4.6 Article

Resolution V fractional factorial design for screening of factors affecting weakly basic drugs liposomal systems

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 249-258

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2018.04.028

关键词

Resolution V fractional factorial design; Liposomes; Amisulpride; Ion selective electrode; Box Cox transformation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate factors affecting weakly basic drugs liposomal systems. Resolution V fractional factorial design (2(V) (5-1)) is used as an example of screening designs that would better be used as a wise step before proceeding with detailed factors effects or optimization studies. Five factors probable to affect liposomal systems of weakly basic drugs were investigated using Amisulpride as a model drug. Factors studied were; A: Preparation technique B: Phosphatidyl choline (PhC) amount (mg) C: Cholesterol: PhC molar ratio, D: Hydration volume (ml) and E: Sonication type. Levels investigated were; Ammonium sulphate-pH gradient technique or Transmembrane zinc chelation-pH gradient technique, 200 or 400 mg, 0 or 0.5, 10 or 20 ml and bath or probe sonication for A, B, C, D and E respectively. Responses measured were Particle size (PS) (nm), Zeta potential (ZP) (mV) and Entrapment efficiency percent (EE%). Ion selective electrode was used as a novel method for measuring unentrapped drug concentration and calculating entrapment efficiency without the need for liposomal separation. Factors mainly affecting the studied responses were Cholesterol: PhC ratio and hydration volume for PS, preparation technique for ZP and preparation technique and hydration volume for EE%. The applied 2(V) (5-1) design enabled the use of only 16 trial combinations for screening the influence of five factors on weakly basic drugs liposomal systems. This clarifies the value of the use of screening experiments before extensive investigation of certain factors in detailed optimization studies.

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

4.6
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