1 Pravara Rural Education Society’s Institute of Pharmacy, Loni, Ahmednagar
2 Padm. Dr . D. Y. Patil College of Pharmacy, Akurdi, Pune
Analytical chemistry finds application in many applied areas. Especially in pharmaceutical industry quality of drug in manufactured formulations like tablets, solution, suspension, emulsion etc must be carefully controlled. Slight variation in purity of drug because of other component can affect therapeutic value of drug so, there is need to develop newer and better method for pharmaceutical analysis. Multicomponent formulations have gained lot of importance in pharmaceuticals due to greater patient acceptability, increased potency , decreased side effect. Lamivudine nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor & Raltegravir HIV integrase inhibitor , both used in management & treatment AID (HIV ).there are various combination available in market such as Lamivudine-Reltegravir , Lamivudine – Tenofovir, Lamivudine – Ziduvudine, Reltegravir Potassium – Maraviroc. Lamivudine potassium & Raltegravir recent combination available In market. Literature survey revel that few UV & HPLC method have been reported to determine Lamivudine potassium & Raltegravir as single component in combination or with other drug. Rapid & easy analytical method are needed due to increasing number of multicomponent formulations. . The aim of this research is to develop and validate simple precise, accurate sensitive, rapid & economic Ultra violet spectroscopic & Reveres phase High Performance Liquid Chromatography method for estimation of Reltegravir & Lamivudine in bulk & pharmaceutical formulation. Multi component analysis method based on composite absorption spectrum & Q analysis also known as absorption method is ratio of absorbance at any wavelength is constant independent of concentration or path length
Introduction to Analytical Chemistry:
Analytical chemistry may be defined as the science and the art of determining components of the material in terms of the element or the compounds contained. Analytical chemistry seeks ever improved means of measuring of chemical composition of natural and artificial materials. The techniques of the science are used to identify the substances which may be present in a material and to determine the exact amounts of the identified substances. Analytical chemist work to improve the reliability of existing technique to meet the demands for better chemical measurement, which arise constantly in our society, they adapt proven methodologies to new kind of material or to answer question about their composition and their reactivity mechanisms.
In industry, analytical chemistry provide the mean of testing raw material and for assuring the quality of finished products whose chemical composition is critical. Analytical techniques play an important role in assuring and maintaining the quality of substance which are critical components of Q.A. /Q.C. The reliability, utility, accuracy, interception and specificity of measurement is the responsibility of an analytical chemist. In general terms, pharmaceutical analysis comprises of those procedures which are necessary to determine the identity, strength, quality and purity of the drugs and chemicals.1
The discipline of analytical chemistry consists of
Various instrumental methods:
Introduction to methods for quantitative analysis by UV-visible spectroscopy.
Quantitative Spectrophotometric assay of medicinal substances. Preparing a solution in a transparent solvent and measuring its absorbance at a suitable wavelength may quickly carry out the assay of an absorbing substance. The wavelength normally selected is a wavelength of maximum absorption (λmax) where small error is setting the wavelength scale has little effect on measured absorbance. Ideally the concentration should be adjusted to give an absorbance of approximately 0.9, around which the accuracy and precision of the measurement are optimal. The concentration of absorbing substances is then calculated from the measured absorbance using one of three following principal procedures,
MATERIALS:
For developing a simple, accurate, precise method the following material were used.
Table 1-List of Materials
|
Sr. No. |
Material |
Source |
|
1 |
Reltegravir Potassium |
Mylan Laboratory, Aurangabad |
|
2 |
Lamivudine |
Mylan Laboratory, Aurangabad |
|
3 |
Acetonitrile HPLC Grade |
Changshu Yanhun Chemicals |
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Simultaneous Estimation of Reltegravie Potassium and Lamivudine by Uv-Spectrophotometric Method.
Method of estimation
RESULT
U.V-VISIBLE SPECTROSCOPIC METHODS OF LAM AND REL
Here λ max 269 nm for LAM and 330 nm for REL were selected. Fig. 1 & Fig.2 represent the spectra of LAM and REL.
Figure 1- U. V. Spectra of Lamivudine
Figure 2U. V. Spectra of Reltegravir Potassium
The standard calibration data and Calibration curves for LAM and REL are given in Table 2 & Table 3 and Fig. 3 and Fig 4 respectively.
Table 2 Standard Calibration data for LAM.
|
Sr. No. |
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance ( nm) |
|
1 |
5 |
0.053 |
|
2 |
10 |
0.106 |
|
3 |
15 |
0.159 |
|
4 |
20 |
0.21 |
|
5 |
25 |
0.242 |
|
6 |
30 |
0.318 |
|
7 |
35 |
0.371 |
|
8 |
40 |
0.426 |
|
9 |
45 |
0.477 |
|
10 |
50 |
0.531 |
Figure 3-Standard calibration curve of LAM.
Table 3Standard Calibration data of REL.
|
Sr. No. |
Concentration (µg/ml) |
Absorbance ( nm) |
|
1 |
10 |
0.088 |
|
2 |
20 |
0.178 |
|
3 |
30 |
0.294 |
|
4 |
40 |
0.392 |
|
5 |
50 |
0.491 |
|
6 |
60 |
0.588 |
|
7 |
70 |
0.686 |
|
8 |
80 |
0.784 |
|
9 |
90 |
0.882 |
|
10 |
100 |
0.981 |
Figure 4 Standard calibration curve of REL.
ESTIMATION OF LAM AND REL BY Q-ANALYSIS METHOD
Isobestic point is selected at 247.0 nm, the overlain spectra of both drugs in Fig. 5.
Figure 5 Overlain Spectra of LAM and REL for Q-Analysis
The results obtained were accurate and reproducible shown in table 4.
Table 4: Analysis of Mixed Standards by Q-Analysis Method.
|
Sr. No. |
Conc. (µg/ml) |
% of drugs found* |
% R.S.D.* |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
99.49 |
99.88 |
0.132 |
0.1089 |
|
2 |
10 |
20 |
99.53 |
99.91 |
0.055 |
0.0731 |
|
3 |
15 |
30 |
99.53 |
99.91 |
0.050 |
0.0889 |
|
4 |
20 |
40 |
99.66 |
99.90 |
0.037 |
0.0861 |
|
5 |
25 |
50 |
99.58 |
99.87 |
0.085 |
0.0565 |
*Average of six readings
From Table 4 it was studied that % R.S.D was found to be less than 2.
Analysis of Tablet Formulations and its statistical validation by Q- Analysis method is given in Table 5. and Table 6.
Table 5 Analysis of Tablet formulations by Q-Analysis method.
|
Sr. No. |
Amount Present (mg) |
Amount Found (mg) |
% Amount |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
1 |
150 |
300 |
149.70 |
296.52 |
99.80 |
98.84 |
|
2 |
150 |
300 |
149.37 |
299.64 |
99.58 |
99.88 |
|
3 |
150 |
300 |
149.50 |
300.60 |
99.67 |
100.2 |
|
4 |
150 |
300 |
150.10 |
294.75 |
100.1 |
98.25 |
|
5 |
150 |
300 |
146.73 |
299.22 |
97.82 |
99.74 |
|
6 |
150 |
300 |
147.45 |
293.85 |
98.30 |
97.95 |
Table 6 Statistical validation of tablet formulation
|
Conc.( mg) |
% drug found* |
S.D. |
% R.S.D* |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
150 |
300 |
98.71 |
99.31 |
0.9464 |
0.9545 |
0.9587 |
0.9611 |
*Average of six determinations
From Table 6 it was found that the S.D and %R.S.D were less than 2 by Q- Analysis Method.
ESTIMATION OF LAM AND REL BY MULTICOMPONENT METHOD
Figure 6 Overlain Multicomponent Spectra of LAM and REL
The results of Multicomponent analysis are given in Table 7.
Table 7: Analysis data of mixed standards by Multicomponent Method of analysis
|
Sr. No. |
Conc. (µg/ml) |
% of drug found |
%RSD* |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
1 |
5 |
10 |
99.89 |
99.87 |
0.052 |
0.087 |
|
2 |
10 |
20 |
99.85 |
99.91 |
0.069 |
0.041 |
|
3 |
15 |
30 |
99.88 |
99.90 |
0.063 |
0.046 |
|
4 |
20 |
40 |
99.86 |
99.89 |
0.079 |
0.038 |
|
5 |
25 |
50 |
99.88 |
99.89 |
0.070 |
0.041 |
*Average of Six Readings.
3. Analysis data of Tablet Formulation by Multicomponent Method of analysis
The results of Tablet Formulation and its statistical validation are given in Table 8. and Table 8.9.
Table 8 Analysis data of Tablet Formulation by Multicomponent method of analysis
|
Sr. No. |
Amount Present (mg) |
Amount Found (mg) |
%Amount Found |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
1 |
150 |
300 |
149.73 |
299.94 |
99.82 |
99.98 |
|
2 |
150 |
300 |
149.74 |
299.88 |
99.83 |
99.96 |
|
3 |
150 |
300 |
149.67 |
299.70 |
99.78 |
99.90 |
|
4 |
150 |
300 |
149.92 |
299.82 |
99.95 |
99.94 |
|
5 |
150 |
300 |
149.80 |
299.88 |
99.87 |
99.96 |
|
6 |
150 |
300 |
149.77 |
299.82 |
99.85 |
99.94 |
Table 9 Statistical validation of Tablet Formulation by Multicomponent method of analysis
|
Conc. (mg) |
% of drug found* |
S.D. |
%R.S.D.* |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
150 |
300 |
99.85 |
99.94 |
0.0576 |
0.0384 |
0.0576 |
0.0384 |
*Average of Six determinations
From Table 9. it was found that the S.D and %R.S.D were less than 2 by Multicomponent method of analysis.
VALIDATION OF DEVELOPED UV-SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC METHODS
Precision.
Intermediate precision (Intra-day and Inter-day precision).
The S.D. and % R.S.D. were calculated and are presented in Table 10.
Table 10 Statistical validation for Intermediate Precision
|
Method |
Drug |
Intra-day Precision* |
Inter-day Precision* |
||||
|
% Mean |
S.D |
%R.S.D. |
% Mean |
S.D. |
%R.S.D. |
||
|
A |
LAM |
99.90 |
0.05921 |
0.05926 |
99.93 |
0.06324 |
0.06328 |
|
REL |
99.87 |
0.05752 |
0.05759 |
99.90 |
0.05683 |
0.05688 |
|
|
B |
LAM |
99.86 |
0.03653 |
0.03658 |
99.91 |
0.06462 |
0.06467 |
|
REL |
99.90 |
0.04633 |
0.04637 |
99.89 |
0.05357 |
0.05362 |
|
*Average of six determinations.
From Table 10.it was found that the S.D and %R.S.D were less than 2 by all two Methods. Hence, the methods are precise.
Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ).
The results of the same are shown in Table11.
Table 11 Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ)
|
Method |
Limit of Detection (LOD)* |
Limit Of Quantitation (LOQ)* |
||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
A |
0.2548 |
0.6254 |
0.4584 |
0.7589 |
|
B |
0.2814 |
0.6598 |
0.4825 |
0.7963 |
*Average of six determinations.
From Table 11. The LOD and LOQ by the two methods were found to be in the range as per ICH guidelines.
Robustness Studies.
The S.D. and % R.S.D. were calculated and are presented in table 8.12.
Table 12Robustness Study
|
Method |
Parameters |
% Mean |
S.D.* |
%R.S.D.* |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
||
|
A |
Instrument |
99.91 |
99.91 |
0.04593 |
0.06153 |
0.03659 |
0.06158 |
|
Analyst |
99.90 |
99.89 |
0.03898 |
0.05316 |
0.03901 |
0.05321 |
|
|
B |
Instrument |
99.88 |
99.91 |
0.05741 |
0.06583 |
0.05747 |
0.06588 |
|
Analyst |
99.90 |
99.92 |
0.06377 |
0.05692 |
0.06383 |
0.05696 |
|
*Average of six determinations.
From Table 12 it is studied that there are no specific changes in the observations for both the drugs. The S.D and R.S.D were found to be less than 2. Hence all the two methods are Robust.
Recovery studies.
The Result of Recovery Studies of tablet given in table 13 to table 17
Table 13 Recovery Studies for Tablet formulation by Q-Analysis Method
|
Level of % Recovery |
Amount Present (mg/tablet) |
Amount of Standard added (mg) |
Total amount recovered (mg) |
% Recovery* |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.85 |
239.59 |
99.87 |
99.83 |
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.82 |
239.66 |
99.85 |
99.86 |
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.89 |
239.64 |
99.86 |
99.89 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.79 |
299.94 |
99.86 |
99.96 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.77 |
299.94 |
99.85 |
99.98 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.82 |
299.52 |
99.88 |
99.84 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.94 |
359.92 |
99.97 |
99.98 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.85 |
359.82 |
99.92 |
99.95 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.91 |
359.78 |
99.95 |
99.94 |
Table 14Statistical validation of Recovery Studies by Q- Analysis Method
|
Level of % Recovery |
% Recovery |
Mean % Recovery |
S.D.* |
%R.S.D.* |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
80% |
99.87 |
99.83 |
99.86 |
99.84 |
0.010 |
0.01527 |
0.010 |
0.01522 |
|
99.85 |
99.86 |
|||||||
|
99.86 |
99.85 |
|||||||
|
100% |
99.86 |
99.98 |
99.86 |
99.93 |
0.01527 |
0.08082 |
0.01529 |
0.08087 |
|
99.85 |
99.98 |
|||||||
|
99.88 |
99.84 |
|||||||
|
120% |
99.97 |
99.98 |
99.94 |
99.95 |
0.02516 |
0.02081 |
0.02517
|
0.02082 |
|
99.92 |
99.95 |
|||||||
|
99.95 |
99.94 |
|||||||
*Average of three determinants
Table 15 Recovery Studies for Tablet formulation by Multicomponent Method
|
Level of % Recovery |
Amount Present (mg/tablet) |
Amount of Standard added (mg) |
Total amount recovered (mg) |
% Recovery |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.78 |
239.66 |
99.82 |
99.86 |
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.95 |
239.85 |
99.96 |
99.90 |
|
80% |
150 |
300 |
120 |
240 |
119.85 |
239.66 |
99.88 |
99.84 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.80 |
299.85 |
99.87 |
99.95 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.89 |
299.91 |
99.93 |
99.97 |
|
100% |
150 |
300 |
150 |
300 |
149.77 |
299.58 |
99.85 |
99.86 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.73 |
359.85 |
99.85 |
99.96 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.78 |
359.74 |
99.88 |
99.93 |
|
120% |
150 |
300 |
180 |
360 |
179.96 |
359.71 |
99.98 |
99.92 |
Table 16 Statistical validation of Recovery Studies for Tablet formulation Multicomponent Method
|
Level of % Recovery |
% Recovery |
Mean %Recovery |
S.D.* |
%R.S.D.* |
||||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
|
|
80% |
99.82 |
99.86 |
99.88 |
99.86 |
0.07211 |
0.04618 |
0.07219 |
0.04653 |
|
99.96 |
99.90 |
|||||||
|
99.88 |
99.84 |
|||||||
|
100% |
99.87 |
99.95 |
99.88 |
99.92 |
0.04163 |
0.05859 |
0.04168 |
0.05863 |
|
99.93 |
99.97 |
|||||||
|
99.85 |
99.86 |
|||||||
|
120% |
99.85 |
99.96 |
99.90 |
99.92 |
0.06806 |
0.04582 |
0.06812
|
0.04585 |
|
99.88 |
99.93 |
|||||||
|
99.98 |
99.92 |
|||||||
*Average of three determinants
Table 17 Statistical study of Recovery studies.
|
Method |
Level of % Recovery |
%Mean |
S.D. |
%R.S.D. |
|||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
||
|
A |
80% |
99.86 |
99.84 |
0.010 |
0.01527 |
0.010 |
0.01522 |
|
100% |
99.86 |
99.93 |
0.01527 |
0.08082 |
0.01529 |
0.08087 |
|
|
120% |
99.94 |
99.95 |
0.02516 |
0.02081 |
0.02517 |
0.02082 |
|
|
B |
80% |
99.88 |
99.88 |
0.07211 |
0.04618 |
0.07219 |
0.04653 |
|
100% |
99.88 |
99.92 |
0.04163 |
0.05859 |
0.04168 |
0.05863 |
|
|
120% |
99.90 |
99.92 |
0.06806 |
0.04582 |
0.06812 |
0.04585 |
|
*Average of three determination
From the Table 8.17 it is confirmed that the drug was recovered by adding the standard amount of LAM and REL in the tablet formulation. The S.D and % R.S.D were found to be less than 2. The results were found be accurate and satisfactory by all the two methods.
DISCUSSION
Table 18 Comparative Study of U.V. Spectrophotometric Methods
|
Sr. No. |
Parameters |
Method A |
Method B |
||
|
LAM |
REL |
LAM |
REL |
||
|
1 |
λmax in nm |
247.0nm |
269.0nm |
269.0nm |
330.0nm |
|
2 |
LOD |
0.2548 |
0.6254 |
0.4584 |
0.7589 |
|
3 |
LOQ |
0.2814 |
0.6598 |
0.4823 |
0.7963 |
|
4 |
%Recovery |
99.88 |
99.90 |
99.88 |
99.89 |
|
5 |
Precision (RSD) intraday |
0.05926 |
0.05759 |
0.06328 |
0.05688 |
|
6 |
Precision (RSD) inter-day |
0.03658 |
0.03658 |
0.06467 |
0.06467 |
REFERENCES
Patil Jyoti, Nadare Archana, Analytical Method Development and Validation for Simultaneous Estimation of Reltegravir and Lamivudine in Bulk and Pharmaceutical Formulation, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2026, Vol 4, Issue 5, 293-305. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19993747
10.5281/zenodo.19993747