Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics

, Volume 16, Issue 6, pp 657–666 | Cite as

The sojourn time and its prospective use in pharmacology

  • Giorgio Segre


Sojourn time in a given compartment i when the material has been injected in compartment j (Sji) corresponds to the average time spent by the particles of the material in i before their definitive exit from that compartment. Sojourn time is different from the mean residence time\((\bar t_{ji} )\), which is the average age of the particles leaving the system. If\(\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{K} \) denotes the transfer matrix of the compartmental system, then\( - \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{K} ^{ - 1} \) provides the sojourn times in each compartment given initial arrival in each of the other compartments. It can be shown that\(S_{ji} = x_i (s)/x_{j,0} \left| {_{s = 0} } \right.\) that is the transfer function between compartment j and i, where xi(s) is the Laplace transform of the function xi(t) and xj,0 indicates the dose introduced in compartment j at time 0. It can be observed that xi¦s=0 corresponds to the value of AUC in compartment i. Since AUCi/xj,0=Fji · AUC/xi,0 (Fji=fraction of the dose in j reaching i), one has Sji=FjiSii · AUCi corresponds to a rectangle of height equal to xj,i and base equal to Sii. Therefore in a compartment i a drug acts on the average for a time equal to Sii and the number of molecules in it depends on the dose and on Fji. In compartments which are not sampled the value of AUC can be calculated by a simulated curve or by\( - \underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle-}$}}{K} ^{ - 1} \) From the height of the rectangle whose area is equal to AUC one should subtract the threshold θ for a given effect; the resulting should indicate the intrinsic efficacy of the drug. These considerations could be applied in pharmacology, toxicology, and chemotherapy.

Key words

sojourn time mean residence time compartments 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    A. Rescigno and G. Segre.Drug and Tracer Kinetics, Blaisdell, Waltham, Mass, 1967.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Z. Hearon. Residence times in compartmental systems and the moments of a certain distribution.Math. Biosci. 15:69–77 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    J. Z. Hearon. Residence times in compartmental systems with and without inputs.Math. Biosci. 55:247–257 (1981).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    K. Yamaoka, T. Nakagawa, and T. Uno. Statistical moments in pharmacokinetics.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 6:547–558 (1978).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. Yamaoka, T. Nakagawa, and T. Uno. Moment analysis for disposition kinetics of several cephalosporin antibiotics in rats.J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 35:19–22 (1982).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Tanigawara, K. Yamaoka, T. Nakagawa, and T. Uno. Moment analysis for the separation of mean in vivo disintegration, dissolution, absorption and disposition time of ampiciliin products.J. Pharm. Sci. 71:1129–1132 (1982).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Riegelman and P. Collier. The application of statistical moment theory to evaluation of in vivo dissolution time and absorption time.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 8:509–534 (1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. L. Chiou. Mean hepatic transit time in the determination of mean absorption time.J. Pharm. Sci. 72:1365–1368, (1983).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J.H. Matis, T. E. Wehrly, and C. M. Metzler. On some stochastic formulations and related statistical moments of pharmacokinetic models.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 11:77–92, (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. H. Matis and T. E. Wehrly. Modeling pharmacokinetic variability on the molecular level with stochastic compartmental systems. In M. Rowland, L. B. Sheiner, and J. L. Steimer (eds.),Variability in Drug Therapy: Description, Estimation, and Control, Raven Press, New York, 1985, pp. 31–48.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. H. Anderson.Compartmental Modeling and Tracer Kinetics, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983, Section 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Segre. Mathematical models in the study of drug kinetics. In J. Berger, W. Buhler, R. Repges, and P. Tautu (eds),Mathematical Models in Medicine Workshop. Springer Verlag, New York, 1976, pp. 206–224.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    G. Segre. Kinetics of interaction between drugs and biological systems.Il Farmaco (Ed. Sci.) 23:907–913 (1968).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M. Weiss. On pharmacokinetics in target tissues.Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 6:57–66 (1985).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    J. P. Guggenbichler, P. Konig, and E. Semenitz. Kill kinetics and regrowth pattern of bacteria exposed to antibiotic concentration simulating those observed in vitro. In J. Ishigami (ed.),Recent Advances in Chemotherapy, Antimicrobial Section 1, Proceedings of the 14-th Intern. Congress of Chemotherapy, Kyoto 1985, University Tokyo Press, Tokyo, Japan, 1985, pp. 325–326.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Levy and R. Koysooko. Pharmacokinetic analysis of the effect of theophylline on pulmonary function in asthmatic children.J. Ped. Pharmacol. 86:789–793 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. H. Matis, T. E. Wehrly, and K. B. Gerald. The statistical analysis of pharmacokinetic data. In R. M. Lambrecht and A. Rescigno (eds.),Tracer Kinetics and Physologic Models, Springer Verlag, New York, 1983, pp. 1–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Giorgio Segre
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Pharmacology, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SienaSienaItaly

Personalised recommendations