4.6 Article

Quantitative analysis of paracetamol polymorphs in powder mixtures by FT-Raman spectroscopy and PLS regression

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2006.07.032

关键词

FT-Raman; paracetamol; crystal polymorphism; multivariate calibration; PLS regression; orthogonal signal correction; standard normal variate transformation; multiplicative scatter correction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A fast and simple method for the quantitative analysis of monoclinic (form 1) and orthorhombic (form 11) paracetamol was developed, based on FT-Raman spectroscopy and PLS regression. Three different preprocessing algorithms, namely orthogonal signal correction (OSC), standard normal variate transformation (SNV) and multiplicative scatter correction (MSC), were applied in order to eliminate effects caused by sample preparation and sample inhomogeneities. Subsequently, PLS regression models were fitted and their predictive performance was evaluated on the basis of the root mean squared error of cross-validation (RMSECV) over the complete data set. Furthermore, the data were split into two equal-sized training and test subsets by the Kennard-Stone design and the errors of calibration (RMSEC) and prediction (RMSEP) were calculated. It was found that the OSC preprocessing contributes to a significant increase in the predictive performance of the PLS regression model (RMSECV = 0.500%, RMSEC = 0.842% and RMSEP = 0.538%) in the overall concentration range of form 1, compared to the SNV (RMSECV = 2.398%, RMSEC = 0.911 % and RMSEP = 7.177%) and MSC (RMSECV = 2.7648%, RMSEC = 1.572% and RMSEP = 4.838%). In addition, the model developed on OSC preprocessed data is more parsimonious, requiring a single latent variable, compared to three latent variables required by the models fitted to the SNV and MSC preprocessed data. The proposed multivariate calibration presents a significant improvement over existing methods for the quantitation of paracetamol polymorphs. (c) 2006 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

4.6
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