| Literature DB >> 24250503 |
Jadranka Odović1, Katarina Karljiković-Rajić, Jasna Trbojević-Stanković, Biljana Stojimirović, Sote Vladimirov.
Abstract
In this assay, the evaluation of lipophilicity of four ACE-inhibitors and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) with RP-TLC on cellulose layers was described using three binary solvent systems. The selected ACE inhibitors had sufficiently different structures which can indicate the method suitability for their lipophilicity evaluation as the model substances in comparison with HCTZ. In addition, the linear relationship between the RM-values and composition of mobile phases was established in the current study. From the regression data of the plots, the hydrophobicity parameters, R(0) M and m, were determined and C0 parameter was calculated. The correlations between the experimentally obtained hydrophobicity parameters and calculated log p values were studied. Furthermore, the obtained results were compared with those previously obtained on RP-18 modified silica gel. Very good correlation (r = 0.91; water-ethanol solvent system) between the chromatographically obtained hydrophobicity parameters and calculated log p values confirmed the selection of ACE inhibitors since lisinopril and quinapril were on the opposite sites of linear relationship. The results indicate that cellulose as an easily available sorbent can be successfully used for the lipophilicity investigation of examined substances with RP-TLC.Entities:
Keywords: ACE inhibitors; Hydrochlorothiazide; Lipophilicity; Thin-Layer Chromatography
Year: 2012 PMID: 24250503 PMCID: PMC3813140
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1The chemical structures of the investigated drugs
hRF-values of the investigated substances
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | 10 | 15 | 20 | 25 | 30 | |
|
| 78 | 80 | 83 | 86 | 88 | 78 | 84 | 86 | 89 | 93 | 81 | 85 | 90 | 92 | 93 |
|
| 53 | 58 | 65 | 68 | 71 | 55 | 60 | 66 | 70 | 73 | 65 | 70 | 74 | 79 | 82 |
|
| 85 | 88 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 86 | 90 | 92 | 94 | 96 | 91 | 93 | 95 | 96 | 97 |
|
| 60 | 68 | 75 | 80 | 85 | 66 | 70 | 73 | 77 | 80 | 73 | 76 | 79 | 83 | 88 |
|
| 80 | 83 | 85 | 90 | 92 | 83 | 85 | 88 | 92 | 95 | 85 | 87 | 90 | 93 | 95 |
a Vol% of organic modifier in mobile phases
Regression analysis and hydrophobicity parameters of investigated compounds
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||
|
| - 0.372 ± 0.019 | 1.635 ± 0.001 | 0.995 | - 0.227 |
|
| 0.109 ± 0.032 | 1.721 ± 0.001 | 0.988 | 0.063 |
|
| - 0.587 ± 0.042 | 1.871 ± 0.002 | 0.983 | - 0.313 |
|
| 0.104 ± 0.010 | 2.858 ± 0.001 | 0.999 | 0.036 |
|
| - 0.339 ± 0.054 | 2.366 ± 0.023 | 0.982 | - 0.143 |
|
| Water-acetone* | |||
|
| - 0.284 ± 0.057 | 2.671 ± 0.002 | 0.985 | - 0.106 |
|
| 0.082 ± 0.020 | 1.763 ± 0.001 | 0.995 | 0.047 |
|
| - 0.506 ± 0.031 | 2.849 ± 0.001 | 0.996 | - 0.177 |
|
| - 0.129 ± 0.009 | 1.569 ± 0.001 | 0.999 | - 0.082 |
|
| - 0.334 ± 0.081 | 2.975 ± 0.004 | 0.976 | - 0.112 |
|
| Water-ethanol* | |||
|
| - 0.386 ± 0.057 | 2.589 ± 0.002 | 0.984 | - 0.149 |
|
| - 0.070 ± 0.013 | 1.974 ± 0.001 | 0.998 | - 0.036 |
|
| - 0.753 ± 0.017 | 2.533 ± 0.001 | 0.998 | - 0.297 |
|
| - 0.191 ± 0.054 | 2.109 ± 0.002 | 0.978 | - 0.090 |
|
| - 0.448 ± 0.046 | 2.697 ± 0.002 | 0.990 | - 0.166 |
* The volume range of organic modifiers in mobile phases was 10-30%.
Figure 2Correlation between the hydrophobicity parameters RM0 and C0 and calculated log p values of investigated substances for different mobile phases: water-methanol (A), water-acetone (B) and water-ethanol (C). The volume range of organic modifiers in mobile phases was 10-30%. The numbers denote examined substances