RP TLC Analysis of New Antidepressants in Pharmaceutical Preparations Taťána Gondová* and Ibrahim A. Amar Key Words Citalopram Fluoxetine RP TLC Drug analysis Summary A simple and precise reversed-phase thin-layer chromatographic (RP TLC) method for simultaneous separation of fluoxetine and citalopram in pharmaceutical preparations has been developed and validated. Separation was performed on RP-18 F254 TLC plates with methanol–0.05 M phosphate buffer (pH 5)–triethylamine 68:27:5 (v/v) as mobile phase. Densitometric detection was performed at 230 nm. The method was validated for linearity, accuracy, precision, selectivity, and robustness. Calibration plots showed the response, as peak area, was a linear (r2 > 0.9988) function of the amounts of the compounds in the concentration range 500–5000 ng per spot. Statistical analysis proved the method was both precise and accurate. The method was successfully used for analysis of citalopram and fluoxetine in their pharmaceutical preparations, with recovery of the compounds ranging from 99.10 to 101.70% of the labeled amount. 1 Introduction Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) are a new generation of antidepressants used for treatment of depressive disorders and other indications [1]. These substances can regulate the concentration of serotonin (a neurotransmitter affecting mood, cognition, sleep, appetite, hormone secretion, etc.) in the central nervous system. Over the past decade, SSRI, which include fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, sertraline, citalopram, and paroxetine, have become the most widely used group of antidepressants, because they are regarded as both safe and well-tolerated [2]. The various analytical methods developed for each drug individually have been described in a review [3]. Methods which enable simultaneous analysis of several SSRI antidepressants in a single step are useful for practical and economic reasons, however. Several methods for simultaneous analysis of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in biological samples or in pharmaceutical formulations have been reported, and include highperformance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [4, 5], gas chro- matography (GC) with mass spectrometry (MS) [6, 7], and thinlayer chromatography (TLC) [8, 9]. Use of capillary electrophoresis for assay of SSRI in pharmaceutical preparations and biological fluids has recently been reported [10]. Although TLC is less sensitive than GC–MS or HPLC, it has several advantages, including simplicity of use, the ability to repeat detection and quantification with changed conditions, cost effectiveness, and minimum sample cleanup. The development of HPTLC instruments for automated sample application and densitometric evaluation in situ has made it possible to obtain results that are comparable with those obtained by HPLC [11]. There are few literature reports of simultaneous analysis of SSRI antidepressants by thin-layer chromatography. Misztal and Skibiñski [8] reported simultaneous analysis of six new antidepressants by reversed-phase and normal-phase TLC. Only qualitative analysis of the drugs has been performed on RP-18 TLC plates with a variety of aqueous–organic mobile phases. The best separation was achieved with methanol–0.09 M phosphate buffer (pH 1.98) 60:40 (v/v) as mobile phase. Videodensitometric detection was performed at 254 nm. There is also a report of the use of normal-phase TLC with densitometric detection for analysis of four SSRI antidepressants, and analysis of citalopram and fluoxetine in pharmaceutical preparations [9]. As far as we are aware, there is no reported reversed-phase TLC method for simultaneous quantitative analysis of fluoxetine and citalopram in pharmaceutical formulations. In this paper we present a simple and reliable TLC method with densitometric detection which enables analysis of the two most commonly prescribed SSRI antidepressants fluoxetine and citalopram (Figure 1) in pharmaceuticals. 2 Experimental 2.1 Chemicals and Standards T. Gondová and I.A. Amar, Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Science, P.J. Šafárik University, Moyzesova 11, 040 01 Košice, Slovak Republic. E-mail: [email protected] 40 Journal of Planar Chromatography 24 (2011) 1, 40–43 0933-4173/$ 20.00 © Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest Fluoxetine hydrochloride and citalopram hydrobromide were supplied by Slovakofarma (Hlohovec, Slovak Republic). The DOI: 10.1556/JPC.24.2011.1.7 RP TLC of Antidepressants Table 1 Validation data for the TLC method for quantification of fluoxetine and citalopram. Fluoxetine Citalopram Linear range [μg per spot] 500–5000 500–5000 Figure 1 Regression equation y = 32.089x + 19000 y = 53.733x + 9201 The chemical structures of fluoxetine and citalopram. Correlation coefficient 0.9994 0.9988 Limit of detection [ng per spot] 100 80 Limit of quantitation [ng per spot] 250 200 Precision, RSD [%] (n = 6) 1.00 0.79 Different days, RSD [%] (n = 3) 0.37 0.47 Specificity Specific Specific Fluoxetine Citalopram methanol for 10 min with the aid of sonication. An appropriate volume of the supernatant was diluted with methanol so that the final concentration of each antidepressant was within the working range of the calibration plot. 2.3 Chromatography Figure 2 Representative TLC densitogram obtained from fluoxetine and citalopram at 230 nm. commercially available pharmaceutical preparations used were: Deprenon (20 mg fluoxetine per capsule; Slovakofarma Hlohovec, Slovak Republic), Floxet (20 mg fluoxetine per capsule; Egis Pharmaceuticals, Hungary), Citalec (20 mg citalopram per tablet; Zentiva, Czech Republic), and Cipralex (10 mg escitalopram per tablet; Lundbeck, Denmark). Methanol, potassium dihydrogen phosphate, orthophosphoric acid, triethylamine and potassium hydroxide, all analytical grade, were obtained from Lachema (Brno, Czech Republic). Redistilled deionized water was used for preparation of buffer. Stock standard solutions (1 mg mL–1) of the antidepressants were prepared individually in methanol and stored at 4°C. Separate calibration standards for each antidepressant were prepared daily by diluting the stock solutions with methanol to yield concentrations of 100, 200, 400, 600, 800, and 1000 μg mL–1. These concentrations were used to construct calibration plots. 2.2 Sample Preparation Ten citalopram tablets or ten fluoxetine capsules were weighed and finely pulverized. A portion of the powder corresponding to 20 mg of the antidepressant was accurately weighed, quantitatively transferred to a 25-mL volumetric flask and dissolved in Journal of Planar Chromatography 24 (2011) 1 Chromatographic analysis was performed on 10 cm × 10 cm aluminum foil-backed RP-18 F254s TLC plates (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany). Standard and sample solutions (5 μL) were applied to the plates by use of a CAMAG (Muttenz, Switzerland) Nanomat II sample applicator. The mobile phase was methanol–0.05 M phosphate buffer (pH 5)–triethylamine 68:27:5 (v/v). Linear ascending development, at ambient temperature, to a distance of 8.0 cm, was accomplished in a glass flat-bottom chamber (20 cm × 15 cm × 5 cm; Labora, Bratislava, Slovak Republic) previously saturated with mobile phase vapor for 15 min. After development, plates were dried in the air and the spots were detected under a UV lamp (254 nm). Densitometric scanning was performed at 230 nm with a Shimadzu CS-930 dual-wavelength TLC scanner used in reflectance–absorbance mode. This wavelength was selected after acquiring the UV spectra of both analytes. Peak areas were used for quantitative analysis. 2.4 Method Validation Method validation was conducted in accordance with published guidelines (ICH) [12]. The method was validated by establishing linearity, limits of detection and quantitation, precision, accuracy, and specificity. Linearity was determined from six replicate applications of each of six different amounts of each antidepressant. Six-point calibration plots in the range 500–5000 ng per spot were constructed by plotting peak area against the corresponding amounts of the analytes by means of the least-squares method. The limits of detection (LOD) and quantification (LOQ) were established on the basis of signal to noise ratios of 3:1 and 10:1, respectively. 41 RP TLC of Antidepressants Table 2 Recovery of fluoxetine and citalopram by the TLC method (n = 3). Compound Fluoxetine Citalopram a)Matrix Amount addeda) [%] Theoretical content [ng] Recovery [%] RSD [%] 50 1500 100.86 1.45 100 2000 101.05 1.52 150 2500 100.93 1.23 50 1500 99.75 0.67 100 2000 100.94 0.76 150 2500 99.90 0.78 containing 1000 ng drug Table 3 Results from TLC quantification of fluoxetine and citalopram in tablets (n = 5). Compound Fluoxetine Citalopram Preparation, content [mg] Amount found [mg] (mean ± SD) RSD [%] Deprenon, 20 19.82 ± 0.51 2.56 99.10 Floxet, 20 20.32 ± 0.46 2.26 101.60 Citalec, 20 19.94 ± 0.21 1.03 99.70 Cipralex, 10 10.17 ± 0.04 0.38 101.70 The repeatability of sample application and measurement of peak area were determined on the same day by repeated (n = 6) application of the drugs extracted from tablet samples and calculation of relative standard deviation (RSD, [%]). Intermediate precision was evaluated by comparison of assays performed on three different days. The accuracy of the method was studied by determination of the recovery [%] of known amounts of fluoxetine and citalopram standards added to solutions of the corresponding commercial product within the linear range. Previously analyzed samples were spiked with an extra 50, 100, and 150% of fluoxetine or citalopram standards. The selectivity of the method was studied in relation to possible matrix interferences from the with pharmaceutical formulations. No interference peaks or matrix effects from excipients were observed in the chromatograms obtained from the formulations, thus confirming the selectivity of the method. To test robustness, the mobile phase pH was varied by ±0.2 units and the concentration of the buffer by ±0.01 M to determine the effect on the results obtained. 2.5 Analysis of Fluoxetine and Citalopram in Pharmaceutical Preparations Standard solutions and sample solutions were analyzed as described above. Four pharmaceutical products commercially available in Slovakia were analyzed. 3 Results and Discussion To optimize the TLC separation, several mobile phases of different composition were tried. Satisfactory separation of the compounds was achieved with methanol–phosphate buffer–tri- 42 Recovery [%] ethylamine as mobile phase. Use of triethylamine enabled us to separate the mixture of the basic compounds fluoxetine and citalopram and to obtain more symmetrical and oval spots of both separated compounds with minimum tailing. In the next step the composition of the mobile phase for efficient separation of the antidepressants was determined by studying an effects of organic modifier content, pH, and buffer concentration on the retention factors, RF, and resolution, RS, of the drugs. The mobile phase methanol–phosphate buffer (pH 5; 0.05 M)– triethylamine 68:27:5 (v/v) enabled baseline separation of the drugs on RP-18 F254s TLC plates. The RF values, at 230 nm, were 0.12 for fluoxetine and 0.28 for citalopram (with a standard deviation of less than 0.02 in all cases). A representative densitogram obtained from the antidepressants is shown in Figure 2. Calibration curves were linear over the concentration range of 500–5000 μg per spot for both antidepressants; the correlation coefficients were 0.9994 and 0.9988 for fluoxetine and citalopram, respectively, confirming good linearity for both calibration plots (Table 1). Recovery of the drugs from the sample matrix was in the ranges 100.86–101.05% and 99.75–100.94% for fluoxetine and citalopram, respectively (Table 2). Corresponding RSD values were less than 1.6% for fluoxetine and less than 0.8% for citalopram, indicating the accuracy of the method. No interference peaks or matrix effects from the excipients were observed in the chromatograms obtained from the pharmaceuticals, confirming the selectivity of the method. The mean amounts of the antidepressants in the pharmaceutical preparations investigated were 99.10% and 101.60% of the label claim for fluoxetine and 99.70% and 101.70% of the label claim for citalopram (Table 3). Low values of relative standard deviation (below 2.6%) for both citalopram and fluoxetine indicate Journal of Planar Chromatography 24 (2011) 1 RP TLC of Antidepressants the precision of the method is sufficient. The method was therefore suitable for quantification of these antidepressants in the pharmaceuticals. [5] C. Frahnert, M.L. Rao, K. Grasmäder, J. Chromatogr. B 794 (2003) 35–47. Acknowledgment [7] J.J. Berzas, C.M.J. Villasenor, V. Rodriguez, Anal. Chim. Acta 519 (2004) 219–230. This work was supported by the Grant Agency of the Slovak Republic, grant No. 1/4461/07. [8] G. Misztal, R. Skibinski, J. Planar Chromatogr. 14 (2001) 300–304. [6] S.M.R. Wille, K.E. Maudens, C.H. van Peteghem, W.E.E. Lambert, J. Chromatogr. A 1098 (2005) 19–29. [9] T. Gondová, D. Halamová, K. Špacayová, J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 31 (2008) 2429–2441. References [1] S.M. Sampson, Mayo Clin. Proc. 76 (2001) 739–744. [2] J. Vetulani, I. Nalepa, Eur. J. Pharmacol. 405 (2000) 351–363. [3] C.B. Eap, P. Baumann, J. Chromatogr. B 686 (1996) 51–63. [4] J.J. Berzas, C. Guiberteau, A.M. Contento, V. Rodriguez, Chromatographia 56 (2002) 545–551. Journal of Planar Chromatography 24 (2011) 1 [10] D. Schaller, E.F. Hilder, P.R. Haddad, Anal. Chim. Acta 556 (2006) 104–111. [11] J. Sherma, J. Chromatogr. A 880 (2000) 129–147. [12] ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guidelines on Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2 (R1), Current Step 4 version, Geneva, November 2005. Ms received: November 19, 2009 Accepted: June 14, 2010 43
© Copyright 2024