Advertisement

Chromatographia

, Volume 40, Issue 1–2, pp 47–50 | Cite as

Inter-company cross validation exercise on capillary electrophoresis. Quantitative determination of drug counter-ion level

  • K. D. Altria
  • N. G. Clayton
  • R. C. Harden
  • J. V. Makwana
  • M. J. Portsmouth
Originals

Summary

A capillary electrophoresis (CE) method for the quantitative determination of sodium levels in the sodium salt of an acidic drug has been transferred across 6 independent pharmaceutical companies. All companies were able to demonstrate similar selectivity and acceptable precision for migration times and relative migration times. Five companies obtained acceptable precision for the repeatability of response factors from repeated injections of calibration solutions. Highly variable results from the sixth company indicated problems arising from contamination from residual sodium, possibly from unclean glassware or autosampler vials.

The quantitative assay results from all companies confirmed the correct drug: counter-ion ratio. The average % w/w sodium content was 5.45% which represents 99.0% of the theoretical sodium content of sodium cephalothin

Key Words

Capillary electrophoresis Quantitative determination Sodium Cephalothin 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    K. D. Altria, R. C. Harden, M. Hart, J. Hevizi, P. A. Hailey, J. Makwana, M. J. Portsmouth, J. Chromatogr.641, 147 (1993).Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    K. D. Altria, N. G. Clayton, R. C. Harden, M. Hart, J. Hevizi, J. Makwana, M. J. Portsmouth, Chromatographia39, 180 (1994).Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    W. R. Jones, P. Jandik, J. Chromatogr.608, 385 (1992).Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    P. Jandik, W. R. Jones, A. Weston, P. R. Brown, LC-GC9, 634 (1991).Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    W. Beck, H. Engelhardt, Chromatographia33, 313 (1992).Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    W. Buckberger, P. R. Haddad, J. Chromatogr.608, 59 (1992).Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. B. Nair, C. G. Izzo, J. Chromatogr.640, 4457 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    K. D. Altria, D. M. Goodall, M. M. Rogan, Chromatographia38, 637 (1994).Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    K. D. Altria, M. Kersey, LG-CG, in press.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    K. D. Altria, T. Wood, R. Kitscha, A. Roberts-McIntosh, J. Pharm. Biomed. Analysis, in press.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    H. Wätzig, C. Dette, J. Chromatogr.636, 31 (1993).Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    B. R. Thomas, X. G. Fang, X. Chen, R. J. Tyrell, S. Ghodbane, J. Chromatogr.657, 383 (1994).Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    P. Coufal, K. Stulik, H. A. Claessens, C. A. Cramers, JHRCC17, 325 (1994).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. D. Altria
    • 1
    • 3
  • N. G. Clayton
    • 2
    • 3
  • R. C. Harden
    • 4
    • 3
  • J. V. Makwana
    • 5
    • 3
  • M. J. Portsmouth
    • 6
    • 3
  1. 1.Analytical Evaluation GroupGlaxo Research and DevelopmentWareUK
  2. 2.Pfizer Central ResearchSandwichUK
  3. 3.Rhone-Poulenc-Rorer Ltd.DagenhamUK
  4. 4.Lilly Research Centre Ltd.WindleshamUK
  5. 5.Boots CompanyNottinghamUK
  6. 6.Fisons PharmaceuticalsLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations