| Literature DB >> 24319604 |
Kaliappan Ilango1, Pushpangadhan S Shiji Kumar.
Abstract
A rapid, precise, sensitive, economical, and validated high performance thin layer chromatographic method is developed for simultaneous quantification of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in combined tablet dosage form. The method used amlodipine as internal standard (IS). Chromatographic separations were achieved on silica gel 60 F254 plates using toluene-methanol-ethyl acetate-acetone (2.5 : 1 : 0.5 : 2, v/v/v/v) as mobile phase. Densitometric analysis was carried out in the reflectance mode at 258 nm. Calibration curves were linear over a range of 80-480 ng/band for olmesartan medoxomil and 25-150 ng/band for hydrochlorothiazide. The detection and quantification limits were found to be 18.12 and 56.35 ng/band for olmesartan medoxomil and 6.31 and 18.56 ng/band for hydrochlorothiazide, respectively. Intra- and interassay precision provided relative standard deviations lower than 2% for both analytes. Recovery from 99.60 to 101.22% for olmesartan medoxomil and 98.30 to 99.32% for hydrochlorothiazide show good accuracy. Both the drugs were also subjected to acid, alkali, oxidation, heat, and photodegradation studies. The degradation products obtained were well resolved from pure drugs with significantly different R f values. As the method could effectively separate the drugs from their degradation products, it can be used for stability-indicating analysis. Validation of the method was carried out as per international conference on harmonization (ICH) guidelines.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24319604 PMCID: PMC3835193 DOI: 10.1155/2013/363741
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Figure 1Chemical structure of (a) olmesartan medoxomil (b) hydrochlorothiazide.
Figure 2Representative chromatogram of OLM (R 0.29), HTZ (R 0.52), and IS (R 0.71).
Figure 3Typical overlaid absorption spectra of (a) OLM and (b) HTZ.
Figure 4Peak purity spectra of (a) OLM and (b) HTZ. The wavelength selected for analysis was 258 nm.
Linearity parameters for calibration curve.
| Parameter | Olmesartan medoxomil | Hydrochlorothiazide |
|---|---|---|
| Retention factor ( | 0.29 | 0.52 |
| Linearity range (ng/band) | 80–480 | 25–150 |
| Regression equation ( |
|
|
| Correlation coefficient ( | 0.9996 | 0.9999 |
| Limit of detection (ng/band) | 18.12 | 6.31 |
| Limit of quantification (ng/band) | 56.35 | 18.56 |
| Standard deviation of slopea ( | 0.9813 | 0.9012 |
| Standard deviation of intercepta ( | 1.2013 | 1.1430 |
| Regression coefficient ( | 0.999 | 0.998 |
| Peak purity index ( | 0.9986 | 0.9995 |
| Method precisiona (RSD %) | 0.92 | 0.84 |
aMean of five replicates, RSD: relative standard deviation.
Results of precision studies of proposed method.
| Drug concentration (ng/band) | Intraday precision | Interday precision | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calculated amounta ± SEM (ng/band) | % RSD | Calculated amounta ± SEM (ng/band) | % RSD | |
| OLM | ||||
| 80 | 79.12 ± 0.20 | 0.44 | 82.41 ± 0.47 | 0.98 |
| 320 | 323.10 ± 0.24 | 0.13 | 325.60 ± 0.90 | 0.48 |
| 480 | 485.62 ± 0.94 | 0.34 | 483.13 ± 1.36 | 0.38 |
| HTZ | ||||
| 25 | 26.15 ± 0.15 | 0.99 | 25.93 ± 0.26 | 1.73 |
| 100 | 102.36 ± 0.29 | 0.50 | 101.95 ± 0.64 | 1.08 |
| 150 | 156.91 ± 0.71 | 0.78 | 153.12 ± 1.53 | 1.08 |
aMean of three replicates, RSD: relative standard deviation, SEM: standard error mean.
Accuracy study by standard addition method.
| Drug | Initial amount (ng/band) | Fortified amount (ng/band) | Amount recovereda ± SEM (ng/band) | Mean recovery (%) | % RSD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Olmesartan medoxomil | 80 | 25 | 105.92 ± 0.24 | 100.88 | 0.40 |
| 160 | 50 | 212.56 ± 0.50 | 101.22 | 0.50 | |
| 240 | 75 | 313.71 ± 1.22 | 99.60 | 0.37 | |
|
| |||||
| Hydrochlorothiazide | 25 | 25 | 49.15 ± 0.14 | 98.30 | 0.51 |
| 50 | 50 | 99.32 ± 0.31 | 99.32 | 0.54 | |
| 75 | 75 | 148.53 ± 0.55 | 99.02 | 0.64 | |
aMean of three replicates, RSD: relative standard deviation, SEM: standard error mean.
Results from robustness study.
| Condition | Retention factor ( | Assaya (%) | % RSD | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | |
| Mobile phase composition (v/v/v/v) | ||||||
| Toluene : methanol : ethyl acetate : acetone | ||||||
| (2.4 : 1 : 1 : 1.5) | 0.31 | 0.54 | 100.70 | 101.20 | 0.41 | 0.69 |
| (2.5 : 1 : 1 : 2.5) | 0.32 | 0.53 | 99.30 | 100.76 | 1.21 | 1.08 |
| (2.5 : 0.9 : 0.9 : 1.5) | 0.31 | 0.54 | 98.72 | 97.91 | 0.93 | 0.86 |
| Development distance (cm) | ||||||
| 6 | 0.30 | 0.54 | 98.76 | 101.21 | 0.71 | 0.19 |
| 7 | 0.31 | 0.52 | 97.86 | 99.30 | 0.27 | 0.87 |
| Time of spotting to chromatogram (min) | ||||||
| 9 | 0.30 | 0.52 | 98.61 | 99.32 | 1.32 | 1.47 |
| 10 | 0.28 | 0.52 | 100.86 | 101.20 | 1.62 | 0.72 |
| Detection wavelength (nm) | ||||||
| 275 | 0.29 | 0.53 | 98.71 | 99.41 | 1.01 | 0.43 |
| 280 | 0.29 | 0.54 | 98.76 | 99.37 | 0.37 | 0.86 |
aMean of three determinations, RSD: relative standard deviation.
Figure 5Densitogram obtained after stress testing under different conditions.
Results from degradation study.
| Degradation condition | % Degradation | Number of degradation products ( |
|---|---|---|
| Acid | 5%, 3%, 8% | 0.015, 0.43 |
| Alkali | 12%, 18%, 5% | 0.10, 0.45, 0.79 |
| Oxidative | 22%, 5%, 1% | 0.20 |
| Heat | — | — |
| Photolytic (UV) | — | — |
Results from HPTLC quantification of olmesartan medoxomil and hydrochlorothiazide in tablets.
| Sample | Label claim (mg) | Amount presenta (mg) | SD | % RSD | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | |
| Olmesar-H | 40 | 12.5 | 41.05 | 12.42 | 0.17 | 0.21 | 0.41 | 1.69 |
| Olmy-H | 40 | 12.5 | 41.38 | 12.35 | 0.41 | 0.14 | 0.99 | 1.13 |
aMean of five determinations, SD: standard deviation, RSD: relative standard deviation.
Comparison of the proposed method with the reported HPLC method.
| Parameter | HPLC | HPTLC | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OLM | HTZ | OLM | HTZ | |
| Linearity | 4–24 | 2.5–15 | 80–480 ng/band | 25–150 ng/band |
| LOD | 0.44 | 0.21 | 18.12 ng/band | 6.31 ng/band |
| LOQ | 1.32 | 0.63 | 56.35 ng/band | 18.56 ng/band |
| Tablet analysis (% recovery) | 100.24 | 100.10 | 103.03 | 99.08 |