4.2 Article

Flow-Injection Determination of Cephalosporin Antibiotic Cefixime in Pharmaceutical Formulations with Luminol-Diperiodatoargentate(III) Chemiluminescence Detection

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 77, 期 3, 页码 318-327

出版社

PLEIADES PUBLISHING INC
DOI: 10.1134/S1061934822030133

关键词

flow injection analysis; chemiluminescence; luminol; diperiodatoargentate(III) complex; cefixime trihydrate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A simple and sensitive flow injection chemiluminescence method was developed for the determination of cefixime trihydrate. The chemiluminescence of luminol-diperiodatoargentate(III) in an alkaline solution was enhanced by cefixime trihydrate, allowing for a linear detection range and low limits of detection and quantification. The method was successfully applied to the analysis of pharmaceutical samples containing cefixime trihydrate.
A simple and sensitive flow injection chemiluminescence method was developed for the determination of cefixime trihydrate (CFX) based on its enhancing effect on chemiluminescence (CL) of luminol-diperiodatoargentate(III) (Ag(III) complex) in an alkaline solution. A linear CL response for CFX from 0.005 to 3 mg/L (y = 566.3x + 12.1, R-2 = 0.9998, n = 10) was achieved with limits of detection and quantification of 0.001 (S/N = 3) and 0.003 mg/L (S/N = 10), respectively, relative standard deviations (RSDs) from 1.0 to 3.4%, and injection throughputs of 90/h. The pharmaceutical samples containing CFX were extracted by liquid-liquid extraction utilizing diethyl ether, analyzed, and satisfactory results were achieved with recoveries of 98 to 105% and RSDs of 1.6 to 3.6% (n = 4). The samples were also analyzed with the reported spectrophotometric method, and results assessed by applying statistical tests were not different significantly. The interference effects of excipients commonly found in formulations, anions, and cations were also evaluated. Chemiluminescence mechanism was proposed by application of UV-Vis spectrophotometry.

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

4.2
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