| Literature DB >> 27766599 |
Ummara Butt1, Amr ElShaer2, Lori A S Snyder3, Athina Chaidemenou1, Raid G Alany1,4.
Abstract
Fatty acids (FAs) are used by many organisms as defence mechanism against virulent bacteria. The high safety profile and broad spectrum of activity make them potential alternatives to currently used topical antibiotics for the treatment of eye infections in neonates. The current study utilised a Design of Experiment approach to optimise the quantification of five fatty acids namely; lauric acid, tridecanoic acid, myristoleic acid, palmitoleic acid and α-linolenic acid. The significance of the influence of the experimental parameters such as volume of catalyst, volume of n-hexane, incubation temperature, incubation time and the number of extraction steps on derivatisation was established by statistical screening with a factorial approach. Derivatisation was confirmed using attenuated total reflectance infrared (ATR) and 1H NMR spectrum. A gas chromatographic method (GC-FID) was developed and validated according to ICH guidelines for the identification and quantification of fatty acids. The results were found to be linear over the concentration range studied with coefficient of variation greater than 0.99 and high recovery values and low intra-day and inter-day variation values for all FAs. Then, different α-linolenic acid-based microemulsions (MEs) were prepared using Tween 80 as surfactant, polyethylene glycol 400 (PEG 400) as co surfactant and water as aqueous phase. The developed GC method was used to quantify the FA content in ME formulations. The results indicated that the developed GC method is very effective to quantify the FA content in the ME formulations. The antimicrobial efficacy of FA-based MEs were tested against Staphylococcus aureus. It was concluded that the FA-based MEs have strong antimicrobial effect against S. aureus.Entities:
Keywords: Design of experiment (DoE); FAME preparation; Fatty acid methyl esters (FAME); Fatty acids; GC-FID; Gas chromatography; Method development; Validation characteristics
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27766599 PMCID: PMC5097082 DOI: 10.1007/s13346-016-0338-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Drug Deliv Transl Res ISSN: 2190-393X Impact factor: 4.617
Independent variables, their actual and coded values
| Coded value | Independent variables | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Volume of catalyst (X1) ml | Volume of n-hexane (X2) ml | Reaction temp (X3) °C | Reaction time (X4) min | Extraction steps (X5) | |
| −1 | 0.5 | 1 | 50 | 5 | 2 |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 60 | 8 | 4 |
Experimental design showing the various independent variables used in the optimisation of derivatisation method
| Sample number | X1 | X2 | X3 | X4 | X5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | −1 | −1 | −1 | −1 |
| 4 | 1 | 1 | −1 | 1 | −1 |
| 5 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 |
| 6 | −1 | 1 | −1 | −1 | 1 |
| 7 | −1 | 1 | 1 | −1 | −1 |
| 8 | −1 | −1 | −1 | 1 | 1 |
Composition and optimisation parameters of selected formulations
| Formulation | Composition | Particle size ± SD (nm) | PDI ± SD | Zeta potential (mV) | Drug content mg/ml | Drug content % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA % | S/CoS % | Water% | ||||||
| F1 | 4 | 91.5 | 4.5 | 350.50 ± 3.45 | 0.102 ± 0.012 | 0.0850 ± 0.016 | 38.88 ± 1.03 | 97.2 |
| F2 | 3.5 | 78 | 18.5 | 281.90 ± 1.41 | 0.194 ± 0.023 | −0.170 ± 0.022 | 33.95 ± 1.24 | 97 |
| F3 | 16.5 | 79 | 4.5 | 315.80 ± 1.56 | 0.482 ± 0.052 | −0.136 ± 0.054 | 161.95 ± 2.47 | 98.2 |
Equations, correlation coefficients, intra-day and inter-day variation and recovery percentage for five fatty acids
| Fatty acids | Calibration curve equation | Regression coefficient ( | LOD | LOQ | ( | ( | Accuracy R% c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C12:0 | y = 68,166x + 666.51 | 0.9938 | 0.015 | 0.046 | 2.49 | 3.44 | 97.98 |
| C13:0 | y = 69,869x + 458.17 | 0.9959 | 0.012 | 0.038 | 2.66 | 4.71 | 97.45 |
| C14:1 | y = 78,575x + 533.73 | 0.9966 | 0.011 | 0.034 | 4.31 | 3.02 | 98.64 |
| C16:1 | y = 88,538x + 96.649 | 0.9989 | 0.0064 | 0.019 | 2.88 | 3.57 | 100.38 |
| C18:3 | y = 77,175x + 827.61 | 0.9983 | 0.008 | 0.024 | 5.11 | 3.73 | 98.42 |
aThe mean value of RSD established from six (n = 6) complete analyses of each sample in a day
bThe mean value of RSD established from six complete analyses repeated three consecutive days
cThe mean of recovery percentage established from the complete analysis in triplicate of FAME standard fortified with a standard working solution at three concentrations
Fig. 1Pareto chart showing the effect of variables on the peak area of C12:0 (lauric acid; a), C14:1 (myrisoleic acid; b), C18:3 (α-linolenic acid; c), C13:0 (tridecanoic acid; d), C16:1 (palmitoleic acid; e) where volume of catalyst X1 (a), volume of n-hexane X2 (b), reaction temperature X3 (c), reaction time X4 (d) and the number of extraction steps X5 (e)
Fig. 23D surface plots of significant (P < 0.05) interaction effects of volume of n-hexane and number of extraction step time on the peak area of C12:0, C13:0, C14:1 and C18:3
Fig. 4Pseudo-ternary phase diagram of α-linolenic acid, Tween 80 and PEG 400 (S/CoS mix 1:1) and water
Means of inhibition growth diameter obtained by disc diffusion method using three selected FA-based ME formulations and individual components against Staphylococcus aureus mean ± SD% (n = 3)
| Formulation | Zone of inhibition (mm) |
|---|---|
| F1 | 12.5 ± 0.7 |
| F2 | 10.5 ± 0.7 |
| F3 | 25.5 ± 0.7 |
| FAs and active ingredients | |
| Tween 80 | 16.0 ± 1.4 |
| PEG 400 | 8.5 ± 0.7 |
| Lauric acid C12:0 at 1 mM | 6.5 ± 0.2 |
| Lauric acid C12:0 at 5 mM | 10.2 ± 0.2 |
| Tridecanoic acid C13:0 at 1 mM | 7.2 ± 0.3 |
| Tridecanoic acid C13:0 at 5 mM | 13.5 ± 0.6 |
| Myristoleic acid C14:1 at 1 mM | 6.5 ± 0.5 |
| Myristoleic acid C14:1 at 5 mM | 10.2 ± 0.5 |
| Palmitoleic acid C16:1 at 1 mM | 9.5 ± 0.6 |
| Palmitoleic acid C16:1 at 5 mM | 11.5 ± 0.6 |
| α-linolenic acid C18:3 at 1 mM | 7.5 ± 0.6 |
| α-linolenic acid C18:3 at 5 mM | 12.3 ± 0.7 |