## 3 Results
### UPLC/Qq-MS/MS Quantitative Analysis of Flavan-3-Ols and Procyanidins  
In order to confirm the differences in the content of flavan-3-ols and procyanidins, we used a previously developed and validated UPLC/QqQ-MS/MS method [18] that allows for very precise determination of the content of several selected flavan-3-ols and procyanidins. In addition to the decoctions, we also analyzed the extracts obtained earlier from the same raw material collected from the wild habitat and described in the previous article [10]: 25% EtOH, 40% EtOH, and 60% acetone. The results are presented in Figure 6 and Table 3. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**N.** & **Compound** & **R. [min]** & **UV Max** & **m/z** & **Error [M-H]** & **Ion** & **MS\({}^{2}\) Main-lon** & **MS\({}^{2}\) Fragments** & **M\({}^{2}\) (Relative)** & **References** \\ \hline
48 & Emodin-glucose & 12.8 & 221, 269, 281, 423 & 431.0989 & \(-\)1.2 & C21H19O10 & 269.0454 (100) & 431 (50), 311 (5) & [17] \\ \hline
49 & Emodin-8-O-(6-O-, malonyl)-glucose & 14.2 & 220, 281, 423 & 517.0998 & 0.0 & C24H21O13 & 473.1102 (100) & 269 (66), 311 (4) & [17] \\ \hline
50 & Sulifonyl & 14.6 & 220, 312 & 325.0392 & \(-\)1.5 & C14H13O7S & 245.0823 (100) & 230 (32), 215 (1) & [11] \\ \hline
51 & Emodin-glucose & 14.8 & 221, 269, 281, 423 & 431.0984 & \(-\)0.1 & C21H19O10 & 269.0461 (100) & 282 (12), 431 (3), & [17] \\ \hline
52 & Physiconin/Rhechrysin & 15.0 & 221, 272, 423 & 445.1147 & \(-\)1.6 & C22H21O10 & 283.0616 (100) & 307 (3), 240 (3) &
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} \\ \hline
53 & Hydropiperoside & 15.7 & 222, 290, 313 & 779.2179 & 1.7 & C39H39O17 & 779.2200 (100) & 145 (92), 633 (62), 635 (7), 615 (5) & [17] \\ \hline
54 & Aloe-emodin 8-O-(6-, O-acetyl)glucose & 15.9 & 220, 281, 423 & 473.1094 & \(-\)1.0 & C23H21O11 & 269.0466 (100) & 473 (78), 311 (5), & [24] \\ \hline
55 & Sulifemodin & 17.9 & 220, 265, 286, 316 & 349.0037 & \(-\)3.9 & C15H9O8S & 269.0467 (100) & 225 (0.5) &
\begin{tabular}{} \end{tabular} \\ \hline
56 & Question & 20.1 & 222, 266, 313, 430 & 283.0614 & \(-\)0.6 & C16H11O5 & 240.0431 (100) & 269 (0.6) & [17] \\ \hline
57 & Emodin & 25.2 & 221, 248, 267, 288, 430 & 269.0458 & \(-\)0.9 & C15H9O5 & 269.0461 (100) & 225 (28), 241 (10), & [17] \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._ \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Analyte** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(\(\mu\)g/mL of Liquid Decotion)**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**(mg/g of Dry Decoction)**} \\ \multicolumn{2}{c}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**SD**} \\ \hline  & **SC Decoction** & **PH Decoction** & **SC Decoction** & **PH Decoction** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Piceid} & 104.26 & 173.86 & 20.85 & 34.77 * \\  & \(\pm\)0.42 & \(\pm\)11.39 & \(\pm\)0.08 & \(\pm\)2.27 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Resveratrol} & 3.11 & 23.08 & 0.62 & 4.62 * \\  & \(\pm\)0.017 & \(\pm\)1.54 & \(\pm\)0.003 & \(\pm\)0.31 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Emodin} & 3.95 & 14.85 & 0.78 & 2.97 * \\  & \(\pm\)0.03 & \(\pm\)0.96 & \(\pm\)0.006 & \(\pm\)0.19 \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Physcion} & 1.24 * & 2.09 * & 0.25 & 0.42 ns \\  & \(\pm\)0.01 & \(\pm\)0.14 & \(\pm\)0.003 & \(\pm\)0.02 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Content of analyzed compounds in studied decoctions. Figure 4: ESI-MS (negative mode) chromatograms of decoctions from _Polylogoni cuspidati thizoun at rnlix_ (PH decoction (red) and SC decoction (blue). Key to peak identity as in Table 1.  
Figure 6 shows a difference in the content of the compounds depending on the solvent used for the extraction (25% EtOH, 40% EtOH, 60% acetone). There are also significant differences between decoctions prepared in the same way but obtained from raw materials from different sources (PH decoction, SC decoction). In the case of most of the analyzed compounds, all procyanidins, and most flavan-3-ols, their content was much higher in the SC decoction than in the PH decoction. difference in the amount of epicatechin, catechin as well as all analyzed procyanidins.