Research Article - (2015) Volume 6, Issue 8

Newfangled Quantitative Pharmacia (Isradipine) Stratagem: Quality by Design (Qbd) Taguchi Array via Response Surface (L25 Via CCD20) Methodology

Vikash Kumar1* and Rajeev Kharb2
1P. D. Memorial Group of Institutes, College of Pharmacy, Sarai, Aurangabad, India
2CT Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Shahpur, Jalandhar, Punjab, India
*Corresponding Author: Vikash Kumar, P. D. Memorial College of Pharmacy, Sector-3A; Sarai Aurnagabad, Bahadurgarh, India, Tel: 08901451603 Email: ,


Statistically (L25 via CCD20), a novel array via response surface analytical process was an attempt to develop a quantification of the pharmacies/bulk, Isradipine using organic medium (methanol & chloroform) as solvent. During analysis, the maximum absorption wavelength of model drug was found at lambda max 327nm and also done its recovery via validation further. In the beginning, by using a quality improvement statistically array looms (Taguchi) was generated numerous level/space (s) of the independent variable (A=methanol; B=chloroform & C=ratio of A: B) by performing experimentally (L25 array runs to studied their response to be found the finer spaces). Additionally, a three-dimensional response surfaces strategy [RSM; three dimensional central composite designs (CCD20)] explored variables non-factorial levels which are used as fine. Also, responses quadratic (02nd order) equation of response (Y=absorption) was predicted analytically for “finer to finest” (2.5 to 15μg/ml) by analysis alone variable space as well as together. Thus, newfangled Beer’s finest in-terms of linearity, precision, sensitivity and accuracy during analysis range was found and also validated for further, finest determination. As well, economically inexpensive quantitative can be titled as newfangled analytical estimation of Isradpine (CCBs; Calcium channel blocker) in bulk/Pharmacia forms.

Keywords: CCBs; L25; CCD20; 3D- plots; Quantitative and validation


Globally, all through up to date for Anti-BP therapy, most potent 1,4-dihydro-pyridine; a hetero-atom carbocyclic derivative is Isradipine [1,2]. Biologically, the selected model drug pine mechanism is bound L-type of Calcium Channel blocker (CCBs) flux of cardiac and also smooth muscles with prominent specificity via affinity and inhibiting [3-8]. Literature, for CCBs plentiful techno and estimation methods were like Titrimetric [9,10], spectroscopic [11-18], Fluorimetric [19-26], electrochemical [27-29], Chromatographic methods [30-38] already reported [39-42]. Therefore, except a few anti-BP drugs till date there is no analytical quality design (QbD) stratagem. So, there is in-need to be a quality of the analytical design program required, which can be used as advanced improved development, quality array via quadratic non-factorial response design [43,44].

This research attempt was to develop & estimate statistically spectrophotometer quality improved methodology by generated preliminary trials and theirs experimental responses were interpreted to find finer spaces significant variables. In addition, after that non factorials surface design with significant positive & negative finest space of variables were performed. Moreover, threedimensional (3D) surface response model plots were constructed to study and predicted the preeminent interactive effects of a “better to best” fitted space [45].

Our research foremost objective was to develop a newfangled sensitive finest plus validated quality by design analytical procedure using orthogonal array (L25) with non-factorial response surface (also known central composite). Due to simplicity, selectivity and sensitivity quantification during development of novel statistical approach via preference to selected Ultra-visible Spectrophotometric method. Furthermore, it can be considered economically low as advanced as plain and stable quality by design “finer to finest” fitted as quantitative (Isradipine) in bulk as well as pharmacy quantify analytical stratagem.


The preferred drug (Isradipine standard) reference procured was as kindly gifted by Pharmaceuticals Ltd (India) and lambda maximum (λmax ; Figure 1) [24,39] was measured by double beam (Jasco, UV-630) spectrophotometer method [38] using one centi-meter quartz cells. All analytical grade solvents were and reagents were purchased from Lakshya Enterprises and Mercury Lab., New-Delhi, India.

Preliminary array

Preliminary trials were conducted to elect the optimum factor levels and their working ranges having influence and major influence shown by ratio of organic phase. In order to find and study the interactive effect of factors in all possible combinations; Taguchi L25; “0rthogonal array” statistical tools for quality improvement economical preliminary array (L25) of significant independent variables; methanol (A), chloroform (B) & their combined ratio (C=A: B).

Statistical design

Based on (Mini-Tab®, version 17.2.1; Taguchi) L25 design quality, improve and control design was applied to experimental ranges of via factor (01, 02 & 03 integers of arrays at a time has to be altered) performed. Thus, generated twenty (Isra-1 to 25) run via five levels (Table 1) were diluted with analytical grade solvents (anhydrous methanol) for final concentration (10μg/ml). Subsequently, as per positive & negative spaces finally solutions absorbance (λmax 327nm) was measured against blank an organic experimental background. Therefore, the responses (Y) obtained for each trial’s “Signal to Noise” values were calculated for the responses individual as well as simultaneously together. The resulted signal to noise ratio corresponding to responses demonstrated a variety of S/N ratio for a suitable parameter for response analysis. By using a factorial independent methodology, i.e. Central Composite Design (CCD) runs and done experimentally which is also used as another tool [45] to study the interactive effects by using three dimensional surface response methodology (RSM).

Factorial Array and their responses at positive & negative [(+) & (-)] spaces
Spaces Levels A Variables Unit B C in terms Coded
Ratio A: B ml
Negative -1.0 4   6 0.5 1 : 2 1
-0.5 5   5 1.0 2 : 2 2
Zero Null 6 ml 4 1.5 3 : 2 3
Positive +0.5 7   3 2.0 4 : 2 4
+1.0 8   2 2.5 5 : 2 5
Designed trails three factor at five level (3*5) array of Smaller is Better level(s)
Solutions Analysis No. Factorial Levels Response Recovery (in terms) Analytical Better to Best
Absorbance Mean ± SD S/NR Desirability (1=100%) Array Finer Fitted
A B C Y n=3 Actual Predicted Fitness Codes Levels
Isra-01 1 1 1 0.233 0.263 12.653 11.698 -0.030 A1B1C1  
Isra-02 1 2 2 0.252 0.268 11.972 11.520 -0.020 A1B2C2  
Isra-03 1 3 3 0.276 0.283 11.182 10.987 -0.010 A1B3C3  
Isra-04 1 4 4 0.291 0.270 10.722 11.378 0.980   A1B4C4
Isra-05 1 5 5 0.312 0.281 10.117 11.063 0.970   A1B5C4
Isra-06 2 1 2 0.226 0.229 12.918 12.799 -0.003 A2B1C2  
Isra-07 2 2 3 0.235 0.241 12.579 12.372 -0.006 A2B2C3  
Isra-08 2 3 4 0.248 0.233 12.111 12.582 0.980   A2B3C4
Isra-09 2 4 5 0.247 0.265 12.146 11.597 -0.018 A2B4C5  
Isra-10 2 5 1 0.241 0.229 12.36 12.763 0.988   A2B5C1
Isra-11 3 1 3 0.238 0.236 12.469 12.570 0.998   A3B1C3
Isra-12 3 2 4 0.231 0.225 12.728 12.885 0.994   A3B2C4
Isra-13 3 3 5 0.247 0.261 12.146 11.719 -0.014 A3B3C5  
Isra-14 3 4 1 0.241 0.246 12.360 12.214 -0.005 A3B4C4  
Isra-15 3 5 2 0.238 0.228 12.469 12.783 0.990   A3B5C5
Isra-16 4 1 4 0.290 0.274 10.752 11.294 0.984   A4B1C4
Isra-17 4 2 5 0.294 0.307 10.633 10.233 -0.013 A4B2C5  
Isra-18 4 3 1 0.290 0.296 10.752 10.548 -0.006 A4B3C1  
Isra-19 4 4 2 0.297 0.300 10.545 10.446 -0.003 A4B4C2  
Isra-20 4 5 3 0.295 0.290 10.604 10.765 0.995 A4B5C3  
Isra-21 5 1 5 0.333 0.320 9.5511 9.9813 -0.4302 A5B1C5  
Isra-22 5 2 1 0.335 0.306 9.4991 10.401 0.971   A5B2C1
Isra-23 5 3 2 0.325 0.314 9.7623 10.118 0.989   A5B3C2
Isra-24 5 4 3 0.330 0.325 9.6297 9.7672 -0.030 A5B4C3  
Isra-25 5 5 4 0.233 0.263 12.653 11.698 -0.010 A5B5C4  

Aristech (*) value indicated the significant variable (optimum) finer as better-fitted level of response; A=Methanol (ml); B=Chloroform; C=Ratio of Methanol (ml): Chloroform (ml); Y=Absorbance at lambda max 327nm of drug concentration (10µg/ml)

Table 1: Designed L25=3*5 Taguchi Array of selected variables and levels via constant drug concentration.

Response 3-D surface analysis (RSM) : After array, a static statistical without constraining of fractional or independent or non-factorial independent methodology, design, function, program (significant variable & its finest level) was used (Table 1). The better (finer) level of each significant variables were found after a non-factorial quadratic response surface [43]; three-dimensional methodology was used for design finest (positive to negative level) spaces. By means of three dimensional plot model fitness, to find out the variable “finer to finest” fitted level & their ratios which can be statistically finest originated quality by design using Taguchi array via Surface response; L25 via 3-D” QbD methodology [44-45]. At optimum levels the of designed plots of (absorbance=Y response) surface data (3D) model were analysised, moreover independently factorial generated equation were included all statistically coefficients of each level response (Table 2). Moreover, the recovery as well as validation study was carried-out; using powder containing the equivalent drug weight amount was calculated recovery in percentages [46-47].

Independent Actual (Coded) levels
Variables (ml) Negative (-0.5) Zero (0) Positive (+0.5) Finer to Finest Coded
Methanol (right sided 6.0 6.5 7.0 A
Chloroform (left-sided) 4.0 3.5 3.0 B
Ratio A: B (Two-sided) 1.0 1.5 2.0 C
Dependant Constraints
Y1 = Absorbance 0.277≤Y1≥0.318
Central Composite; independent Design
Runs-Code Variables
Independent Response (Y)
A B C Observed Predicted
  0 0 +0.5 0.318 0.288
  +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 0.298 0.312
  +0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.312 0.277
  +0.5 -0.5 +0.5 0.297 0.298
  +0.5 +0.5 +0.5 0.296 0.291
  0 0 -0.5 0.316 0.296
  0 0 0 0.295 0.295
  0 0 0 0.291 0.297
  -0.5 +0.5 -0.5 0.277 0.296
  +0.5 0 0 0.285 0.285
  0 +0.5 0 0.287 0.290
  -0.5 -0.5 +0.5 0.291 0.286
  0 0 0 0.297 0.316
  -0.5 +0.5 +0.5 0.296 0.318
  -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 0.289 0.295
  0 0 0 0.298 0.295
  0 0 0 0.291 0.294
  0 0 0 0.295 0.294
  0 0 0 0.296 0.295
  0 -0.5 0 0.296 0.295
Finer to Finest” designed model equation
Term Model A B C AB AC BC A2 B2 C2 Lack of Fit
Fvalue 217.1 350.0 85.9 3.94 8.76 197.7 123.2 554.5 92.4 1141.2 0.90
Significant   to   Non-significant
pvalue; Prob.>F <0.0001 0.075 0.014 < 0.0001 0.5204
R2 R-Square Adjusted Predicted SD Mean % CV
Values 0.9949 0.9903 0.9573 0.0095 0.30 0.32

"Prob > F" values less than 0.0500 indicate model terms are significant and greater than 0.1000 indicate the model terms are not significant.

Table 2: Results of central composite designed (CCD) “finer to finest” spaces.

Quality by design (QbD) Spaces analysis

Based on the prediction, at random (05; five) formulas were elected and their responses were evaluated. The validation for RSM involving all the five checkpoint formulations was found to be within limits. The quantitative responses for different combinations of independent variables were obtained experimentally and the results were found to fit the design model.

Result and Discussion

The stash solution of model drug (05 mg) was prepared in organic medium with followed methanol to obtain concentration (50 μg/ ml). The aliquots were prepared pipette out which diluted with dry methanol to made up volumetric to desired range (Beer’s 5 to 30 μg/ ml; Figure 1a) and furthermore, also studied numerous the negative log of the activity of the hydrogen ion (pH; pKa) in an organic solution by spectrophotometric scanned the solution (10 μg/ml) at 327nm (Figure 1b).


Figure 1: The model drug UV-visible spectra above showed; a) lambda max 327nm (consider because having low concentration 10μg/ml; b) the spectrum is recorded drug methanolic and buffer solutions at various changing the negative log of the activity of the hydrogen ion in an aqueous solution.

Orthogonal study

The array (L25) was helped to find out optimum “Better to Best” as finer level of significant variables which further used as quadratic as an independent design explored to develop a superior quality with economically simple program (Table 1). The signal to noise effect plot was drawn for each factor at different levels by taking levels as x-coordinates and S/N ratio as y-coordinates (Figure 2). The degree of variances posed by each factor and ANOVA results for suggested factors ‘A & C (i.e. Ratio of A with respect to B has to be most significant factor affecting (73.6%) responses (Y=absorbance), whereas B (4.35%) has least significant. The results for responses were interpreted by Signal to Noise studies (S/N) ratio for best accuracy considered of measured data.


Figure 2: “Smaller is better” significant variables level/spaces a) main effect; b) normal probability residual plots for “Signal to Noise” (S/N).

S/N analysis: The better fitted value of S/N ratios with an observed S/N ratio was obtained. Furthermore, the results of ANOVA were confirmed by analysis of mean S/N ratio obtained for each factor (A, B & C) at 01 to 03 levels and influences of factors were predicted considering responses of S/N ratios (Table 1). The response of mean S/N ratio also confirmed to be the most significant factor A followed by C & B better to best array codes; A3B1C3; A3B2C4; A3B5C5; A4B1C4 & A4B5C3 were highlighted; fit 99.98 to 99.99 in percentages; depicted in Table 1). However, it also indicated that these levels further can be applicable for “finer to finest” development of analytical ratio using i.e. Central Composite Design of experiment which is a tool of response surface (3-D model) methodology to study the interactive effects.


In addition again, generated (FF-1 to 20; Table 2) using finer to finest (-0.5 to +0.5; negative to positive space runs) levels (significant variables) performed (experimentally vs predicted value in Table 2) and analyze their responses. The central composite surface design (RSM) generated the second-order poly-nominal equation of design models and predicted levels. Further, finer to finest level of significant variable (A and C followed by B) fitted with positive (+0.5) and negative (-0.5) space of selected finer experiment with predicted finest quadratic model values (depicted in Table 2) of response (Y). Substantial, “finer to finest fitted” design model level found which was used to develop quantification of anti-hyper tensor bulk/Pharmacia (Isradipine) using optimized and was validated simple and finest economically attempt as novel designed newfangled stratagem.

Equation investigation: A second-order quadratic derived equation of significant variable response (Y) at an optimized level was generated and the “finest to finest” model fitted proposed equation is;

Y=0.30+0.006A-0.003B+0.006C-0.001AB-0.005AC+0.004BC- 0.02A2-0.006B2+0.021C2;

Where, Y =absorbance and A, B & C; amount of methanol, chloroform & ratio of organic phase in milli-liter unit. In this case, “Prob>F” less than (p>0.0500) indicated (“Model F-value” 217.10) model significant terms are A, B, AB, AC, BC, A2, B2, C2 along with positive or negative spaces had a more pronounced effect. However, probability values greater (p<0.1) indicated that the model terms are not significant implies the model is significant. There is only a 0.01% chance that a designed model FValue; this large could occur due to noise. If there are many insignificant model terms (not counting those required to support hierarchy), model reduction may improve your model. There is only a 0.01% chance that a “Model F-Value” (Table 2) and “Lack of Fit” of the F-value (0.90) implies, is not significant relative to the pure error and non-significant lack of fit is good.

Model (3-D) study: The fitted model three dimensional model plots (Figure 3 I-IV) have been demonstrated the significant variables at independently optimized level interaction effects individually or along together at the same time on the response (Y). During model analysis, optimized “finer to finest” levels of variability (A, B & C) were negative (-0.5=6ml=A and ratio 2: 2=A: B=C=1) to positive (+0.5=7ml and ratio 4: 2=A: B=C=2) space as compared. Also, enhanced quality as finest correlation (Figure 3II) coefficient shown with response (0.277 to 0.318=Y=absorbance at finer to finest level). Therefore, this model design space can be used to investigate its surface (3-D plots; Figure 3I-III) which showed the independent effect of optimized as finest levels of significant variables (experimental vs predicted; Figure 3IV). The “Pred R-Squared” is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted R-squared (Table 2) and measured a desirable signal to noise ratio. As well, adequate precision (approximate 60%) value of less than 0.001 indicated that model terms are significant. Furthermore, this model designs of finer to finest” significant variables (A & C via B) levels independent effect can be used for quantitative finest levels of estimation method.


Figure 3: Three dimensional (3-D; response surface) plots shown interactive effect of I) A & B II) A & C; III) B & C at a time two variables respectively; IV) a linear correlation actual vs predicted values of response (Y=absorbance).


Figure 4: UV-spectrum of model drug: a) lambda max finest significant variables level; b) a linear correlation of newfangled range.

QbD strategy

During Quality by design, quantitative methodology, the model drug (API) lambda maxima wavelength was recorded using Ultra-Violet (Jasco, Model-630) spectrophotometer at significant hydrogen-ion concentrations (pH 3.5) via finest spaces (FST-C A=methanol=6.5ml followed by chloroform=B=3.5ml and ratio 1.5=A: B=3: 2=C) of anhydrous (methanol: chloroform) solvent as blank to measured the absorbance at lambda max (λ max) 327nm relative standard deviation analysis to be with-in acceptable limit or not. The finest fitted finest model of significant variables “Finest” analytical stratagem level ratio; solutions into a flask having a drug solution were taken and finally made the volume with methanolic buffer (Isradipine; 10μg/ml; pH 3.5;) solution. The linear correlation plots drawn between the predicted and experimental values demonstrated high desirability values for absorbance as response values was observed (Table 3). The calibration curve was constructed by a plot between absorbance vs concentration (μg/ ml) and showed finest beer(s) (2.5 to 15μg/ml & Y=0.29+0.005) range with well, linearity and correlation coefficient (R-square 0.9999) which indicated the excellent goodness of fit (p>0.01) at 327nm.

Finest Methanol (A) Chloroform (B) Ratio (A: B) Absorbance (YFST) Fitness
Desirability (1) Error
FST-A 6.10 3.00 1.00 0.2969 0.960 0.040
FST-B 6.25 3.75 1.70 0.2910 0.860 0.150
FST-C 6.50 3.50 1.50 0.2976 0.993 0.007
FST-D 6.75 3.00 1.50 0.2920 0.950 0.050
FST-E 7.00 3.00 1.50 0.2910 0.870 0.130
Quadratic Non-Factorial Response Surface Methodology (RSM) Equation
YFST Intercept A B C AB AC BC A2 B2 C2
0.297 0.95 0.16 0.18 0.004 0.02 0.015 0.675 0.024 0.084
Probability p<0.01 0.01<= p <0.05 0.05<= p<0.10 p>=0.10
Lambda (λ) max 327nm Finest linearity Range 2.5-15µg/ml
Regression Equation y = 0.029x +0.005 Recovery (%) 100.92%
Repeatability (%RSD, n = 3) 0.998 Limit of Detection/µg ml-1 0.016
Standard solution stability   0.995

Table 3: Checkpoint spaces prediction of finest variables levels of responses.


The newfangled methodology results validation by using experimental values of the responses were compared with the anticipated & desirability values (0.960 0to 0.995) via Lack of Fitness as error was found very lowest (varying between 0.007 and 0.15). Further, the solutions absorbance was measured against the blank at lambda max 327nm wavelength. Thus the low magnitudes of error as well as the significant values of response present investigation prove the high predictive ability of the response surface methodology. As well, this designed model of independent interactive can be used for “finer to finest” quantitative estimation best fitted method. Also, finest designed model has absorptive along with superior’s in-terms of analytically sensitivity. The responses of model equation R-square (0.9998) found best as finest. Therefore, this model design space can be used to investigate its surface model or plot) which showed the independent effect of optimized significant finest levels of variables on response (Y) with-in limits and this higher recovery percentage indicated that there was no excipients interference. As well, indicated and concluded that Taguchi array via response surface “quadratic independent factorial” designed finest methodology can be further considered as finest for quantitative & quality reliable economically method of estimation.

Conflict Of Interest

None to declare


The authors are thankful to Pharmaceutical Pvt. Ltd. for providing model drug gift sample and grateful to Chairman/Management, PDMREA; P. D. Memorial Group of Institution(s); College of Pharmacy, B’garh (India) India for support.


  1. Fitton A, Benfield P (1990) Isradipine. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic use in cardiovascular disease. Drugs 40: 31-74.
  2.  Zühlke RD, Bouron A, Soldatov NM, Reuter H (1998) Ca2+ channel sensitivity towards the blocker isradipine is affected by alternative splicing of the human alpha1C subunit gene. FEBS Lett 427: 220-224.
  3. Berjukow S, Marksteiner R, Gapp F, Sinnegger MJ, Hering S (2000) Molecular mechanism of calcium channel block by isradipine. Role of a drug-induced inactivated channel conformation. J Biol Chem 275: 22114-22120.
  4. Murai Y, Uneyama H, Ishibashi H, Takahama K, Akaike N (2000) Preferential inhibition of L- and N-type calcium channels in the rat hippocampal neurons by cilnidipine. Brain Res 854: 6-10.
  5. Ikegaya Y, Nishiyama N, Matsuki N (2000) L-type Ca(2+) channel blocker inhibits mossy fiber sprouting and cognitive deficits following pilocarpine seizures in immature mice. Neuroscience 98: 647-659.
  6. Hitzl M, Striessnig J, Neuhuber B, Flucher BE (2002) A mutation in the beta interaction domain of the Ca(2+) channel alpha(1C) subunit reduces the affinity of the (+)-[(3)H]isradipine binding site. FEBS Lett 524: 188-192.
  7. Kanakapura B, Umakanthappa C, Paregowda N (2005). Titrimetric and spectro-photometric assay of felodipine in tablets using bromate-bromide, methyl orange and indigo carmine reagents. J Serbian Chem Soc 70: 969-978.
  8. Kanakapura B, Umakanthappa C, Paregowda N (2006) Titrimetric and modified spectrophotometric methods for the determination of amlodipine besylate using bromate-bromide mixture and two dyes. Science Asia 32: 429-435.
  9. Al-Ghannam SM, Al-Olyan AM (2009) Spectrophotometric determination of nicradipine and isradipine in pharmaceutical formulations. Chem Industrial Chem Engg 15: 69-76.
  10. Bobbala SK, Veerareddy PR (2012) Formulation, evaluation, and pharmacokinetics of isradipine proliposomes for oral delivery. J Liposome Res 22: 285-294.
  11. Chalikwar SS, Belgamwar VS, Talele VR, Surana SJ, Patil MU (2012) Formulation and evaluation of Nimodipine-loaded solid lipid nanoparticles delivered via lymphatic transport system. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 97: 109-116.
  12. Induru J (2012) Preliminary screening and development of formulation design space for buccal thin films of isradipine. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 4: 179-184.
  13. Park JH, Park YS, Rhim SY, Jhee OH, Kim SH, et al. (2009) Quantification of isradipine in human plasma using LC-MS/MS for pharmacokinetic and bioequivalence study. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 877: 59-64.
  14. Askal HF, Abdelmegeed OH, Ali SMS, Abo El-Hamd M (2010) Spectrophotometric and Spectrofluorimetric Determination of 1,4-Dihydropyridine Drugs Using Potassium Permanganate and Cerium (iv) Ammonium Sulphate. Bulletin of Pharmaceutical Sciences 33: 201-215.
  15. Katariya H, Prajapati J (2013) Development and validation of UV-Spectrophotometric method for determination of Isradipine loaded into solid lipid nanoparticles. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 20: 162-166.
  16. Mahadik K, Byale G, More H, Kadam S (1991) Spectrophotometric Estimation of Nifedipine and Its Formulation. East-Pharm 34121-34122.
  17. HH Abdine  (2009) Spectrofluorimetric Determination of Amlodipine. Mansoura J Pharm Sci 25: 31-38.
  18. Ahadbavili T (2007) A New Spectrofluorimetric Method for Determination of Nifedipine in Pharmaceutical Formulations. Chemia Analityczna 52: 635-643.
  19. Walash M, Belal F, El-Enany N, Abdelal A (2009) Kinetic Spectrofluorometric Determination of Certain Calcium Channel Blockers via Oxidation with Cerium (IV) in Pharmaceutical Preparations. International Journal of Biomedical Science 5: 146-157.
  20. Belal F, Al-Majed AA, Julkhuf S, Khalil NY (2003) Spectrofluorometric determination of nimodipine in dosage forms and human urine. Pharmazie 58: 874-876.
  21. Sheikha MAG, Abeer MAO (2008) Spectrofluorometric Determination of Nicardipine, Nifedipine and Isradipine in Pharmaceutical Preparations and Biological Fluids. Central Eur J Chem 6: 222-228.
  22. Abdel-Wadood HM, Mohamed NA, Mahmoud AM (2008) Validated spectrofluorometric methods for determination of amlodipine besylate in tablets. Spectrochim Acta A Mol Biomol Spectrosc 70: 564-570.
  23. Sayed MD, Askal HF, Osama HA, Abo ElHamd M (2012) Spectrophotometric Determination of amlodipine and nicardipine in pharmaceutical formulations via binary complex formation with eosin Y. J Appl Pharm Science 2: 84-89.
  24. Diez-Caballero RJ, de la Torre LL, Valentin JF, Garcia AA (1989) Adsorptive stripping voltammetry for the determination of nifedipine in human serum. Talanta 36: 501-504.
  25. Ghoneim MM, Tawfik A, Khashaba PY (2003) Cathodic adsorptive stripping square-wave voltammetric determination of nifedipine drug in bulk, pharmaceutical formulation and human serum. Anal Bioanal Chem 375: 369-375.
  26. Vertzoni MV, Reppas C, Archontaki HA (2006) Sensitive and simple liquid chromatographic method with ultraviolet detection for the determination of nifedipine in canine plasma. Anal Chim Acta 573-574: 298-304.
  27. Wang XD, Lia JL, Lua Y, Chen X, Huang M (2007) Rapid and simultaneous determination of nifedipine and dehydro-nifedipine in human plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry: application to a clinical herb-drug interaction study. J Chromatography B 852: 534-544.
  28. Abou-Auda HS, Najjar TA, Al-Khamis KI, Al-Hadiya BM, Ghilzai NM, et al. (2000) Liquid chromatographic assay of nifedipine in human plasma and its application to pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharm Biomed Anal 22: 241-249.
  29. Nassar AE (2003) Online hydrogen-deuterium exchange and a tandem-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometer coupled with liquid chromatography for metabolite identification in drug metabolism. J Chromatography A 41: 398-404.
  30.  Migliorança LH, Barrientos-Astigarraga RE, Schug BS, Blume HH, Pereira AS, et al. (2005) Felodipine quantification in human plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr B Analyt Technol Biomed Life Sci 814: 217-223.
  31. Rosseel MT, Bogaert MG (1983) Determination of nifedipine in human plasma by capillary gas chromatography with nitrogen detection. J Chromatogr 279: 675-680.
  32. Martens J, Banditt P, Meyer FP (1994) Determination of nifedipine in human serum by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry: validation of the method and its use in bioavailability studies. J Chromatogr B Biomed Appl 660: 297-302.
  33. Wu A, Massey I, Kushinsky S (1987) Capillary column gas-chromatographic method using electron-capture detection for the simultaneous determination of nicardipine and its pyridine metabolite ii in plasma. Journal of Chromatography B 59: 65-73.
  34. Nishioka R, Umeda I, Oi N, Tabata S, Uno K (1991) Determination of Felodipine and its metabolites in plasma using capillary gas chromatography with electron-capture detection and their identification by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Chromatography-B 103: 237-246
  35. Kumar VV, Chandrasekar D, Ramakrishna S, Kishan V, Rao YM, et al. (2007) Development and evaluation of nitrendipine loaded solid lipid nanoparticles: influence of wax and glyceride lipids on plasma pharmacokinetics. Int J Pharm 335: 167-175.
  36. Manjunath K, Venkateswarulu V (2006) Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution and bio-availability of nitrendipine solid lipid nanoparticles after intravenous and intra-duodenal administration. J Drug Target, 14: 632-645.
  37. Mohamed AEH, Sayed MD, Osama HA, Hassan FA (2013) A Novel spectro-photometric method for determination of five 1, 4-dihydropyridine drugs in their tablets and capsules using vanillin reagent. Am J Anal Chem 4: 148-157.
  38. Takamura K, Kusu F, Abdel-Wadood H, El-Rabbat N, Saleh G, et al. (2000) Redox properties of isradipine and its electrochemical detection in the HPLC determination of the compound in human serum. Biomed Chromatogr 14: 453-458.
  39. Hitesh Katariya, Jagruti Prajapati (2013) Development and validation of UV spectrophotometric method for determination of isradipine loaded into solid lipid nanoparticles. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res 20: 162-166.
  40. Yeramwar S, Patil S, Sharma P, Bhargava A (2014) Design & development of solid self micro-emulsifying osmotic drug delivery system for isradipine. Drug Deliv Nanomed Nanotech 28-41.
  41. Gurinder S, Roopa SP, Devi VK (2012) Response surface methodology and process optimization of sustained release pellets using Taguchi orthogonal array design and central composite design. J Adv Pharm Tech Res 3: 30-40.
  42. Sonam, Chaudhary H, Kumar V (2014) Taguchi design for optimization and development of antibacterial drug-loaded PLGA nanoparticles. Int J Biol Macromol 64: 99-105.
  43. Rathee P, Dua K, Rathee S, Kumar V (2014) Statistical design for optimization and determination of Tizanidine HCl using Folin-Ciocalteu (Fc) as chromogenic reagent. Pharm Anal Acta 5: 307.
  44. Kumar V, Dua K, Rathee S, Rathee P (2014) Taguchi plus Quadratic via chromogenic design methodology: A finest to finest estimation process (Tizanidine HCl) bulk/ pharmaceutical. Pharm Anal Acta 5: 319.
  45. (1996) ICH, Tripartite Harmonized Q2B guidelines. A text on validation of analytical procedures.
  46. (2001) US Department of Health & Human Services, Food & drug administration, center for drug evaluation and research. Guidance for industry, Bio-analytical method validation.
Citation: Kumar V, Kharb R (2015) Newfangled Quantitative Pharmacia (Isradipine) Stratagem: Quality by Design (Qbd) Taguchi Array via Response Surface (L25 Via CCD20) Methodology. Pharm Anal Acta 6:411.

Copyright: © 2015 Kumar V. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.