| Literature DB >> 24482767 |
Gananadhamu Samanthula1, Krishnaveni Yadiki1, Shantikumar Saladi1, Sreekanth Gutala2, K V Surendranath2.
Abstract
An isocratic, stability-indicating, reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC) method was developed for the quantitative determination of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate, used for the treatment of respiratory problems. The chromatographic separation was achieved on a Zorbax-SB Phenyl 250 × 4.6mm × 5 μm column with the mobile phase consisting of a mixture of 25 mM ammonium acetate (pH 5.0) : acetonitrile (85:15 %v/v) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min. The eluate was monitored at 274 nm using a PDA detector. Forced degradation studies were performed on the bulk sample of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate using acid (0.1N HCl), base (0.1N NaOH), oxidation (10% hydrogen peroxide), photolytic, and thermal degradation conditions. Good resolution was observed between the degradants and analytes. Degradation products resulting from the stress studies did not interfere with the detection of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate, thus the assay is stability-indicating. The method has the requisite accuracy, selectivity, sensitivity, and precision for the simultaneous estimation of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate in bulk and pharmaceutical dosage forms. The limit of quantitation and limit of detection were found to be 1.16 μg/ml and 0.38 μg/ml for doxofylline, 2.08 μg/ml and 0.62 μg/ml for terbutaline sulphate, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Chromatography; Doxofylline; Method Development; Stability; Terbutaline sulfate; Validation
Year: 2013 PMID: 24482767 PMCID: PMC3867251 DOI: 10.3797/scipharm.1305-14
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Pharm ISSN: 0036-8709
Fig. 1Structure of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate.
Fig. 2Typical chromatogram wherein the separation of doxofylline and terbutaline sulphate was shown using the method.
Peak purity Data
| Name | Purity angle | Purity threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Doxofylline | 0.11 | 0.34 |
| Terbutaline | 0.22 | 0.51 |
| Acid degrad. ( | ||
| Degradant 1 | 0.14 | 0.41 |
| Degradant 2 | 1.29 | 1.32 |
| Degradant 3 | 18.54 | 36.82 |
| Degradant 4 | 15.92 | 30.36 |
| Base degrad. ( | ||
| Degradant 1 | 39.72 | 90.0 |
| Degradant 2 | 0.60 | 2.09 |
| Degradant 3 | 54.37 | 90.0 |
| Oxidative degrad. ( | ||
| Degradant 1 | 32.88 | 90.0 |
| Degradant 2 | 56.82 | 90.0 |
| Degradant 3 | 61.44 | 90.0 |
| Degradant 4 | 10.52 | 90.0 |
| Degradant 5 | 67.82 | 90.0 |
| Photolytic degrad. ( | ||
| Degradant 1 | 36.66 | 68.05 |
| Degradant 2 | 25.38 | 67.35 |
Summary of validation parameters: Statistical data for the calibration graphs
| Parameter | Doxofylline | Terbutaline |
|---|---|---|
| Linearity range | 280–480 μg/ml | 3.5–6.5 μg/ml |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.9997 ± 0.002 | 0.9997 ± 0.002 |
| Limit of detection | 0.38 μg/ml | 0.62 μg/ml |
| Limit of quantitation | 1.16 μg/ml | 2.08 μg/ml |
| Precision (%RSD) | ||
| Intra-day (n=6) | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| Inter-day (n=6) | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Analyst-1 (n=6) | 0.04 | 0.06 |
| Analyst-2 (n=6) | 0.05 | 0.05 |
Fig. 3Chromatogram of placebo solution which shows non-interference of excipients.
Standard addition technique for determination of doxofylline and terbutaline by HPLC
| Amount of drug added to placebo (mg) | Amount found (mg) | % Percentage Recovery | %RSD |
|---|---|---|---|
| a: Doxofylline | |||
|
| |||
| 280.11 | 279.89 | 99.92 | 1.25 |
| 400.37 | 396.33 | 98.99 | 1.54 |
| 480.22 | 486.03 | 101.21 | 1.23 |
|
| |||
| b: Terbutaline | |||
|
| |||
| 3.54 | 3.55 | 100.28 | 1.64 |
| 5.12 | 5.09 | 99.41 | 1.34 |
| 6.56 | 6.45 | 98.32 | 1.29 |
Results of robustness study
| Description | Condition | Retention time (in min) | Tailing Factor | Resolution | Theoretical plate number | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| |||||||
| Dox | Ter | Dox | Ter | Dox | Ter | |||
| Flow rate | 0.8 | 16.06 | 5.03 | 1.32 | 1.62 | 28.36 | 12564 | 6529 |
| (mL/min) | 1.2 | 11.67 | 3.78 | 1.2 | 1.68 | 25.61 | 12613 | 6422 |
| Buffer | 20 | 15.321 | 4.624 | 1.21 | 1.73 | 27.94 | 13285 | 7013 |
| Conc.(mM) | 30 | 14.011 | 4.386 | 1.21 | 1.57 | 27.75 | 13265 | 8160 |
| pH of the | 4.8 | 13.93 | 4.502 | 1.21 | 1.89 | 25.87 | 13383 | 6002 |
| aqueous phase | 5.2 | 13.722 | 4.297 | 1.21 | 1.398 | 28.27 | 13406 | 9200 |
Dox…Doxofylline; Ter…Terbutaline.
Results of tablet analysis.
| Formulation | Labelled amount (mg/tablet) | Amount found mg ± SD (n=5) | % Assay (n=5) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Dox | Ter | Dox | Ter | Dox | Ter | |
| ZYLINE - TR | 400 | 5 | 401.23 ± 1.25 | 5.01 ± 0.08 | 100.31 | 100.2 |
| PHYLEX - TR | 400 | 5 | 399.78 ± 1.78 | 5.13 ± 0.06 | 99.95 | 102.6 |
Dox…doxofylline; Ter…terbutaline sulphate.
Fig. 3Chromatograms of the forced degradation study, which includes a) Acid stressed samples treated with 0.1 N HCl at 100°C for 5 hrs, b) Alkali stressed samples treated with 0.1N NaOH at 100°C for 5 hrs, c) Peroxide stressed samples treated with 10% H2O2 at 80 °C for 5 hrs, d) Photo stressed sample, e) Thermal stressed sample.