4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Determination of main low molecular weight antioxidants in urinary bladder wall using HPLC with electrochemical detector

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
Volume 291, Issue 1-2, Pages 161-169

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2004.07.053

Keywords

low molecular weight antioxidants; HPLC; electrochemical detector; urinary bladder wall

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of the present work was to develop validated HPLC method using electrochemical detector for simultaneous detection of low molecular weight antioxidants (LMWA) in urinary bladder. Furthermore, the method was applied to study the distribution of LMWA in urinary bladder wall. The ascorbic acid (AA), glutathione in reduced (GSH) and oxidized (GSSG) form and uric acid (UA) were resolved by isocratic elution from C-18 reversed-phase column. The bladder tissue sample preparation involved extraction with meta-phosphoric acid solution for LMWA stabilization. The AA, GSH and UA tissue peak was identified by different approaches. The obtained method validation parameters were in acceptable range: intra-day precision (<4.4%), intra-day accuracy (<8.4%), inter-day precision (<9.4%) and inter-day accuracy (<15.6%). Additionally, the method provided good linearity (r(2) > 0.99) and recoveries (98.9-112.6%). The distribution of LMWA in urinary bladder was determined by measuring their concentration in bladder wall layers: urothelium, lamina propria, muscularis and serosa. The validated method was able to quantify the reduced form of all three LMWA in all four bladder wall layers. The LMWA concentrations were decreasing from urothelium to serosa except of UA. The developed HPLC method with electrochemical detection of LMWA is simple, fast and can be used for simultaneous quantification of LMWA in tissues, which contain low concentrations of antioxidants. (C) 2004 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

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available