Choi, Y.K. Estrogenic activity of ethyl gallate and its potential use in hormone replacement therapy. Bioorg. Med. Chem. Lett. 2021, 40, 127919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, B.H.; Park, K.S.; Chang, I.M. Elucidation of anti-inflammatory potencies of Eucommia ulmoides bark and Plantago asiatica seeds. J. Med. Food 2009, 12, 764–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Turner, R.; Stamp, L.K.; Kettle, A.J. Detection of allantoin in clinical samples using hydrophilic liquid chromatography with stable isotope dilution negative ion tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B Analyt. Technol. Biomed. Life Sci. 2012, 891–892, 85–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jiang, M.; Zhou, M.; Han, Y.; Xing, L.; Zhao, H.; Dong, L.; Bai, G.; Luo, G. Identification of NF-κB inhibitors in Xuebijing injection for sepsis treatment based on bioactivity-integrated UPLC-Q/TOF. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2013, 147, 426–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, J.; Zhang, X.; Dai, W.; Yan, S.; Huang, H.; Liang, X.; Li, Y.; Zhang, W. Chemical fingerprinting of Liuwei Dihuang Pill and simultaneous determination of its major bioactive constituents by HPLC coupled with multiple detections of DAD, ELSD and ESI-MS. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2009, 49, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bajpai, W.; Singh, A.; Chandra, P.; Negi, M.P.S.; Kumar, N.; Kumar, B. Analysis of phytochemical variations in dioecious Tinospora cordifolia stems using HPLC/QTOF MS/MS and UPLC/QqQLIT-MS/MS. Phytochem. Anal. 2016, 27, 92–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Peng, M.; Zhang, Y.; Shi, S.; Peng, S. Simultaneous ligand fishing and identification of human serum albumin binders from Eucommia ulmoides bark using surface plasmon resonance-high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. B 2013, 940, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- He, Q.; Hu, X.J.; Cheng, Y.Y. Analysis of ‘SHUANGDAN’ granules by high-performance liquid chromatography-diode array detection-electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2006, 41, 485–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Fan, P.C.; Li, M.X.; Ma, H.P.; Jing, L.; Qiu, J.; Jia, Z.P. Simultaneous determination of four shanzhiside methylester derivatives in rabbit plasma by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2012, 26, 1543–1551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Li, Y.; Gan, L.; Li, G.Q.; Deng, L.; Zhang, X.; Deng, Y. Pharmacokinetics of plantamajoside and acteoside from Plantago asiatica in rats by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2014, 89, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ding, L.Q.; Qiu, T.Y.; Liu, Z.X.; Chen, L.X.; Oppong, M.B.; Zhang, D.Q.; Zhang, B.; Bai, G.; Qiu, F. Systematic characterization of the metabolites of paeonol in rats using ultra performance liquid chromatography coupled with electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight tandem mass spectrometry with an integrative strategy. J. Chromatogr. B 2017, 1065–1066, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bujor, A.; Miron, A.; Luca, S.V.; Skalicka-Wozniak, K.; Silion, M.; Ancuceanu, R.; Dinu, M.; Girard, C.; Demougeot, C.; Totoson, P. Metabolite profiling, arginase inhibition and vasorelaxant activity of Cornus mas, Sorbus aucuparia and Viburnum opulus fruit extracts. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2019, 133, 110764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, K.H. The Dispensatory on the Visual and Organoleptic Examination of Herbal Medicine; National Institute of Food and Drug Safety Evaluation: Seoul, Korea, 2013; pp. 211–636. [Google Scholar]
- Seo, C.S.; Lee, M.Y. Simultaneous quantification of eight marker components in traditional herbal formula, Haepyoyijin-tang using HPLC–PDA. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 3888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Seo, C.S.; Lee, M.Y. Quality assessment of Insamyangpye decoction by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry multiple reaction monitoring. Processes 2021, 9, 831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Conference on Harmonization. Guidance for Industry: Q2B Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology; Food and Drug Administration: Rockville, MD, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1.
UPLC–MS/MS MRM chromatograms of the standard solution (A) and GSH sample (B). Allantoin (1, 10.77 µg/L), gallic acid (2, 200.00 µg/L), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3, 65.56 µg/L), geniposidic acid (4, 6.86 µg/L), oxypaeoniflorin (5, 7.57 µg/L), loganin (6, 22.86 µg/L), geniposide (7, 8.00 µg/L), paeoniflorin (8, 43.08 µg/L), ecdysterone (9, 6.43 µg/L), verbascoside (10, 3.83 µg/L), cornuside (11, 4.00 µg/L), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12, 8.00 µg/L), paeonol (13, 30.19 µg/L), and alisol B acetate (14, 1.50 µg/L).
Figure 1.
UPLC–MS/MS MRM chromatograms of the standard solution (A) and GSH sample (B). Allantoin (1, 10.77 µg/L), gallic acid (2, 200.00 µg/L), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3, 65.56 µg/L), geniposidic acid (4, 6.86 µg/L), oxypaeoniflorin (5, 7.57 µg/L), loganin (6, 22.86 µg/L), geniposide (7, 8.00 µg/L), paeoniflorin (8, 43.08 µg/L), ecdysterone (9, 6.43 µg/L), verbascoside (10, 3.83 µg/L), cornuside (11, 4.00 µg/L), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12, 8.00 µg/L), paeonol (13, 30.19 µg/L), and alisol B acetate (14, 1.50 µg/L).
Table 1.
MRM parameters of each marker analyte for UPLC–MS/MS analysis.
| Analyte | Ion Mode | Exact Mass (Da) | Precursor Ion (Q1, m/z) | Product Ion (Q3, m/z) | Cone Voltage (V) | Collision Energy (eV) | Retention Time (min) | Time Window (min) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | + | 158.04 | 158.9 | 115.9 | 14 | 5 | 0.79 | 0.30–1.30 |
| 2 | − | 170.02 | 169.0 | 125.0 | 40 | 13 | 1.47 | 1.00–2.00 |
| 3 | + | 126.03 | 126.9 | 109.0 | 25 | 8 | 2.19 | 1.80–2.80 |
| 4 | − | 374.12 | 373.0 | 122.9 | 50 | 15 | 2.48 | 2.00–3.00 |
| 5 | − | 496.16 | 495.0 | 136.9 | 70 | 36 | 3.53 | 3.10–4.10 |
| 6 | + | 390.15 | 391.1 | 228.9 | 12 | 8 | 4.17 | 3.70–4.70 |
| 7 | − | 388.14 | 446.9 | 224.9 | 26 | 12 | 4.20 | 3.80–4.80 |
| 8 | − | 480.16 | 478.9 | 448.9 | 60 | 5 | 4.76 | 4.30–5.30 |
| 9 | + | 480.31 | 481.2 | 445.1 | 24 | 12 | 5.25 | 4.80–5.80 |
| 10 | + | 624.21 | 625.1 | 163.0 | 16 | 28 | 5.32 | 4.90–5.90 |
| 11 | + | 542.16 | 543.1 | 211.0 | 16 | 14 | 5.92 | 5.50–6.50 |
| 12 | − | 584.19 | 583.0 | 553.0 | 70 | 5 | 7.99 | 7.58–8.58 |
| 13 | + | 166.06 | 166.9 | 42.9 | 16 | 16 | 8.98 | 8.60–8.60 |
| 14 | + | 514.37 | 515.3 | 97.0 | 16 | 20 | 15.53 | 15.10–16.10 |
Table 2.
Linear range, regression equation, r2, LOD, and LOQ of each marker analyte for UPLC–MS/MS MRM analysis (n = 3).
Table 2.
Linear range, regression equation, r2, LOD, and LOQ of each marker analyte for UPLC–MS/MS MRM analysis (n = 3).
| Analyte | Linear Range (µg/L) | Regression Equation a y = ax + b | r2 | LOD (µg/L) | LOQ (µg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 35.00–1400.00 | y = 197.40x + 715.28 | 0.9977 | 0.03 | 0.10 |
| 2 | 900.00–36,000.00 | y = 16.10x − 5046.77 | 0.9968 | 3.07 | 9.22 |
| 3 | 29.50–1180.00 | y = 688.83x + 12805.60 | 0.9925 | 5.13 | 15.40 |
| 4 | 30.00–1200.00 | y = 32.67x − 209.54 | 0.9997 | 0.01 | 0.03 |
| 5 | 35.00–1400.00 | y = 47.69x − 716.09 | 0.9979 | 0.65 | 1.95 |
| 6 | 80.00–3200.00 | y = 15.21x − 472.66 | 0.9962 | 2.63 | 7.88 |
| 7 | 3.00–120.00 | y = 117.72x − 220.62 | 0.9988 | 0.27 | 0.81 |
| 8 | 140.00–5600.00 | y = 17.49x − 260.54 | 0.9976 | 1.06 | 3.18 |
| 9 | 22.50–900.00 | y = 207.44x + 2194.41 | 0.9954 | 0.10 | 0.31 |
| 10 | 11.00–440.00 | y = 55.33x − 247.39 | 0.9992 | 0.26 | 0.79 |
| 11 | 15.00–600.00 | y = 97.19x − 310.13 | 0.9993 | 0.18 | 0.53 |
| 12 | 30.00–1200.00 | y = 19.28x − 61.53 | 0.9996 | 0.29 | 0.88 |
| 13 | 200.00–8000.00 | y = 777.86x − 987.75 | 0.9983 | 0.01 | 0.02 |
| 14 | 0.60–24.00 | y = 249.82x + 15.06 | 0.9905 | 0.18 | 0.54 |
ay and x represent the respective peak areas at different concentrations (µg/L) of each reference standard compound. Allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14).
Table 3.
Recovery (%) test of 14 markers using the UPLC–MS/MS MRM method.
| Analyte | Spiked Amount (µg/L) | Found Amount (µg/L) | Recovery (%) a | SD | CV (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 733.35 | 674.53 | 91.98 | 5.11 | 0.76 |
| 883.35 | 808.81 | 91.56 | 17.10 | 2.11 | |
| 1033.35 | 941.72 | 91.13 | 27.21 | 2.89 | |
| 2 | 11,206.90 | 13,407.94 | 119.64 | 196.05 | 1.46 |
| 21,206.90 | 23,164.32 | 109.23 | 74.13 | 0.32 | |
| 31,206.90 | 32,056.30 | 102.72 | 80.22 | 0.25 | |
| 3 | 504.65 | 451.45 | 89.46 | 24.17 | 5.35 |
| 799.65 | 932.21 | 116.58 | 45.37 | 4.87 | |
| 1094.65 | 1279.31 | 116.87 | 41.54 | 3.25 | |
| 4 | 471.05 | 514.32 | 109.19 | 8.33 | 1.62 |
| 771.05 | 815.69 | 105.79 | 34.82 | 4.27 | |
| 1071.05 | 1140.28 | 106.46 | 12.50 | 1.10 | |
| 5 | 703.75 | 760.04 | 108.00 | 9.89 | 1.30 |
| 1053.75 | 1171.82 | 111.21 | 17.59 | 1.50 | |
| 1403.75 | 1622.10 | 115.56 | 28.16 | 1.74 | |
| 6 | 1634.27 | 1712.97 | 104.82 | 22.09 | 1.29 |
| 2434.27 | 2517.14 | 103.40 | 102.05 | 4.05 | |
| 3234.27 | 3402.03 | 105.19 | 130.06 | 3.82 | |
| 7 | 79.57 | 79.23 | 99.58 | 0.68 | 0.86 |
| 119.57 | 119.56 | 99.99 | 4.52 | 3.78 | |
| 159.57 | 164.90 | 103.34 | 0.48 | 0.29 | |
| 8 | 2813.95 | 3274.32 | 116.36 | 45.32 | 1.38 |
| 4213.95 | 4667.37 | 110.76 | 110.34 | 2.36 | |
| 5613.95 | 5962.55 | 106.21 | 171.33 | 2.87 | |
| 9 | 263.27 | 282.25 | 107.21 | 8.34 | 2.95 |
| 488.27 | 521.97 | 106.90 | 23.10 | 4.43 | |
| 713.27 | 699.62 | 98.09 | 63.32 | 9.05 | |
| 10 | 237.67 | 233.55 | 98.27 | 3.09 | 1.33 |
| 347.67 | 316.93 | 91.16 | 12.72 | 4.01 | |
| 457.67 | 378.21 | 82.64 | 4.97 | 1.31 | |
| 11 | 278.00 | 252.58 | 90.86 | 5.41 | 2.14 |
| 428.00 | 354.77 | 82.89 | 13.05 | 3.68 | |
| 578.00 | 443.05 | 76.65 | 7.83 | 1.77 | |
| 12 | 588.50 | 681.32 | 115.77 | 11.10 | 1.63 |
| 888.50 | 1037.52 | 116.77 | 32.56 | 3.14 | |
| 1188.50 | 1420.09 | 119.49 | 19.36 | 1.35 | |
| 13 | 3944.38 | 4257.84 | 107.95 | 31.19 | 0.73 |
| 5944.38 | 6278.03 | 105.61 | 130.85 | 2.08 | |
| 7944.38 | 8211.59 | 103.36 | 25.12 | 0.31 | |
| 14 | 12.48 | 13.01 | 104.22 | 0.32 | 2.42 |
| 24.24 | 24.40 | 100.64 | 0.84 | 3.45 | |
| 39.12 | 35.72 | 91.32 | 1.02 | 2.86 |
a Recovery (%) = (found amount/spiked amount) × 100. Allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14).
Table 4.
Precision results of the developed UPLC–MS/MS MRM method using 14 markers (n = 3).
| Analyte | Conc. (µg/L) | Intra-Day | Inter-Day | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observed Conc. (µg/L) | Precision (CV, %) | Accuracy (%) | Observed Conc. (µg/L) | Precision (CV, %) | Accuracy (%) | ||
| 1 | 175.00 | 160.66 | 1.51 | 91.80 | 177.43 | 9.91 | 101.39 |
| 350.00 | 373.88 | 1.82 | 106.82 | 374.08 | 1.90 | 106.88 | |
| 700.00 | 725.69 | 1.87 | 103.67 | 710.82 | 5.77 | 101.55 | |
| 2 | 9000.00 | 9593.69 | 1.72 | 106.60 | 8130.41 | 2.22 | 90.34 |
| 18,000.00 | 16,350.19 | 2.65 | 90.83 | 17,764.99 | 2.39 | 98.69 | |
| 27,000.00 | 26,606.21 | 0.72 | 98.54 | 27,000.40 | 4.17 | 100.00 | |
| 3 | 1475.00 | 1506.92 | 2.24 | 102.16 | 1524.46 | 7.64 | 103.35 |
| 2950.00 | 2997.51 | 8.55 | 101.61 | 3165.14 | 8.74 | 107.29 | |
| 5900.00 | 5759.22 | 3.03 | 97.61 | 6098.16 | 7.40 | 103.36 | |
| 4 | 150.00 | 158.36 | 3.99 | 105.57 | 153.14 | 5.12 | 102.10 |
| 300.00 | 315.64 | 2.48 | 105.21 | 310.71 | 2.91 | 103.57 | |
| 600.00 | 609.36 | 2.25 | 101.56 | 604.61 | 2.51 | 100.77 | |
| 5 | 175.00 | 166.42 | 4.69 | 95.10 | 167.33 | 1.72 | 95.62 |
| 350.00 | 341.86 | 7.72 | 97.68 | 341.00 | 2.68 | 97.43 | |
| 700.00 | 677.57 | 1.61 | 96.80 | 672.49 | 1.21 | 96.07 | |
| 6 | 400.00 | 405.00 | 3.49 | 101.25 | 399.32 | 6.04 | 99.83 |
| 800.00 | 803.91 | 1.60 | 100.49 | 818.92 | 6.90 | 102.36 | |
| 1600.00 | 1598.20 | 1.30 | 99.89 | 1545.80 | 4.49 | 96.61 | |
| 7 | 15.00 | 15.34 | 6.91 | 102.29 | 14.89 | 5.57 | 99.24 |
| 30.00 | 31.21 | 2.17 | 104.02 | 30.45 | 6.04 | 101.50 | |
| 60.00 | 60.71 | 2.61 | 101.18 | 59.19 | 1.53 | 98.66 | |
| 8 | 700.00 | 655.24 | 1.03 | 93.61 | 711.55 | 7.71 | 101.65 |
| 1400.00 | 1493.31 | 0.72 | 106.67 | 1502.72 | 0.72 | 107.34 | |
| 2800.00 | 2874.30 | 0.84 | 102.65 | 2795.28 | 5.05 | 99.83 | |
| 9 | 112.50 | 106.09 | 2.50 | 94.31 | 120.33 | 3.36 | 106.96 |
| 225.00 | 237.78 | 2.02 | 105.68 | 245.79 | 1.85 | 109.24 | |
| 450.00 | 456.85 | 3.31 | 101.52 | 449.38 | 7.08 | 99.86 | |
| 10 | 75.00 | 77.81 | 2.13 | 103.75 | 73.52 | 3.86 | 98.02 |
| 150.00 | 143.57 | 2.50 | 95.71 | 153.20 | 8.10 | 102.13 | |
| 300.00 | 300.86 | 0.17 | 100.29 | 298.44 | 1.18 | 99.48 | |
| 11 | 75.00 | 68.19 | 0.73 | 90.92 | 77.19 | 5.71 | 102.92 |
| 150.00 | 143.60 | 1.24 | 95.73 | 155.04 | 2.65 | 103.36 | |
| 300.00 | 290.52 | 2.16 | 96.84 | 300.37 | 2.35 | 100.12 | |
| 12 | 150.00 | 157.77 | 1.47 | 105.18 | 156.51 | 0.19 | 104.34 |
| 300.00 | 316.03 | 2.60 | 105.34 | 306.18 | 0.74 | 102.06 | |
| 600.00 | 612.99 | 0.74 | 102.17 | 595.89 | 1.12 | 99.32 | |
| 13 | 1000.00 | 957.04 | 1.14 | 95.70 | 1019.41 | 7.79 | 101.94 |
| 2000.00 | 2070.86 | 1.21 | 103.54 | 2127.56 | 1.21 | 106.38 | |
| 4000.00 | 4097.28 | 0.98 | 102.43 | 4010.78 | 3.80 | 100.27 | |
| 14 | 6.00 | 5.65 | 5.98 | 94.22 | 5.79 | 5.87 | 96.56 |
| 12.00 | 12.01 | 5.23 | 100.06 | 11.33 | 6.49 | 94.39 | |
| 18.00 | 17.94 | 0.46 | 99.67 | 18.18 | 2.55 | 101.02 | |
Allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14).
Table 5.
Contents of compounds 1–14 in GSH samples (n = 3).
| Analyte | GSH–1 a | GSH–2 | Source b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean (mg/kg) | SD | CV (%) | Mean (mg/kg) | SD | CV (%) | ||
| 1 | 1162.07 | 24.00 | 2.07 | 1183.52 | 9.42 | 0.80 | DJ |
| 2 | 2404.19 | 62.35 | 2.59 | 1152.41 | 13.78 | 1.20 | CO |
| 3 | 3489.64 | 214.43 | 6.14 | 4126.28 | 393.28 | 9.53 | RG |
| 4 | 340.71 | 2.53 | 0.74 | 573.31 | 0.94 | 0.16 | PA |
| 5 | 704.68 | 9.47 | 1.34 | 464.09 | 1.38 | 0.30 | PS |
| 6 | 1661.91 | 82.90 | 4.99 | 1521.40 | 86.36 | 5.68 | CO |
| 7 | 78.81 | 3.04 | 3.86 | 80.72 | 2.06 | 2.56 | PA |
| 8 | 2816.66 | 78.32 | 2.78 | 2108.67 | 80.24 | 3.81 | PS |
| 9 | 76.23 | 1.07 | 1.41 | 399.93 | 6.53 | 1.63 | AB |
| 10 | 254.32 | 6.24 | 2.45 | 202.42 | 4.76 | 2.35 | PA |
| 11 | 254.97 | 4.38 | 1.72 | 193.73 | 2.88 | 1.49 | CO |
| 12 | 574.69 | 17.90 | 3.12 | 348.49 | 2.87 | 0.82 | PS |
| 13 | 3873.26 | 48.08 | 1.24 | 1087.89 | 5.88 | 0.54 | PS |
| 14 | 6.94 | 0.48 | 6.97 | 15.97 | 0.38 | 2.40 | AO |
a GSH–1 and GSH–2 samples were prepared by the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine and Wonkwang University, respectively. b DJ: D. japonica; CO: C. officinalis, RG: R. glutinosa, PA: P. asiatica, PS: P. suffruticosa, AB: A. bidentate, and AO: A. orientale. Allantoin (1), gallic acid (2), 5-(hydroxymethyl)furfural (3), geniposidic acid (4), oxypaeoniflorin (5), loganin (6), geniposide (7), paeoniflorin (8), ecdysterone (9), verbascoside (10), cornuside (11), benzoylpaeoniflorin (12), paeonol (13), and alisol B acetate (14).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Seo, C.-S.; Lee, M.-Y. Simultaneous Determination of Fourteen Marker Compounds in the Traditional Herbal Prescription, Geumgwesingihwan, Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Molecules 2022, 27, 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27123890
AMA Style
Seo C-S, Lee M-Y. Simultaneous Determination of Fourteen Marker Compounds in the Traditional Herbal Prescription, Geumgwesingihwan, Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Molecules. 2022; 27(12):3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27123890
Chicago/Turabian StyleSeo, Chang-Seob, and Mee-Young Lee. 2022. "Simultaneous Determination of Fourteen Marker Compounds in the Traditional Herbal Prescription, Geumgwesingihwan, Using Ultra-Performance Liquid Chromatography–Tandem Mass Spectrometry" Molecules 27, no. 12: 3890. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules27123890
