| Literature DB >> 22567566 |
Nesrin K Ramadan1, Afaf O Mohamed, Sara E Shawky, Maissa Y Salem.
Abstract
Two simple, accurate, and sensitive methods were developed for the determination of netobimin in the presence of its degradation product. Method (A) was an HPLC method, performed on C18 column using acetonitrile/methanol/0.01 M potassium dihydrogen phosphate (56 : 14 : 30 by volume) as a mobile phase with a flow rate of 0.5 mL/min. Detection was performed at 254 nm. Method (B) was a TLC method, using silica gel 60 F(254) plates; the optimized mobile phase was toluene/methanol/chloroform/ammonium hydroxide (5 : 4 : 6 : 0.1 by volume). The spots were scanned densitometrically at 346 nm. Linearity ranges were 1-10 μg/mL for method (A) and 0.5-5 μg/band for method (B), and the mean percentage recoveries were 99.3 ± 0.7% and 99.7 ± 0.7% for methods (A) and (B), respectively. The proposed methods were found to be specific for netobimin in the presence of up to 90% of its degradation product. Statistical comparison between the results obtained by these methods and the manufacturer method was done, and no significance difference was obtained.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22567566 PMCID: PMC3335307 DOI: 10.1155/2012/754650
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Scheme 1The degradation pathway of netobimin.
Figure 1IR spectrum of intact netobimin.
Figure 4Mass spectrum of the degradation product of netobimin.
Figure 2IR spectrum of the degradation product of netobimin.
Figure 3Mass spectrum of intact netobimin.
Figure 5HPLC chromatogram of (a) the intact netobimin (7 μg/mL) and (b) the degradation product (7 μg/mL) using the specified chromatographic conditions.
Results of validation parameters of the responses and the regression equations obtained by the proposed methods.
| Parameters | Method (A) | Method (B) |
|---|---|---|
| Slopea | 0.9706 | 0.1086 |
| Intercepta | 0.0365 | 0.0684 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.9998 | 0.9994 |
| Concentration range | 1–10 | 0.5–5 |
| Average accuracy (%) | 99.3 | 99.7 |
| S.D. | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| R.S.D.% | 0.7 | 0.7 |
| Specificity ± R.S.D. | 99.4 ± 1.3 | 100.1 ± 1.2 |
| Repeatabilityb % ±R.S.D. | 100.1 ± 0.1 | 99.8 ± 0.6 |
| Intermediate precisionc % ±R.S.D. | 99.8 ± 0.2 | 99.4 ± 0.2 |
aResults of five determinations.
b n = 3 × 3.
c n = 3 × 3.
Parameters of system suitability test of method (A).
| Parameter | Obtained value | |
|---|---|---|
| Netobimin | Degradation product | |
| Relative retention time ( | 1.88 | |
| Resolution ( | 11.61 | |
| Capacity factor ( | 1.22 | 3.18 |
| Tailing factor ( | 0.8 | 0.86 |
| Column efficiency ( | 4681 | 6551 |
| HETP | 0.0027 cm/plate | 0.0019 cm/plate |
Figure 6Scanning profile of TLC chromatogram of netobimin at 346 nm.
Results of analysis of netobimin in laboratory-prepared mixtures containing different ratios of netobimin and its degradation product in pure powder form by the proposed methods.
| Method (A) | Method (B) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degradation% | Concentration ( | Concentration ( | ||||
| Netobimin | Degradation product | Recovery % | Netobimin | Degradation product | Recovery % | |
| 10 | 9 | 1 | 100.8 | 4.5 | 0.5 | 98.1 |
| 20 | 8 | 2 | 98.2 | |||
| 30 | 7 | 3 | 100.4 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 100.7 |
| 40 | 6 | 4 | 98.2 | |||
| 50 | 5 | 5 | 100.8 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 100.9 |
| 60 | 4 | 6 | 98.2 | |||
| 70 | 3 | 7 | 98.7 | 1.5 | 3.5 | 100.2 |
| 80 | 2 | 8 | 98.6 | |||
| 90 | 1 | 9 | 100.8 | 0.5 | 4.5 | 100.5 |
| Mean | 99.4 | 100.1 | ||||
| S.D. | 1.3 | 1.2 | ||||
| R.S.D. % | 1.3 | 1.2 | ||||
Quantitative determination of netobimin in pharmaceutical formulation by the proposed methods and results of application of standard addition technique.
| Hapadex oral suspension 5% B.N 8389 | Method (A) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Found %a | Claimed amount taken ( | Standard added ( | Recovery %b of added | |
| 100.3 | 4 | 2 | 99.4 | |
| 98.9 | 4 | 4 | 99.0 | |
| 101.2 | 4 | 6 | 99.1 | |
| Mean | 100.1 | 99.2 | ||
| S.D. | 1.2 | 0.2 | ||
| R.S.D. % | 1.2 | 0.2 | ||
|
| ||||
| Hapadex oral suspension 5% B.N 8389 | Method (B) | |||
| Found %a | Claimed amount taken ( | Standard added ( | Recovery %b of added | |
|
| ||||
| 100.5 | 2 | 1 | 99.3 | |
| 100.5 | 2 | 2 | 99.4 | |
| 99.7 | 2 | 3 | 100.7 | |
| Mean | 100.2 | 99.8 | ||
| S.D. | 0.5 | 0.8 | ||
| R.S.D.% | 0.5 | 0.8 | ||
aAverage of six determinations.
bAverage of six determinations.
Statistical analysis of the results obtained for the determination of netobimin in pure samples by the proposed methods and those obtained by the manufacturer method.
| Item | Method (A) | Method (B) | Manufacturer's method *[ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean | 99.4 | 99.7 | 99.9 |
| S.D. | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| R.S.D % | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| Variance | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.3 |
|
| 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Student | 1.4 (2.160) | 0.5 (2.262) | |
|
| 1.7 (4.77) | 1.7 (5.05) |
Figures in parentheses are the corresponding tabulated values at P = 0.05.
*[7] Manufacturer method HPLC, mobile phase methanol : 0.05 M monobasic potassium phosphate of 60 : 40 by volume, respectively, UV set at 254 nm.