4.6 Article

Comparison of macro and micro Raman measurement for reliable quantitative analysis of pharmaceutical polymorphs

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 157, Issue -, Pages 107-115

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2018.05.010

Keywords

Micro-Raman; Macro-Raman; Wide area illumination; Mebendazole; Polymorphs; Pharmaceutical products

Funding

  1. INCTAA [CNPq - 465768/2014-8, FAPESP- 2014/509514]
  2. INCTBio [CNPq - 465389/2014-7, FAPESP - 2014/508673]
  3. LEMOA
  4. IQ-Unicamp/GIA/LQQA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This work reports on the use of micro- and macro-Raman measurements for quantification of mebendazole (MBZ) polymorphs A, B, and C in mixtures. Three Raman spectrophotometers were studied with a laser spot size of 3, 80 and 100 mu m and spectral resolutions of 3.9, 9 and 4 cm(-1), respectively. The samples studied were ternary mixtures varying the MBZ polymorphs A and C from 0 to 100% and polymorph B from 0 to 30%. Partial Least Squares (PLS) regression models were developed using the pre-processing spectra (2nd derivative) of the ternary mixtures. The best performance was obtained when the macro-Raman configuration was applied, obtaining RMSEP values of 1.68%, 1.24% and 2.03% \Ow for polymorphs A, B, and C, respectively. In general, micro-Raman presented worst results for MBZ polymorphs prediction because the spectra obtained with this configuration does not represent the bulk proportion of mixtures, which have different particle morphologies and sizes. In addition, the influence of these particle features on micro-Raman measurements was also studied. Finally, the results demonstrated that reliable analytical quantifying of MBZ polymorphs can be reached using a laser with wider area illuminated, thus enabling acquisition of more reproductive and representative spectra of the mixtures. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available