Development of two charge transfer complex spectrophotometric methods for determination of tofisopam in tablet dosage form

Purpose: To develop a simple, fast and sensitive spectrophotometric method for the determination of tofisopam in tablet dosage form. Methods: Tofisopam as n-electron donor was reacted with two π-acceptors, namely, chloranilic acid (ChA), and 7,7,8,8 tetracyanoquinodimethane (TCNQ) to form charge transfer complexes. The complexes were evaluated spectrophotometrically at 520 and 824 nm for ChA and TCNQ, respectively. The optimum conditions for the reaction were determined and optimized. The developed method was compared with Japanese Pharmacopeia method. Results: The calibration curve was linear in the ranges 25 – 125 and 30 – 150 μg/mL for ChA and TCNQ, respectively. The lower limit of detection was 8.0 and 10.0 μg/mL for ChA and TCNQ, respectively while the slope and intercept of the calibration curves were 0.0025 and 0.011 and 0.0115 and -0.237, for ChA and TCNQ, respectively. Conclusion: The developed methods for tofisopam have good accuracy and precision, and comparable to a standard pharmacopeial method. The methods can be applied for routine analysis and in quality control.

Reliability of graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry as alternative method for trace analysis of arsenic in natural medicinal products

Purpose: To evaluate the comparative efficiency of graphite furnace atomic absorption spectrometry (GFAAS) and hydride generation atomic absorption spectrometry (HGAAS) for trace analysis of arsenic (As) in natural herbal products (NHPs). Method: Arsenic analysis in natural herbal products and standard reference material was conducted using atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS), namely, hydride generation AAS (HGAAS) and graphite furnace (GFAAS). The samples were digested with HNO3–H2O2 in a ratio of 4:1 using microwaveassisted acid digestion. The methods were validated with the aid of the standard reference material 1515 Apple Leaves (SRM) from NIST Results: Mean recovery of three different samples of NHPs, using HGAAS and GFAAS, ranged from 89.3 - 91.4 %, and 91.7 - 93.0 %, respectively. The difference between the two methods was insignificant. A (P= 0.5), B (P=0.4) and C (P=0.88) Relative standard deviation (RSD) RSD, i.e., precision was 2.5 - 6.5 % and 2.3 - 6.7 % using HGAAS and GFAAS techniques, respectively. Recovery of arsenic in SRM was 98 and 102 % by GFAAS and HGAAS, respectively. Conclusion: GFAAS demonstrates acceptable levels of precision and accuracy. Both techniques possess comparable accuracy and repeatability. Thus, the two methods are recommended as an alternative approach for trace analysis of arsenic in natural herbal products.