response to reviews

Responses to reviewer 1The title was revised to be "Quality evaluation of Flos lonicerae through a simultaneous determination of seven saponins by HPLC with ELSD" according to the recommendation of reviewer #1.rmation about the purity, stability of the reference compounds was added intothe text. Please see p. 5, line4-6 from the bottom.2.The reproducibility was re-validated and was added in the text. Please see p7, line1-6 from the bottom.3.We could not understand what the question 3 mean, but we think that therecoveries should be counted by the following formula: recovery (%) = (amount found –original amount)/ amount spiked ×100%.4.On p.9, line 7 from the bottom, the calculation mistake was corrected.5.We are sorry that we used an improper word “sensitive” to comment theestablished HPLC-ELSD method. So we revised our description in text, please see p.9, line 5-6 from the bottom.6.We agree that strictly speaking, recovery testing should be done for each sample.In present study, only one sample was used to test the recovery, the reasons are: 1) all five samples analyzed are derived from the buds of Lonicera species, that is to say, the matrix of the analytes are very similar with each other; 2) all these samples were pretreated with the same manner (the same extracting solvent---methanol, the same extracted procedures, etc.); 3) all these samples contain similar constituents, especially the hederagenin type saponins. So we used L. macranthoides as a representative of all samples for the recovery testing.7.We apologized for the incorrect writing of the author’s names in reference [14]and [15]. On p.12, the citations had been checked.Responses to reviewer 2Scientific content:1.According to the suggestion of reviewer 2, quantification of compound 2 in L.hypoglauca was revised as marked in Table 4. We agree that some novel techniques such as LC-MS are effective tools for the on-line confirmation of peak identity. As there was no LC-MS apparatus in hand when we did this experiment, the conventional methods for confirming the identity of each peak were used: 1) comparing their retention time with that of each reference compound resolved under the same chromatographic conditions with a series of mobile phases; 2) comparing the relative peak area of each peak before and after spiking the reference compounds. Anyway we appreciate the suggestion using HPLC-MS technique for more sensitive and accurate determination of Flos Lonicera.2.We accept the reviewer’s comments that the statement “rapid clarification of theb otanical origin” is not appropriate, so the sentence had been revised in the text,please see p.10, line 1-7 from the bottom. As we have not any data yet on suitability of the method for quality control of other medicinal plants containing hederagenin type saponins, the last sentence in Conclusion Section “In addition, this newly developed method is very suitable for the quality control or screening of hederagenin type saponins in those medicinal plants which also contain hederagenin type saponins as major bioactive components, such as Hedera spp.”was deleted.3.It is our mistake of confusing the meaning of the terms “repeatability”and“reproducibility”, additional experiments was done for the reproducibility validation, and the data were summarized in table 2.4.Generally the ELSD follows an exponential response. According to ourexperiences and knowledge, for some compounds, the ELSD also follows a linear response in a certain test range of concentrations, as shown in our previous works (Song-Lin Li, et al. J. Chromatogr. A 2001; 909: 207-214; Hui-Jun Li, et al. J.Chromatogr. A 2003; 1008: 167-72) and other works (e.g. Torsten Gunnarsson, etal. J. Chromatogr. B 1998; 705:243-249)Manuscript:1.The method for LOD and LOQ determination were added in text, please see p.7,line 5-7, and the unit of LOD and LOQ were revised as μg in Table 1.2.In sample preparation Section, the detailed sample preparation procedure wasprovided, please see p.8, line 10-13. Information about the type of ELSD instrument was added on p. 6, line 4-5. The SD values were added in Table 4.3.We tried our best to check language and grammar editing of the text. Somesimilar expressions and sentences changed.4.The incorrect botanical name was replaced by L. macranthoides through thewhole text.5.On p.5. line 1-5, more information about the samples origin were added.6.In our previous work (J. Chrom. A, 1008, 2003, 167-172), the temperature of drifttube was optimized at 90°C for the determination of iridoids. As the polarity of saponins are higher than that of iridoids, more water was used in the mobile phase for the separation of saponins, therefore the temperature for saponins determination was optimized from 95°C to 110°C, and 106°C was found as the optimal temperature of drift tube for saponins determination under the present chromatographic conditions.7.On p.13, the legends for Figure 2 were revised. Legends for tables were alsorevised.8.In discussion section, the comparison of both Lonicera methods (for iridoids andsaponins) were briefly discussed, as marked in red on p.10, lin 1-6 from the bottom and p.11, line 6-9 from the bottom.。