4.5 Article

Development and Validation Of A Discriminatory Dissolution Method for Portioned Moist Snuff and Snus

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
Volume 111, Issue 6, Pages 1700-1708

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2021.11.019

Keywords

Nicotine; Moist snuff and snus; Smokeless tobacco products; Dissolution; Release

Funding

  1. Food and Drug Administration [HHSF223201810173P]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study developed a quality control test method to identify and differentiate moist snuff and snus products. Dissolution testing revealed significant variations in the amount of nicotine dissolved among different products, and the developed method produced distinct profiles for all tested products.
Portioned moist snuff and snus, two subcategories of smokeless tobacco products (STP) were dissolution tested as a quality control test. A USP Apparatus 4 was employed to develop and validate the method. The method was assessed based on time to reach nicotine dissolution plateau, percentage difference between two profiles at each time point, relative standard deviation (RSD), and f1 (similarity) and f2 (dissimilarity) values. Based on these criteria, 200 ml volume and 8 ml/min flow were found be discriminatory. The amount of nicotine dissolved from the nine products varied widely (2.0-3.4, 2.1-4.1, 3.3-4.6, 5.5-6.6, 6.9-9.1, 11.5-14.2, 12.5-14.6, 14.0-15.5, and 15.5-19.6 mg/pouch at 60 min). RSDs of the dissolution ranges were more than 20% at earlier time points and less than 20% at later timepoints. The developed method produced distinct profiles for all the tested products, which was further confirmed by f1>15 and f2<50 values. In conclusion, the developed method was discriminatory and can be employed as a quality control test and to differentiate among moist snuff and snus products. (C) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Pharmacists Association.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available