| Literature DB >> 20046743 |
M M Issa1, R M Nejem, N S El-Abadla, M Al-Kholy, Akila A Saleh.
Abstract
A novel atomic absorption spectrometric method and two highly sensitive spectrophotometric methods were developed for the determination of paracetamol. These techniques based on the oxidation of paracetamol by iron (III) (method I); oxidation of p-aminophenol after the hydrolysis of paracetamol (method II). Iron (II) then reacts with potassium ferricyanide to form Prussian blue color with a maximum absorbance at 700 nm. The atomic absorption method was accomplished by extracting the excess iron (III) in method II and aspirates the aqueous layer into air-acetylene flame to measure the absorbance of iron (II) at 302.1 nm. The reactions have been spectrometrically evaluated to attain optimum experimental conditions. Linear responses were exhibited over the ranges 1.0-10, 0.2-2.0 and 0.1-1.0 mug/ml for method I, method II and atomic absorption spectrometric method, respectively. A high sensitivity is recorded for the proposed methods I and II and atomic absorption spectrometric method value indicate: 0.05, 0.022 and 0.012 mug/ml, respectively. The limit of quantitation of paracetamol by method II and atomic absorption spectrometric method were 0.20 and 0.10 mug/ml. Method II and the atomic absorption spectrometric method were applied to demonstrate a pharmacokinetic study by means of salivary samples in normal volunteers who received 1.0 g paracetamol. Intra and inter-day precision did not exceed 6.9%.Entities:
Keywords: Spectrophotometry; atomic absorption spectrometry; between-day variability; paracetamol; pharmacokinetic; within-day variability
Year: 2008 PMID: 20046743 PMCID: PMC2792512 DOI: 10.4103/0250-474X.42999
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Indian J Pharm Sci ISSN: 0250-474X Impact factor: 0.975
Fig. 1Reaction of paracetamol with iron (III) in spectrophotometric method I.
Fig. 2Oxidation and hydrolysis of paracetamol in spectrophotometric method II and AAS.
RESPONSE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROPOSED METHODS
| Parameters | Spectrophotometric method | AAS | |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | II | ||
| λ (nm) | 700 | 700 | 302.1 |
| pH | - | 1 | 6 |
| Molar absorptivity (L/mol.cm) | 1.35×104 | 2.72×104 | - |
| LOD (μg/ml) | 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.026 |
| LOQ (μg/ml) | 0.40 | 0.20 | 0.10 |
| Sensitivity (μg/mL) | 0.05 | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Linear response (μg/ml) | 1.10 | 0.2-2 | 0.1-1 |
| RSD (n=5) | 3.86 | 5.0 | 2.55 |
| Regression equation | |||
| Slope | 0.089±0.007 | 0.155±0.012 | 0.40±0.033 |
| Intercept | 0.011±0.001 | 0.049±0.003 | 0.025±0.002 |
| Correlation coefficient (R) | 1 | 0.9920 | 0.9982 |
ASSAY OF PARACETAMOL IN BULK AND DOSAGE FORMS BY THE PROPOSED METHODS AND OFFICIAL METHOD27
| Sample | Recovery % ± SD based on different methods | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spectrophotometric method | AAS | Standard | ||
| I | II | |||
| Paracetamol bulk | 100.2±0.31 | 98.5±0.22 | 99.6±0.44 | 99.7±0.47 |
| Decamol (500 mg/tablet) | 98.8±0.52 | 100.8±0.71 | 98.9±0.51 | 99.9±0.74 |
| Dexamol (500 mg/tablet) | 99.2±0.47 | 99.6±0.18 | 99.4±0.69 | 100.1±0.55 |
| t-test / f-test | ||||
| Paracetamol bulk | 0.29 / 2.3 | 1.53 / 1.7 | 1.12 / 2.6 | |
| Decamol (500 mg/tablet) | 1.33 / 2.9 | 1.24 / 2.8 | 1.34 / 3.8 | |
| Dexamol (500 mg/tablet) | 1.85 / 1.3 | 1.87 / 3.2 | 1.67 / 1.6 | |
Average of five determination, t (n=5) = 2.776, f (5,5) = 6.39.
WITHIN- AND BETWEEN-DAY VARIABILITY OF PROPOSED METHODS FOR PARACETAMOL DETERMINATION
| Paracetamol (μg/ml) | Within-day variability (±SD | RSD | SAE | CL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spectrophotometric | ||||||
| I | II | AAS | ||||
| 1 | 1.08±0.088 | - | - | 8.15 | 0.039 | 1.08±0.109 |
| 6 | 5.9±0.324 | - | - | 5.49 | 0.145 | 5.9±0.402 |
| 10 | 10.18±0.50 | - | - | 4.91 | 0.224 | 10.18±0.621 |
| 0.2 | - | 0.2±0.012 | - | 6.00 | 0.005 | 0.2±0.015 |
| 0.8 | - | 0.84±0.062 | - | 7.38 | 0.028 | 0.84±0.077 |
| 2.0 | - | 1.95±0.056 | - | 2.86 | 0.250 | 1.95±0.700 |
| 0.1 | - | - | 0.1±0.007 | 7.00 | 0.003 | 0.1±0.009 |
| 0.6 | - | - | 0.59±0.026 | 4.40 | 0.120 | 0.59±0.032 |
| 1.0 | - | - | 1.01±0.020 | 1.98 | 0.009 | 1.01±0.025 |
| Between-day variability (±SD | ||||||
| 1 | 1.1±0.130 | - | - | 11.82 | 0.058 | 1.1±0.161 |
| 6 | 6.2±0.267 | - | - | 4.30 | 0.119 | 6.2±0.330 |
| 10 | 10.6±0.496 | - | - | 4.68 | 0.222 | 10.6±0.616 |
| 0.2 | - | 0.22±0.012 | - | 5.45 | 0.005 | 0.22±0.139 |
| 0.8 | - | 0.85±0.052 | - | 6.12 | 0.023 | 0.85±0.640 |
| 2.0 | - | 1.96±0.053 | - | 2.70 | 0.023 | 1.96±0.640 |
| 0.1 | - | - | 0.11±0.007 | 6.38 | 0.003 | 0.11±0.008 |
| 0.6 | - | - | 0.61±0.020 | 3.30 | 0.009 | 0.61±0.025 |
| 1.0 | - | - | 1.01±0.026 | 2.57 | 0.012 | 1.01±0.033 |
Average of five determinations
SAE, standard analytical error
Confidence limits (CL), 95% and 4 degree of freedom
RECOVERY OF SPIKED PARACETAMOL IN THE CONTROL SALIVA SAMPLES
| Saliva (ml) | Paracetamol Spiked (μg/ml) | Recovery based on spectrophotometric Method II | Recovery based on AAS Method | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (μg/ml) | % | (μg/ml) | % | ||
| 0.25 | 0.1 | - | - | 0.105±0.002 | 105 |
| 0.25 | 0.2 | 0.21±0.003 | 105 | 0.19±0.005 | 95 |
| 0.25 | 0.4 | 0.39±0.007 | 97.5 | 0.38±0.008 | 95 |
| 0.25 | 0.6 | - | - | 0.59±0.012 | 98 |
| 0.25 | 0.8 | 0.82±0.015 | 102 | 0.820±0.013 | 103 |
| 0.25 | 1.0 | - | - | 1.01±0.033 | 101 |
| 0.25 | 1.2 | 1.18±0.041 | 98 | - | - |
| 0.25 | 1.6 | 1.56±0.053 | 97.5 | - | - |
| 0.25 | 2.0 | 1.88±0.067 | 94 | - | - |
Average of five determination
Fig. 3Mean saliva concentration curves using spectrophotometric method II. Decamol (-□-), Dexamol (-◇-).
Fig. 4Mean saliva concentration curves using AAS. Decamol (-□-), Dexamol (-◇-).
PHARMACOKINETIC PARAMETERS IN HEALTHY FEMALE VOLUNTEERS
| Parameters | Spectrophotometric method II | AAS method | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dexamol tablet | Decamol tablet | Dexamol tablet | Decamol tablet | |
| Cmax (μg/ml) | 18.9 | 19.3 | 19.1 | 20.2 |
| T max (h) | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.5 |
| T½ (h) | 2.76 | 2.55 | 2.82 | 2.69 |
| AUC0-8 (μg/ml.h) | 34.7 | 35.9 | 35.2 | 36.3 |
| % AUC | 100 | 103 | 100 | 103 |
Pharmacokinetic parameters after the administration of 1.0 g paracetamol in five healthy female volunteers