High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Cefepime Hydrochloride and Sulbactam Sodium

Laxman M. Prajapati^*, Anjali Patel, Jimish R. Patel, Amit K. Joshi, Mohammadali Kharodiya

Department of Pharmaceutical Chemistry, Shri B M Shah College of Pharmaceutical Education and Research, College Campus, Modasa-383315, Gujarat, India.

*Corresponding Author E-mail: laxchem@rediffmail.com

ABSTRACT:

A Simple High Performance Thin Layer Chromatography method for the simultaneous estimation of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium was developed. The determination was carried on Silica Gel 60 GF254 HPTLC Plates using the mobile phase of chloroform:ethyl alcohol: Diethyl amine: water (12:7:1:0.4V/V). The absorbances of the spots were measured by densitometry at 254nm. The Retention Factor (R_f) was found to be 0.17 for cefepime hydrochloride and 0.76 for sulbactam sodium respectively. Cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium showed linear response at concentration range 4-20 µg/band and 2-10 µg/band repepectively. The Correlation co-efficient (r²) for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium was found to be 0.9997 and 0.9997 respectively. The percentage recoveries obtained for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium in range form 99.87-100.12 and 98.91-100.50.

KEYWORDS: Combined dosage, HPTLC, cefepime hydrochloride, sulbactam sodium, validation.

Figure 1: Chemical structure of (A) Cefepime hydrochloride (B) Sulbactam sodium

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Instrumentation

A Camag HPTLC system (Camag, Muttenz, Switzerland) with Lanomate V automatic sample applicator and Camag -Scanner III.

Flat bottom and twin trough developing chamber

(10×10 cm)

100 µL Hamilton syringe (Hamilton, Switzerland).

UV cabinate with dual wavelength UV lamp

(254 nm and 366 nm)

Camag win-CATS software

Sonicator FS₄

Analytical balance (Shimadzu ATX224)

Precoated silica gel 60 F₂₅₄ TLC plates

(10×10 cm, layer thickness 0.2 mm, E. Merck, Germany).

Chemicals and Reagents:

Pure sample of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium were kindly gifted from Montage Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Himatnagar, Gujarat, India. Commercial injection formulation-Supime (Venus Remedies Limited) was purchased from local market. Chloroform, ethyl alcohol, diethyl amine and water used were of AR Grade (Finar Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad, India).

Experimental:

Chromatographic Condition

The analysis was carried out by HPTLC using chloroform: ethyl alcohol : diethyl amine : water (12:7:1:0.4 v/v) as a mobile phase and silica gel 60 F₂₅₄ HPTLC plates (10×10cm) as a stationary phase. The samples were applied on HPTLC plates as 6 mm bands, by means of Linomat V automatic sample applicator fitted with 100 ml Hamilton syringe and the nitrogen flow. The plate was developed in Camag twin-trough glass chamber previously saturated for 20 min. The length of densitogram run was 7.5 cm. The plates were dried with air dryer and scanned at 254 nm by means of camag TLC scanner (Table2).

Preparation of stock solution:

Preparation of Standard stock solution of cefepime HCL (10,000 µg/ml)

Standard stock solutions prepared by dissolving 100 mg of cefepime HCL in 10 ml water to get the concentration of 10000µg/ml of cefepime HCL.

Preparation of standard stock solution of sulbactum sodium (10,000 µg/ml)

Standard stock solutions prepared by dissolving 100 mg of sulbactam sodium in 10 ml water to get the concentration of 10000µg/ml of sulbactam sodium.

Preparation of working standard:

2 ml from standard stock solution of cefepime HCL was taken in10 ml volumetric flask and diluted with distil water to get the concentration of 2000 µg/ml of cefepime HCL. 1ml from standard stock solution of sulbactum sodium was taken in to 10 ml volumetric flask and diluted with distil water to get 1000µg/ml of sulbactum sodium.

Method validation

Linearity

For linearity aliquots were taken and diluted to get different concentration range for the cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium. Solutions were scanned at 254 nm. Slope, intercept and correlation coefficient (R²) was calculated from the calibration curve.

Precision

The intra-day and inter-day precision studies were carried out by estimating the responses of three quality control (QC) standards in triplicates under same experimental conditions three times on the same day and on three different days. The results obtained, the precision was expressed as percentage relative standard deviations (% RSD) from mean intra and inter-day assays.

Accuracy:

Accuracy of the method was studied by recovery experiments. The recovery experiments were performed by adding known amounts of standard drug to formulation samples. The recovery was performed at three different concentrations levels (i.e. 80%, 100% and 120%). This procedure was repeated for three times for each concentration. The results of recovery studies were calculated for % RSD.

Specificity:

Specificity is the ability of the method to measure the analyte in the presence of other relevant components. The evaluation of specificity of the method was determined against placebo.

Limit of Detection (LOD) and Limit of Quantitation (LOQ):

The limit of detection (LOD) and the limit of quantitation (LOQ) of all selected combination of drugs were derived by calculating the signal to-noise ratio using the following equations as per the ICH guidelines.

LOD = 3.3 × σ/S

LOQ = 10 × σ/S

Where σ =standard deviation of the response and S = slope of calibration curve.

Sample solution stability:

Sample Solution stability was performed by analyzing the sample solution containing 4 µg/spot and 2μg /spot on 0 hrs, 24 hrs. and 48 hrs. for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium respectively.

Robustness:

In proposed method, determinations of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium were carried out in sample solution (4μg/spot cefepine hydrochloride and 2μg/spot of sulbactam sodium) by using different conditions.

Analysis of cefepime HCL and sulbactum sodium in marketed injection formulation:

Accurately weighed powder 1.5 gm (1000 mg cefepime HCL and 500 mg sulbactum sodium) was transferred to volumetric flask and dissolved in small quantity of water. Sonicate the solution for 10 minute and diluted up to 100 ml using water. The resulting solution was filtered using whattman filter paper. Take 1ml from the sample stock solution into 10 ml volumetric flask and diluted using water up to the mark to get the concentration of 1000 µg/ml of cefepime HCL and 500 µg/ml of sulbactum sodium. 4 μL of this solution applied on TLC plate followed by development and scanning at 254 nm.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Linearity:

Linear regression data for the calibration plots revealed good linear relationships between area and concentration over the ranges 4-20 μg/spot for cefepime hydrochloride and 2-10 μg/spot for sulbactam sodium. The linear equations for the calibration plots were y = 552.15x - 908.1and y = 152.73x +824.67 with Regression (r²) being 0.999 and 0.999 for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium, respectively (Figure 2, 3 and 4) (Table 1 and 2).

Figure 3: 3D chromatogram of Cefepime HCL (4-20μg/spot) and Sulbactum Sodium (2-10μg/spot)

Figure 4: Calibration curve of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactam sodium in distilled water at 254 nm.

Table 1 Calibration curves Detail

Standard Id	Volume (μL) used for spotting	Concentration of Cefepime HCL(μg/spot)	Concentration of Sulbactum Sodium (μg/spot)
S1	2	4	2
S2	4	8	4
S3	6	12	6
S4	8	16	8
S5	10	20	10

Table 2: Result of Calibration readings for cefepime hydrochloride and Sulbactam sodium

Cefepime hydrochloride				Sulbactam sodium.
Concentration (ng/spot)	R_f	Area Mean (n=3) ± SD	% RSD	Concentration (ng/spot)	R_f	Area Mean (n=3) ± SD	%RSD
4	0.17	1278.4	0.1315	2	0.76	1126.5	0.3539
8	0.16	3464.5	0.0539	4	0.76	1443.9	0.1355
12	0.17	5807.2	0.0528	6	0.76	1730.6	0.1898
16	0.17	7569.1	0.0285	8	0.76	2056.8	0.1645
20	0.16	10069	0.0487	10	0.76	2347.3	0.0680

Table 3: Results of accuracy study for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium

Drug	Amount taken (μg/spot)	Amount added (μg/spot)	Total Amount (μg/spot)	Amount found (μg/spot)	% Recovery	%RSD
Cefepime HCL	4	3.2	7.2	7.19	99.92	0.05817
	4	4	8.00	8.00	100.12	0.03047
	4	4.8	8.8	8.78	99.87	0.03957
Sulbactum Sodium	2	1.6	3.6	3.61	100.50	0.05457
	2	2	4	3.98	99.72	0.06611
	2	2.4	4.4	4.35	98.91	0.596

Table 4: Results of Precision study for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium

	Cefepime hydrochloride	Sulbactum sodium
Repeatability(%RSD, n=5)	0.09449	0.0390
Inter-day Precision(%RSD, n = 3)	0.03535	0.1313
Intra-day precision(%RSD, n = 3)	0.0794	0.2264

Accuracy:

When the found the accuracy and spiked with 80, 100, and 120% of additional standard drug, the recovery was found to be 99.87- 100.12% for cefepime hydrochloride and 98.91- 100.50% for sulbactam sodium (Table 3).

Precision:

The precision of the method was expressed as relative standard deviation (RSD %). The % RSD values for intra-day precision study and inter-day study (Table 4) were <2.0%, confirming that the method was sufficiently precise.

LOD AND LOQ:

LOD and LOQ were calculated by equation. The LOD and LOQ values were found to be 0.007214 and 0.02186 (µg/spot) for cefepime hydrochloride and 0.009492 and 0.02876 µg/spot for sulbactam sodium. (Table 5)

Table 5: Summary of Validation Parameter for Proposed method

Parameters		Cefepime hydrochloride	Sulbactam sodium
Linearity (μg/spot)		4-20	2-10
Slope		552.15	152.73
Intercept		908.1	824.67
Correlation coefficient		0.9997	0.9997
LOD (μg/ml)		0.007214	0.009492
LOQ (μg/ml)		0.02186	0.02876
Accuracy	80%	99.92	100.50
	100%	100.12	99.72
	120%	99.87	98.91

Robustness:

The results obtained in the new conditions were in accordance with the original results. The % RSD values for peak area was less than 1.0 indicating the highly robust nature of the developed method (Table 6).

Table 6: Robustness study for cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium

Name of drugs	Condition 1 Chloroform: Ethyl alcohol: Diethylamine :Water (12:7:1:0.4v/v)		Condition 2 Chloroform: Ethyl alcohol: Diethylamine : Water (11:6.5:1:0.2v/v)
Name of drugs	Mean of Peak area	%RSD	Mean of Peak area	%RSD
Cefepime HCL(4μg/spot)	1276.93	0.1315	1277.23	0.08659%
Sulbactum Sodium(2μg/ml)	1124.66	0.3539	1124.7	0.2185%

Table 7: Solution stability study for Cefepime hydrochloride and Sulbactam sodium

Time for stability	Std. solution of cefepime HCL(4μg/spot) measured peak area	% RSD	Std. solution of Sulbactum Sodium (2μg/spot) measured peak area	% RSD
0 hrs.	1276.2	0.151%	1126.4	0.16%
24hrs.	1245	0.310%	1118.3	0.21%
48hrs.	1230.9	0.092%	1107.16	0.45%

Table 8: Assay results of marketed formulation (n =3)

Formulation	Label Claim (mg/tab)		Assay (% of label claim)
Formulation	Cefepime HCL	Sulbactum Sodium	Cefepime HCL	Sulbactum Sodium
Supime injection	1000 mg	500 mg	99%	98.5%

Sample solution stability:

Sample solution stability was evaluated at room temperature for 0, 24 and 48 hrs. There was no significant deviation in peak area (RSD< 1.5%) observed on analysis up to 48 h (Table 7). There was no degradation of the drug observed during chromatogram development. These observations suggest that the drug is stable under the typical processing and storage conditions of the analytical procedure.

Analysis of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium in marketed formulation:

When the marketed formulation was analyzed, cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium gave sharp and well defined peaks at R_f 0.17 and 0.72, respectively, scanned at 254 nm (Figure 5). There was no interference from the excipients commonly present in the injection formulation. The % purity was found to be 99% for cefepime hydrochloride and 98.5% for sulbactam sodium respectively (Table 8).

Figure 5: HPTLC Chromatogram of Sample cefepime HCl and sulbactam sodium mixture

CONCLUSION:

A new, simple, and sensitive HPTLC method has been successfully developed and validated for determination of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium in injection dosage form. The method was found to be accurate, precise, and reproducible with good stability under various processing and storage conditions. Therefore this developed and validated method will help the industries as well as researchers for their simultaneous determination of cefepime hydrochloride and sulbactum sodium at low cost.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

The authors are thanks full to Montage Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. Himatnagar, Gujarat, India. For providing the gift sample of drug.

REFERENCES:

1. Tripathi KD. Essentials of Medical Pharmacology. 6^th ed. Jaypee Brother’s Medical Publishers Ltd. New Delhi. 2010; pp.703-707.

2. The United States Pharmacopoeia. 31^th Revision. United States Pharmacopoeia Convention Inc. Rockville. MD. 2008; pp.1669.

3. British Pharmacopoeia. 6^th ed. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. London. 2010; pp. 408.

4. Indian Pharmacopoeia. 6^th ed. Indian Pharmacopoeial Commission. Ghaziabad. 2010; pp. 1008.

5. Patel CA, Patel HU and Patel CN. Estimation of cefepime hydrochloride in injectable dosage form by difference spectrophotometry. Journal of Global Pharma Technology. 6; 2013: 11-14.

6. Behin S, Punith ISR and Krishnan S. Stability studies of cefepime hydrochloride by stability indicating RP-HPLC method. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Nanotechnology. 6; 2013: 31-38.

7. Panigrahy UP and Reddy SK. Development and validation for simultaneous estimation of cefepime hydrochloride and tazobactam sodium bulk and injectable dosage form using RP-HPLC method. International Journal of Biological and Pharmaceutical Research 5; 2014: 651-59.

8. Dave VM, Hirpara KP, and Shital F. Development and Validation of First Order Derivative Spectrophotometric Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Cefepime Hydrochloride and Amikacin Sulphate in Injection. International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences. 2; 2012: 138-143.

9. Totir MA, Helfand MS and Carey MP. Sulbactam forms only minimal amounts of irreversible acrylate-enzyme with SHV-1 beta-lactamase. Biochemistry. 46; 2007: 8980–8987.

10. The United States Pharmacopoeia. 31^th Revision, United States Pharmacopoeia Convention Inc. Rockville. MD. 2008: pp.3283.

11. British Pharmacopoeia. 6^th ed. Her Majesty’s Stationary Office. London. 2010: pp.2003.

12. Hoda M and Fatma A. UV-spectrometric determination of ampicillin sodium and sulbactam sodium in two component mixtures. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. 17; 1998: 1273-1278.

13. Palanikumar B, Thenmozi A and Sridharan D. An RP-HPLC method for simultaneous estimation of ceftriaxone sodium and sulbactam sodium in injection dosage form. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences. 2; 2010: 34-36.

14. Shrestha B, Bhyyan NR and Sinha BN. Development and validation of a stability indiacting HPLC method for estimation of ceftriaxone and sulbactam in sterile powder for injection. International Journal of PharmTech Research. 4; 2012: 1660-1666.

15. Malgundkar S and Mulla S. Validated Hptlc method for simultaneous determination of Cefoperazone sodium and Sulbactam sodium in combined dosage form. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences. 9; 2014: 21-25.

16. Qi ML, Chen RL, Cong RH and Wang P. A Validated Method for Simultaneous Determination of Piperacillin Sodium and Sulbactam Sodium in Sterile Powder for Injection by HPLC. Journal of Liquid Chromatography and Related Technologies. 26; 2003: 665-671.

17. Malgundkar S and Mulla S. Validation Hptlc method for simultaneous determination of Cefoperazone sodium and Sulbactum sodium in combined dosage form. IOSR Journal of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences. 9; 2014: 1-5.

18. Siddiqui MR. Tariq A, Reddy KD, Negi PS, Yadav J, Bhatnagar A, Chaudhary M and Singh R. High performance liquid chromatographic method for simultaneous determination of cefepime and sulbactam in pharmaceutical formulation (supime) and biological samples. International Journal of Pharmacology. 6; 2010: 271-77.

19. Patel AJ, Prajapati LM and Joshi AK. Simultaneous estimation of cefepime hydrochloride and Sulbactam sodium in combined dosage form. Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 7(4); 2015: 860-65.

20. Patel AJ, Prajapati LM and Joshi AK. Q-absorbance Ratio Method for Simultaneous Estimation of Cefepime Hydrochloride and Sulbactam Sodium in Combined Dosage Form. Inventi Rapid - Pharm Analysis and Quality Assurance. 2016(12); 2016: 1-5.

21. Validation of analytical procedures: text and methodology Q2(R1), ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guidelines, (2005). Available from: URL: http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA417.pdf

Received on 19.07.2016 Accepted on 05.09.2016

Asian J. Pharm. Ana. 2016; 6(4): 207-212.

DOI: 10.5958/2231-5675.2016.00031.4