| Literature DB >> 30174695 |
Maja Hadzieva Gigovska1, Ana Petkovska1, Jelena Acevska2, Natalija Nakov2, Packa Antovska1, Sonja Ugarkovic1, Aneta Dimitrovska2.
Abstract
This manuscript describes comprehensive approach for assessment of degradation behavior of simvastatin employing experimental design methodology as scientific multifactorial strategy. Experimental design methodology was used for sample preparation and UHPLC method development and optimization. Simvastatin was subjected to stress conditions of oxidative, acid, base, hydrolytic, thermal, and photolytic degradation. Using 2n full factorial design degradation conditions were optimized to obtain targeted level of degradation. Screening for optimal chromatographic condition was made by Plackett-Burman design and optimization chromatographic experiments were conducted according to Box-Behnken design. Successful separation of simvastatin from the impurities and degradation products was achieved on Poroshell 120 EC C18 50 × 3.0 mm 2.7 μm, using solutions of 20 mM ammonium formate pH 4.0 and acetonitrile as the mobile phase in gradient mode. The proposed method was validated according to International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) guidelines. Validation results have shown that the proposed method is selective, linear, sensitive, accurate, and robust and it is suitable for quantitative determination of simvastatin and its impurities. Afterwards, the degradation products were confirmed by a direct hyphenation of liquid chromatograph to ion-trap mass spectrometer with heated electrospray ionization interface. This study highlights the multiple benefits of implementing experimental design, which provides a better understanding of significant factors responsible for degradation and ensures successful way to achieve degradation and can replace the trial and error approach used in conventional forced degradation studies.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30174695 PMCID: PMC6106721 DOI: 10.1155/2018/7170539
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Anal Chem ISSN: 1687-8760 Impact factor: 1.885
Plan of Plackett–Burman design and experimentally obtained results.
| Number of experiments | Factor levels | Responses | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 20 | 0.7 | 228 | 7 | 25 | 35 | 60 | lot 2 | 25 | 0.72 | 2.50 | 0.92 |
| 2 | 20 | 0.3 | 228 | 3 | 10 | 35 | 40 | lot 2 | 5 | 0.92 | 4.25 | 1.25 |
| 3 | 20 | 0.3 | 228 | 7 | 10 | 45 | 40 | lot 1 | 25 | 1.20 | 3.28 | 6.23 |
| 4 | 20 | 0.3 | 240 | 3 | 25 | 45 | 60 | lot 1 | 5 | 1.02 | 3.72 | 1.22 |
| 5 | 20 | 0.7 | 240 | 7 | 10 | 35 | 60 | lot 1 | 5 | 1.03 | 2.02 | 2.21 |
| 6 | 20 | 0.7 | 240 | 3 | 25 | 45 | 40 | lot 1 | 25 | 1.56 | 3.44 | 7.78 |
| 7 | 5 | 0.7 | 228 | 7 | 25 | 45 | 40 | lot 2 | 5 | 1.25 | 3.10 | 1.59 |
| 8 | 5 | 0.3 | 228 | 3 | 25 | 35 | 60 | lot 1 | 25 | 0.88 | 3.72 | 2.16 |
| 9 | 5 | 0.7 | 228 | 3 | 10 | 45 | 60 | lot 2 | 5 | 0.71 | 3.56 | 1.26 |
| 10 | 5 | 0.3 | 240 | 7 | 25 | 35 | 40 | lot 2 | 5 | 1.08 | 3.89 | 6.41 |
| 11 | 5 | 0.7 | 240 | 3 | 10 | 35 | 40 | lot 2 | 25 | 1.59 | 4.56 | 4.52 |
| 12 | 5 | 0.3 | 240 | 7 | 10 | 45 | 60 | lot 1 | 25 | 0.80 | 3.35 | 2.53 |
x 1: molarity of ammonium formate (mM); x2: flow rate (mL/min); x3: wavelength (nm); x4: volume of injection (μL); x5: detector acquisition rate (Hz); x6: column temperature (°C); x7: percent of organic modifier in the initial mobile phase composition (%); x8: column with the same composition but different lots (lot 1: USCFZ13194/B13243; lot 2: USCFZ13193/B13243); x9: injector temperature (°C);y1: Rs E/F; y2: Rs G/SIM; and y3: Rs B/C.
Box-Behnken experimental design matrixes of the selected independent variables and studied responses.
| Number of experiments | Factors levels | Responses | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 40 | 3.06 | 1.27 | 1.72 |
| 2 | 4.2 | 0.6 | 40 | 2.79 | 1.33 | 1.51 |
| 3 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 40 | 3.66 | 1.40 | 1.60 |
| 4 | 4.2 | 0.8 | 40 | 4.02 | 1.04 | 1.41 |
| 5 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 35 | 3.12 | 1.51 | 1.58 |
| 6 | 4.2 | 0.7 | 35 | 4.25 | 1.07 | 1.43 |
| 7 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 45 | 3.91 | 1.37 | 1.38 |
| 8 | 4.2 | 0.7 | 45 | 2.58 | 1.52 | 1.32 |
| 9 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 35 | 3.59 | 1.39 | 1.59 |
| 10 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 35 | 3.85 | 1.30 | 1.40 |
| 11 | 4.0 | 0.6 | 45 | 3.05 | 1.44 | 1.56 |
| 12 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 45 | 3.25 | 1.35 | 1.78 |
| 13 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 40 | 4.58 | 1.06 | 2.06 |
| 14 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 40 | 4.48 | 1.12 | 2.15 |
| 15 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 40 | 4.28 | 1.03 | 2.12 |
x 1: pH of mobile phase; x2: flow rate (mL/min); x3: content of acetonitrile (%); y1: Rs between impurity G and SIM; y2: tailing factor SIM (T); and y3: Rs between impurities B and C.
Experimental conditions and results from 2n full factorial design for acid, alkali, oxidative, and thermal degradation.
| Experimental conditions | Acid degradation | Alkali degradation | Oxidative degradation | Experimental conditions | Thermal degradation | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exp. No | Factor levels | Responses (%) | Factor levels | Responses (%) | |||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 1. | - | - | - | 7.32 | 0.15 | 6.83 | 15.28 | 0.17 | 11.23 | 1.09 | 0.03 | 0.12 | - | - | 3.98 | 0.04 | 3.38 |
| 2. |
| - | - | 14.43 | 0.12 | 13.93 | 16.23 | 0.10 | 12.53 | 1.16 | 0.04 | 0.13 | - |
| 6.33 | 0.09 | 5.38 |
| 3. | - |
| - | 5.79 | 0.25 | 5.04 | 26.65 | 0.12 | 15.23 | 1.45 | 0.06 | 0.14 |
| - | 20.12 | 0.26 | 17.10 |
| 4. |
|
| - | 22.04 | 0.17 | 21.74 | 39.43 | 0.08 | 23.50 | 1.55 | 0.08 | 0.16 |
|
| 25.79 | 0.28 | 21.92 |
| 5. | - | - |
| 16.71 | 0.05 | 16.39 | 37.25 | 0.09 | 35.89 | 2.19 | 0.10 | 2.04 | |||||
| 6. |
| - |
| 41.05 | 0.09 | 40.73 | 48.32 | 0.15 | 40.23 | 3.29 | 0.17 | 2.16 | |||||
| 7. | - |
|
| 18.76 | 0.23 | 18.47 | 58.23 | 0.11 | 45.62 | 4.79 | 0.15 | 2.56 | |||||
| 8. |
|
|
| 39.89 | 0.29 | 38.32 | 68.89 | 0.19 | 58.26 | 6.28 | 0.19 | 2.89 | |||||
x 1: stressor strength 0.01 M and 0.1 M HCl/NaOH or 3% and 30% H2O2 for hydrolysis and oxidative degradation respectable; x2: temperature 25°C and 40°C; x3: time 15 and 45 minutes; x4: temperature: 80°C and 105°C; x5: time 180 and 300 minutes; y1: amount of total impurities (%);y2: amount of impurity with RRT 1.16 (%); and y3: amount of impurity A (%). The high level of each factor was considered as “+" and low level as “−".
Figure 1Half-normal plot and Pareto chart showing the significant effects based on the observation of Plackett–Burman design for the investigated responses (a) Rs between impurity E and F (y1); (b) Rs between SIM and impurity G (y2); (c) Rs between impurity B and C (y3) where x1 is molarity of ammonium formate (mM); x2 is flow rate (mL/min); x3 is wavelength (nm); x4 is volume of injection (μL); x5 is detector acquisition rate (Hz); x6 is column temperature (°C); x7 is percent of organic modifier in the initial mobile phase composition (%); x8 is column of the same composition but of different lot; and x9 is injector temperature (°C). Positive effects are marked with white bar box with orange frame and orange bar box for significant and insignificant factor, respectable. Negative effects are marked with white bar box with blue frame and blue bar box for significant and insignificant, respectable.
Figure 23D surface plot representing the (a) Rs between impurity G and SIM, (b) tailing factor, and (c) Rs between peaks of impurities B and C, as a function of % organic modifier, pH, and flow rate. (d) Desirability plot for optimization of the selected responses where the red area corresponds to the optimum chromatographic conditions while ACN content maintained constant at 40%. Color change from blue to red represents increasing response values (minmax).
Figure 3Representative chromatogram of peak identification solution.
Obtained results from validation of the proposed method.
| Imp.E | Imp.G | SIM | MSIM | Imp.B | Imp.C | Imp.D | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| System suitability | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Resolution | / | 4.44 | 4.27 | 6.83 | 11.20 | 1.56 | 38.26 |
| NTP | 79895 | 110461 | 169356 | 268485 | 253612 | 184417 | 292527 |
| T | 1.01 | 1.02 | 1.04 | 1.05 | 1.07 | 1.02 | 1.02 |
|
| |||||||
| Linearity (1) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Regression coefficient | 0.9969 | 0.9994 | 0.9920 | 0.9980 | 0.9990 | 0.9970 | 0.9997 |
| Slope | 33806 | 15647 | 31722 | 10155 | 27192 | 21212 | 10765 |
| Intercept | 6077 | 388 | 6375 | 368 | 253 | 2171 | 401 |
| Response factor | 1.50 | 0.55 | 1.0 | 0.36 | 0.96 | 0.75 | 0.38 |
|
| |||||||
| Precision (2) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| Method precision | 7.26 | NA | NA | 9.04 | 6.12 | NA | NA |
| Intermediate precision (F –test) | 1.86 | 1.02 | NA | 1.85 | 1.05 | 1.02 | 1.03 |
|
| |||||||
| Accuracy given as recovery (%) (3) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| 50 | 98.8 ± 0.5 | 100.4 ± 0.6 | 100.5 ± 0.5 | 98.8 ± 0.6 | 99.5 ± 1.5 | 101.0 ± 0.2 | 100. 7 ± 1.0 |
| 100 | 98.3 ± 0.3 | 99.1 ± 1.4 | 100.2 ± 0.1 | 99.1 ± 0.7 | 99.7 ± 0.8 | 98.3 ± 0.9 | 100.3 ± 0.9 |
| 150 | 98.8 ± 0.2 | 99.1 ± 0.1 | 99.9 ± 0.6 | 99.1 ± 0.1 | 99.2 ± 0.2 | 101. 5 ± 0.2 | 99.6 ± 1.0 |
|
| |||||||
| Sensitivity (4) | |||||||
|
| |||||||
| LOD ( | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| RSD | 11.37 | 30.18 | 6.92 | 9.12 | 13.60 | 10.77 | 2.58 |
|
| |||||||
| LOQ ( | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| RSD | 3.98 | 1.30 | 9.29 | 4.79 | 1.58 | 3.30 | 6.64 |
(1) Nine solutions of SIM in the concentration ranging from 0.1 μg/mL to 1.5 μg/mL and nine solutions of all impurities in the concentration ranging from 0.4 μg/mL to 6 μg/mL were analyzed.
(2) The repeatability was shown by 6 replicate injections of the standard solution in concentration of 1 μg/mL and the intermediate precision was performed on 6 samples in the two following days using the same equipment.
(3) Determined in triplicate at three concentration levels of 50%, 100%, and 150% by spiking the prequantified samples with a known amount standard of impurities.
(4) The LOD and LOQ were estimated at a signal-to-noise ratio of 3:1 and 10:1, respectively, for each impurity by injecting a series of dilute solutions with known concentration.
NA: not applicable, MSIM: methyl simvastatin, and RSD: relative standard deviation.
Obtained results from validation of the proposed method: robustness.
| Simvastatin | Res E/F | Res G/SIM | Res B/C | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rt (min) | T | NTP | ||||
| Flow (mL/min) | ||||||
| 0.6 mL/min | 14.05 | 0.99 | 109188 | 1.52 | 4.48 | 1.66 |
| 0.8 mL/min | 13.78 | 1.08 | 128239 | 1.50 | 4.46 | 1.53 |
| Content of acetonitrile in initial phase | ||||||
| 35% | 14.77 | 1.05 | 234052 | 1.53 | 4.05 | 1.61 |
| 45% | 14.74 | 1.02 | 236896 | 1.58 | 4.17 | 1.66 |
| Column temperature | ||||||
| 30°C | 13.42 | 1.01 | 93614 | 1.51 | 4.68 | 1.89 |
| 40°C | 13.83 | 1.02 | 109994 | 1.53 | 4.43 | 1.78 |
| Another column | 15.07 | 1.05 | 169635 | 1.59 | 4.47 | 2.15 |
Statistical parameters of ANOVA and obtained regression coefficients for different degradation.
| R2 | R2 Predicted | R2 Adjusted | Adequate precision | Regression coefficients | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| b0 | b1 | b2 | b3 | b12 | b23 | b13 | b123 | |||||
| Acid degradation | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.9736 | 0.8943 | 0.9537 | 16.724 | 20.75 | 8.60 | / | 8.35 | / | / | 2.76 | / |
|
| 0.9823 | 0.9293 | 0.9691 | 23.526 | 0.17 | / | 0.066 | / | / | 0.029 | 0.026 | / |
|
| 0.9701 | 0.8806 | 0.9477 | 15.756 | 20.21 | 8.53 | / | 8.33 | / | / | 2.53 | / |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Alkali degradation | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.9810 | 0.9241 | 0.9668 | 22.878 | 38.79 | 4.43 | 9.51 | 14.39 | / | / | / | / |
|
| 0.9590 | 0.8362 | 0.9283 | 15.000 | 0.13 | / | / | 8.7E−3 | 0.016 | 0.031 | / | |
|
| 0.9730 | 0.8920 | 0.9527 | 17.544 | 30.31 | 3.32 | 5.34 | 14.69 | / | / | / | / |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Oxidative degradation | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.9328 | 0.7312 | 0.8824 | 9.504 | 2.73 | / | 0.79 | 1.41 | / | 0.61 | / | / |
|
| 0.9595 | 0.8382 | 0.9292 | 14.839 | 0.10 | 0.017 | 0.017 | 0.050 | / | / | / | / |
|
| 0.9943 | 0.9771 | 0.9900 | 29.558 | 1.28 | / | 0.16 | 1.14 | / | 0.15 | / | / |
|
| ||||||||||||
| Thermal degradation | ||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||
|
| 0.9439 | 0.7755 | 0.9158 | 8.203 | 14.05 | 8.90 | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|
| 0.9918 | 0.9672 | 0.9877 | 22.000 | 0.16 | 0.11 | / | / | / | / | / | / |
|
| 0.9383 | 0.7531 | 0.9074 | 7.797 | 12.06 | 7.45 | / | / | / | / | / | / |
Linear mathematical model of the measured response y = b0 + b1x1 + b2x2 + b3x3 + b12x1x2 + b13x1x3 + b23x2x3 + b123x1x2x3,
where y is the response [y1: amount of total impurities (%); y2: amount of impurity with RRT 1.16 (%); y3: amount of Simvastatin impurity A (%)], x is investigated factors [for acid, alkali, and oxidative degradation; x1 represents stressor strength (0.01 M and 0.1 M HCl/NaOH or 3% and 30% H2O2 for hydrolysis and oxidative degradation respectable); x2 represents temperature and x3 represents time of exposure. For thermal degradation x1 is temperature and x2 is time of exposure]; b0 is the intercept b1, b2 and b3, b12, b23, b12, and b123 as regression coefficients for the variables and interaction between the variables.
Figure 43D response surface plots showing the desired degradation under various conditions: (a) acid degradation; (b) alkali degradation; (c) oxidative degradation; and (d) thermal degradation. Color change from blue to red represents increasing degradation (minmax).
Figure 53D response surface plots showing the formation of impurity RRT 1.16 under various conditions: (a) acid degradation; (b) alkali degradation; (c) oxidative degradation; and (d) thermal degradation. Color change from blue to red represents increasing degradation (minmax).
Figure 6Optimization of the selected responses by means of the desirability function. The red area corresponds to the optimum conditions while time maintained constant: (a) acid degradation; (b) alkali degradation; (c) oxidative degradation; and (d) thermal degradation.
Comparison of experimental and predictive values of different responses under optimal conditions.
| Parameters | Predicted (%) | Obtained (%) | Predicted Error | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | RRT | Total | RRT | Total | RRT | |
| Acid degradation | 18.25 | 0.06 | 18.47 | 0.065 | 1.21 | 8.63 |
| Alkali degradation | 14.65 | 0.16 | 14.24 | 0.19 | 2.88 | -15.78 |
| Oxidative degradation | 5.36 | 0.19 | 5.68 | 0.19 | 2.53 | NA |
| Thermal degradation | 5.18 | 0.05 | 4.88 | BDL | -5.24 | NA |
Predicted error = (obtained values – predicted)/predicted ∗ 100 BDL (below disregard limit) (0.05%); NA: not applicable.