中国药师
中國藥師
중국약사
China Pharmacist
2015年
10期
1807-1809
,共3页
高效液相色谱法%复方异丙嗪甘草口服溶液%盐酸异丙嗪%甘草酸
高效液相色譜法%複方異丙嗪甘草口服溶液%鹽痠異丙嗪%甘草痠
고효액상색보법%복방이병진감초구복용액%염산이병진%감초산
HPLC%Compound promethazine and glycyrrhizae oral solution%Promethazine hydrochloride%Glycyrrhizic acid
目的:建立测定复方异丙嗪甘草口服溶液中盐酸异丙嗪和甘草酸含量的高效液相色谱法. 方法: 采用Thermo BDS C18(250 mm ×4.6 mm,5 μm)色谱柱,以甲醇-冰醋酸-0.2 mol· L-1醋酸铵溶液(58:1:41)为流动相,流速为1.0 ml· min-1,检测波长为250 nm,柱温为室温,进样量为10 μl. 结果: 盐酸异丙嗪、甘草酸分别在0. 079 4 ~0. 317 6 mg · ml-1 ( r =0. 999 9)、0. 060 3~0. 241 1 mg·ml-1(r=0. 999 9)范围内线性关系良好,平均回收率分别为99. 61%(RSD=0. 32%,n=9)、99. 30%(RSD=0. 59%,n=9). 结论:该方法简便准确、重复性好,可用于控制该制剂质量.
目的:建立測定複方異丙嗪甘草口服溶液中鹽痠異丙嗪和甘草痠含量的高效液相色譜法. 方法: 採用Thermo BDS C18(250 mm ×4.6 mm,5 μm)色譜柱,以甲醇-冰醋痠-0.2 mol· L-1醋痠銨溶液(58:1:41)為流動相,流速為1.0 ml· min-1,檢測波長為250 nm,柱溫為室溫,進樣量為10 μl. 結果: 鹽痠異丙嗪、甘草痠分彆在0. 079 4 ~0. 317 6 mg · ml-1 ( r =0. 999 9)、0. 060 3~0. 241 1 mg·ml-1(r=0. 999 9)範圍內線性關繫良好,平均迴收率分彆為99. 61%(RSD=0. 32%,n=9)、99. 30%(RSD=0. 59%,n=9). 結論:該方法簡便準確、重複性好,可用于控製該製劑質量.
목적:건립측정복방이병진감초구복용액중염산이병진화감초산함량적고효액상색보법. 방법: 채용Thermo BDS C18(250 mm ×4.6 mm,5 μm)색보주,이갑순-빙작산-0.2 mol· L-1작산안용액(58:1:41)위류동상,류속위1.0 ml· min-1,검측파장위250 nm,주온위실온,진양량위10 μl. 결과: 염산이병진、감초산분별재0. 079 4 ~0. 317 6 mg · ml-1 ( r =0. 999 9)、0. 060 3~0. 241 1 mg·ml-1(r=0. 999 9)범위내선성관계량호,평균회수솔분별위99. 61%(RSD=0. 32%,n=9)、99. 30%(RSD=0. 59%,n=9). 결론:해방법간편준학、중복성호,가용우공제해제제질량.
Objective:To establish an HPLC method for the determination of promethazine hydrochloride and glycyrrhizic acid in compound promethazine and glycyrrhizae oral solution. Methods:A Thermo BDS C18 column(250 mm × 4. 6 mm,5μm)was used with methanol-glacial acetic acid-0. 2 mol·L-1 ammonium acetate solution (58: 1: 41)as the mobile phase. The flow rate was 1. 0 ml· min-1 and the detection wavelength was 250 nm. The column temperature was ambient and the injection volume was 10 μl. Results:There was a good linear relationship within the concentration range of 0. 079 4-0. 317 6 mg · ml-1 ( r =0. 999 9 ) for promethazine hydrochloride and 0. 060 3-0. 241 1 mg · ml-1 ( r =0. 999 9 ) for glycyrrhizic acid. The average recovery was 99. 61% ( RSD =0. 32%, n=9) and 99. 30% (RSD=0. 59%, n=9), respectively. Conclusion: The method is simple, accurate and repeatable, which can be used to control the quality of the preparation.
