A study on characteristic of different sample pretreatment methods to evaluate the entrapment efficiency of liposomes.
To examine how methods affect the evaluation of entrapment efficiency (EE) of liposomes, four different sample pretreatment methods were adopted in the experiment. The four sample pretreatment methods were size-exclusion chromatography (SEC), solid-phase extraction (SPE), centrifugation ultrafiltration (CF-UF) and hollow fiber centrifugal ultrafiltration (HF-CF-UF). Amphotericin B (AmB), which could self-associate to form aggregates in water is adopted as the model drugs in this paper. In the present work, it was found that the characterization results of four methods were quite different. The EE of liposome by SEC was about 93%, only 5-13% using C18 or HLB columns, and approximately 100% by CF-UF. The EE of HF-CF-UF reached up to nearly 99.0%. Further, this paper revealed the reasons making the difference of EE among four methods. Conventional SEC may distort the authentic of EE of liposomes with mainly employing some small liposomes or excessive water as eluent. For SPE, cholesterol on liposome surface could interact with the stationary phase making it hard to elute with water, and increase the risk of liposome leakage. While for CF-UF, concentration polarization was a main limitation hindering unentrapped drug to pass through membrane, making unentrapped drug undetectable in liposome. HF-CF-UF could truly reflect EE of liposomes with the concentration of unentrapped AmB lower than 25.0μg/mL. However, when the concentration was higher than 25.0μg/mL, AmB aggregates could be entrapped by hollow fiber. From the above analysis, this paper came to the conclusion that each method had its own feature in characterization. This study provided a reasonable guideline for choosing methods to character the EE of liposome.
Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Hebei Medical University, 361 East Zhongshan Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, PR China.
Congcong
C
Ran
Department of Pharmacy, Cangzhou Central Hospital, Cangzhou, Hebei, PR China.
Dan
D
Chen
Department of Pharmacy, The Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, PR China.
Meng
M
Xu
Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Hebei Medical University, 361 East Zhongshan Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, PR China.
Chaohui
C
Du
Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Hebei Medical University, 361 East Zhongshan Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, PR China.
Qinglian
Q
Li
Department of Pharmaceutical Analysis, School of Pharmacy, Hebei Medical University, 361 East Zhongshan Road, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, PR China. Electronic address: jiangye@hebmu.edu.cn.
Ye
Y
Jiang
D000666:Amphotericin B / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000737:chemistry; D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents / Q000008:administration & dosage* / Q000737:chemistry; D002850:Chromatography, Gel / Q000379:methods; D008081:Liposomes / Q000737:chemistry*; D052616:Solid Phase Extraction / Q000379:methods; D014462:Ultrafiltration / Q000379:methods
D000900:Anti-Bacterial Agents; D008081:Liposomes; D000666:Amphotericin B
Amphotericin B(AmB); Centrifugation ultrafiltration(CF-UF); Entrapment Efficiency(EE); Hollow fiber centrifugal ultrafiltration(HF-CF-UF); Size-exclusion chromatography(SEC); Solid-phase extraction(SPE)