## 3 Results and Discussion
### Validation of Developed HPLC Analytical Method  
In the developed HPLC analytical assay, system suitability factors for the 12 marker analytes, namely, \(k^{\prime}\), \(\alpha\), \(N\), \(Rs\), and \(Tf\), were calculated to be 1.18-14.07, 1.02-4.46, 17782-1488677, 3.45-79.88, and 0.96-1.29, respectively (Table S3). As shown in Table 1, the calibration curve for each marker component used for quantitative analysis was calculated as the peak area (y) versus the concentration (\(x\)) in six different concentration ranges using mixed standard solutions. The \(r^{2}\) values were 0.9991-1.0000, which indicated good linearity of the calibration curves. The LOD and LOQ concentration ranges calculated by the equations given in Section 2.6 were 0.04-0.73 \(\mu\)g/mL and 0.12-2.22 \(\mu\)g/mL, respectively. These results are summarized in Table 1. The extraction recovery for each component, which was used to evaluate the accuracy of the analytical method, was 95.74-103.30%, and the RSD (%) values were \(<\)3.00 (Table 2). The RSD values for the repeatability, and intraday and interday precisions of each marker analyte, were all within 1.59%, showing good precision results (Table 3). The above validation results confirm that the simultaneous analysis assay developed for quality control of SGJT is appropriate.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Analyte** & **Detection (nm)** & **Linear Range (ug/mL)** & **Regression Equation 1 ** & **\(y=\)x + b** & \(r^{2}\)** & LOD (ug/mL) & LOQ (ug/mL) \\ \hline GA & 270 & 2.34–150.00 & \(y=3602\)\(y\) + 3489 & 1.0000 & 0.48 & 1.45 \\ ALB & 230 & 1.56–100.00 & \(y=12082\)\(y\) + 3688 & 0.9999 & 0.09 & 0.28 \\ PAE & 230 & 1.56–100.00 & \(y=1669\)\(y\) + 3957 & 1.0000 & 0.36 & 1.10 \\ LIAP & 275 & 2.34–150.00 & \(y=14590\)\(x\) + 14965 & 0.9998 & 0.73 & 2.22 \\ LIQ & 275 & 0.78–50.00 & \(y=20076\)\(x\) + 6742 & 0.9998 & 0.24 & 0.74 \\ BA & 230 & 1.56–100.00 & \(y=58651\)\(x\) + 47123 & 0.9992 & 0.14 & 0.42 \\ COU & 275 & 0.47–30.00 & \(y=54905\)\(x\) + 11061 & 0.9998 & 0.14 & 0.43 \\ LIQG & 275 & 0.31–20.00 & \(y=32274\)\(x\) + 4260 & 0.9998 & 0.09 & 0.27 \\ CINA & 275 & 0.47–30.00 & \(y=98151\)\(x\) + 19521 & 0.9998 & 0.14 & 0.42 \\ BPAE & 230 & 0.78–50.00 & \(y=18991\)\(x\) + 3190 & 0.9999 & 0.04 & 0.12 \\ CINAD & 286 & 2.34–150.00 & \(y=140874.41\)\(x\) + 213313.78 & 0.9991 & 0.57 & 1.72 \\ GLYA & 254 & 0.78–50.00 & \(y=8373.26\)\(x\) + 14782.35 & 0.9999 & 0.22 & 0.66 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Linear range, regression equation, coefficient of determination (\(r^{2}\)), limit of detection (LOD), and limit of quantification (LOQ) for marker analytes (n = 3).  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Analyte** & **Spiked Amount (\(\mu\)g/mL)** & **Found Amount (ug/mL)** & **Recovery (\%)** & **SD** & **RSD (\%)** \\ \hline GA & 8.00 & 7.93 & 99.09 & 1.21 & 1.23 \\ GA & 20.00 & 20.66 & 103.30 & 2.19 & 2.12 \\  & 40.00 & 39.38 & 98.46 & 0.41 & 0.42 \\  & 4.00 & 4.02 & 100.50 & 0.95 & 0.95 \\ ALB & 10.00 & 9.75 & 97.45 & 1.02 & 1.04 \\  & 20.00 & 19.29 & 96.46 & 0.40 & 0.41 \\  & 6.00 & 6.01 & 100.18 & 0.60 & 0.59 \\ PAE & 15.00 & 14.36 & 95.74 & 0.33 & 0.35 \\  & 30.00 & 29.04 & 96.79 & 0.27 & 0.28 \\  & 8.00 & 7.86 & 98.29 & 1.74 & 1.77 \\ LIAP & 20.00 & 20.26 & 101.32 & 1.13 & 1.11 \\  & 40.00 & 39.46 & 98.66 & 0.58 & 0.58 \\  & 2.00 & 2.04 & 102.05 & 1.75 & 1.72 \\ LIQ & 5.00 & 5.05 & 100.92 & 0.74 & 0.73 \\  & 10.00 & 10.14 & 101.36 & 1.71 & 1.68 \\  & 6.00 & 5.79 & 96.47 & 0.78 & 0.81 \\ BA & 15.00 & 15.10 & 100.68 & 1.02 & 1.01 \\  & 30.00 & 29.72 & 99.06 & 0.82 & 0.83 \\  & 1.00 & 1.00 & 100.14 & 1.10 & 1.10 \\ COU & 2.00 & 2.03 & 101.34 & 1.64 & 1.61 \\  & 4.00 & 3.88 & 97.09 & 0.85 & 0.88 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 2: Extract recovery tests for the 12 marker analytes in SGJT.