VALIDASI METODE KLT-DENSITOMETRI UNTUK PENETAPAN KADAR KLORFENIRAMIN MALEAT DALAM SEDIAAN TABLET YANG MENGANDUNG TARTRAZIN
The determination of chlorpheniramine maleate (CTM) in tablet is very important to ensure the safety of a drug. Chlorpheniramine maleate tablets usually contain yellow dyes, most of them are tartrazine. Tartrazine should not interfere the determination of chlorpheniramine maleat in tablet. The p...
Saved in:
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Theses and Dissertations NonPeerReviewed |
Language: | English English English Indonesian |
Published: |
2019
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://repository.unair.ac.id/90955/1/FF.KF.49-19%20Mut%20v%20abstrak.pdf http://repository.unair.ac.id/90955/2/FF.KF.49-19%20Mut%20v%20daftar%20isi.pdf http://repository.unair.ac.id/90955/3/FF.KF.49-19%20Mut%20v%20daftar%20pustaka.pdf http://repository.unair.ac.id/90955/4/FF.KF.49-19%20Mut%20v.pdf http://repository.unair.ac.id/90955/ |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Institution: | Universitas Airlangga |
Language: | English English English Indonesian |
Summary: | The determination of chlorpheniramine maleate (CTM) in tablet is
very important to ensure the safety of a drug. Chlorpheniramine maleate
tablets usually contain yellow dyes, most of them are tartrazine. Tartrazine
should not interfere the determination of chlorpheniramine maleat in tablet.
The purpose of this study was to obtain a valid TLC-Densitometry method
for the determination of chlorpheniramine maleate in tablet containing
tatrazine. The mobile phase of ethyl acetate: methanol: ammonium hydroxide
(100: 15: 15) was used for separation CTM from tartrazine on TLC plate. The
validation of the method includes selectivity, linearity, accuracy, and
precision. The linearity obtained was r = 0.9970, Vxo = 3.28%. This study,
used two methods for determination accuracy. The first method, the spiked
placebo recovery and the second method was standard addition. Those two
methods obtained average chlorpheniramine maleate recovery of 76,06% ±
2,05 with coefficient variation of precision was 2,69% and 72,91% ± 14,20
with coefficient variation of precision was 19,48%, respectively. From those
results, it can be concluded that accuracy and precision did not meet the
validation criteria. |
---|