4.6 Article

Development and validation of RP-HPLC-UV method for simultaneous determination of buparvaquone, atenolol, propranolol, quinidine and verapamil: A tool for the standardization of rat in situ intestinal permeability studies

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL AND BIOMEDICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 43, Issue 4, Pages 1546-1551

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2006.11.013

Keywords

buparvaquone; atenolol; propranolol; quinidine; verapamil; in situ intestinal permeability; P-glycoprotein; RP-HPLC

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A simple, sensitive and specific reversed phase high performance liquid chromatographic (R-P-HPLC) method with UV detection at 251 nm was developed for simultaneous quantitation of buparvaquone (BPQ), atenolol, propranolol, quinidine and verapamil. The method was applicable in rat in situ intestinal permeability study to assess intestinal permeability of BPQ, a promising lead compound for Leishmania donovani infections. The method was validated on a C-4 column with mobile phase comprising ammonium acetate buffer (0.02 M, pH 3.5) and acetonitrile in the ratio of 30:70 (v/v) at a flow rate of 1.0 ml/min. The retention times for atenolol, quinidine, propranolol, verapamil and BPQ were 4.30, 5.96, 6.55, 7.98 and 8.54 min, respectively. The calibration curves were linear (correlation coefficient >= 0.996) in the selected range of each analyte. The method is specific and sensitive with limit of quantitation of 15 mu g/ml for atenolol, 0.8 mu g/ml for quinidine, 5 mu g/ml for propranolol, 10 mu g/ml for verapamil and 200 ng/ml for BPQ. The validated method was found to be accurate and precise in the working calibration range. Stability studies were carried out at different storage conditions and all the analytes were found to be stable. This method is simple, reliable and can be routinely used for accurate permeability characterization. (c) 2006 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