| Literature DB >> 25822535 |
Magdalena Paczkowska1, Mikołaj Mizera1, Hanna Piotrowska2, Daria Szymanowska-Powałowska3, Kornelia Lewandowska4, Joanna Goscianska5, Robert Pietrzak5, Waldemar Bednarski6, Zbigniew Majka7, Judyta Cielecka-Piontek1.
Abstract
This study aimed to obtain and characterize an RU-β-CD complex in the context of investigating the possibility of changes in the solubility, stability, antioxidative and microbiological activity as well as permeability of complexated rutin as against its free form. The formation of the RU-β-CD complex via a co-grinding technique was confirmed by using DSC, SEM, FT-IR and Raman spectroscopy, and its geometry was assessed through molecular modeling. It was found that the stability and solubility of the so-obtained complex were greater compared to the free form; however, a slight decrease was observed inits antibacterial potency. An examination of changes in the EPR spectra of thecomplex excluded any reducing effect of complexation on the antioxidative activity of rutin. Considering the prospect of preformulation studies involving RU-β-CD complexes, of significance is also the observed possibility of prolongedly releasing rutin from the complex at a constant level over along period of 20 h, and the fact that twice as much complexated rutin was able topermeate compared to its free form.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25822535 PMCID: PMC4379171 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120858
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1FT-IR absorption spectra for β-CD (red), RU (black) and RU-β-CD complex (blue).
Fig 2DSC spectra of RU (black) and RU-β-CD (red).
Fig 3SEM images of β-CD (A), RU (B), RU-β-CD (C).
Fig 4Two possible ways of inclusion of rutin into β-CD (A) and the structural parts of routine which can interact with β-CD during complex creation (B).
Fig 5Binding modes of β-CD and RU-β-CD inclusion complex.
Fig 6Changes of binding energy of molecules in complex in respect to rotation degree.
Fig 7The disappearance of free radicals after irradiation.
Approximations to experimental points were done according to equation 4 and appropriate parameters are collected in table 1.
Parameters characterizing the concentration of free radicals described by equation 4.
| I(t = 0h) | I0 | I1 | t1 [h] | I2 | t2 [h] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [1015 radicals/g] | [1015 radicals/g] | [1015 radicals/g] | [1015 radicals/g] | |||
| RU—bulk substance | 1.2 (±0.2) | 1.2 (±0.2) | - | - | - | - |
| RU—after exposure to sunlight (24h) | 56.2 (±3.0) | 4.9 (±0.5) | 31.1 (±1.3) | 1.87 (±0.21) | 20.2 (±1.2) | 19.0 (±1.9) |
| RU-β-CD—0h | 0.6 (±0.2) | 0.6 (±0.2) | - | - | - | - |
| RU-β-CD—after exposure to sunlight (24h) | 46.3 (±3.0) | 3.8 (±0.3) | 25.9 (±1.9) | 1.34 (±0.17) | 16.6 (±0.8) | 17.0 (±1.7) |
Fig 8Phase-solubility diagram of RU-β-CD inclusion complex.
Kinetic and thermodynamic parameters of the degradation of RU and RU-β-CD during acidic-basic hydrolysis.
| Temperature, K | RU | RU-β-CD | t0 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| kobs, s-1 | Thermodynamic parameters | kobs, s-1 | Thermodynamic parameters | ||
| 0.5 mol/L HCl | |||||
| 323 | (2.75 ± 0.43) × 10-7 |
| (1.86 ± 5.64) × 10-7 |
| 2.7754 |
| 333 | (6.89 ± 0.42) × 10-7 |
| (3.57 ± 0.24) × 10-7 |
| 9.4814 |
| 343 | (2.47 ± 2.06) × 10-6 |
| (2.25 ± 6.02) × 10-6 |
| 2.7754 |
| 353 | (8.86 ± 0.44) × 10-6 | (7.39 ± 0.15) × 10-6 | 4.3675 | ||
| 0.2 mol/L NaOH | |||||
| 303 | (1.81 ± 0.98) × 10-5 |
| (1.81 ± 0.99) × 10-5 |
| 0 |
| 308 | (3.27 ± 0.33) × 10-5 | Δ | (2.19 ± 0.10) × 10-5 | Δ | 4.4875 |
| 313 | (4.99 ± 0.40) × 10-5 | Δ | (4.08 ± 0.49) × 10-5 | Δ | 1.9454 |
| 318 | (8.06 ± 0.02) × 10-5 | (5.29 ± 0.01) × 10-5 | 1.9064 | ||
| 25% H202 | |||||
| 353 | (1.62 ± 0.91) × 10-6 | - | (1.11 ± 0.83) × 10-6 | - | 5.4930 |
| Photolysis | |||||
| - | (1.18 ± 0.91) × 10-6 | - | (5.57 ± 0.54) × 10-7 | - | 5.9499 |
Δk = S t f E , activation energy; ΔH ≠, enthalpy; ΔS ≠, entropy; Ea = -aR; ΔH ≠ = E -TR; ΔS ≠ = R(ln A ln(k T)/h where: kB, Boltzmann’s constant (1.3807 10-23 JK-1); h, Planck’s constant (6.626 10-34Js); R, universal gas constant (8.314 K-1mol-1), T, temperature in K; a, vectorial coefficient of the Arrhenius; A, frequency coefficient acalculated for 298 K; t0, parameter of parallelism test, establishing significance of a coefficient of ln(ci) = f(t) plots.
Fig 9The semi-log plots of c = f(t) for the degradation of RU and RU-β-CD after its exposure to sunlight.
Fig 10The semilogarithmic relationship ki = f(1/T) for the degradation of RU-β-CD in 0.5 mol/L HCl (●) and in 0.2 mol/L NaOH (■).
MIC (mg/L) of RU and RU-β-CD inclusion complex against selected Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria.
| Microorganism | RU | RU-β-CD |
|---|---|---|
| The clinical isolate or indicator | inclusion | |
| complex | ||
| mg/L | ||
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| 5000 | 10.000 |
|
| 3125 | 6250 |
|
| 6250 | 12500 |
|
| 12500 | 25000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5000 | 5000 |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
|
| NF | NF |
NF **—no growth inhibition at a concentration of 100000 mg/L or 100 g/L
Fig 11Dissolution profile of RU from RU-β-CD inclusion complex.
Fig 12Relationship between RU and RU in inclusion complex (RU-β-CD) and permeability coefficient.