4.7 Article

Investigating Albendazole Desmotropes by Solid-State NMR Spectroscopy

期刊

MOLECULAR PHARMACEUTICS
卷 12, 期 3, 页码 731-741

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/mp500539g

关键词

albendazole; desmotropy; tautomerism; solid-state NMR; characterization; ultrafast MAS; RFDR

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [GM084018, GM095640]
  2. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (CONICET)
  3. Secretaria de Ciencia y Tecnica de la Universidad Nacional de Cordoba (SECyT-UNC)
  4. Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnologia (MinCyT) de la Provincia de Cordoba

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterization of the molecular structure and physicochemical solid-state properties of the solid forms of pharmaceutical compounds is a key requirement for successful commercialization as potential active ingredients in drug products. These properties can ultimately have a critical effect on the solubility and bioavailability of the final drug product. Here, the desmotropy of Albendazole forms I and II was investigated at the atomic level. Ultrafast magic angle spinning (MAS) solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, together with powder X-ray diffraction, thermal analysis, and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, were performed on polycrystalline samples of the two solids in order to fully characterize and distinguish the two forms. High-resolution one-dimensional H-1, C-13, and N-15 together with two-dimensional H-1/H-1 single quantum-single quantum, H-1/H-1 single quantum-double quantum, and H-1/C-13 chemical shift correlation solid-state NMR experiments under MAS conditions were extensively used to decipher the intramolecular and intermolecular hydrogen bonding interactions present in both solid forms. These experiments enabled the unequivocal identification of the tautomers of each desmotrope. Our results also revealed that both solid forms may be described as dimeric structures, with different intermolecular hydrogen bonds connecting the tautomers in each dimer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据