| Literature DB >> 26330855 |
Mohammadreza Khanmohammadi1, Hamideh Elmizadeh1, Keyvan Ghasemi1.
Abstract
The polymeric nanoparticles are prepared from biocompatible polymers in size between 10-1000 nm. Chitosan is a biocompatible polymer that - can be utilized as drug delivery systems. In this study, chitosan nanoparticles were synthesized using an optimized spontaneous emulsification method. Determining particle size and morphology are two critical parameters in nanotechnology. The aim of this study is to introduce methodology based on relation between particle size and diffuse reflectance infrared fourier transform (DRIFT) spectroscopy technique. Partial least squares (PLS) technique was used to estimate the average particle size based on DRIFT spectra. Forty two different chitosan nanoparticle samples with different particle sizes were analyzed using DRIFT spectrometry and the obtained data were processed by PLS. Results obtained from the real samples were compared to those obtained using field emission scanning electron microscope(FE-SEM) as a reference method. It was observed that PLS could correctly predict the average particle size of synthesized sample. Nanoparticles and their morphological state were determined by FE-SEM. Based on morphological characteristics analyzing with proposed method the samples were separated into two groups of "appropriate" and "inappropriate". Chemometrics methods such as principal component analysis, cluster analysis (CA) and linear discriminate analysis (LDA) were used to classify chitosan nanoparticles in terms of morphology. The percent of correctly classified samples using LDA were 100 %and 90% for training and test sets, respectively.Entities:
Keywords: Chemometrics; Chitosan nanoparticles; DRIFT spectroscopy; Particle size
Year: 2015 PMID: 26330855 PMCID: PMC4518095
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Figure 1Analytical workflow in DRIFT spectroscopy
Figure 2Diagram of PRESS according to number of factors for PLS–NAS model.
Actual and predicted mean particle size of chitosan nanoparticles samples with PLS-NAS algorithm for independent test set.
| Sample | Actual | Predicted by PLS-NAS |
|---|---|---|
|
| 41 | 42.18 |
|
| 41 | 42.12 |
|
| 74.87 | 73.29 |
|
| 74.87 | 74.44 |
|
| 51.52 | 43.36 |
|
| 51.52 | 44.76 |
|
| 37.6 | 38.70 |
|
| 68.72 | 68.65 |
|
| 73.33 | 69.40 |
|
| 73.33 | 70.20 |
|
| 58.71 | 57.35 |
|
| 41.38 | 40.39 |
|
| 38.5 | 36.44 |
|
| 3.59 | |
|
| 0.98 |
Root Mean Square Error.
Figure 3Graphical analysis of the predictive ability of PLS–NAS on the independent test set.
Figure 4FE-SEM images of optimized chitosan nanoparticles with appropriate morphology (a), chitosan nanoparticles with poor morphology (b).
Figure 5Score plot of first 3 PC for separating spectral data.
Figure 6Bar Plot of first score for visualizing role classification power of PCA.
Figure 7Dendrogram of cluster analysis according to ward distance calculation.
a) Classification power of LDA for test set. (b) Figure of merit for training and test set.
| (a)Sample | Actual class | Prediction class | Convergence rate of the class with appropriate morphology.(1) | Convergence rate of the class with poor morphology.(2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.77 | 0.23 |
| 2 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 3 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.96 | 0.04 |
| 4 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 5 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 6 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 7 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 8 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 9 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 10 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 11 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 12 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 13 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 14 | 2.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 15 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 16 | 2.00 | 2.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 |
| 17 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 18 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 19 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 20 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| 21 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 |
| (b)Parameter | Test Set | Training Set | Definition | |
| Correct rate: | 0.9048 | 1 | Correctly Classified Samples /Classified Samples | |
| Error rate: | 0.0952 | 0 | Incorrectly Classified Samples /Classified Samples | |
| Sensitivity samples: | 1 | 1 | Correctly Classified Positive Samples / True Positive | |
| Specificity samples: | 0.6667 | 1 | Correctly Classified Negative Samples /True Negative | |