| Literature DB >> 21773068 |
Nitish Sharma1, Surendra Singh Rao, Namala Durga Atchuta Kumar, Pingili Sunil Reddy, Annarapu Malleswara Reddy.
Abstract
A selective, specific and stability-indicating gradient reverse phase high-performance liquid chromatographic (HPLC) method was developed for the determination of Ranitidine in presence of its impurities, forced degradation products and placebo substances such as saccharide and parabens. Ultraviolet detection was performed at 230 nm. Separate portions of the drug product and ingredients were exposed to stress conditions to induce oxidative, acidic, basic, hydrolytic, thermal and photolytic degradation. Ranitidine was found to degrade significantly at acidic, basic and oxidative stress conditions but was stable at heat and humidity. The developed method was validated as per International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines. The method was validated over this range for (i) system suitability (ii) specificity, (iii) precision, (iv) limit of detection and limit of quantification, (v) linearity, (vi) accuracy, (vii) robustness. The method was found to be precise, accurate, linear and robust. The proposed method was successfully employed for estimation of Ranitidine impurities in pharmaceutical preparations.Entities:
Keywords: Impurities; Method development; Oral Solution; RP-HPLC; Ranitidine; Stability-indicating; Stress conditions
Year: 2011 PMID: 21773068 PMCID: PMC3134857 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1101-06
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1.Chemical structure of Ranitidine HCl and its officinal impurities (USP 31)
Fig. 2.Typical chromatograms of ranitidine from method development trails
Fig. 3.Typical chromatograms of Ranitidine Oral Solution at optimized chromatographic conditions
System Suitability
| IMP F | 1.42 | 0.10 | 1.3 |
| IMP-E | 2.42 | 0.18 | 1.4 |
| IMP-D | 3.10 | 0.23 | 1.4 |
| IMP-A | 4.45 | 0.32 | 1.5 |
| IMP-C | 5.78 | 0.42 | 1.1 |
| IMP-G | 11.41 | 0.84 | 1.1 |
| Ranitidine | 13.75 | 1.00 | 1.1 |
| IMP-B | 27.357 | 1.96 | 1.4 |
Similarity factor for two standard preparations observed 0.99; Resolution between Impurity E and Impurity D observed 1.71.
Relative retention times (RRT) were calculated against the retention time (RT) of Ranitidine.
Specificity
| Refluxed with 0.1N HCl solution for about 30 min at 60°C | 11.3 | 0.59 | 0.01 | 0.14 | 4.64 | 4.78 | 0.11 | 1.18 |
| Refluxed with 0.1N NaOH solution for about 30 min at 60°C | 12.4 | 1.11 | 0.02 | 0.30 | 0.05 | 0.09 | 0.36 | 10.85 |
| Refluxed with 0.1% Hydrogen peroxide for about 30 min at 60°C | 7.9 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 6.65 | 0.09 | 0.03 | NIL | 1.19 |
| Exposed to Sunlight for about 1.2 Million Lux hrs | 4.5 | 0.54 | 0.03 | 0.99 | 0.01 | 0.03 | NIL | 0.07 |
| Exposed to UV light both at shorter and longer wavelengths for about 200 watt hrs / m2 | 1.6 | 0.30 | 0.04 | 0.64 | 0.02 | 0.02 | NIL | 0.04 |
| Dry heating done at 60°C for about 12 hrs | 0.3 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.23 | NIL | 0.03 | NIL | 0.06 |
% degradation.
LOD, LOQ values, Regression and Precision Data.
|
| ||||
| LOD (μg/ml) | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| LOQ (μg/ml) | 0.08 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Regression equation ( | ||||
| Slope ( | 800058.78 | 110376.41 | 104469.9 | 126925.17 |
| Intercept ( | −5220.21 | −5142.23 | −761.31 | −982.74 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.997 | 0.999 | 0.999 | 0.999 |
| Precision (%RSD) | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
| Intermediate precision (%RSD) | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.3 |
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
| LOD (μg/ml) | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | |
| LOQ (μg/ml) | 0.04 | 0.04 | 0.08 | |
| Regression equation ( | ||||
| Slope ( | 81026.01 | 55442.92 | 58284.3 | |
| Intercept ( | −1541.70 | −1746.62 | −1206.81 | |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.997 | 0.999 | 0.999 | |
| Precision (%RSD) | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.5 | |
| Intermediate precision (%RSD) | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.4 | |
Evaluation of Accuracy
| LOQ | % Recovery | 92.9 | 101.1 | 96.0 | 96.0 | 94.4 | 101.8 | 100.1 |
| % RSD | 4.2 | 3.0 | 6.0 | 4.0 | 0.0 | 3.4 | 6.3 | |
| 50 % | % Recovery | 95.7 | 100.9 | 105.1 | 101.7 | 102.0 | 93.9 | 101.1 |
| % RSD | 0.37 | 1.27 | 0.22 | 0.39 | 0.39 | 1.83 | 1.2 | |
| 100 % | % Recovery | 101.9 | 102.4 | 98.5 | 99.3 | 101.3 | 93.2 | 97.5 |
| % RSD | 0.40 | 0.70 | 0.30 | 0.20 | 0.29 | 0.12 | 0.5 | |
| 150 % | % Recovery | 106.0 | 102.2 | 98.2 | 99.6 | 102.1 | 94.6 | 98 |
| % RSD | 0.84 | 0.20 | 0.20 | 0.26 | 0.60 | 0.31 | 0.5 | |
| 200 % | % Recovery | 98.7 | 102.1 | 99.2 | 98.8 | 101.3 | 98.7 | 97.1 |
| % RSD | 0.54 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.23 | 0.25 | 0.58 | 0.2 | |
| 300 % | % Recovery | 98.1 | 101.0 | 99.6 | 99.7 | 100.5 | 99.1 | 98.5 |
| % RSD | 0.10 | 0.10 | 0.15 | 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.25 | 0.1 | |
% RSD values calculated with three sample recovery at each level.