| Literature DB >> 35807327 |
Sireerat Lisnund1, Vincent Blay2, Pratchaya Muamkhunthod1, Kittiya Thunyanon1, Jaruwan Pansalee3, Jirawan Monkrathok4, Pachara Maneechote4, Kantapat Chansaenpak5, Piyanut Pinyou3.
Abstract
We develop an electrochemical sensor for the determination of bromhexine hydrochloride (BHC), a widely use mucolytic drug. The sensor is prepared by electrodeposition of cobalt oxides (CoOx) on a glassy carbon electrode modified with carboxylated single-walled carbon nanotubes (SWCNT). A synergistic effect between CoOx and SWCNT is observed, leading to a significant improvement in the BHC electrooxidation current. Based on cyclic voltammetry studies at varying scan rates, we conclude that the electrochemical oxidation of BHC is under mixed diffusion-adsorption control. The proposed sensor allows the amperometric determination of BHC in a linear range of 10-500 µM with a low applied voltage of 0.75 V. The designed sensor provides reproducible measurements, is not affected by common interfering substances, and shows excellent performance for the analysis of BHC in pharmaceutical preparations.Entities:
Keywords: amperometric sensor; bromhexine hydrochloride; carbon nanotubes; cobalt oxide
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35807327 PMCID: PMC9268198 DOI: 10.3390/molecules27134078
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.927
Figure 1(A) Cyclic voltammograms for the SWCNTs/GCE recorded in 0.1 M CoCl2 solution with 0.1 M phosphate buffer pH 7 at a scan rate of 50 mV/s. (B) 1st CV. (C) 30th CV.
Figure 2Diagram of the electrode components and FE-SEM images at 50,000× of (A) CoOx/GCE (B) SWCNT/GCE (C) CoOx/SWCNT/GCE. Diagrams created with Biorender.com.
Figure 3(A) Nyquist plots for the redox probe couple 5 mM Fe(CN)64−/3− over electrodes with different modifications in 0.1 M KCl. (B) Nyquist plots at high frequency range. (C) Equivalent Randles circuit used for fitting the Nyquist plots; Rs is the electrolyte resistance; Rct is the charge transfer resistance; Cdl is the double layer capacitance; Zw is the Warburg impedance.
Comparison of the charge transfer resistance (Rct) estimated for the electrodes with different modifications.
| Electrode | Rct (Ω) |
|---|---|
| Bare GCE | 5910 |
| CoOx/GCE | 9742 |
| SWCNT/GCE | 120 |
| CoOx/SWCNT/GCE | 70 |
Figure 4(A) Schematic diagram of BHC electrochemical oxidation (B) Cyclic voltammograms of 1 mM BHC in 0.1 M phosphate buffer pH 5.5 over bare GCE, CoOx/GCE, SWCNT/GCE and CoOx/SWCNT/GCE at a scan rate of 100 mV/s.
Figure 5(A) Cyclic voltammograms of 1 mM BMC on CoOx/SWCNT/GCE in phosphate buffer at varying pH from 4 to 7; scan rate: 100 mV/s: potential range: 0.6–1.0 V. (B) Plot of anodic peak potential vs. pH. (C) Plot of anodic peak current vs. pH.
Figure 6(A) Cyclic voltammograms of 1 mM BHC at the CoOx/SWCNT/GCE in phosphate buffer pH 5.5 at different scan rates from 0.010 to 0.20 V/s; potential range: 0.6−1.0 V. (B) a plot of anodic peak potential vs. scan rate. (C) A plot of anodic peak current vs. square root scan rate.
Figure 7(A) Chronoamperometric response after successive additions of BHC with the resulting concentration ranging from 10 to 500 µM. Measurements were carried out with CoOx/SWCNT/GCE in phosphate buffer pH 5.5; applied potential = 0.75 V vs. Ag/AgCl 3 M KCl, stirring = 300 rpm. (B) Calibration curve for BHC determination (n = 3).
Comparison of electrochemical sensors reported for the determination of bromhexine hydrochloride.
| Modified Electrode | Method | Linear Dynamic Range (µM) | LOD | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poly(procaterol hydrochloride)/MWCNT/GCE | DPV | 0.2–1.0 and 1.0–8.0 | 0.1 | [ |
| Glassy Carbon Electrode (GCE) | DPV | 20–100 | 14 | [ |
| Ni-nanoparticles/MWCNT/Pt | SWV | 5–230 | 3.0 | [ |
| Glassy carbon paste-flow injection | Amperometry | 0.31–2.0 | 0.31 | [ |
| CoOx/SWCNT/GCE | Amperometry | 10–500 | 8.1 | This work |
Results of BHC analysis in pharmaceutical formulations by amperometric measurement with the CoOx/SWCNT/GCE under the optimized conditions.
| Sample | Added | Found | %Recovery | %RSD 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tablet 1 | - | 50.09 | - | 2.34 |
| 50 | 103.48 | 103.48 | 9.58 | |
| 100 | 152.14 | 101.37 | 5.54 | |
| Liquid formulation 2 | - | 55.10 | - | 6.08 |
| 50 | 110.12 | 104.78 | 2.96 | |
| 100 | 171.15 | 110.34 | 1.33 |
1 Relative standard deviation of three measurements.