Quantitative Determination of Drugs by using Chloramine-T and Methyl orange Couple: A spectrophotometric study
M. Sasikala, K. Sayanna and G. Venkateshwarlu*
Department of Chemistry, University College of Science, Osmania University, Hyderabad-500007, India.
*Corresponding Author E-mail: venkateshwarlugoud@yahoo.com
ABSTRACT:
Simple, sensitive, accurate and precise method for quantitative determination of each of five drugs viz., Esomeprazole (ESO), Ciprofloxacin (CIP), Lomefloxacin (LOM), Sumatriptan, (SUM), Domperidone (DOM) have been developed and validated. The method is based on oxidation of drug by Chloramine-T (excess) and subsequent determination of unreacted Chloramine-T using methyl orange as analytical tool which maximally absorbs at 510nm. Beer’s law is obeyed in the concentration range of 1.5-4.5, 2.0-14, 2.5-17.5, 2.0-16, 1.5-10.5 µg ml-1 for ESO, CIP, LOM, SUM and DOM respectively. Six replicates were performed to assess the precision and accuracy is determined by analyzing samples of known concentration. % recovery and % RSD were calculated which showed excellent accuracy. The spectral parameters like limits of Beer’s law, sandal sensitivity, molar absorptivity, slope, intercept and regression equation have been evaluated. The validation parameters like LOD, LOQ together with statistical parameters like t-test and F-test have also been carried out.
KEYWORDS: Spectrophotometry, Chloramine-T, methyl orange, quantitation, validation.
INTRODUCTION:
Esomeprazole (ESO) (Fig.1a), chemically known as (S)-5-Methoxy-2-[(4-methoxy-3, 5-dimethylpyridin-2-yl) methylsulfinyl]-3H-benzoimidazole. It is a proton pump inhibitor1 which reduces stomach acid secretion through inhibition of the H+/K+ ATP ase in the parietal cells of the stomach. Because of its physiological significance the drug has been quantitatively analysed by different methods. A few analytical methods like HPLC2-4 LC-MS 5,6 and UV 7, 8 spectrophotometry developed for the estimation of ESO are mention worthy.
Ciprofloxacin (CIP) (Fig.1b), is chemically known as 1-cyclopropyl-6-fluoro-4-oxo-7-(piperazin-1-yl)-quinoline-3-carboxylic acid which is an antibiotic9 useful for the treatment of a number of bacterial infections. An extensive literature survey revealed that spectrophotometry10-15, HPLC16-19, Electrophoresis20, LC21, and Spectrofluorimetry22 have been applied for the analysis of CIP in bulk and in formulations.
Lomefloxacin (LOM) (Fig.1c) is chemically known as (RS)-1-Ethyl-6, 8-difluoro-7-(3-methylpiperazin-1-yl)-4-oxo-quinoline-3-carboxylic acid.
It is a fluoroquinolone antibiotic used to treat bacterial infections23 including bronchitis and urinary tract infections. It is also used to prevent urinary tract infections prior to surgery. Analytical methods available for the determination of lomefloxacin include Spectrophotometry24-27, HPLC28-31, LC32, Colorimetry33.
Sumatriptan (SUM) (Fig.1d) is chemically known as 1-[3-(2-Dimethylaminoethyl)-1H-indol-5-yl]-N-methyl-methanesulfonamide It is a synthetic drug belonging to the triptan class, used for the treatment of migraine headaches34. Literature review reveals that a few methods have been published for analysis of Sumatriptan succinate in the bulk form and in pharmaceutical preparations. Methods available include HPLC35-39, Colorimetry40, Spectrophotometry41 and UPLC42-44.
Domperidone (DOM) (Fig. 1e) is chemically known as 5-chloro-1-(1-[3-(2-oxo-2,3-dihydro-1H-benzo[d]imidazol-1-yl)propyl]piperidin-4-yl)-1H-benzo[d]imidazol-2(3H)-one. It is given in order to relieve nausea and vomiting45. Several techniques have been reported in the literature for the determination of DOM in pharmaceuticals and in biological samples include HPLC46-50, LC-MS51 and Cyclic Voltametry52 in pharmaceuticals and in biological samples.
Thorough survey of literature reveal that Chloramine-T and Methyl orange couple offers simple, accurate, precise method for quantification of drugs. To the best of our knowledge the above analytical pair of reagents have not been applied for the drugs mentioned above. This prompted the author to carry out the pharmaceutical analysis of the drugs.
Materials and Methods:
Esomeprazole, Ciprofloxacin, Lomefloxacin, Sumatriptan succinate and Domeperidone drug samples were procured from Hetero labs limited, Hyderabad as gift samples. The reagents Chloramine-T, methyl orange (AR grade) and HCl supplied by SD Fine chemicals Ltd. Mumbai, are used without any further purification.
The spectra of the study have been recorded on Shimadzu 140 double beam spectrophotometer, systronics double beam spectrophotometer-117, and also on ELICO 159 UV-VIS single beam spectrophotometer using quartz cells of 10pathlength.
A stock solution of each drug is prepared in doubly distilled water by dissolving 25mg ofdrugin25mlofwaterand the stock is diluted to the required concentrations. A 0.01 M of Chloramine-T and 5x10 -4 M Methyl orange are prepared in distilled water and 0.5M HCl is prepared from stock. The concentrations of the Chloramine-T and Methyl Orange are set such that 1ml of Chloramine-T in the presence of 1ml of acid exactly neutralize 1ml of Methyl Orange and shows zero absorbance.
Result and Discussion:
Procedure for Calibration:
Different aliquots of drug solution (1-7 ml) were taken into a 10ml standard flask to which 1ml of acid and 1ml of Chloramine-T were added. The contents were occasionally shaken for 15 minutes and finally 1ml of methyl orange is added, the volume is made up to mark using distilled water. Absorbance was measured at 510nm against the blank prepared similarly. The same procedure of analysis is followed either for assay of pure drug or for dosage form. The calibration graphs (Fig. 2) are linear over the concentration ranges are within the permissible range. The optical characteristics and statistical data for the regression equation of the proposed methods are presented in (Table 1.)
Six replicate experiments performed and the relative response i.e, absorbance / concentration (µg mL-1) was calculated. The points falling between 95% and 105% of average only are considered for the construction of calibration. The standard deviation of six residual intercepts of the plots is used for calculating LOD and LOQ.
Procedure for the assay of pure drug:
Four different solutions of pure drug in the range of calibration curve were selected and the recovery experiments were performed. The recoveries and their relative standard deviations are tabulated in (Table. 2)
|
a. Esomeprazole |
b. Ciprofloxacin |
|
c. Lomefloxacin |
d. Sumatriptan |
|
e. Domperidone |
|
Fig.1.Structures of the drugs:
Fig. 2 Calibration Curves for determination of drugs.
Method validation:
Each method developed for quantification of drugs has been validated in terms of precision, accuracy, limit of detection, limit of quantification linearity, selectivity and ruggedness. The Beer’s law limits, slope, intercept, correlation coefficient, sandell’s sensitivity and regression equation for each drug are tabulated in (Table.1). To assess the precision each experiment was repeated at least 5 times and accuracy is estimated in terms of % recovery and % RSD. Excellent % recovery and % RSD being less than 2 for each drug demonstrates accuracy and precision of the methods. Further t-test and F-test values are less than their permissible range indicating high accuracy and precision of the methods.
Analysis of pharmaceuticals:
Esomeprazole
Twenty capsules of Nexpro were weighed accurately and crushed to fine powder. Quantity of tablet powder equivalent to 50mg of analyte was weighed and transferred to 100ml volumetric flask and dissolved in 40 ml of distilled water by using 0.2M HCl. This solution was then filtered through Whatmann filter paper No.41. The volume was made up to the mark of 100ml volumetric flask with distilled water.
Ciprofloxacin
Twenty tablets of ciproXR were finely grinded and mixed. An accurately weighed 50 mg of ciprofloxacin was taken into a 100 ml volumetric flask, sonicated and remaining volume is made up with distilled water.
Lomefloxacin
Ten tablets of Lomebact were weighed accurately and powdered. The powder equivalent to 50 mg was transferred into a 100 ml volumetric flask, containing a mixture of distilled water (`10.0 ml) and HCl (2.0 ml). The flask was shaken for 5 mints and the solution was filtered using Whatman No.41 filter paper and further diluted with water to obtain working standard solution.
Sumatriptan
Twenty tablets of parpex-1 were weighed and ground into a fine powder. An amount of tablet powder equivalent to 50 mg of SUM was weighed and transferred into 100 ml beaker containing 50 ml of 0.2 M HCl. After shaking the contents for 20 mins, filtered through Whatmann No. 41 filter paper into a clean 100 ml volumetric flask and the volume was brought up to the mark with the distilled water.
Domeperidone
Twenty tablets of domperidon were finely grounded and mixed. An accurately weighed 50 mg of DOM was transferred into a100 ml volumetric flask and dissolved in HCl. Then the solution is was filtered using Whatmann No.41 filter paper and further diluted with distilled water and made volume up to the mark.
To test the applicability of the method developed, pharmaceutical tablet solutions containing drug in the Beer’s Law limit were chosen. For this study 2.0,4.0 ,6.0 and 8.0 µg mL-1 of ESO ; 3.0, 6.0, 9.0 and 12.0 µg mL-1 of CIP; 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 and 10.0 µg mL-1 of LOM; 2.0, 4.0, 6.0 and 8.0 µg mL-1 of SUM and 1.5, 3.0, 5.0 and 7.0 µg mL-1 of DOM; were chosen (Table.3)
Factors affecting the absorbance
Effect of acid concentration.
HCl was the medium of choice for estimation of drugs Chloramine-T and Methyl Orange. The absorbance of Methyl orange was not affected in 0.125-1.25 M HCl concentration. A 0.5 M HCl concentration was found optimum for the estimation of drugs in a reasonable time of 5-10 mins and hence the same concentration was employed for the determination of drugs by using Chloramine-T and Methyl Orange.
Table 1: Spectral, analytical and statistical parameters for the determination of drugs by using Chloramine-T and Methyl Orange couple as analytical reagent.
|
Property / Name of the Drug |
ESO |
CIP |
LOM |
SUM |
DOM |
|
λ max (nm) |
510 |
510 |
510 |
510 |
510 |
|
Beer’s law limits(µg mL-1 ) |
1.5-4.5 |
2-14 |
2.5-17.5 |
2-16 |
1.5-10.5 |
|
Molar Absorptivity (L M-1 cm-1) |
2.9 x10-3 |
2.0x10-3 |
3.35x10-3 |
3.47x10-3 |
2.98x10-3 |
|
Standard deviation of intercept (Sa) |
0.00017 |
0.0027 |
0.000183 |
0.00343 |
0.000753 |
|
Sandell Sensitivity(µg cm-2) |
0.0119 |
0.0116 |
0.017544 |
0.017857 |
0.012 |
|
Slope (a) |
0.084 |
0.086 |
0.057 |
0.056 |
0.083 |
|
Intercept (b) |
0.004 |
0.020 |
-0.003 |
0.084 |
0.012 |
|
Correlation coefficient (r) |
1.00 |
0.997 |
0.999 |
0.987 |
0.992 |
|
Limit of detection (µg mL-1 ) |
0.004581 |
0.104853 |
0.010623 |
0.20214 |
0.02993 |
|
Limit of quantification (µg mL-1 ) |
0.013883 |
0.3177 |
0.03219 |
0.612546 |
0.090696 |
|
Regression equation Y=b+ax |
0.084X |
0.02+0.086X |
-0.03+0.057X |
0.084+0.056X |
0.012+0.083X |
*Limit of determination as the weight in μg mL-1 of solution, which corresponds to an absorbance of A = 0.001 measured in a cuvette of cross-sectional area 1 cm 2 and path length of 1 cm. Y** = a+bX, where Y is the absorbance and X=concentration of drug (µg mL-1)
Table 2 Determination of accuracy and precision of the methods on pure drug Samples
|
Name of the Drug |
Amount Taken (µg/mL) |
Amount Found (µg/mL) |
% er |
% Recovery |
% RSD |
Proposed method mean ±SD |
|
ESO |
2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 |
2.01 2.98 3.97 4.96 |
0.5 0.67 0.75 0.8 |
100.5 99.33 99.25 99.2 |
0.625 |
99.57 ±0.621 |
|
CIP |
2 3 4 5 |
1.98 2.94 3.95 4.96 |
1.0 2.0 1.25 0.8 |
99 98 98.75 99.2 |
0.532 |
98.74 ±0.525 |
|
LOM |
3.0 5.0 7.0 9.0 |
2.96 4.95 6.98 8.98 |
1.33 1.0 0.29 0.22 |
98.67 99 99.71 99.78 |
0.549 |
99.29 ±0.545 |
|
SUM |
2 4 6 8 |
2.01 3.96 5.98 7.98 |
0.5 1.0 0.33 0.25 |
100.5 99 99.67 99.75 |
0.616 |
99.73 ±0.614 |
|
DOM |
1.5 3.0 4.5 6.0 |
1.48 2.98 4.49 6.01 |
1.33 0.67 0.22 0.16 |
98.67 99.33 99.78 100.17 |
0.647 |
99.49 ±0.644 |
Table 3. Results of assay of tablets by the proposed methods and statistical evaluation and recovery experiments by standard addition method.
|
Pharmaceuticals/ tablets/ injection |
Drug in tablet (µg/mL) |
Drug added (µg/mL) |
Total found (µg/mL) |
ER% |
Recovery % |
RSD% |
Reference method mean ±SD |
Proposed method mean ±SD |
Student’s t-test |
F-test |
|
ESO (Nexpro) |
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 |
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 |
2.98 4.97 7.01 8.99 |
0.67 0.6 0.14 0.11 |
99.33 99.4 100.14 99.89 |
0.391 |
99.80 ±0.08 |
99.69 ±0.389 |
-0.153 |
1.193 |
|
CIP (CiproXR) |
3.0 6.0 9.0 12 |
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 |
4.99 7.95 11.0 14.0 |
0.2 0.625 0.0 0.0 |
99.8 99.38 100 100 |
0.295 |
99.89 ±0.302 |
99.79 ±0.294 |
0.047 |
0.948 |
|
LOM (Lomebact) |
2.5 5.0 7.5 10 |
1.5 1.0 1.5 1.0 |
3.98 5.96 8.95 11.0 |
0.5 0.67 0.56 0.0 |
99.5 99.33 99.44 100 |
0.297 |
93.53 ±0.55 |
99.57 ±0.295 |
1.001
|
0.288 |
|
SUM (Pamprex-1) |
2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 |
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 |
3.01 4.99 6.98 8.98 |
0.33 0.2 0.29 0.22 |
100.33 99.8 99.71 99.78 |
0.287 |
99.78 ±0.37 |
99.91 ±0.286 |
0.439
|
0.597 |
|
DOM (Domperidon) |
1.5 3.0 5.0 7.0 |
1.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 |
3.01 4.02 6.01 8.01 |
0.33 0.5 0.17 0.125 |
100.33 100.5 100.17 100.13 |
0.171 |
100.85 ±0.77 |
100.28 ±0.171 |
1.86 |
0.049 |
CONCLUSION:
This method is simple, rapid and offers the advantages of high sensitivity and a wide range of determination without the need for heating or extracting. The other advantages of the present method over the previously described methods include low detection limit with high accuracy and precision. Therefore this method was chosen for the routine analysis of the above drugs in pharmaceuticals and in bulk drug industries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:
The authors are thankful to the Head, Department of Chemistry, Osmania University, Hyderabad-500007 for providing facilities. One of the authors (KS) is thankful to UGC for JRF.
REFERENCES:
1. S. Lakshmana Prabu, A. Shirwaikar, Annie Shirwaikar, C. Dinesh Kumar, A. Joseph, and R. Kumar. Simultaneous Estimation of Esomeprazole and Domperidone by UV Spectrophotometric Method; Indian J Pharm Sci. 70(1); 2008: 128–131.
2. Parthiban, C.; Swetha M., Divya; Pallavi, V.; Sowmya, B.; Jeevani; Prathyusha.V. Method development and validation for the determination of esomeprazole in tablet dosage form by RP-HPLC method. IRJP. 3(9); 2012:
8. P. Mohanraj, R. Veereswararao, P.B. Mukherjee, V.S. Sarvanann. Gopal, Tukaram. M, Kalyankar and T. Shivakumar. UV-Spectrophotometric Determination of Esomeprazole in Tablet Dosage Forms. Asian Journal of Chemistry. 19 (4); 2007: 3250-3252.
9. Hesham Salem. Spectrofluorimetric, Atomic Absorption Spectrometric and Spectrophotometric Determination of Some Fluoroquinolones .American Journal of Applied Sciences.2 (3); 2005:719-729.
10. Natesh. G, MD.Azeez, Manoranjan Sabat, Goli.Venkatehwarlu, Nazia Begum and A. Srivani. A new analytical method development and validation for estimation of ciprofloxacin and metronidazole by iso absorption method by using UV – spectrophotometer. Journal of Chemical, Biological and Physical Sciences.3 (3); 2013: 1663-1670.
11. Bayer, Arnold S.; Norman, Dean C.; Blomquist, Ingrid K. Comparative efficacy of ciprofloxacin and ceftriaxone in experimental arthritis caused by Escherichia coli. Anti Microbial Agents and Chemotherapy. 30(1); 1986:184- 186.
15. Samia Mostafa, Mohamed El-Sadek, Esmail Awad Alla. Spectrophotometric determination of ciprofloxacin, enrofloxacin and pefloxacin through charge transfer complex formation. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 27 (1-2); 2002: 133–142.
16. B Joos, B Ledergerber, M Flepp, J D Bettex, R Lüthy and W Siegenthaler. Comparison of high-pressure liquid chromatography and bioassay for determination of ciprofloxacin in serum and urine. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 27(3); 1985: 353–356.
17. Shihn-Sheng Wu, Chih-Yuan Chein, and Yen-Hsia Wen. Analysis of Ciprofloxacin by a Simple High-Performance Liquid Chromatography Method. Journal of Chromatographic Science.46; 2008:
18. S J Morton, V H Shull, and J D Dick. Determination of norfloxacin and ciprofloxacin concentrations in serum and urine by high-pressure liquid chromatography. Anti microbial Agents and Chemotherapy. 30(2); 1986: 325–327.
19. Z. Vybíralováa, M. Nobilisa, J. Zoulovaa, J. Kvetinaa, P. Petrb. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of ciprofloxacin in plasma samples. J Pharm Biomed Anal.37 (5); 2005:851–858.
20. J G Moller, H Stass, R Heinig, G Blaschke. Capillary electrophoresis with laser-induced fluorescence detection, an adequate alternative to high-performance liquid chromatography, for the determination of ciprofloxacin and its metabolite desethyleneciprofloxacin in human plasma. B Biomed Sci Appl . 716(1-2); 1998:325-34.
21. D E Nix, J M De Vito and J J Schentag. Liquid-chromatographic determination of ciprofloxacin in serum and urine. Clin Chem .31(5); 1985:684-686.
22. Alberto Navalon, Oscar Ballesteros, Rosario Blanc, José Luis Vı́lchez. Determination of ciprofloxacin in human urine and serum samples by solid-phase spectrofluorimetry. Talanta.52; 2000: 845–852.
23. Greici Cristiana Gomes and Hérida Regina Nunes Salgado. Validation of UV Spectrophotometric Method for Determination of Lomefloxacin in Pharmaceutical Dosage Form. Acta Farmaceutica Bonaerense. 24 (3); 2005:406-408.
24. Wang N1, Ren X, Si Z, Jiang W, Liu C, Liu X. Derivative spectrophotometric determination of praseodymium in rare earth mixtures with lomefloxacin. Talanta. 51(3); 2000: 595-8.
25. Tejas, Patel H., Fursule, R. A., Talele, G. S. Spectrophotometric method for the determination of lomefloxacin hydrochloride . The Indian Pharmacist.4 (40); 2005: 67-68.
26. Tan Feng, Lang Huiyun, Li Yuan .Extraction-Spectrophotometric Determination of Lomefloxacin. Chinese Journal of Analytical Chemistry. 2001 - 05.
27. BN Suhagia, SA Shah, IS Rathod, HM Patel, YM Rao. Spectrophotometric estimation of Lomefloxacin hydrochloride in pharmaceutical dosage form.68 (2); 2006: 247-249.
28. Maria Inęs R.M. Santoro, Nájla M. Kassab, Anil K. Singh, Erika R.M. Kedor-Hackmam. Quantitative determination of gatifloxacin, levofloxacin, lomefloxacin and pefloxacin fluoroquinolonic antibiotics in pharmaceutical preparations by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 40(1); 2006: 179–184.
29. Jingoro Shimada, Kohya shiba, Takayoshi Oguma. Effect of Antacid on Absorption of the Quinolone Lomefloxacin. Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy. 36(6);1992:1219-1224.
30. F. Belal, A.A. Al-Majed, A.M. Al-Obaid. Methods of analysis of 4-quinolone antibacterials. Talanta.50 (4); 1999: 765–786.
31. Du, Rong; Liu, Hui. Determination of lomefloxacin hydrochloride and its related substances in lomefloxacin hydrochloride capsules by RP- HPLC. The Global Journal of Medicine and hygiene. 2013.
32. Katakam, Prakash; Karanam, Sireesha R. Liquid chromatographic method for simultaneous determination of Lomefloxacin hydrochloride and dexamethasone sodium phosphate in eye drops. Asian Journal of Pharmaceutical and Clinical Research. 59(1); 2012:
33. Ragab GH, Amin AS. Atomic absorption spectroscopic, conductometric and colorimetric methods for determination of fluoroquinolone antibiotics using ammonium reineckate ion-pair complex formation. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc. 60(4); 2004: 973-8.
34. Kudige Nagaraj Prashanth, Kanakapura Basavaiah, Cijo Madatil Xavier. Development and validation of UV-spectrophotometric methods for the determination of sumatriptan succinate in bulk and pharmaceutical dosage form and its degradation behavior under varied stress conditions. Journal of the Association of Arab Universities for Basic and Applied Sciences.15; 2014:43-52.
35. Lotfy, Hayam M., Rezk, Mamdouh R., Michael, Adel M., Shehata, Mostafa A. Determination of sumatriptan and zolmitriptan in presence of their corresponding degradation products by HPTLC methods; Chromatographia.76(3-4); 2013:187-194.
36. Ge Z, Tessier E, Neirinck L, Zhu Z. High performance liquid chromatographic method for the determination of sumatriptan with fluorescence detection in human plasma ; J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci. 806(2); 2004:299-303.
37. Sheshala, Ravi; Khan, Nurzalina; Darwis, Yusrida. Validated high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for the determination of sumatriptan in rabbit plasma: application to pharmacokinetic study. African Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology. 6(2); 2012: 98 - 107.
38. Femenía-Font A1, Merino V, Rodilla V, López-Castellano A. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of sumatriptan after in vitro transdermal diffusion studies ; J Pharm Biomed Anal. 37(3); 2005:621-626.
39. S. Ravi, Y. Darwis, and N. Khan. Development and Validation of an RP-HPLC–UV Method for Analysis of Sumatriptan Succinate in Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms. Acta Chromatographica 21(3); 2009: 421–432.
40. Buridi. Kalyana Ramu, K. Raghubabu. A simple colorimetric determination of sumatriptan succinate from tablet dosage forms using cobalt thiocyanate. International Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2010; in press www.ijptonline.com.
41. Kudige N. Prashanth, Basavaiah Kanakapura, Madihalli S. Raghu, and Kanakapura B. Vinay Use of Charge Transfer Complexation Reactions for the Spectrophotometric Determination of Sumatriptan in Pharmaceuticals. International Scholarly Research Notices. 2012 (2012); http://dx.doi.org/10.5402/2012/401219.
42. Yarram Ramakoti Reddy, Kakumani Kishore Kumar, MRP Reddy and K. Mukkanti. Rapid Simultaneous Determination of Sumatriptan Succinate and Naproxen Sodium in Combined Tablets by Validated Ultra Performance Liquid Chromatographic Method. Journal of Analytical and Bioanalytical Techniques. 2(121); 2011:
43. Seo, Jeong Ju; Park, Jeonghyeon; Bae, Min Ho; Lim, Mi-sun; Seong, Sook Jin; Lee, Joomi; Park, Sung Min; Lee, Hae Won; Yoon, Young-Ran. Rapid determination of sumatriptan in human plasma by ultra performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry and its application to clinical pharmacokinetic study. Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences. 2(78); 2013: 919-920.
44. Kumbhar, Amruta B.; Galgatte, Rupendra C.; Warkad, Shrikant; Santhakumari, B. Development and validation of a sensitive bioanalytical method for the determination of sumatriptan in rat plasma by UPLC-MS. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 5(3); 2013
45. Maria Kobylińska, Kamila Kobylinska. High-performance liquid chromatographic analysis for the determination of domperidone in human plasma; Journal of Chromatography B: Biomedical Sciences and Applications. 744(1); 2000: 207–212.
46. T. Sivakumar, R. Manavalan, and K. Valliappan. Development And Validation of Reversed–Phase HPLC Method for Determination of Domperidone and Pantoprazole in Pharmaceutical Dosage forms. Acta Chromatographia.18; 2007.
47. Koujirou Yamamoto, Mami Hagino, Hajime Kotaki, Tatsuji Iga. Quantitative determination of domperidone in rat plasma by high -performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. Journal of Chromatography B: Biomedical Sciences and Applications.720 (1-2); 1998: 251–255.
48. Mohammed Shahid Ali, Mohsin Ghori, Aamer Roshanali Khatri. Stability indicating simultaneous determination of domperidone (DP), methylparaben (MP) and propylparaben by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC).41(2); 2006: 358–365.
49. Priti D Trivedi, Dilip G Maheshwari. Estimation of Esomeprazole and Domperidoneby absorption ratio method in Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms. International Journal of Chem Tech Research 2 (3); 2010: 1598-1605.
50. Tsuneaki Yoshizatoa, Kimiko Tsutsumia, Tsutomu Kotegawab, Hiromitsu Imaib, Shigeyuki Nakanoa. Determination of domperidone in human plasma using high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection for clinical application. Journal of Chromatography B. 961; 2014: 86–90.
51. Xintao Wang, Feng Qin, Lijuan Jing, Qiang Zhu, Famei Li and Zhili Xiong. Development and validation of UPLC-MS/MS method for determination of domperidone in human plasma and its pharmacokinetic application. Biomedical Chromatography. 27(3); 2013: 371–376.
52. Pankaj Gupta, Rajendra N. Goyal. Sensitive determination of domperidone in biological fluids using a conductive polymer modified glassy carbon electrode; Electrochimica Acta 151(1); 2015: 1–7.
Received on 13.12.2014 Modified on 23.12.2014
Accepted on 05.01.2015 © AJRC All right reserved
Asian J. Research Chem 8(2): February 2015; Page 117-122
DOI: 10.5958/0974-4150.2015.00021.8