3. Preparation of microemulsion:- Microemulsion was prepared by dispersing required quantity of Aripiprazole (15 mg/ml) in appropriate quantity of oil. The mixture was homogenized and to it, accurately weighed quantity of surfactant: cosurfactant blends was added in small portion with stirring. The blends were mixed thoroughly using magnetic stirrer and to it add dropwise double distilled water with continuous stirring around 10 min. compositions of ARP microemulsion shows in Table 1.
4. Preparation of Arp Solution
The ARP solution (AS) meant for comparative evaluation of ME-based systems was prepared by dissolving ARP (150 mg) in a mixture of 8 mL polyethylene glycol, 1 mL water and 1mL ethanol (95%, vol/vol) resulting in a solution of …show more content…
Physiochemical Characterization of Microemulsion:-
5.1 Determination of Droplet size distribution and zeta potential
Droplet size distribution, polydispersity index and zeta potential of the resultant microemulsion was determined immediately using, Nano Malvern droplet analyzer (UK) and zeta potential analyzer. Wavelength scattering angle 90º at 25ºC, average hydrodynamic diameter of the microemulsion was derived from cumulative analysis by the auto measure software.
5.2 Interaction study by FT-IR
The infrared (IR) spectra of ARP, plain ME and optimized AME were taken using an IR spectrophotometer (Shimadzu FTIR- 8400 spectrophotometer). The plain ME, AME were spread as a thin layer onto a potassium bromide cell and then scanned between 4000cm-1 to 400cm-1 range. The resulting IR spectra of ARP and plain ME were then compared with AME to detect any possible interaction between the drug and different components used.
5.3 pH measurement 21,22
The pH value of ME was determined using digital pH meter (Equip-Tronics, EQ-610), standardized using pH 4 and 7 buffers before use. 5.4 Viscosity:
The rheological properties of the microemulsion are evaluated by Brookfield viscometer. with spindle SC …show more content…
Three sheep nasal mucosa pieces (S1, S2, and S3) with uniform thickness were selected and mounted on Franz diffusion cells. S1 was treated with 0.5 mL of PBS pH 6.4 (negative control), S2 with 0.5 mL of isopropyl alcohol (positive control), and S3 was treated with AME for 1 h. After 1 h, the mucosae were rinsed with PBS at pH 6.4 and stain with eosin and hematoxylin subjected to histological studies to evaluate the toxicities of ME photographed by microscope.
5.15 Stability
4. Preparation of Arp Solution
The ARP solution (AS) meant for comparative evaluation of ME-based systems was prepared by dissolving ARP (150 mg) in a mixture of 8 mL polyethylene glycol, 1 mL water and 1mL ethanol (95%, vol/vol) resulting in a solution of …show more content…
Physiochemical Characterization of Microemulsion:-
5.1 Determination of Droplet size distribution and zeta potential
Droplet size distribution, polydispersity index and zeta potential of the resultant microemulsion was determined immediately using, Nano Malvern droplet analyzer (UK) and zeta potential analyzer. Wavelength scattering angle 90º at 25ºC, average hydrodynamic diameter of the microemulsion was derived from cumulative analysis by the auto measure software.
5.2 Interaction study by FT-IR
The infrared (IR) spectra of ARP, plain ME and optimized AME were taken using an IR spectrophotometer (Shimadzu FTIR- 8400 spectrophotometer). The plain ME, AME were spread as a thin layer onto a potassium bromide cell and then scanned between 4000cm-1 to 400cm-1 range. The resulting IR spectra of ARP and plain ME were then compared with AME to detect any possible interaction between the drug and different components used.
5.3 pH measurement 21,22
The pH value of ME was determined using digital pH meter (Equip-Tronics, EQ-610), standardized using pH 4 and 7 buffers before use. 5.4 Viscosity:
The rheological properties of the microemulsion are evaluated by Brookfield viscometer. with spindle SC …show more content…
Three sheep nasal mucosa pieces (S1, S2, and S3) with uniform thickness were selected and mounted on Franz diffusion cells. S1 was treated with 0.5 mL of PBS pH 6.4 (negative control), S2 with 0.5 mL of isopropyl alcohol (positive control), and S3 was treated with AME for 1 h. After 1 h, the mucosae were rinsed with PBS at pH 6.4 and stain with eosin and hematoxylin subjected to histological studies to evaluate the toxicities of ME photographed by microscope.
5.15 Stability