4.6 Article

Septonex-tetraphenylborate screen-printed ion selective electrode for the potentiometric determination of Septonex in pharmaceutical preparations

期刊

ANALYST
卷 136, 期 7, 页码 1488-1495

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c0an00662a

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A screen-printed electrode (SPE) was fabricated for the determination of 1-(ethoxycarbonyl)pentadecyltrimethylammonium bromide (Septonex) based on the use of Septonex-tetraphenylborate as the electroactive substance, and o-nitrophenyloctylether (o-NPOE) as the plasticizing agent. The electrode passes a near-Nernstian cationic slope of 59.33 +/- 0.85 mV from activity between pH values of 2 to 9 with a lower detection limit of 9 x 10(-7) M and response time of about 5 s and exhibits an adequate shelf-life of 6 months. The method was applied for the determination of Septonex in pharmaceutical preparations. A percentage recovery of 99.88% was obtained with RSD = 1.24%. The electrode was successfully applied in the determination of Septonex in laboratory-prepared samples by direct potentiometric, calibration curve and standard addition methods. Potentiometric titration of Septonex with sodium tetraphenylborate and phosphotungstic acid as a titrant was monitored with the modified screen-printed electrode as an end-point indicator electrode. Selectivity coefficients for Septonex relative to a number of potential interfering substances were determined. The sensor was highly selective for Septonex over a large number of compounds. Selectivity coefficient data for some common ions show negligible interference; however, cetyltrimethylammonium bromide and iodide ions interfere significantly. The analytical usefulness of the proposed electrode was evaluated by its application in the determination of Septonex in laboratory-prepared pharmaceutical samples with satisfactory results. The results obtained with the fabricated sensor are comparable with those obtained by the British Pharmacopeia method.

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