Journal of Chemistry

Volume 2013 (2013), Article ID 427406, 2 pages

http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/427406

Erratum

Erratum to “Development and Validation of a LC/MS/MS Method for the Determination of Duloxetine in Human Plasma and Its Application to Pharmacokinetic Study”

D. Chandrapal Reddy,1,2 A. T. Bapuji,¹ V. Suryanarayana Rao,³ V. Himabindu,² D. Rama Raju,¹ Syed Syedba,¹ and H. L. V. Ravikiran¹

¹Department of Clinical Pharmacology, APL Research Centre, Hyderabad 500090, India

²Institute of Science and Technology, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad 500085, India

³Department of Chemistry, Sri Krishnadevaraya University, Anantapur 515 055, India

Received 3 July 2012; Accepted 25 September 2012

Copyright © 2013 D. Chandrapal Reddy et al. 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.

The typo error happened in Table 2 has now been modified as mentioned below.

Table 2: Absolute matrix effect, relative recovery, and process efficiency for duloxetine.

Analyte
(%CV)
(%CV)
(%CV)
Matrix effect (%ME)d
Recovery (%RE)e
Process efficiency (%PE)f

ISTD

STD 1

    Duloxetine
170 (4.86)
160 (3.75)
136 (4.32)
94.23
85.40
80.47

    Fluoxetine
106783 (2.34)
96545 (2.99)
81421 (1.32)
90.41
84.34
76.25

STD 3

    Duloxetine
708 (3.23)
739 (4.13)
575 (1.22)
104.38
77.77
81.18

    Fluoxetine
104735 (1.31)
108227 (1.56)
81902 (1.80)
103.33
75.68
78.20

STD 5

    Duloxetine
57893 (1.74)
57170 (1.69)
45749 (0.96)
98.75
80.02
79.02

    Fluoxetine
100839 (1.94)
98731 (1.65)
82613 (0.68)
97.91
83.67
81.93

STD 6

    Duloxetine
174918 (1.09)
172409 (1.24)
138067 (1.01)
98.57
80.08
78.93

    Fluoxetine
95399 (1.53)
94770 (1.56)
76090 (1.07)
99.34
80.29
79.76

STD 8

    Duloxetine
349836 (1.09)
344817 (1.24)
269986 (6.06)
98.57
78.30
77.18

    Fluoxetine
85599 (1.61)
87554 (2.23)
71346 (0.67)
102.28
81.49
83.35

aMean area response of six replicate samples prepared in mobile phase (neat samples).

bMean area response of six replicate samples prepared by spiking in postextracted blank.

cMean area response of six replicate samples prepared by spiking in plasma before extraction.

d% Matrix effect: postextracted mean response/aqueous neat mean response × 100.

e% Recovery: extracted mean response/postextracted mean response × 100.

f% Process efficiency: extracted mean response/aqueous mean response × 100.