| Literature DB >> 35847301 |
Maha Mahmoud Ibrahim1, Khadiga Mohamed Kelani1,2, Nesreen Khamis Ramadan2, Eman Saad Elzanfaly2,3.
Abstract
Thin-layer chromatography (TLC) is an effective and simple technique for screening, evaluating, and quantifying low-quality and counterfeit pharmaceutical products. Smartphones have recently been used as accessible, cheap, and portable detectors that can replace more complicated analytical detectors. In this work, we have developed a simple and sensitive TLC method utilizing a smartphone charged-coupled device (CCD) camera not only to verify and quantify some gastrointestinal tract drugs, namely, loperamide hydrochloride (LOP) and bisacodyl (BIS), but also to detect acetaminophen (ACT) as a counterfeit drug. Both drugs (LOP and BIS) were chromatographed separately on a silica gel 60 F254 plate as a stationary phase under previously reported chromatographic conditions, using ethyl acetate:methanol:ammonium hydroxide (24:3:1, by volume) and ethyl acetate:methanol:glacial acetic acid (85:10:5, by volume) as developing systems to determine LOP and BIS, respectively. Universal stains, namely, iodine vapors and vanillin, were used to visualize the spots on the TLC plates to get a visual image using the smartphone camera and a spotlight as an illumination source with no need for a UV illumination source. The spot intensity was calculated using a commercially available smartphone application for quantitative analysis of the studied drugs utilizing ″acetaminophen″ as an example of a counterfeit substance. Rf values were calculated using the recorded images and found to be 0.77, 0.79, and 0.74 for LOP, BIS, and ACT, respectively, providing drug identity. Linear calibration curves using the smartphone-TLC method were obtained between the luminance and the corresponding concentrations over the ranges of 2.00-10.00 μg/mL and 1.00-10.00 μg/mL with limits of detection of 0.57 and 0.10 μg/mL for LOP and BIS, respectively. The suggested method was validated according to the International Conference of Harmonization (ICH) guidelines. The method was then successfully applied for the qualitative and quantitative determination of LOP or BIS as an example for gastrointestinal tract drugs in pure form and in their pharmaceutical dosage formulations. The proposed method is considered as a perfect alternative to traditional reported densitometric methods due to its simplicity, easy application, and inexpensiveness. No previously reported methods utilizing smartphones have been published for the determination of the studied drugs. The developed approach is considered the first TLC method using smartphones for the determination of some gastrointestinal tract drugs in their pure form and in pharmaceutical formulations.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35847301 PMCID: PMC9281327 DOI: 10.1021/acsomega.2c02482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ACS Omega ISSN: 2470-1343
Figure 1Chemical structure of LOP (a) and chemical structure of BIS (b).
Figure 2TLC plate of LOP (6.00 μg/mL) using ACT (5.00 μg/mL) as an adulterant visualized using iodine.
Figure 3TLC plate of BIS (5.00 μg/mL) using ACT (5.00 μg/mL) as an adulterant visualized with vanillin for BIS detection and then iodine for ACT detection.
Relation between Luminance and Different Concentrations of LOP and BIS
| drug | conc. (μg/mL) | average luminance | SD | average luminance | SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOP | 2.00 | 47.16 | 0.29 | 47.20 | 0.50 |
| 4.00 | 41.63 | 0.23 | 41.33 | 0.29 | |
| 6.00 | 35.87 | 0.32 | 35.70 | 0.35 | |
| 8.00 | 30.33 | 0.58 | 30.50 | 0.50 | |
| 10.00 | 24.33 | 0.29 | 24.33 | 0.29 | |
| BIS | 1.00 | 43.50 | 0.50 | 44.03 | 0.55 |
| 3.00 | 36.50 | 0.29 | 36.87 | 0.32 | |
| 4.00 | 33.50 | 0.28 | 33.17 | 0.29 | |
| 5.00 | 30.00 | 0.57 | 29.50 | 1.26 | |
| 7.00 | 22.50 | 0.29 | 22.50 | 0.50 | |
| 9.00 | 15.60 | 0.32 | 15.37 | 0.32 | |
| 10.00 | 11.00 | 0.28 | 10.83 | 0.29 |
Average of 3 replicates on the same spot.
Average of 3 replicates on 3 different spots.
Validation Parameters of the Developed TLC Visualization Method to Determine LOP and BIS in their Pure Form
| parameters | LOP | BIS |
|---|---|---|
| concentration range (μg/mL) | 2.00–10.00 | 1.00–10.00 |
| linearity (regression equation) | ||
| correlation coefficient | 0.9999 | 0.9996 |
| accuracy (mean ± SD) | 100.04 ± 0.48 | 99.93 ± 1.46 |
| LOD (μg/mL) | 0.57 | 0.10 |
| LOQ (μg/mL) | 1.73 | 0.30 |
Average of three determinations.
Average of 5 different concentrations of each LOP and BIS.
LOD is calculated via (SD of response/slope) × 3.3 and LOQ is via (SD of response/slope) × 10.
Interday precision; the RSD of 3 different concentrations; 4.00, 6.00, and 8.00 μg/mL for LOP and 2.00, 4.00, and 6.00 μg/mL for BIS; 3 replicates each; on the same day.
Interday precision; the RSD of 3 different concentrations; 4.00, 6.00, and 8.00 μg/mL for LOP and 2.00, 4.00, and 6.00 μg/mL for BIS; 3 replicates each; on 3 successive days.
Determination of LOP and BIS in Imodium and Dulcolax Tablets by Applying the TLC–Smartphone Method
| pharmaceutical formulation | recovery% ± SD |
|---|---|
| Imodium | 98.63 ± 1.68 |
| Dulcolax | 100.23 ± 1.57 |
Average of three determinations (claimed to contain 2.00 mg of loperamide hydrochloride).
Average of three determinations (claimed to contain 5.00 mg of bisacodyl).
Statistical Comparison between the Results Obtained by the Proposed Smartphone–TLC Method and the Reported HPLC Method[20] for the Determination of LOP and Official method for the Determination of BIS47
| LOP | BIS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| parameters | developed smartphone–TLC | reported
method[ | developed smartphone–TLC | official method47 |
| mean | 100.04 | 99.76 | 99.93 | 100.35 |
| SD | 0.48 | 0.42 | 1.46 | 2.32 |
| 5 | 9 | 7 | 6 | |
| variance | 0.23 | 0.18 | 2.13 | 5.38 |
| F value | 1.28 | 6.04 | 2.52 | 4.38 |
| Student’s | 1.78 | 2.26 | 2.21 | 2.44 |
Probability (P = 0.05).
Tabulated F value.
Tabulated t value.