ISRN Spectroscopy

Volume 2014 (2014), Article ID 248960, 8 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/248960

Research Article

Simultaneous Estimation of Paracetamol, Ambroxol Hydrochloride, Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride, and Phenylephrine Hydrochloride in Combined Tablet Formulation by First-Order Derivative Spectrophotometry

K. Anandakumar and P. Veerasundari

Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Adhiparasakthi College of Pharmacy, Melmaruvathur, Tamil Nadu 603 319, India

Received 29 November 2013; Accepted 22 January 2014; Published 30 March 2014

Academic Editors: D.-A. Guo, P.-C. Liao, and N. P. Lopes

Copyright © 2014 K. Anandakumar and P. Veerasundari. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract.

Paracetamol, ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, and phenylephrine hydrochloride are used in combination for the treatment of chronic sinusitis, rhinitis, fever, nasal discharge, sore throat, and wheezing. The present work deals with method development for simultaneous estimation of paracetamol, ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, and phenylephrine hydrochloride in tablet formulation by first-order derivative spectrosphotometry. For determination of sampling wavelength, 10 μg/mL of each of paracetamol, ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, and phenylephrine hydrochloride was scanned in 200–400 nm ranges and sampling wavelengths were found to be 305.5 nm for paracetamol, 321 nm for ambroxol hydrochloride, 244 nm for levocetirizine dihydrochloride, and 280 nm for phenylephrine hydrochloride in first-order derivative spectrophotometry. In this method, linearity was observed in the ranges of 20–140 μg/mL for paracetamol and 10–70 μg/mL for ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetirizine dihydrochloride, and phenylephrine hydrochloride. The % recovery was within the range between 98 and 102%, and % relative standard deviation for precision and accuracy of the method was found to be less than 2%. The method is validated as per International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines. The method can be successfully applied for the simultaneous analysis of these drugs in pharmaceutical dosage forms.

1. Introduction

Paracetamol (PARA), chemically known as N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)ethanamide (Figure 1(a)), inhibits the cyclooxygenase (COX) used as an analgesic, antipyretic, and nonnarcotic agent. Ambroxol hydrochloride (AMB), chemically known as trans-S-4-(2-Amino-3, 5-dibrombenzylamino)-cyclohexanol (Figure 1(b)), is an active N-desmethyl metabolite of the mucolytic bromhexine used as an oral mucolytic expectorant. Levocetirizine dihydrochloride (LEVO), chemically known as [2-[4-[(R)-(4-chlorophenyl)phenylmethyl]-1-piperazinyl]ethoxy]-acetic acid dihydrochloride (Figure 1(c)), is L-enantiomer of cetirizine racemate. It works by blocking H₁ histamine receptors; it is used for allergic rhinitis and conjunctivitis, hay fever, and pollinosis; it controls sneezing, runny but not blocked nose, and red, watering, and itchy eyes. Phenylephrine hydrochloride (PHEN), chemically known as (R)-3-hydroxy-alpha [(methylamino)methyl]benzenemethanol hydrochloride (Figure 1(d)), is a direct acting sympathomimetic agent. It is a selective adrenoceptor agonist and has negligible action and is used as a nasal decongestant and for producing mydriasis when cycloplegia is not required. PARA, AMB, and PHEN are official in IP [1] and BP [2]. But LEVO is not official in any of the Pharmacopoeia.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 1: Chemical structure of (a) PARA, (b) AMB, (c) LEVO, and (d) PHEN.

Literature survey revealed that there are several methods that have been reported for the estimation of these drugs in combination with other drugs by using UV spectrophotometry [3–12], RP-HPLC [13–36], HPTLC [36–39], and LC-MS [40, 41]. PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN in combination are not official in any pharmacopoeia. As per literature, no analytical method could be traced for the analysis of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN in combined tablet dosage form. Therefore, simple, rapid, and reliable method for simultaneous estimation of these drugs in combination seemed to be necessary.

Spectrophotometric methods of analysis are more economic and simpler, compared to methods such as chromatography and electrophoresis. Under computer-controlled instrumentation, derivative spectrophotometry is playing a very important role in the multicomponent analysis of mixtures by UV molecular absorption spectrophotometry. Quaternary mixture can be easily resolved by means of a spectrophotometric method, which is based on the simultaneous use of “zero crossing” method. The aim of this work was to investigate the utility of derivative spectrophotometry and to develop reliable spectrophotometric procedure for the simultaneous determination of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN in combined tablet dosage form without any prior separation of individual drugs. The presently developed method was validated as per International Conference on Harmonization guidelines (ICH) [42, 43].

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Apparatus and Instrument

A double beam UV-Visible spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, model pharm spec 1700) having two matched quartz cells with 1 cm light path and electronic analytical balance (Shimadzu AUX-220) and ultrasonication (Soltec 2200) were used. Volumetric flasks and pipettes of borosilicate glasses were used in the study.

2.2. Chemicals and Reagents

Pure drug samples of PARA and LEVO were obtained as gift sample from Medopharm Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; AMB was gifted by Madras Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd., Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India; PHEN was gifted by APEX Pharmaceuticals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. Methanol (HPLC grade) was purchased from Qualigens Pvt. Limited, Mumbai, India. Distilled water was obtained from the Double Distillation Unit in our laboratory.

2.3. Marketed Formulation

The marketed formulation studied was 1-AL total tablets manufactured by FDC Limited., Aurangabad, India. Each tablet contains 500 mg of PARA, 60 mg of AMB, 2.5 mg of LEVO, and 5 mg of PHEN.

2.4. Selection of Common Solvent

Methanol was selected as a common solvent to prepare the stock solution and further dilutions were made with distilled water for developing spectral characteristics of these drugs. The selection was made after assessing the solubility of these drugs in different solvents.

2.5. Preparation of Standard Solutions

50 mg of PARA and 25 mg of AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were weighed accurately, transferred into 25 mL volumetric flask individually, and dissolved with methanol and the volume was made up to 25 mL with methanol. The stock solution contains 2 mg/mL of PARA and 1 mg/mL of AMB, LEVO, and PHEN.

2.6. Spectrophotometric Conditions

(i)Mode: spectrum(ii)Scan speed: medium(iii)Bandwidth: 1 nm(iv)Wavelength range: 400–200 nm(v)Absorbance scale: 0.00 A–2.15 A(vi)Initial baseline correction: distilled water.

3. First-Order Derivative Spectrophotometric Method

The standard stock solution of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN was appropriately diluted with distilled water to get the concentration 10 μg/mL of all the four drugs. Spectra of these diluted solutions were scanned in the spectrum mode between 200 nm and 400 nm using distilled water as a blank. The zero-order spectra of PAR, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were transformed to corresponding first derivative spectra in the range of 200–400 nm. The overlay spectra (zero- and first-order) of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 2: Overlain UV spectra of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN (10 μg/mL concentration of each drug solution).

Figure 3: Overlain first-order derivative UV spectra of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN (10 μg/mL concentration of each drug solution).

3.1. Selection of Wavelengths

A signal at 305.5 nm of first-order derivative spectrum was selected for the quantification of PARA where no interference due to AMB, LEVO, and PHEN was observed. Similarly, 321 nm was selected for quantification of AMB where PARA, LEVO, and PHEN did not interfere with the estimation of AMB. At 244 nm, LEVO and PARA showed marked absorbance where as AMB and PHEN have zero crossing point. The absorbance of PARA was interfered in the analysis of LEVO. Hence, the absorbance of PARA was corrected for interference from the total absorbance value. With the help of corrected absorbance, the amount of LEVO was calculated at 244 nm. A signal at 280 nm PHEN, PARA, and LEVO showed marked absorbance and AMB has zero crossing point. The absorbance of PARA and LEVO was interfered in the analysis of PHEN. Hence, the absorbance of PARA and LEVO was corrected for interference from the total absorbance value. With the help of the corrected absorbance, the amount of PARA was calculated at 280 nm.

3.2. Calibration Curves for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN

The standard solutions of PARA (2 mg/mL), AMB (1 mg/mL), LEVO (1 mg/mL), and PHEN (1 mg/mL) were used to prepare the working standard solution of PARA (20–140 μg/mL), AMB (10–70 μg/mL), LEVO (10–70 μg/mL), and PHEN (10–70 μg/mL), respectively. For, these aliquots of 1–7 mL of standard stock solutions of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were transferred separately to a series of 100 mL volumetric flasks and diluted up to the mark with distilled water. The absorbance was measured at 305.5 nm for PARA, 321 nm for AMB, 244 nm for LEVO, and 280 nm for PHEN, respectively. The values of first derivative dA/dλ were plotted against corresponding concentrations to construct the calibration curves. The calibration curves are shown in Figure 4.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

Figure 4: Calibration curve for (a) PARA, (b) AMB, (c) LEVO, and (d) PHEN.

3.3. Analysis of Tablet Formulation

Marketed tablet formulation containing PARA (500 mg), AMB (60 mg), LEVO (2.5 mg), and PHEN (5 mg) was analyzed using this method. From the triturate of 10 tablets, the amount of tablet powder equivalent to 50 mg of PARA was accurately weighed and transferred into a series of 25 mL volumetric flasks. To that 4 mg/mL solution of AMB, 9.75 mg/mL solution of LEVO and 9.5 mg/mL solution of PHEN were added and dissolved with methanol and the solution was sonicated for 15 minutes. Then the final volume was made up to 25 mL with methanol. The solution was filtered through Whatmann filter paper Number 41. 3 mL of the stock solution was further diluted to 100 mL with distilled water to get the theoretical concentrations of 60 μg/mL, 12 μg/mL, 12 μg/mL, and 12 μg/mL of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN, respectively. The absorbance values were measured at 305.5 nm, 321 nm, 244 nm, and 280 nm for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN, respectively. The concentration of each analyte was determined with the equations generated from calibration curve of respective drugs. The procedure was repeated for six times.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Selectivity

The UV spectra of standard mixture (PARA—60 μg/mL, AMB—12 μg/mL, LEVO—12 μg/mL, and PHEN—12 μg/mL) and sample solutions (tablet) were recorded between 200 and 400 nm and their dA/dλ value was measured. The selectivity of the method was assessed by comparing spectra obtained from formulation solution with that obtained from standard drug solution. The UV absorption spectra obtained from standard and sample solutions were found to be identical, confirming the selectivity of the method.

4.2. Linearity

Linear correlation was obtained between dA/dλ values versus concentrations of 20–140 μg/mL for PARA, 10–70 μg/mL for AMB, LEVO, and PHEN, respectively. Regression parameters are mentioned in Table 1.

Table 1: Regression analysis data and summary of validation parameters for the proposed method.

Parameters
First derivative spectrophotometric method

PARA*
AMB*
LEVO*
PHEN*

Wavelength
305.5 nm
321 nm
244 nm
280 nm

Linearity range (μg/mL)
20–140
10–70
10–70
10–70

Slope (m)
0.00012
0.00026
0.00119
0.00051

Intercept (c)
−0.0002
−0.000064
0.000085
0.00031

Correlation coefficient ()
0.9992
0.9990
0.9990
0.9995

LOD (μg/mL)
0.0352
0.0373
0.0645
0.0557

LOQ (μg/mL)
0.1070
0.1132
0.1954
0.1687

% Recovery
99.77–99.96
99.28–101.07
99.80–100.95
100.27–100.31

Precision ( RSD) %

    Repeatability ()
0.1661
1.9231
1.6141
1.1750

    Interday ()
0.0726
1.6244
0.0750
0.0763

    Intraday ()
0.4977
0.9453
0.0752
0.0765

Mean of six observations.

4.3. Accuracy

Accuracy of the method was confirmed by recovery studies. Recovery studies were performed by standard addition method at three levels, namely, 80%, 100%, and 120%. Known amounts of pure PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were added to preanalyzed sample of marketed formulation, and they were subjected to analysis by the proposed method. The recovery was verified by estimation of drug in triplicate preparations at each specified concentration level and calculated %RSD. The recoveries were in the range of 99.77%–99.96%, 99.78%–101.07%, 99.80%–100.95%, and 100.27%–100.31% for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN, respectively. The low percentage RSD values indicated that there is no interference due to the excipients used in formulation. Hence the accuracy of the method was confirmed. The results of the recovery analysis are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Recovery data for the proposed method.

Drug
Amount present (μg/mL)*
Amount added (μg/mL)*
Amount estimated (μg/mL)*
Amount recovered (μg/mL)*
Percentage recovered ()*
% RSD

PARA
59.6533
47.3221
107.8898
48.2365
101.93
0.2757

59.6533
60.0016
119.3033
59.6500
99.41
0.2891

59.6533
71.8727
131.4650
71.8117
99.92
0.1703

AMB
12.1440
9.6417
21.6966
9.5526
99.08
0.4154

12.1440
12.0892
24.2021
12.0581
99.74
0.3285

12.1440
14.3880
26.3979
14.2539
99.07
0.7261

LEVO
12.1176
9.5284
21.6460
9.5284
100.00
0.3518

12.1176
12.0916
23.9843
11.8667
98.14
0.3848

12.1176
14.3880
26.3683
14.2507
99.05
0.4868

PHEN
11.9592
9.5524
21.6182
9.6590
101.11
0.9930

11.9592
12.1304
24.2703
12.3111
101.49
0.6889

11.9592
14.3957
26.5306
14.5714
101.22
0.7734

Mean of six observations. RSD: relative standard deviation.

4.4. Precision

4.4.1. Repeatability

The precision of the instrument was checked by repeated scanning and measurement of the absorbance of solutions () of PARA (10 μg/mL), AMB (10 μg/mL), LEVO (10 μg/mL), and PHEN (10 μg/mL) without changing the parameters of the proposed method. The %RSD values for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were found to be 0.6874, 1.8892, 0.6264, and 1.1750, respectively (Table 3). Low relative standard deviation (<2) indicates that the proposed method is repeatable.

Table 3: Repeatability data for proposed method.

Serial number
Concentration (μg/mL)
Absorbance of PARA at 305.5 nm
Absorbance of AMB at 321 nm
Absorbance of LEVO at 244 nm
Absorbance of PHEN at 280 nm

1
10 ppm
0.0199
0.0027
0.0121
0.0054

2
10 ppm
0.0200
0.0028
0.0120
0.0053

3
10 ppm
0.0203
0.0027
0.0119
0.0052

4
10 ppm
0.0200
0.0027
0.0120
0.0052

5
10 ppm
0.0201
0.0028
0.0120
0.0051

6
10 ppm
0.0200
0.0027
0.0121
0.0053

Mean
0.0201
0.0027
0.0120
0.0052

SD
0.00014
0.000052
0.000075
0.0001

% RSD
0.6874
1.8892
0.6264
1.9977

SD: standard deviation; RSD: relative standard deviation.

4.4.2. Intermediate Precision

Precision of both methods was determined in terms of intraday and interday variations (%RSD). Intraday precision (%RSD) was assessed by analyzing standard drug solutions within the calibration range, three times on the same day. Interday precision (%RSD) was assessed by analyzing drug solutions within the calibration range on three different days. The intraday and interday precisions were determined, results of which are given in Table 4.

Table 4: Intraday and interday precision data of PARA, AMB, LEVO and PHEN.

Drug
Amount labeled (mg/tab)
Percentage obtained ()
SD
% RSD

Intraday
Interday
Intraday
Interday
Intraday
Interday

PARA
500
99.47
99.60

500
98.61
99.48
0.4936
0.0723
0.4977
0.0726

500
99.46
99.61

Mean
99.18
99.56

AMB
60
98.56
97.85

60
100.44
100.83
0.9408
1.6197
0.9453
1.6244

60
99.57
100.44

Mean
99.52
99.72

LEVO
2.5
99.88
100.01

2.5
100.01
99.88
0.0750
0.0751
0.0752
0.0750

2.5
99.88
100.01

Mean
99.92
99.96

PHEN
5
98.21
98.34

5
98.34
98.22
0.0750
0.0752
0.0765
0.0763

5
98.21
98.34

Mean
98.25
98.29

SD: standard deviation; RSD: relative standard deviation; CI: confidence interval; SE: standard error.

4.5. LOD and LOQ

LOD and LOQ of the drug were calculated as per ICH guideline. LOD values for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were found to be 0.0352 μg/mL, 0.0373 μg/mL, 0.0645 μg/mL, and 0.0557 μg/mL, respectively. LOQ values for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN were found to be 0.1070 μg/mL, 0.1132 μg/mL, 0.1954 μg/mL and 0.1687 μg/mL, respectively (Table 1). These data show that the proposed method is sensitive for the determination of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN.

4.6. Analysis of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN in Marketed Formulation

Content of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN found in the marketed formulation from the proposed method is shown in Table 5. The percentage purity was 99.62% ± 0.1655 for PARA, 101.02% ± 1.9427 for AMB, 100.98% ± 1.6300 for LEVO, and 99.66% ± 1.1711 for PHEN.

Table 5: Assay results of marketed formulation.

Parameters
PARA
AMB
LEVO
PHEN

Actual concentration (μg/mL)
60
12
12
12

Percentage purity
99.62
101.02
100.98
99.66

% RSD
0.1661
1.9231
1.6141
1.1750

5. Conclusion

In this proposed method, the linearity was observed in the concentration ranges of 20–140 μg/mL, 10–70 μg/mL, 10–70 μg/mL, and 10–70 μg/mL while coefficients of correlation were , , , and for PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN at 305.5 nm, 321 nm, 244 nm, and 280 nm, respectively. The result of the analysis of combined mixture by the proposed method was found to be highly reproducible and reliable. The additive present in the combined mixture of the assayed samples did not interfere with determination of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN. So, the developed first derivative UV spectrophotometric method is simple, precise, accurate, and reproducible and can be effectively used for the simultaneous determination of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN in combined tablet dosage form.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to Madras Pharmaceuticals Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, Medopharm Pvt., Ltd., Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, and APEX Pharmaceuticals Pvt., Ltd., Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India for providing standard raw materials of PARA, AMB, LEVO, and PHEN. The authors are also thankful to Dr. T. Vetrichelvan, Principal, Adhiparasakthi College of Pharmacy, Melmaruvathur, for providing the necessary facilities to carry out the research work.

References

Indian Pharmacopoeia, vol. 3, Pharmacopoeia Commision, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Ghaziabad, India, 6th edition, 2010.

British Pharmacopoeia, vol. 3, British pharmacopoeia Commision Office, London, UK, 2010.

B. G. Ragul and M. P. Arun, “Spectrophotometric method for simultaneous estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetrizine dihydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride in tablet dosage form,” International Research Journal of Pharmacy, vol. 4, pp. 197–200, 2013.

I. Ponnilavarasan, C. S. Narendra, and P. Asha, “Simultaneous estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride and loratadine in tablet dosage form by using UV spectrophotometric method,” International Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 338–344, 2011.

K. Parmar, S. Baldania, D. Shah, U. Chhalotiya, and N. Parmar, “Development and validation of first-order derivative spectrophotometry for simultaneous determination of levocetirizine dihydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride in pharmaceutical dosage form,” International Journals of Spectroscopy, vol. 3, pp. 1–6, 2013.

S. Prabu, A. Shirwaikar, A. Shirwaikar, C. Kumar, and G. Kumar, “Simultaneous UV spectrophotometric estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride and levocetirizine dihydrochloride,” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 70, no. 2, pp. 236–238, 2008.

L. K. Soni, T. Narsinghani, and C. Saxena, “DUV spectrophotometric estimation of ebastine and phenylephrine hydrochloride in tablet dosage form using absorption ratio method,” Der Pharmacia Sinica, vol. 2, pp. 11–16, 2011.

M. Patel, B. Patel, and S. Parmar, “Simultaneous estimation of ibuprofen and phenylephrine hydrochloride in bulk and combined dosage form by first derivative UV spectrophotometry method,” Creative Commons Attribution License, vol. 2, pp. 198–201, 2013.

A. Manikantakumar, A. Swathi, D. Supriya, L. N. Prasad, V. Prakash, and V. Diwan, “Development and validation of UV spectrophotometric method for simultaneous estimation of ibuprofen, paracetamol and caffeine in pharmaceutical dosage form,” American Journal of Pharmatech Research, vol. 2, pp. 540–547, 2012.

R. Sawant, R. Joshi, M. Sawant, P. Lanke, and L. Bhangale, “Mathematical and multiwavelength spectrophotometric methods for simultaneous estimation of paracetamol, phenylephrine hydrochloride, chlorpheniramine maleate and caffein,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Frontier Research, vol. 1, pp. 31–38, 2011.

P. Y. Pawar, H. Sandip, S. Megha, and A. Arti, “Spectrophotometric estimation and validation of paracetamol and domperidone by different method from pure and tablet dosage form,” International Journal of Drug Research and Technology, vol. 3, pp. 37–44, 2013.

G. Nagamalleswari, A. Prabahar, and N. Ramarao, “Simultaneous quantitative estimation of levocetirizine and phenylephrine by different analytical methods,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 5, pp. 214–222, 2013.

P. Malakar, A. R. Deb, S. Adhikary, S. Ahmed, and R. Maloth, “Simultaneous estimation of phenylephrine hydrochloride, paracetamol, caffeine and cetirizine dihydrochloride from tablet dosage form using RP-HPLC,” International Journal of Biological & Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 4, pp. 368–376, 2013.

P. Mahesh, K. Swapnalee, M. Aruna, B. Anilchandra, and S. Prashanti, “Analytical method development and validation of acetaminophen, caffeine, phenylephrine hydrochloride and dextromethorphan hydrobromide in tablet dosage form by RP- HPLC,” Inventi Journal of Pharmaceutical Science Invention, vol. 2, pp. 9–15, 2013.

S. R. Pattan, S. G. Jamdar, R. K. Godge et al., “RP- HPLC method for simultaneous estimation of paracetamol and etoricoxib from bulk and tablets,” Journal of Chemical and Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 1, pp. 329–335, 2009.

P. M. Sanchaniya, F. A. Mehta, and N. B. Uchadadiya, “Development and validation of an RP-HPLC method for estimation of chlorpheniramine maleate, ibuprofen, and phenylephrine hydrochloride in combined pharmaceutical dosage form,” Chromatographic International Research, vol. 2013, Article ID 424865, 6 pages, 2013.

M. P. Arun and B. G. Rahul, “Development and validation of RP-HPLC method for simultaneous determination of ambroxol hydrochloride, levocetirizine dihydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride in combined dosage form,” Inventi Rapid: Pharmaceutical Analysis & Quality Assurance, Article ID Inventi:ppaqa/864/13, 2013.

S. Gopalakrishnan, T. A. Chitra, A. Aruna, and A. Chenthilnathan, “Development of RP-HPLC method for the simultaneous estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride, cetirizine hydrochloride and antimicrobial preservatives in combined dosage form,” Der Pharma Chemica, vol. 4, pp. 1003–1015, 2012.

G. Bazylak and L. J. Nagels, “Simultaneous high-throughput determination of clenbuterol, ambroxol and bromhexine in pharmaceutical formulations by HPLC with potentiometric detection,” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 32, no. 4-5, pp. 887–903, 2003.

J. Goswami, J. Kakadiya, and N. Shah, “RP-HPLC method development and validation for simultaneous estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride and cefpodoxime proxetile in pharmaceutical dosage form,” American Journal of Pharmatech Research, vol. 2, pp. 1043–1052, 2012.

P. Chandra and A. S. Rathore, “Application of HPLC for the simultaneous determination of aceclofenac, paracetamol and tramadol hydrochloride in pharmaceutical dosage form,” Scientia Pharmaceutica, vol. 8, pp. 337–351, 2012.

R. Sawant, R. Joshi, P. Lanke, and L. Bhangale, “Simultaneous estimation & validation of paracetamol, phenylephrine hydrochloride and chlorpheniramine maleate in tablets by spectrophotometric method,” Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Health Care, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 23–28, 2011.

R. K. Trivedi, M. C. Patel, and S. B. Jadhav, “A rapid, stability indicating RP-UPLC method for simultaneous determination of ambroxol hydrochloride, cetirizine hydrochloride and antimicrobial preservatives in liquid pharmaceutical formulation,” Scientia Pharmaceutica, vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 525–543, 2011.

J. M. Reddy, M. R. Jeyaprakash, K. Madhuri, S. N. Meyyanathan, and K. Elango, “A sensitive RP-HPLC method for simultaneous estimation of diethylcarbamazine and levocetirizine in tablet formulation,” Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 320–323, 2011.

V. Maslarska and J. Tencheva, “Simultaneous determination and validation of paracetamol and codeine phosphate in pharmaceutical preparation by RP-HPLC,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Science, vol. 5, pp. 417–419, 2013.

M. Maithani, R. Raturi, V. Gautam et al., “Development and validation of a RP-HPLC method for the determination of chlorpheniramine maleate and phenylephrine in pharmaceutical dosage form,” Pharmacie Globale: International Journal of Comprehensive Pharmacy, vol. 5, pp. 8146–8157, 2010.

G. Nagamalleswari, “Development and validation of a chromatographic method for simultaneous estimation of levocetrizine and phenylephrine in pharmaceutical dosage form,” International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 4, pp. 1921–1926, 2013.

D. R. Urwashi and S. P. Wate, “RP-HPLC method development and validation for simultaneous estimation of levocetirizne dihydrochloride and phenylephrine hydrochloride in their tablet dosage form,” Asian Journals of Research and Chemistry, vol. 6, pp. 1–3, 2013.

R. Kimbahune, K. Sunil, P. Kabra, K. Delvadiya, and S. Surani, “Spectrophotometric simultaneous analysis of Ambroxol hydrochloride, Guaifenesin and Terbutaline sulphate in liquid dosage form (syrup),” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences Review and Research, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 24–28, 2011.

R. S. Wagh, R. A. Hajare, A. Tated, and A. V. Chandewar, “Absorption correction method and simultaneous equation method for the simultaneous estimation of ebastine and phenylephrine hydrochloride in bulk and in combined tablet dosage form,” International Journal of Research in Pharmacy and Chemistry, vol. 1, pp. 812–818, 2011.

M. S. Arayne, N. Sultana, A. Z. Mirza, and F. A. Siddiqui, “Simultaneous determination of gliquidone, fexofenadine, buclizine, and levocetirizine in dosage formulation and human serum by RP-HPLC,” Journal of Chromatographic Science, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 382–385, 2010.

K. A. Shaikh and A. T. Patil, “A stability-indicating LC method for the simultaneous determination of levocetirizine dihydrochloride and pseudoephedrine sulfate in Tablet dosage forms,” International Journal of ChemTech Research, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 454–461, 2010.

K. A. Shaikh, S. D. Patil, and A. B. Devkhile, “Development and validation of a reversed-phase HPLC method for simultaneous estimation of ambroxol hydrochloride and azithromycin in tablet dosage form,” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1481–1484, 2008.

A. L. Suryan, V. K. Bhusari, K. S. Rasal, and S. R. Dhaneshwar, “Simultaneous quantitation and validation of paracetamol, phenylpropanolamine hydrochloride and cetirizine hydrochloride by RP-HPLC in bulk drug and formulation,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Drug Research, vol. 3, pp. 303–308, 2011.

R. Suresh, R. Manavalan, and K. Valliappan, “HPLC method for the simultaneous determination of levocetirizine, ambroxol and montelukast in human plasma employing response surface methodology,” International Journal of Drug Development & Research, vol. 4, pp. 173–185, 2012.

R. S. Wagh, R. A. Hajare, A. G. Tated, P. A. Gadbali, F. A. Khan, and S. D. Kayal, “Method development and validation for simultaneous determination of ebastine and phenylephrine hydrochloride in tablet formulation by RP-HPLC,” International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research and Development, vol. 3, pp. 214–220, 2011.

S. A. Rathore, L. Sathiyanarayanan, and K. R. Mahadik, “Development of validated HPLC and HPTLC methods for simultaneous determination of levocetirizine dihydrochloride and montelukast sodium in bulk drug and pharmaceutical dosage form,” Journal of Pharmaceutica Analytica Acta, vol. 1, pp. 1–6, 2010.

R. C. Anuruddha, T. Vishakha, L. D. Deepali, H. S. Mansi, S. K. Bhanudas, and S. Shailesh, “Development and validation of HPTLC method for simultaneous estimation of paracetamol, ibuprofen and caffeine in bulk and pharmaceutical dosage form,” Reseacch Journal of Pharmacy and Technology, vol. 5, pp. 1218–1222, 2012.

T. Raja and A. L. Rao, “Development and validation of HPTLC method for the simultaneous estimation of gemifloxacin mesylate and ambroxol hydrochloride in bulk and tablet dosage form,” Analytical Chemistry Letters, vol. 2, pp. 152–158, 2013.

F. Su, F. Wang, W. Gao, and H. Li, “Determination of ambroxol in human plasma by high performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS/ESI),” Journal of Chromatography B: Analytical Technologies in the Biomedical and Life Sciences, vol. 853, no. 1-2, pp. 364–368, 2007.

H. Kim, J.-Y. Yoo, S. B. Han, H. J. Lee, and K. R. Lee, “Determination of ambroxol in human plasma using LC-MS/MS,” Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 209–216, 2003.

ICH Tripartite Guidelines, Q2R1 Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology, ICH, Geneva, Switzerland, 2005.

ICH Tripartite Guidelines, Q2B Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology, ICH, Geneva, Switzerland, 1996.