| Literature DB >> 25705547 |
V Ashok Chakravarthy1, B B V Sailaja1, Avvaru Praveen Kumar2.
Abstract
The present work was the development of a simple, efficient, and reproducible stability-indicating reverse-phase high performance liquid chromatographic (RP-HPLC) method for simultaneous determination enrofloxacin (EFX) and its degradation products including ethylenediamine impurity, desfluoro impurity, ciprofloxacin impurity, chloro impurity, fluoroquinolonic acid impurity, and decarboxylated impurity in tablet dosage forms. The separation of EFX and its degradation products in tablets was carried out on Kromasil C-18 (250 × 4.6 mm, 5 μm) column using 0.1% (v/v) TEA in 10 mM KH2PO4 (pH 2.5) buffer and methanol by linear gradient program. Flow rate was 1.0 mL min(-1) with a column temperature of 35°C and detection wavelength was carried out at 278 nm and 254 nm. The forced degradation studies were performed on EFX tablets under acidic, basic, oxidation, thermal, humidity, and photolytic conditions. The degraded products were well resolved from the main active drug and also from known impurities within 65 minutes. The method was validated in terms of specificity, linearity, LOD, LOQ, accuracy, precision, and robustness as per ICH guidelines. The results obtained from the validation experiments prove that the developed method is a stability-indicating method and suitable for routine analysis.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25705547 PMCID: PMC4326284 DOI: 10.1155/2015/735145
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Anal Methods Chem ISSN: 2090-8873 Impact factor: 2.193
Gradient program.
| Time | Buffer | Acetonitrile |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 87 | 13 |
| 34 | 87 | 13 |
| 46 | 20 | 80 |
| 52 | 20 | 80 |
| 55 | 87 | 13 |
| 60 | 87 | 13 |
Figure 1Structures of EFX and its related impurities.
Gradient program.
| Time | Buffer | Methanol |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 80 | 20 |
| 20 | 70 | 30 |
| 40 | 20 | 80 |
| 50 | 20 | 80 |
| 55 | 80 | 20 |
| 60 | 80 | 20 |
Gradient program.
| Time | Buffer | Methanol |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 80 | 20 |
| 20 | 75 | 25 |
| 40 | 15 | 85 |
| 50 | 15 | 85 |
| 55 | 80 | 20 |
| 65 | 80 | 20 |
Gradient program.
| Time | Buffer | Methanol |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 80 | 20 |
| 45 | 30 | 70 |
| 55 | 20 | 80 |
| 60 | 80 | 20 |
| 65 | 80 | 20 |
Gradient program for developed method.
| Time | Buffer | Methanol |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 88 | 12 |
| 35 | 66 | 34 |
| 45 | 30 | 70 |
| 50 | 20 | 80 |
| 55 | 88 | 12 |
| 65 | 88 | 12 |
Figure 3Blank run at 278 nm.
Figure 4Blank run at 254 nm.
Figure 5Placebo at 278 nm.
Figure 6Placebo at 254 nm.
Figure 7Control sample at 278 nm (concentration ~0.5 mg mL−1).
Figure 8Control sample at 254 nm (concentration ~0.5 mg mL−1).
Figure 91% impurities spiked sample at 278 nm.
Figure 101% impurities spiked sample at 254 nm.
Figure 2Spectra of EFX.
Degradation data of EFX tablets.
| Degradation conditions | %Decarboxylated | %ED analogue | %Ciprobase impurity | %Chloro impurity | %FQ acid | %Total unknown | %Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acid treatment | — | 0.02 | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.31 |
| Base treatment | 0.04 | — | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.14 | 0.37 |
| Peroxide treatment | 0.04 | — | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.62 | 0.86 |
| Thermal-80°C, 5 days | — | — | 0.05 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.11 | 0.29 |
| Humidity-90% RH, | 0.01 | — | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.13 | 0.33 |
| Photolytic-1.2 m lux hr, 200 Watt hr/m2 | — | — | 0.06 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 0.17 | 0.38 |
LOD, LOQ, linearity, relative response factor, and precision data.
| Parameter | EFX at 278 nm | EFX at 254 nm | %Decarboxylated impurity | %FQ Acid impurity | %ED impurity | %Desfluoro impurity | %Cipro base impurity | %Chloro impurity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOD ( | 0.106 | 0.266 | 0.105 | 0.100 | 0.099 | 0.103 | 0.106 | 0.106 |
|
| 4 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 | 5 |
| LOQ ( | 0.266 | 0.532 | 0.261 | 0.249 | 0.248 | 0.258 | 0.266 | 0.265 |
|
| 13 | 17 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 18 | 14 | 15 |
| Relative response factor | — | — | 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.87 | 0.83 | 0.92 | 1.09 |
| Method precision (% RSD)a | — | — | 1.5% | 1.6% | 0.9% | 1.8% | 1.7% | 1.9% |
| Intermediate precision (% RSD)b | — | — | 1.8% | 1.7% | 1.3% | 1.2% | 1.6% | 1.5% |
|
| ||||||||
| Slope | 71160 | 17902 | 39100 | 56718 | 82107 | 85531 | 77739 | 65090 |
| Intercept | −481.8 | −216.8 | −1336.5 | −1150.4 | −445.7 | −2163.6 | −1660.2 | 2529.3 |
| Coefficient of determination ( | 0.9937 | 0.9920 | 0.9966 | 0.9986 | 0.9888 | 0.9930 | 0.9990 | 0.9905 |
| Intercept at 95% confidence interval | 6255.01–5291.4 | 1849.7–1416.1 | 3577.4–904.5 | 3336.2–1035.5 | 8949.5–8058.1 | 9364.1–5036.9 | 3963.5–643.1 | 3828.3–8886.8 |
| Slope at 95% confidence interval | 64629.7–77689.3 | 16054.9–19748.9 | 36511.0–41687.9 | 54278.1–59158.2 | 72068.0–92146.6 | 77286.7–93775.9 | 75035.1–80443.2 | 57779.0–72400.9 |
aMethod precision calculated from six preparations of impurities spiked solutions.
bIntermediate precision calculated from six preparations of impurities spiked solutions.
Accuracy results.
| %Impurity level | %Recovery range for triplicate preparations | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| %Decarboxylated impurity | %FQ Acid impurity | %ED impurity | %Desfluoro impurity | %Cipro base impurity | %Chloro impurity | |
| LOQ | 93.5–106.0 | 91.7–96.6 | 95.8–101.8 | 91.2–97.3 | 95.6–99.2 | 92.6–96.9 |
| 100% | 98.2–104.6 | 95.8–98.5 | 94.7–97.0 | 93.6–96.3 | 94.9–97.7 | 95.2–100.5 |
| 120% | 94.4–96.7 | 93.4–96.3 | 96.0–100.4 | 95.6–101.7 | 101.1–106.7 | 98.8–102.9 |
Robustness results (control sample and column temperature variations).
| Name of the impurity | Control sample | Using other batch columns | Low column temperature 30°C | High column temperature 40°C | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | |
| %Decarboxylated impurity | 0.57 | — | 0.56 | — | 0.56 | — | 0.56 | — |
| %Desfluoro impurity | 0.79 | 15.25 | 0.79 | 14.31 | 0.79 | 15.83 | 0.77 | 13.82 |
| %ED impurity | 0.85 | 3.92 | 0.85 | 3.58 | 0.86 | 4.17 | 0.83 | 3.12 |
| %Cipro base impurity | 0.96 | 6.17 | 0.96 | 5.57 | 0.96 | 5.62 | 0.94 | 6.13 |
| Enrofloxacin | 1.00 | 2.16 | 1.00 | 1.85 | 1.00 | 1.81 | 1.00 | 2.48 |
| %Chloro impurity | 1.32 | 16.28 | 1.32 | 13.78 | 1.31 | 15.69 | 1.33 | 15.71 |
| %FQ acid impurity | 1.81 | 36.71 | 1.84 | 36.64 | 1.71 | 28.86 | 1.93 | 39.78 |
Robustness results (flow rate and minor component change variations).
| Name of the impurity |
Flow rate |
Flow rate |
Higher methanol concentration |
Lower methanol concentration | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | RRT | Resolution | |
| %Decarboxylated impurity | 0.55 | — | 0.57 | — | 0.54 | — | 0.58 | — |
| %Desfluoro impurity | 0.78 | 15.56 | 0.79 | 15.13 | 0.77 | 15.26 | 0.80 | 15.35 |
| %ED impurity | 0.85 | 3.66 | 0.85 | 4.05 | 0.84 | 3.88 | 0.85 | 3.47 |
| %Cipro base impurity | 0.95 | 6.14 | 0.96 | 6.00 | 0.95 | 5.77 | 0.95 | 5.76 |
| Enrofloxacin | 1.00 | 2.30 | 1.00 | 1.99 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 2.16 |
| %Chloro impurity | 1.19 | 16.27 | 1.31 | 15.82 | 1.34 | 15.63 | 1.30 | 15.40 |
| %FQ acid impurity | 1.85 | 38.26 | 1.76 | 33.95 | 1.93 | 39.33 | 1.70 | 29.50 |
Solution stability results of standard and control sample at room temperature.
| Name of the impurity | Time interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | After 24 hours | %Difference | |
| %Assay of standard solution | 99.7 | 99.4 | 0.3 |
| %Decarboxylated impurity | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| %FQ acid impurity | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.00 |
| %ED impurity | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| %Desfluoro impurity | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| %Cipro base impurity | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.01 |
| %Chloro impurity | 0.12 | 0.11 | 0.01 |
| %Unknown impurity | 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.00 |