| Literature DB >> 22426527 |
Zorica Vujić1, Nedžad Mulavdić, Miralem Smajić, Jasmina Brborić, Predrag Stankovic.
Abstract
Experimental design method was used for HPLC determination of irbesartan and hydrochlorothiazide in combined dosage forms. The traditional approach for optimization of experiments is time-consuming, involves a large number of runs and does not allow establishing the multiple interacting parameters. The main advantages of the experimental design method include the simultaneous screening of a larger number of factors affecting response and the estimation of possible interactions. On the basis of preliminary experiments, three factors-independent variables were selected as inputs (methanol content, pH of the mobile phase and temperature) and as dependent variables, five responses (resolution, symmetry of irbesartan peak, symmetry of hydrochlorothiazide peak, retention factor of irbesartan and retention factor of hydrochlorothiazide) were chosen. A full 23 factorial design, where factors were examined at two different levels ("low" and "high") was used to determine which factors had an effect on the studied response. Afterwards, experimental design was used to optimize these influent parameters in the previously selected experimental domain. The novelty of our method lies in the optimization step accomplished by Derringer's desirability function. After optimizing the experimental conditions a separation was conducted on a Supelcosil C(18) (150 mm × 4.6 mm, 5 mm particle size) column with a mobile phase consisting of methanol-tetrahydrofuran-acetate buffer 47:10:43 v/v/v, pH 6.5 and a column temperature of 25 °C. The developed method was successfully applied to the simultaneous separation of these drug-active compounds in their commercial pharmaceutical dosage forms.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22426527 PMCID: PMC6268177 DOI: 10.3390/molecules17033461
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Figure 1Structural formulae of irbesartan (a) and hydrochlorothiazide (b).
Figure 2Proton acceptor (A) and donor groups (D) of IRB and HCT at pH 4 (a,c) and pH 6 (b,d).
Figure 3Structural formulae of ionized IRB.
Figure 4Structural formulae of ionized HCT.
Percentage of ionization of IRB depending on pH.
| pH | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %-1 | 0.08 | 0.76 | 7.11 | 43.34 | 88.12 | 94.96 | 71.43 | 20.05 | 2.45 | 0.25 | 0.03 |
| %-2 | 99.92 | 99.24 | 92.89 | 56.64 | 11.52 | 1.24 | 0.09 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| %-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.35 | 3.79 | 28.47 | 79.94 | 97.55 | 99.75 | 99.97 |
Percentage of ionization of HCT depending on pH.
| pH | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %-1 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 99.99 | 99.92 | 99.19 | 92.33 | 51.53 | 4.55 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 |
| %-2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.41 | 3.78 | 21.11 | 18.65 | 2.16 | 0.06 | 0 |
| %-3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.39 | 3.62 | 20.21 | 17.85 | 2.07 | 0.05 | 0 |
| %-4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.15 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.09 | 0 | 0 |
| %-5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1 | 5.78 | 51.04 | 59.03 | 15.56 | 1.84 |
| %-6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.74 | 0.86 | 0.23 | 0.03 |
| %-7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.42 | 3.70 | 4.28 | 1.13 | 0.13 |
| %-8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.03 | 2.72 | 31.47 | 82.97 | 98 |
Factors and levels.
| Factors | Factor levels | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (−) | (+) | (0) | ||
| A | CH3OH | 35 | 55 | 45 |
| B | pH of mobile phase | 4.0 | 6.5 | 6.0 |
| C | T (°C) | 25 | 50 | 35 |
Factorial design matrix and results of experiments.
| Factors | Results | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | kR | SymIRB | SymHCT | RtIRB | RtHCT |
| 1 | −1 | −1 | 7.11 | 1.08 | 1.24 | 3.727 | 2.355 |
| −1 | −1 | 1 | 25.2 | 0.97 | 1.21 | 9.762 | 2.48 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.14 | 1.26 | 1.26 | 3.312 | 2.412 |
| −1 | −1 | −1 | 27.56 | 0.97 | 1.53 | 14.567 | 2.79 |
| 1 | −1 | 1 | 5.8 | 1.13 | 1.29 | 3.225 | 2.258 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.95 | 1.28 | 1.28 | 3.68 | 2.53 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 5.33 | 1.28 | 1.29 | 3.447 | 2.49 |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 2.52 | 1.48 | 1.3 | 2.605 | 2.263 |
| 1 | 1 | −1 | 2.65 | 1.21 | 1.31 | 2.847 | 2.37 |
| −1 | 1 | 1 | 11.56 | 1.49 | 1.2 | 5.352 | 2.51 |
| −1 | 1 | −1 | 14.68 | 1.52 | 1.46 | 8.145 | 2.867 |
Model of coefficients.
| b0 | b1 | b2 | b3 | b12 | b13 | b23 | b123 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kR | 12.14 | −7.62 | −4.28 | −0.87 | 2.35 | 0.51 | 0.052 | 0.24 |
| SymIRB | 1.23 | −0.006 | 0.19 | 0.036 | −0.074 | 0.044 | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| SymHCT | 1.32 | −0.032 | 0 | −0.068 | 0.02 | 0.078 | 0 | −0.015 |
| RtIRB | 6.28 | −3.18 | −1.54 | −1.04 | 1.17 | 0.86 | 0.28 | −0.22 |
| RtHCT | 2.49 | −0.18 | 0.016 | −0.11 | −0.011 | 0.058 | −0.007 | 0.0046 |
Statistical parameters of models obtained by ANOVA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kR | 663.23 | 94.75 | 537.93 | 0.0019 | 0.9995 | 0.9976 |
| SymIRB | 0.38 | 0.055 | 409.59 | 0.0024 | 0.9993 | 0.9969 |
| SymHCT | 0.098 | 0.014 | 59.97 | 0.0165 | 0.9953 | 0.9787 |
| RtIRB | 126.28 | 18.04 | 520.54 | 0.0019 | 0.9995 | 0.9975 |
| RtHCT | 0.37 | 0.053 | 14.70 | 0.0652 | Not significant | |
Criteria for multivariate optimization of the individual responses.
| Goal | Lower limit | Upper limit | Weight | Importance | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of methanol | In range | −1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| pH | In range | −1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| T | In range | −1 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| kR | Is target = 3 | 2.52 | 27.56 | 1 | 3 |
| Sym IRB | In range | 0.97 | 1.52 | 1 | 1 |
| Sym HCT | In range | 1.2 | 1.53 | 1 | 1 |
| Rt IRB | Is target = 5 | 2.605 | 14.567 | 1 | 5 |
| Rt HCT | In range | 2.258 | 2.867 | 1 | 5 |
Figure 5Graphical representation of the constraints accepted fot the determination of global desirabilty and obtained optimal conditions.
Figure 63-D plots of the Derringer’s desirability function in correlation with a variation of methanol content and pH (a), methanol content and temperature (b) and pH of mobile phase and temperature of column (c).
Figure 7LC-PDA chromatogram of hydrochlorothiazide and irbesartan taken under optimized experimental conditions.
Statistical parameters for individual calibration curves.
| Parameter | IRB | HCT |
|---|---|---|
| Concentration range (mg/mL) | 0.08–0.4 | 0.02–0.1 |
| Slope | 2.448 | 8.609 |
| Intercept | 0.035 | 0.0732 |
| R2 | 0.9976 | 0.9954 |
| Sa | 0.007 | 0.076 |
| Sb | 0.812 | 0.021 |
| t * | 1.872 | 1.256 |
| LOD | 0.02 | 0.006 |
| LOQ | 0.06 | 0.018 |
* ttab = 2.447 (p = 0.05, f = 6).
Precision of the RP-HPLC method.
| Sample | Injected (mg/mL) | Found (mg/mL) | RSD (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Irbesartan | 0.120 | 121.29 ± 0.13 | 1.26 |
| 0.160 | 160.09 ± 0.15 | 1.35 | |
| 0.190 | 191.75 ± 0.21 | 1.54 | |
| Hydrochlorothiazide | 0.040 | 0.040 ± 0.91 | 0.44 |
| 0.050 | 0.050 ± 0.82 | 0.53 | |
| 0.060 | 0.060 ± 0.87 | 0.59 |