| Literature DB >> 23675101 |
Ayman Abou El-Fetouh Gouda1, Ragaa El-Sheikh, Zeineb El Shafey, Nagda Hossny, Rham El-Azzazy.
Abstract
Rapid, simple and sensitive validated spectrophotometric methods have been described for the assay of pipazethate HCl (PiCl) and dextromethorphan HBr (DEX) either in pure form or in pharmaceutical formulations. The proposed methods were based on the oxidation of the studied drugs by a known excess of potassium permanganate in acidic medium and estimating the unreacted permanganate with amaranth dye (method A), acid orange II (method B), indigocarmine (method C) and methylene blue (method D), in the same acid medium at a suitable λmax=521, 485, 610 and 664 nm, respectively. Beer's law is obeyed in the concentration range of 2.0-16 and 2.0-15 μg mL(-1) for PiCl and DEX, respectively with correlation coefficient (n=6) ≥ 0.9993. The apparent molar absorptivity and sandell sensitivity values are in the range 1.062-1.484 × 10(4), 3.35-4.51 × 10(4) L mol(-1) cm(-1) and 29.36-41.03, 8.21-11.06 ng cm(-2) for PiCl and DEX, respectively. Different variables affecting the reaction were studied and optimized. The proposed methods were applied successfully to the determination of the examined drugs either in a pure or pharmaceutical dosage forms with good accuracy and precision. No interferences were observed from excipients and the results obtained were in good agreement with those obtained using the official methods.Entities:
Keywords: dextromethorphan HBr; oxidation reactions; pharmaceutical formulations; pipazethate HCl; potassium permanganate; spectrophotometry
Year: 2008 PMID: 23675101 PMCID: PMC3614715
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Biomed Sci ISSN: 1550-9702
Figure 1The chemical structure of the studied drugs.
Figure 2Absorption spectra of the oxidation product between 8.0 μg mL-1 PiCl, KMnO4 and, (a) AM, (b) AO, (c) Indigo and (d) MB by heating at 60 ± 2°C for 5.0 min.
Figure 3Effect of heating time on the oxidation of 8.0 μg mL-1 PiCl-dye at the optimum wavelengths λmax of each dye.
Figure 4Effect of volume of 5.0 × 10-4 M KMnO4 on the development of the reaction product: 8.0 μg mL-1 DEX with MB and 10 μg mL-1 PiCl with AO.
Figure 5Effect of mL added of Sulfuric acid (2.0 M) on absorbance of PiCl with (5.0 × 10-4 M) KMnO4 and dyes (5.0 × 10-4 M).
Figure 6Effect of added dyes (5.0 × 10-4 M) on absorbance of 10 μg mL-1 of PiCl with KMnO4 (5.0 × 10-4 M).
Figure 7Continuous variations graph for the reaction between 5.0 × 10-4 M PiCl and 5.0 × 10-4 M KMnO4 with dyes (5.0 × 10-4 M).
Analytical parameters and optical characteristics of the proposed methods with PiCl and DEX
| Parameters | PiCl | DEX | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AM | AO | Indigo | MB | AM | AO | Indigo | MB | |
| λmax’ (nm) | 522 | 610 | 664 | 485 | 520 | 610 | 664 | 485 |
| Beer’s law linits (μg mL-1) | 2.0-16 | 2.0-14 | 2.0-14 | 2.0-10 | 2.0-10 | 4.0-12 | 4.0-15 | 4.0-10 |
| Ringbom Limits (μg mL-1) | 2.5-15 | 3.0-13 | 3.0-12.5 | 2.5-9.5 | 3.0-9.0 | 5.0-10.5 | 5.0-14 | 5.5-9.5 |
| Molar absorpitivity × 104 (L mol-1 cm-1) | 1.062 | 1.193 | 1.37 | 1.484 | 4.2 | 3.35 | 3.72 | 4.51 |
| Sandell sensitivity (ng cm-2) | 41.03 | 36.52 | 31.80 | 29.36 | 8.82 | 11.06 | 9.96 | 8.21 |
| Regression equation | ||||||||
| Slope (b) | 0.0497 | 0.0571 | 0.0678 | 0.0661 | 0.1812 | 0.21 | 0.168 | 0.118 |
| Intercept (a) | 0.0051 | 0.0003 | -0.0137 | 0.014 | -0.446 | -0.742 | -0.521 | -0.736 |
| Correlation coefficient ( | 0.9999 | 0.9999 | 0.9997 | 0.9998 | 0.9990 | 0.9991 | 0.9994 | 0.9995 |
| Sy/x | 0.3118 | 0.2737 | 0.3384 | 0.2687 | 0.331 | 0.380 | 0.308 | 0.361 |
| SD of slope ( | 0.2647 | 0.234 | 0.32 | 0.2317 | 0.105 | 0.120 | 0.097 | 0.114 |
| SD of intercept ( | 0.0249 | 0.0261 | 0.0339 | 0.0469 | 1.64 | 2.15 | 1.96 | 2.05 |
| Detection limits (μg mL-1) | 0.30 | 0.16 | 0.21 | 0.18 | 0.09 | 0.26 | 0.37 | 0.21 |
| Quantification limit (μg mL-1) | 0.99 | 0.53 | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.30 | 0.87 | 1.23 | 0.70 |
| RSD | 0.79 | 0.83 | 0.68 | 0.54 | 0.92 | 1.04 | 0.58 | 0.79 |
| 0.122 | 0.18 | 0.118 | 0.206 | 0.091 | 0.791 | 0.618 | 0.301 | |
| 1.895 | 1.756 | 2.394 | 1.28 | 1.058 | 2.40 | 1.435 | 1.03 | |
A = a + b C, where C is the concentration in μg mL-1;
Average of six determinations;
Calculated t- and F-value; tabulated t and F-value for five degrees of freedom; p=0.05 are 2.57 and 5.05.
Evaluation of accuracy and precision data for PiCl and DEX obtained by the proposed methods
| Method | PiCl | DEX | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added (μg mL-1) | Recovery % | Precision RSD% | Accuracy Er % | Taken (μg mL-1) | Recovery % | Precision RSD% | Accuracy Er % | |
| A | 4.0 | 100.1 | 0.84 | 0.10 | 2.0 | 100.09 | 0.68 | 0.09 |
| 8.0 | 99.57 | 0.92 | -0.425 | 4.0 | 99.92 | 0.90 | -0.08 | |
| 12 | 99.95 | 0.77 | -0.05 | 6.0 | 99.70 | 0.88 | -0.30 | |
| 16 | 100.2 | 1.08 | 0.20 | 8.0 | 100.15 | 1.17 | 0.15 | |
| B | 4.0 | 99.72 | 0.99 | -0.275 | 4.0 | 99.20 | 0.76 | -0.80 |
| 6.0 | 99.15 | 0.85 | -0.85 | 6.0 | 100.20 | 0.57 | 0.20 | |
| 8.0 | 98.94 | 1.12 | -1.06 | 8.0 | 99.90 | 0.66 | -0.10 | |
| 10 | 99.45 | 0.88 | -0.55 | 10 | 100.31 | 0.39 | 0.31 | |
| C | 3.0 | 100.12 | 0.76 | 0.133 | 4.0 | 99.70 | 1.08 | -0.30 |
| 6.0 | 99.85 | 0.79 | -0.15 | 6.0 | 98.92 | 0.54 | -1.08 | |
| 9.0 | 99.92 | 0.81 | -0.078 | 9.0 | 99.30 | 0.45 | -0.70 | |
| 12 | 100.15 | 1.23 | 0.15 | 12 | 100.10 | 0.61 | 0.10 | |
| D | 2.0 | 100.07 | 1.06 | 0.07 | 4.0 | 100.67 | 0.57 | 0.67 |
| 4.0 | 99.25 | 1.42 | -0.75 | 5.0 | 100.50 | 0.72 | 0.50 | |
| 6.0 | 101.17 | 0.96 | 1.17 | 6.0 | 99.78 | 0.69 | -0.22 | |
| 8.0 | 99.83 | 0.88 | -0.17 | 8.0 | 100.08 | 0.94 | 0.083 | |
Mean of six determination. RSD%, percentage relative standard deviation; Er%, percentage relative error.
Application of the standard addition technique for the determination of PiCl in dosage forms using the proposed methods
| Method | Taken (μg mL-1) | Selgon tablets (20 mg/tab.) | Selgon drops (40 mg/mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added (μg mL-1) | Recovery | Reference method | Added (μg mL-1) | Recovery | Reference method | ||
| A | 4 | -- | 99.80 | -- | 97.85 | ||
| 2.0 | 100.50 | 2.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.35 | 4.0 | 101.00 | ||||
| 6.0 | 100.20 | 6.0 | 100.25 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.65 | 8.0 | 100.60 | ||||
| 10 | 100.80 | 10 | 99.25 | ||||
| Mean | 100.22 ± 0.832 | 99.70 ± 1.16 | 100.08 ± 0.67 | 100.50 ± 0.63 | |||
| 0.364 | 0.457 | ||||||
| 1.944 | 1.13 | ||||||
| B | 2 | -- | 99.51 | -- | 98.95 | ||
| 2.0 | 99.96 | 2.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.01 | 4.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 6.0 | 99.10 | 6.0 | 100.55 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.85 | 8.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 10 | 100.30 | 10 | 99.90 | ||||
| Mean | 99.97 ± 0.94 | 99.70 ± 1.16 | 99.80 ± 0.61 | 100.50 ± 0.63 | |||
| 0.181 | 0.798 | ||||||
| 1.52 | 1.07 | ||||||
| C | 2 | -- | 99.60 | -- | 99.35 | ||
| 2.0 | 100.45 | 2.0 | 99.70 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.15 | 4.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 6.0 | 100.30 | 6.0 | 99.20 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.85 | 8.0 | 100.50 | ||||
| 10 | 99.60 | 10 | 99.75 | ||||
| Mean | 99.99 ± 0.86 | 99.70 ± 1.16 | 99.82 ± 0.53 | 100.50 ± 0.63 | |||
| 1.444 | 0.826 | ||||||
| 1.82 | 1.413 | ||||||
| D | 1.0 | -- | 99.89 | -- | 99.25 | ||
| 1.0 | 99.95 | 1.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 2.0 | 100.40 | 2.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.05 | 4.0 | 100.70 | ||||
| 6.0 | 100.20 | 6.0 | 100.25 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.75 | 8.0 | 100.60 | ||||
| Mean | 100.04 ± 1.232 | 99.70 ± 1.16 | 100.12 ± 0.601 | 100.50 ± 0.63 | |||
| 0.201 | 0.436 | ||||||
| 1.128 | 1.10 | ||||||
Average of six determinations;
Calculated t- and F-value; tabulated t and F-value for five degrees of freedom; p=0.05 are 2.57 and 5.05.
Application of the standard addition technique for the determination of DEX in dosage forms using the proposed methods
| Method | Taken (μg mL-1) | Tussilar tablets (10 mg/tab.) | Tussilar drops (1.0 g/15 mL) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Added (μg mL-1) | Recovery | Reference method | Added (μg mL-1) | Recovery | Reference method | ||
| A | 4 | -- | 99.80 | -- | 97.85 | ||
| 2.0 | 100.50 | 2.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.35 | 4.0 | 101.00 | ||||
| 6.0 | 100.20 | 6.0 | 100.25 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.65 | 8.0 | 100.60 | ||||
| 10 | 100.80 | 10 | 99.25 | ||||
| Mean | 100.22 ± 0.432 | 99.92 ± 0.85 | 100.08 ± 0.67 | 100.18 ± 0.81 | |||
| 0.026 | |||||||
| 1.106 | |||||||
| B | 2 | -- | 99.51 | -- | 98.95 | ||
| 2.0 | 99.96 | 2.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.01 | 4.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 6.0 | 99.10 | 6.0 | 100.55 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.85 | 8.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 10 | 100.30 | 10 | 99.90 | ||||
| Mean | 99.97 ± 0.423 | 99.92 ± 0.85 | 99.80 ± 0.61 | 100.18 ± 0.81 | |||
| 0.296 | 0.798 | ||||||
| 1.27 | 1.07 | ||||||
| C | 2 | -- | 99.60 | -- | 99.35 | ||
| 2.0 | 100.45 | 2.0 | 99.70 | ||||
| 4.0 | 100.15 | 4.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 6.0 | 100.30 | 6.0 | 99.20 | ||||
| 8.0 | 99.85 | 8.0 | 100.50 | ||||
| 10 | 99.60 | 10 | 99.75 | ||||
| Mean | 99.99 ± 0.36 | 99.92 ± 0.85 | 99.82 ± 0.53 | 100.18 ± 0.81 | |||
| 0.09 | 0.826 | ||||||
| 1.43 | 1.413 | ||||||
| D | 1.0 | -- | 99.63 | -- | 100.04 | ||
| 1.0 | 99.91 | 1.0 | 99.50 | ||||
| 2.0 | 100.16 | 2.0 | 100.40 | ||||
| 4.0 | 99.10 | 4.0 | 100.55 | ||||
| 6.0 | 99.85 | 6.0 | 99.95 | ||||
| 8.0 | 100.20 | 8.0 | 99.90 | ||||
| Mean | 99.81 ± 0.41 | 99.92 ± 0.85 | 100.06 ± 0.38 | 100.18 ± 0.81 | |||
| 0.302 | 0.436 | ||||||
| 1.067 | 1.10 | ||||||
Average of six determinations;
Calculated t- and F-value; tabulated t and F-value for five degrees of freedom; p=0.05 are 2.57 and 5.05.
Figure 8The possible sequences of Oxidation-reduction reaction.