AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 23–31 | Cite as

Response surface methodology for the optimization of ubiquinone self-nanoemulsified drug delivery system

  • Sami Nazzal
  • Mansoor A. Khan


The aim of the present study was to prepare and evaluate an optimized, self-nanoemulsified drug delivery system of ubiquinone. A 3-factor, 3-level Box-Behnken design was used for the optimization procedure with the amounts of Polyoxyl 35 castor oil (X1), medium-chain mono- and diglyceride (X2), and lemon oil (X3) as the independent variables. The response variable was the cumulative percentage of ubiquinone emulsified in 10 minutes. Different ubiquinone release rates were obtained. The amount released ranged from 11% to 102.3%. Turbidity profile revealed 3 regions that were used to describe the progress of emulsion formation: lag phase, pseudolinear phase, and plateau turbidity. An increase in the amount of surfactant decreased turbidity values and caused a delay in lag time. Addition of cosurfactant enhanced the release rates. Increasing the amount of the eutectic agent was necessary to overcome drug precipitation especially at higher loading of surfactants and cosurfactants. Mathematical equations and response surface plots were used to relate the dependent and independent variables. The regression equation generated for the cumulative percentage emulsified in 10 minutes was Y1=90.9–22.1X1+5.03X2+13.95X3+12.13X1X2+15.13X1X3-14.40X1 2-6.25X3 2. The optimization model predicted a 93.4% release with X1, X2, and X3 levels of 35, 35, and 30 respectively.

The observed responses were in close agreement with the predicted values of the optimized formulation. This demonstrated the reliability of the optimization procedure in predicting the dissolution behavior of a self-emulsified drug delivery system.

Key words

Self-nanoemulsified drug delivery Coenzyme Q10 Optimization Response surface methodology Turbidimetry 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Perng CH, Kearney AS, Patel K, Palepu NR, Zuber G. Investigation of formulation approaches to improve the disolution of SB-210661, a poorly water soluble 5-lipoxygenase inhibitor. Int J Pharm. 1998;176:31–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nazzal S, Guven N, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Preparation and characterization of Coenzyme Q10-Eudragit© solid dispersion. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2002;28(1):49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pouton CW. Lipid formulations for oral administration of drugs: non-emulsifying, self-emulsifying and “selfmicroemulsifying” drug delivery systems. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2000;Suppl 2:S93–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Charman SA, Charman WN, Rogge MC, Wilson TD, Dutko FJ, Pouton CW. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems: formulation and biopharmaceutic evaluation of an investigational lipophilic compound. Pharm Res. 1992;9(1):87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Craig DQM, Lievens HSR, Pitt KG, Storey DE. An investigation into the physico-chemical properties of self-emulsifying systems using low frequency dielectric spectroscopy, surface tension measurements and article size analysis. Int J Pharm. 1993;96:147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gao ZG, Choi HG, Shin HJ, Park KM, Lim SJ, Hwang KJ, Kim CK. Physicochemical characterization and evaluation of a microemulsion system for oral delivery of cyclosporin A. Int J Pharm. 1998;161:75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Groves MJ, de Galindez DA. Rheological characterization of self-emulsifying oil/surfactant systems. Acta Pharm Suecica. 1976;13:353–360.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yalabik-Kas HS, Groves MJ. Zeta potential of droplets prepared from a self-emulsifying oil. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1984;10(2):211–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig DQ, Barker SA, Banning D, Booth SW. Investigation into the mechanisms of self-emulsification using particle size analysis and low frequency dielectric spectroscopy. Int J Pharm. 1995;114:103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim CK, Ryuu SA, Park KM, Lim SJ, Hwang SJ. Preparation and physicochemical characterization of phase inverted water/oil microemulsion containing cyclosporin A. Int J Pharm. 1997;147:131–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cortesi R, Esposito E, Maietti A, Menegatti E, Nastruzzi C. Formulation study for the antitumor drug camptothecin: ilposomes, micellar solutions and a microemulsion. Int J Pharm. 1997;159:95–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prinderre P, Piccerelle P, Cauture E, Kalantzis G, Joachim J. Formulation and evaluation of o/w emulsions using experimental design. Int J Pharm. 1998;163:73–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gullapalli RP, Sheth BB. Influence of an optimized nonionic emulsifier blend on properties of oil in water emulsions. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 1999;48(3):233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kommuru TR, Gurley B, Khan MA, Reddy IK. Selfemulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) of coenzyme Q10: formulation development and bioavailability assessment. Int J Pharm. 2001;212:233–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Karachi AA, Khan MA. Box-Behnken design for the optimization of formulation variables of indomethacin coprecipitates with polymer mixtures. Int J Pharm. 1996;131:9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Singh SK, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Optimization and characterization of controlled release pellets coated with an experimental latex: II. Cationic drug. Int J Pharm 1996;141:179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sastry SV, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Atenolol gastrointestinal therapeutic system: optimization of formulation variables using response surface methodology. J Cont Rel. 1997;45:121–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wehrle P, Korner D, Benita S. Sequential statistical optimization of a positively charged submicron emulsion of miconazole. Pharm Dev Tech. 1996;1(1):97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Box GEP, Behnken DW. Some new three level designs for the study of quantitative variables. Technometrics. 1960;2:455–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nazzal S, Smalyukh II, Lavrentovich OD, Khan MA. Preparation and in vitro characterization of a eutectic based semisolid self-nanoemulsified drug delivery system (SNEDDS) of Ubiquinone: Mechanism and progress of emulsion formation. Int J Pharm. In press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Groves MJ, Mustafa RAM. Measurement of the “spontaneity” of self-emulsifiable oils. J Pharm Pharmac. 1974;26:671–681.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pouton CW. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems: assessment of the efficiency of emulsification. Int J Pharm. 1974;26:671–681.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nazzal S, Zaghloul AA, Reddy IK, Khan MA. Analysis of ubidecarenone (CoQ10) aqueous samples using reversed phase liquid chromatography. Pharmazie. 2001;56(5):394–396.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reiss H. Entropy-induced dispersion of bulk liquids. J Colloid Interface Sci. 1975;53(1):61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Iranloye TA, Pilpel N, Groves MJ. Some factors affecting the droplet size and charge of dilute oil-in-water emulsions prepared by self-emulsification. J Disp Sci and Technology. 1983;4(2):109–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Constantinides PP, Scalart JP. Formulation and physical characterization of water-in-oil microemulsions containing long- versus medium-chain glycerides. Int J Pharm. 1997;158:57–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halbaut L, Berbe C, del Pozo A. An investigation into physical and chemical properties of semi-solid selfemulsifying systems for hard gelatin capsules. Int J Pharm. 1996;130:203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bachynsky MO, Shah NH, Patel CI, Malick AW. Factors affecting the efficiency of a self-emulsifying oral delivery system. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1997;23(8):809–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shah NH, Carvajal MT, Patel I, Infeld MH, Malick AW. Self-emulsifying drug delivery systems (SEDDS) with polyglycolyzed glycerides for improving in vitro dissolution and oral absorption of lipophilic drugs. Int J Pharm. 1994;106:15–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of PharmacyTexas Tech University Health Science CenterAmarillo

Personalised recommendations