4.0 Article

Manganese dioxide (MnO2)/Fullerene-C60-Modified Electrodes for the Voltammetric Determination of Rifaximin

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANALYSIS AND TESTING
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 341-349

出版社

SPRINGER SINGAPORE PTE LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s41664-020-00151-y

关键词

Pharmaceutical analysis; Rifaximin determination; Modified electrodes; Nanostructures; manganese dioxide; Fullerene-C-60

资金

  1. National Research Centre (NRC, Cairo, Egypt) [11090306]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A sensitive voltammetric assay for the determination of Rifaximin in pharmaceutical formulations was designed using nanostructured working electrodes. The electrode matrix composition and electroanalytical parameters were optimized to achieve high sensitivity. The method showed potential applicability towards Rifaximin determination in pharmaceutical preparations and quality control.
Rifaximin (RFX) is a broad-spectrum oral antibiotic with bactericidal actions against Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. In the present work, a sensitive voltammetric assay for the RFX in pharmaceutical formulations is designed using nanostructured working electrodes. Surface functionalization with manganese dioxide (MnO2)/fullerene-C-60 nanocomposite exhibited the highest electrochemical responses with a sharp oxidation peak at about 336 mV that was obtained using the differential pulse voltammetry (DPV). The cyclic voltammetry (CV) and electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) were applied, while the electrode matrix composition including types of nanomaterials, electroanalytical parameters, and pH effect were optimized. To that end, using the DPV, high sensitivity was obtained from the linear calibration curve ranged from 0.8 to 31.5 mu g center dot mL(-1) with the correlation coefficient of 0.99, limit of detection of 0.76 mu g.mL(-1) and limit of quantification of 2.31 mu g.mL(-1). Accordingly, the designed approach is offering a potential applicability towards the RFX determination in pharmaceutical preparations and its quality control.

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

4.0
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