4.7 Article

Raman spectroscopy for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of solid dosage forms of Sitagliptin

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.saa.2020.118900

关键词

Sitagliptin; Solid dosage forms; Raman spectroscopy; Partial Least Squares Regression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study demonstrated the potential of Raman spectroscopy in qualitative and quantitative analysis of different concentrations of Sitagliptin in pharmaceutical formulations. A PLSR model was constructed to predict drug concentrations in complex matrices, showing it to be a reliable tool for verifying Sitagliptin contents in pharmaceutical samples.
To demonstrate the potential of Raman spectroscopy for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of solid dosage pharmacological formulations, different concentrations of Sitagliptin, an Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) currently prescribed as an anti-diabetic drug, are characterised. Increase of the API concentrations induces changes in the Raman spectral features specifically associated with the drug and excipients. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) and Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR), were used for the qualitative and quantitative analysis of the spectral responses. A PLSR model is constructed which enables the prediction of different concentrations of drug in the complex excipient matrices. During the development of the prediction model, the Root Mean Square Error of Cross Validation (RMSECV) was found to be 0.36 mg and the variability explained by the model, according to the (R-2) value, was found to be 0.99. Moreover, the concentration of the API in the unknown sample was determined. This concentration was predicted to be 64.28/180 mg (w/w), compared to the 65/180 mg (w/w). These findings demonstrate Raman spectroscopy coupled to PLSR analysis to be a reliable tool to verify Sitagliptin contents in the pharmaceutical samples based on calibration models prepared under laboratory conditions. (C) 2020 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

4.7
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