4.6 Article

Analysis of multicomponent formulations containing phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride, caffeine and diazepam by using LC

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0731-7085(00)00599-9

关键词

high performance liquid chromatography; multicomponent formulations; validation; analysis quantitative

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography assay was carried out for the simultaneous determination of three active principles present in tablets of different origin and wide commercial use in the Province of Cordoba (Argentina). Prescriptions, commercially available as appetite suppressants, very often include the active principles Phenylpropanolamine Hydrochloride (I), Caffeine (II) and Diazepam (III). Simultaneous determination of these three drugs: anorexic, central nervous stimulant and tranquilizer, respectively, in pharmaceutical dosage forms has not been reported. In this study these active principles are quantified. The only sample preparation necessary for the analysis was their dilution with acetonitrile. The resulting solution was filtered and analyzed on a column packed with Supelcosil LC-18 (5 mum) with acetonitrile:water (30:70 v/v) as initial mobile phase (0.4 ml min(-1)) and the detection was performed at 254 nm. Then a linear gradient up to 100% acetonitrile in 18 min (3.0 ml min(-1)) was applied. The procedure was simple and suitable for quality control. The calibration function was established in the ranges of 0.072-0.168 mg ml(-1) for I, 0.036-0.084 mg ml(-1) for II and 0.06-0.196 mg ml(-1) for III. The detection limits of these compounds were 12.8, 4.1 and 11.0 mug ml(-1), respectively with linear response. No chromatographic interference from the tablet excipients was found. The method described in this paper was validated following the analytical performance parameters required by the USP XXIV, and was successfully applied to the commercial tablets. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science 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