4.7 Article

Electroanalytical characteristics of antipsychotic drug ziprasidone and its determination in pharmaceuticals and serum samples on solid electrodes

期刊

TALANTA
卷 82, 期 1, 页码 286-295

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2010.04.036

关键词

Ziprasidone; Voltammetry; Boron-doped; diamond electrode; Glassy carbon electrode; Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ziprasidone is a psychotropic agent used for the treatment of schizophrenia. Its oxidation was investigated electrochemically at boron-doped diamond and glassy carbon electrodes using cyclic, differential pulse, and square wave voltammetry. The dependence of the peak current and peak potentials on pH, concentration, nature of the buffer, and scan rate were examined. The process was diffusion and adsorption controlled for boron-doped diamond and glassy carbon electrodes, respectively. The possible mechanism of oxidation was discussed with some model compounds that have indole and piperazine oxidations. A linear response was obtained between 8 x 10(-7) and 8 x 10(-5) M for the first peak in acetate buffer (pH 5.5) and between 2 x 10(-6) and 2 x 10(-4) M for the second peak in 0.1 M H2SO4 with boron-doped diamond electrode for differential pulse and square wave voltammetric techniques. The reproducibility and accuracy of the proposed methods were found between 0.31 and 1.20, 99.27 and 100.22, respectively. The recovery studies were also achieved to check selectivity and accuracy of the methods. The proposed methods were applied for the determination of ziprasidone from pharmaceutical dosage forms and human serum samples without any time-consuming extraction, separation, evaporation or adsorption steps prior to drug assay except precipitation of the proteins using acetonitrile. The results were statistically compared with those obtained through an established LC-UV technique, no significant differences were been found between the voltammetric and LC methods. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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