research article synthesis of cefixime and azithromycin...

Research ArticleSynthesis of Cefixime and Azithromycin Nanoparticles:An Attempt to Enhance Their Antimicrobial Activity andDissolution Rate

Farhat Ali Khan,1 Muhammad Zahoor,2 Noor Ul Islam,2 and Rabia Hameed2

1Department of Pharmacy, Sarhad University of Science and Technology, Peshawar, Pakistan2Department of Chemistry, University of Malakand, Chakdara, Dir (Lower), Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 18000, Pakistan

Correspondence should be addressed to Muhammad Zahoor; [email protected]

Received 17 June 2016; Revised 22 September 2016; Accepted 10 October 2016

Academic Editor: Victor M. Castano

Copyright © 2016 Farhat Ali Khan et al.This is an open access article distributed under theCreative CommonsAttribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

In this study cefixime and azithromycin nanoparticles were prepared by antisolvent precipitation with syringe pump (APSP) andevaporator precipitation nanosuspension (EPN) methods. The nanoparticles were characterized by XRD, FTIR, SEM, and TGA.X-ray diffraction pattern of cefixime samples showed the amorphous form, while azithromycin samples showed crystalline form.The FTIR spectra of parental drugs and synthesized nanoparticles have no major structural changes detected. The SEM imagesshowed that nanoparticles of both drugs have submicron sized and nanosized particles. TGA analyses showed that above 30∘C thedecomposition of cefixime samples starts and their weight gradually decreases up to 600∘C, while, in case of azithromycin, 30∘Cto 250∘C, very small changes occur in weight; from above 250∘C decomposition of the sample took place to a greater extent. Theantibacterial activities of raw drugs and prepared samples of nanoparticles were determined against Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella,E. coli, and Salmonella typhi by agar well diffusionmethod. Every time the nanoparticles samples showed better results than parentaldrugs. The dissolution rates of raw drugs and prepared nanoparticles were also determined. The results were always better for thesynthesized nanoparticles than parental drug.

1. Introduction

Cefixime belongs to third generation cephalosporin’s antibi-otic drugs. It has been extensively used for the diagnosisof infections like pharyngitis, otitis media, gonorrhea, lowerrespiratory tract infections such as bronchitis, and urinarytract infections. It shows antibacterial activity by interferingwith bacteria peptidoglycan synthesis after binding to the 𝛽-lactam-binding proteins [1, 2]. Cefixime is considered as a lowsolubility and low permeability cephalosporin antibacterialdrug. It is soluble in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), dimethylformamide (DMF), ethanol, and methanol but insoluble inwater [3]. Low solubility of drug affects bioavailability [4].Due to low solubility of cefixime, its bioavailability is only30–50% of an oral dose absorbed and shows maximum peakserum concentrations within 2–6 hours [5].

Azithromycin is a semisyntheticmacrolide antibiotic. It ischemically related to erythromycin and clarithromycin. It is

effective against a wide variety of bacteria such as Haemo-philus influenzae, Streptococcus, Pneumoniae, Mycoplasmapneumoniae, Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium avium,and many others. Azithromycin prevents bacteria fromgrowing by interfering with their ability to make proteins.Due to differences in the way proteins are made in bacteriaand humans, the macrolide antibiotics do not interfere withproduction of proteins in humans. It is an unusual antibioticin that it stays in the body for quite a while (has a longer half-life) allowing for once a day dosing and for shorter treatmentcourses for most infections [6]. Azithromycin is absorbedrapidly after oral administration with a bioavailability ofabout 36%. It has a variable effect with food. It is also as apoorly water-soluble drug [7].

Several latest drugs are of low water solubility and lowdissolution rates. Their solubility and dissolution rate can beenhancing by reducing particle size [8, 9]. Reducing the sizeof particles will enhance surface area, which can increase

Hindawi Publishing CorporationJournal of NanomaterialsVolume 2016, Article ID 6909085, 9 pageshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/6909085

2 Journal of Nanomaterials

the rate of dissolution in aqueous like body fluids [10–12].The dissolution rate is directly proportional to exposedsurface area to medium used in dissolution [13]. The smallsize of nanoparticles means that they have different physic-ochemical and physiological properties compared to largerparticles, such as reduced light scattering, improved stabilityto gravitational separation and aggregation, faster diffusionrates, higher solubility, and higher penetration rates throughbiological barriers. The high surface/volume ratio increasesthe importance of the properties of the surfacemolecules overthe bulk molecules [14, 15].

For the preparation of nanoparticles two different strate-gies are used. These are top-down approach in which largersize particles break down into nanoparticles and bottom-upapproach in which smaller particles build up together up tonanosize. In general, more energy is required in the top-downmethods as compared to the bottom-upmethods [16].Millingand homogenization are two common top-down approachesinwhich coarse particles are broken down into small particles[17, 18]. In contrast, the “bottom-up” approaches, such asantisolvent precipitation, supercritical fluid technology, andspray freezing into liquid, are seldom employed. In com-parison to milling and high pressure homogenization, some“bottom-up” techniques, like antisolvent precipitation, arequite simple, cost effective, and easy for scaling up [19, 20].

Solvent/antisolvent precipitation is the most used bot-tom-up methods for the preparation of nanoparticles. Forpreparation of lipid nanoparticles spontaneous emulsifica-tion method is used. It is used for the preparation offood ingredients nanoparticles. It is mostly used for thepreparation of very small size particles with managed sizes,shapes, and physical conditions. It is a good process, in whichthere is no requirement of specific apparatus and complexworking setting, the expenditures are comparatively less, theprocess might simply be handled up, and the threat of testis appreciably lesser as compared to top-down method [21].This method is also used in pharmaceutical industry [22].Nanoparticles are more effective for drug delivery, especiallyfor highly hydrophobic agents, and can increase their lowwater solubility and dissolution rate [23].

To exploit the importance of reduced size particles in drugdissolution and bioavailability, the aims of this study wereto enhance dissolution rate, bioavailability, and antibacterialactivity of selected drugs by the preparation of reduced sizeparticles with the help of solvent/antisolvent precipitationmethod.

2. Materials and Method

2.1. Nanoparticles Preparation. Antisolvent precipitationwith syringe pump (APSP) and evaporator precipitation na-nosuspension (EPN) methods were used for the preparationof cefixime and azithromycin nanoparticles.

In ASP method, saturated solutions of both cefixime andazithromycin were prepared in 50mL of methanol andethanol, respectively. The syringe was filled with the originaldrug solution which was immediately introduced at a definiteflow rate (2mL/min) into the antisolvent (deionizedwater) ofcertain volume with stirring rate (9,000 rpm).Three different

ratio (1 : 10, 1 : 15, and 1 : 20) volumes of saturated drugsolutions were mixed with the solution of deionized water. Insamples (cefixime) A and B the solvent to antisolvent ratioswere 1 : 10 and 1 : 15, respectively, while in case of azithromycinsamples F, G, and H the solvent to antisolvent ratios were1 : 10, 1 : 15, and 1 : 20, respectively. After stirring the resultingmixtures were evaporated quickly using a rotary evaporatorto obtain nanoparticles.

In the EPN process, like the ASP method we preparedsaturated solutions of both cefixime and azithromycin in thesame solvents using the same volume. The solutions werequickly added to hexane (antisolvent), resulting in the forma-tion of nanosuspensions.Thenanosuspensionswere achievedby repaid evaporation of the solvent and antisolvent, withthe help of vacuum pump using a rotary evaporator. Thesolvent to antisolvent ratios 1 : 10, 1 : 15, and 1 : 20 (v/v) wereused in different experiments. In cefixime samples C, D, andE the solvent to antisolvent ratios were 1 : 10, 1 : 15, and 1 : 20,respectively, while in case of azithromycin samples I, J, andK the solvent to antisolvent ratios were 1 : 10, 1 : 15, and 1 : 20,respectively.

Characterizations of prepared nanoparticles were doneusing standard characterization techniques: SEM, FTIR,TGA, and XRD.

The antibacterial spectra of the novel preparations weredetermined by agar well diffusion method.

2.2. Dissolution Study. USP standard dissolution apparatushaving six vessels for dissolution was used to perform thedissolution study. UV-VIS spectrophotometer was used todetermine the absorbance of all solutions.

Standard cefixime trihydrate, azithromycin, and preparednanoparticles, methanol, potassium dihydrogen phosphate(KH2PO4), and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) used in dis-

solution study were of analytical grade. According to USPharmacopeia, 68 gm of monobasic potassium phosphate(KH2PO4) was dissolved in 10 liters of water. 7.2 pH was

adjusted with 1N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution.About 22.38mg of cefixime trihydrate, equivalent to

about 20mg and 20mg of azithromycin, was weighted andtransferred into volumetric flasks of 10mL capacity. After this10mLofmethanol was added to dissolve it, with help of buffersolution volume was made up to 100mL and shaken well.FivemL of the solution from this was taken, diluted with100mL buffer solution, and mixed very well.

Each vessel of dissolution apparatus was filled with900mLof phosphate buffer solutionhaving pH7.2 and settingthe temperature of the system to 37∘C ± 0.5∘C. Sampleswere added to dissolution vessels and the apparatus operatedat 100 RPM. After 5, 10, 20, 30, and 45 minutes, 5mL ofsolutionswas taken from each vessel and then filtered. 100mLvolumetric flask was taken and 5mL of filtrate which wastaken out was added to volumetric flask. 0.1mL of methanolwas added to it and volume was made up to 100mL withbuffer solution and shaken well. The absorbance of samplesand reference standard solutions were determined in UV-VIS spectrophotometer at wavelength 288 nm against theblank solution. Following formula was used to calculate thepercentage of drug release:

Journal of Nanomaterials 3

% Dissolution =Abs. of sample ×Weight of standard × 5 × 900 × 100 × potency of standard × 100

Abs. of Standard × 100 × 100 ×Weight of Sample (level Claim) × 5 × 100. (1)

3. Result and DiscussionIn this study 5 samples of cefixime and 6 samples ofazithromycin nanoparticles were prepared by APPS and EPNmethods [24] and were given arbitrary names A, B, C, D, E,F, G, H, I, J, and K. Samples A, B, F, G, and H were preparedby APSP method, while C, D, E, I, J, and K were prepared byEPNmethod. The nanoparticles characterizations were doneby XRD, FTIR, SEM, and TGA.

3.1. X-Ray Diffractometry. X-ray diffraction of pure drugshows crystalline shapes of cefixime with sharp peak from9.05∘ 2𝜃 to 26.45∘ 2𝜃, a characteristic of cefixime [25].Diffusedpeak patterns of XRD show the amorphous form of a solid[26]. The diffraction patterns of raw drug and samples A, B,C, D, and E are given in Figure 1. From the figure it is evidentthat diffraction patterns of pure cefixime are sharp, whilesamplesA, B,C,D, andE showdiffuse patternwhich indicatesthat nanoparticles of samples A, B, C, D, and E were in theamorphous form.

The characteristic X-ray diffraction pattern of azithro-mycin shows that themain peak occurred in 2𝜃 about 10∘ andother important peaks appear at 2𝜃 about 6∘, 9.5∘, 12∘, 15.5∘,16.5∘, 17.5∘, and 18.8∘ [7], whichmeans thatmost of their peaksoccurred in between 9∘ and 20∘. Comparing theXRDpatternsof samples F, G, H, I, J, and Kwith that of pure drug (Figure 2)it was concluded that no characteristic changes occur in theirXRD patterns of prepared nanoparticles and pure drugs. Itmeans that crystallinity of prepared nanoparticles remainsunchanged.

3.2. FTIR Spectroscopy. Thespectrumof raw cefixime showeddifferent peaks at 3292 cm−1 (N-H stretching), 2947 cm−1 (C-H stretching), 1668 cm−1 (C-O stretching, CONH), 1337 cm−1(C-N stretching, aromatic), 1591 cm−1 (ring, stretching vibra-tions), 1772 cm−1 (C-O stretching, COOH), 746 cm−1 (C-H, bending), and 1543 cm−1 (C-C stretching). The patternobserved was similar to that already reported in litera-ture [27]. The FTIR photographs have been shown in Fig-ure 3. The FTIR spectra of pure cefixime absorption peakat 3300 cm−1, 2960 cm−1, 1670 cm−1, 1770 cm−1, 1310 cm−1,1560 cm−1, 1770 cm−1, and 1540 cm−1; in the case of cefiximenanoparticles sample A, these distinctive peaks were locatedat 3400 cm−1, 2900 cm−1, 1681 cm−1, 1338 cm−1, 1589 cm−1,1770 cm−1, 744 cm−1, and 1539 cm−1, respectively; in thecase of cefixime nanoparticles sample B, these distinctivepeaks were located at 3500 cm−1, 2900 cm−1, 1668 cm−1,1338 cm−1, 1558 cm−1, 1770 cm−1, 732 cm−1, and 1539 cm−1; inthe case of cefixime nanoparticles sample C, these distinctivepeaks were located at 3350 cm−1, 2900 cm−1, 1668 cm−1,1338 cm−1, 1558 cm−1, 1770 cm−1, 732 cm−1, and 1539 cm−1,respectively; in the case of cefixime nanoparticles sample D,these distinctive peaks were located at 3500 cm−1, 2900 cm−1,

1668 cm−1, 1338 cm−1, 1608 cm−1, 1770 cm−1, 727 cm−1, and1539 cm−1, respectively; in the case of cefixime nanopar-ticles sample E, these characteristic peaks were locatedat 3550 cm−1, 2900 cm−1, 1668 cm−1, 1338 cm−1, 1608 cm−1,1770 cm−1, 731 cm−1, and 1539 cm−1, respectively. From thefigure it is clear that there were no significant differencesbetween the spectrum of pure cefixime and samples A, B,C, D, and E spectrum which means that no major structuralchanges occur in cefixime nanoparticles.

The FTIR patterns of azithromycin pure drug and pre-pared samples have been presented in Figure 4. The prin-cipal peaks of FTIR spectra of azithromycin at 1721 cm−1,1188 cm−1, and 1052 cm−1 have been observed [7]. In sam-ple F, these peaks were located at 1716.56 cm−1, 1165 cm−1,and 1053.13 cm−1, in sample G, these peaks were locatedat 1718.58 cm−1, 1166.93 cm−1, and 1049.28 cm−1, in sampleH these peaks were located at 1720.20 cm−1, 1166.93 cm−1,and 1049.28 cm−1, in sample I these peaks were located at1729.50 cm−1, 1166.93 cm−1, and 1049.28 cm−1, in sample Jthese peaks were located at 1724.36 cm−1, 1165.00 cm−1, and1053.13 cm−1, and in sample K these peaks were located at1724.36 cm−1, 1165.00 cm−1, and 1053.13 cm−1, respectively.From the result it can be concluded that the structuralintegrity and nature of all sample have not been changed likethose of the raw drug and no significant changes occur intheir spectra.

3.3. SEM Study. Morphology of nanoparticles of cefiximewas determined by SEM.TheSEM images show that nanopar-ticles have amorphous submicron sized and nanosized parti-cles. The results have been shown in Figure 5. The particlessizes of the prepared nanoparticles were from 13.0 to 85 nm.

From azithromycin SEM images (Figure 6), it was con-cluded that the prepared azithromycin nanoparticles have noregular shapes. Also it was observed that the particles sizeswere of submicron and nanoparticles level.The particles sizesof the prepared azithromycin nanoparticles were from 11.0 to89 nm.

3.4. Thermal Gravimetric Analysis. The thermal gravimetricanalysis of samples A, B, C, D, and E is shown in Figure 7which gives us information about the weight loss of cefiximenanoparticles samples A, B, C, D, and E upon increasingtemperature. To decompose, the samples were heated from30∘C to 600∘C, above 30∘C the decomposition of samplesstarts, and their weight decreases gradually up to 600∘C.

Thermal gravimetric analyses TGA of samples F, G, H,I, J, and K results were shown in Figure 8. The result of thefigure indicated that by increasing the temperature of samplesfrom 30∘C to 250∘C very small changes occur in weight ofthe samples, while from above 250∘C decomposition of thesamples took place to a greater extent and up to 600∘C. Fromthis it can be concluded that prepared nanoparticles were an


Table 1: Zone of inhibition of nanoparticles and raw cefixime drugagainst Salmonella typhi.

Sample Zone of inhibition ofnanoparticles

Zone of inhibition ofraw cefixime drugs

A 12.5 10.25B 11.75 10.25C 16 15.75D 17 15.75E 15.75 15.75

26.9

5

23.6

5

28.0

5

12.6

5

25.8

5

13.7

5

24.7

5

14.8

5

11.5

5

15.9

5

22.5

5

17.0

5

21.4

5

18.1

5

20.3

519

.25

29.1

5

10.4

5

30.2

5

18.7

20.9

17.6

29.7

27.5

26.4

30.8

19.8

14.3

13.2

12.1

24.2

15.4

28.6

16.5

23.1

25.32211

2𝜃

ABC

DEPure

0200400600800

10001200

Inte

nsity

Figure 1: XRD pattern of cefixime samples.

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

Inte

nsity

14 19 24 2992𝜃

FGHI

JKPure

Figure 2: XRD pattern of azithromycin samples.

anhydrous form because no significant loss of weight occursin 30∘C up to 250∘C. Similar conclusions were also reportedpreviously [28, 29].

3.5. Antimicrobial Activities of Raw and Nanoparticles Sam-ples of Cefixime against Bacterial Strains. The antibacterialactivities of raw drug and prepared samples of nanoparticleswere determined against Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella, E.coli, and Salmonella typhi.

The mean values of zone diameter of inhibition ofnanosamples and raw drug of cefixime against Salmonellatyphi are shown in Table 1. The results showed that theantimicrobial activities of nanoparticles samples A, B, C, and

Table 2: Comparison of zone of inhibition of samples and raw drugagainst Salmonella typhi.


Zone of inhibition ofraw azithromycin

drugF 16.20 15.25G 22.75 15.25H 17.50 15.25I 17 15.75J 21.25 15.75K 16.75 15.75

Table 3: Zone of inhibition of nanoparticles and raw drug againstE. coli.



A 13.75 13B 15.75 13C 16 8.5D 21 8.5E 19.5 8.5

Table 4: Comparison of zone of inhibition of samples and raw drugagainst E. coli.

SampleZone of inhibition of

azithromycinnanoparticles


drugF 21.2512.5 12.5G 25.2512.5 12.5H 1812.5 12.5I 20.1014.50 14.5J 21.7514.50 14.5K 19.1514.50 14.5

D were higher than raw drug, while in case of sample E, theantibacterial spectrum of the original drug and that of samplewere similar.

Zone of inhibition of nanoparticles and raw azithromycinagainst Salmonella typhi were determined and it was foundthat prepared nanoparticles of azithromycin were greaterthan raw azithromycin. The results were shown in Table 2.

Against the E. coli bacteria strain, the mean values ofzone diameter of inhibition of samples from A to E and thatof raw drug are shown in Table 3. The results show thatthe antimicrobial activities of all nanoparticles samples werehigher than that of raw drug.

The means diameter zones of inhibition of samples F, G,H, I, J, and K raw azithromycin drug were compared and itwas found that nanoparticles of azithromycin were greaterthan diameter of inhibition zone of the sample as comparedto raw drug. The results were shown in Table 4.

Themean values of zone diameter of inhibition of samplesand raw drug against Staphylococcus aurous strain are shown


Raw cefixime

A B

C D

E

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

6067.575

82.590

97.5105

112.5120

%T

707580859095

100105110115

%T

65707580859095

100105110115

%T

7580859095

100105110115120

%T

80859095

100105110115

%T

65707580859095

100105110115

%T

Figure 3: FTIR spectrum of cefixime samples.

Table 5: Zone of inhibition of nanoparticles and raw drug againstStaphylococcus aureus.



A 15.25 11.5B 13 11.5C 20.75 15.25D 18.5 15.25E 20 15.25

in Table 5. The result shows that the antimicrobial activitiesof the prepared nanoparticles samples were higher than thatof raw drug.

Themean values of diameter zone of inhibition of samplesF, G, H, I, J, and K were compared with that of raw drug;it was concluded that zones of inhibition were greater than

Table 6: Comparison of zone of inhibition of nanoparticles with rawdrug against Staphylococcus aureus.




drugF 16.25 13G 19.25 13H 21.20 13I 20.10 15.75J 16.50 15.75K 18.50 15.75

that of raw drug which showed that antimicrobial activities ofprepared azithromycin nanoparticles were greater activitiesas compared to raw azithromycin drug. The results wereshown in Table 6.


Raw azithromycin

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

52.560

67.575

82.590

97.5105

112.5120

%T

2970

.38

1716

.65

1375

.25

1165

.00

1089

.78

1053

.13 10

33.8

5

1016

.49

995.

27

796.

60

7580859095

100105110115

%T

F

2970

.38

1718

.58

1558

.48

1377

.17

1166

.93

1082

.07

1049

.28

1031

.92

993.

3497

7.91 83

3.25

451.

34

65707580859095100105110115

%T

G

2970

.38

1720

.50

1377

.17

1166

.93

1082

.07

1049

.28 10

31.9

299

3.34

977.

91

731.

02

H I

3487

.30

2978

.09

1720

.50

1377

.17

1166

.93

1082

.07

1049

.28 10

31.9

299

3.34

977.

9195

6.69

594.

0858

2.50

65707580859095

100105110115

%T

J K

2968

.45

1724

.36

1456

.26

1375

.25

1165

.00

1091

.71

1053

.13

1031

.92

1016

.49

995.

27

794.

67

2968

.45

1724

.36

1456

.26

1375

.25

1165

.00

1091

.71

1053

.13

1031

.92

1016

.49

995.

2798

1.77

794.

6772

5.23

640.

3758

2.50

65707580859095

100105110115

%T

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)800

400

600

1000

2000

1800

1200

2800

4000

3200

2400

1600

3600

1400

(1/cm)

707580859095

100105110115

%T

6067.5

7582.5

9097.5105

112.5120

%T

Figure 4: FTIR spectrum of azithromycin samples.

Table 7: Zone of inhibition of nanoparticles and raw drug againstShigella.


Zone of inhibition ofraw cefixime drug

A 18 11.75B 14 11.75C 18 16D 15 16E 17.5 16

Against Shigella, the mean values of zone diameter ofinhibition of samples of raw are shown in Table 7.The resultsof nanoparticles were higher than that of raw drug.

Themean values of zone of inhibition diameter of samplesF, G,H, I, J, andK and zone of inhibition diameter of raw drug

Table 8: Comparison of zone of inhibition of nanoparticles with rawdrug against Shigella.




drugF 20.25 18.50G 23.25 18.50H 18.75 18.50I 16.50 12.50J 15.25 12.50K 17.10 12.50

against Shigella bacterial strain are shown in Table 8 whichindicated that the antimicrobial activities of nanoparticleswere greater than that of raw drug.


A B

C D

E

Figure 5: SEM images of cefixime nanoparticles of samples.

F G

H I

J K

Figure 6: SEM images of azithromycin nanoparticles of samples.

8 Journal of NanomaterialsU

nsub

trac

ted

wei

ght (

mg)

100 200 300 400 500 600 7000Sample temperature (∘C)

ABC

DE

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Figure 7: TGA photograph of cefixime nanoparticles samples.

Uns

ubtr

acte

d w

eigh

t (m

g)

01234567

100 200 300 400 500 600 7000Sample temperature (∘C)

FGH

IJK

Figure 8: TGA photograph of azithromycin nanoparticles samples.

B C D E RawA0

102030405060708090

100

% d

issol

utio

n

Figure 9: Comparative dissolution of prepared cefixime nanoparti-cles and raw cefixime.

3.6. Dissolution Study of the Samples. About 23mg, whichwas equivalent to 20mg of samples, was usedwhile determin-ing the dissolution rates of the samples. After every 5 minutes5mL samples from the dissolution apparatus were withdrawnand their absorbency was measured. The absorbance wasfound to increase with passage of time. At 30 minutes thedissolution of nanoparticles and raw cefixime had beencalculated and then their dissolution rates were compared.Samples A, B, C, D, and E and raw cefixime showed 90.169%,94.86%, 87.82%, 90.047%, 90.169%, and 59.643%, respectively(Figure 9). Similarly, the prepared samples of azithromycin

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

% d

rug

rele

ase

G H I J K RawF

Figure 10: Comparative dissolution of prepared azithromycinnanoparticles and raw.

named F, G, H, I, J, and K showed 76.23%, 86.40%, 71.15%,96.56%, 81.23%, and 76.23% dissolution rates, respectively,while the raw drug showed 55.91% dissolution rate (Fig-ure 10). The data clearly indicates considerable increase indissolution rate of the prepared cefixime and azithromycinnanoparticles compared to raw drugs. The increase in disso-lution rate of the synthesized nanoparticles can be ascribed todecrease in size of the nanoparticles which leads to increasein both dissolution and solubility of the drugs [8–14].

4. Conclusions

Considerable reductions in the size of the nanoparticlesup to submicron and nanoscale level were successfullyachieved. The nanoparticles samples exhibited better resultsthan parental drugs against Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella, E.coli, and Salmonella typhi.The synthesizednanoparticleswerefound to show better dissolution rate than raw drugs. Hence,reduction in size of the parental drug resulted in enhancedantimicrobial activity and improved dissolution rate.

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interests.

References

[1] Martindale, The Complete Drug Reference, PharmaceuticalPress, 33rd edition, 2002.

[2] Y. P. Singla, M. Kumar, and B. Singh, “Formulation and in vitroevaluation of gastroretentive drug delivery system of Cefiximetrihydrate,” International Journal of Drug Development &Research, vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 148–161, 2011.

[3] A. Ateshkadi and N. P. Lam, “Helicobacter pylori and pepticulcer disease,” Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 12, pp. 34–48, 1993.

[4] S. C. Arora, “Development, characterization and andsolubilityand solid dispersions of cefixime trihydrate by solvent method,”International Journal of Drug Development & Research, vol. 2,pp. 424–430, 2010.

[5] S. S. Mohammed, G. V. Reddy, and K. V. Pranush, “Comparisonof solubility improvement of cefixime and omeprazole magne-sium by solid dispersion and slugging method,” InternationalJournal of Research in Pharmaceutical and Nano Sciences, vol. 3,no. 1, pp. 50–60, 2014.


[6] S. Mohanty, R. Mohapatra, S. Patra, and D. K. Sahoo, “Formula-tion and in-vitro evaluation of azithromycin mouth dissolvingtablets using superdisintegrants,” Research Journal of Pharma-ceutical, Biological & Chemical Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 452–461, 2013.

[7] H. R. Pouretedal, “Preparation and characterization of azithro-mycin nanodrug using solvent/antisolvent method,” Interna-tional Nano Letters, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 103–111, 2014.

[8] M. Abhilash, “Potential applications of nanoparticles,” Interna-tional Journal of Pharma and Bio Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, article 53,11 pages, 2010.

[9] Y.Thorat,D.Gonjari, andA.Hosmani, “Solubility enhancementtechniques: a review on conventional and novel approaches,”International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research,vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 2501–2513, 2011.

[10] J.-X. Wang, Q.-X. Zhang, Y. Zhou, L. Shao, and J.-F. Chen,“Microfluidic synthesis of amorphous cefuroxime axetilnanoparticles with size-dependent and enhanced dissolutionrate,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 162, no. 2, pp. 844–851,2010.

[11] K. A. Overhoff, R. O. Johnston, and R. O. Williams, “Improve-ment of dissolution rate of poorly water soluble drugs using anew particle engineering process: spray freezing into liquid,” inPolymeric Drug Delivery II, pp. 305–319, 2006.

[12] G. G. Liversidge and C. K. Cundy, “Particle size reductionfor improvement of oral bioavailability of hydrophobic drugs:absolute oral bioavailability of nanocrystalline Danzol in beagledogs,” International Journal of Pharmaceutics, vol. 125, pp. 91–97,1995.

[13] A. A. Noyes and W. R. Whitney, “The rate of solution of solidsubstances in their own solutions,” Journal of the AmericanChemical Society, vol. 19, no. 12, pp. 930–934, 1897.

[14] C. Buzea, I. I. Pacheco, and K. Robbie, “Nanomaterials andnanoparticles: sources and toxicity,” Biointerphases, vol. 2, no. 4,pp. 17–71, 2007.

[15] P. Christian, F. V. Kammer, M. Baalousha, and Th. Hofmann,“Nanoparticles: structure, properties, preparation and behav-iour in environmental media,” Ecotoxicology, vol. 17, no. 5, pp.326–343, 2008.

[16] F. Kesisoglou, S. Panmai, and Y. Wu, “Nanosizing—oral formu-lation development and biopharmaceutical evaluation,” Adv-anced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 631–644, 2007.

[17] T. Panagiotou andR. J. Fisher, “Producingmicron- andnanosizeformulations for functional foods applications,” FunctionalFoods in Health and Disease, vol. 3, pp. 274–289, 2013.

[18] L. Hixon, M. Prior, H. Prem, and J. Vancleef, “Sizing materialsby crushing and grinding,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol.97, pp. 94–103, 1990.

[19] D. Horn and J. Rieger, “Organic nanoparticles in the aqueousphase—theory, experiment, and use,” Angewandte Chemie—International Edition, vol. 40, no. 23, pp. 4330–4361, 2001.

[20] T. L. Rogers, I. B. Gillespie, J. E. Hitt et al., “Development andcharacterization of a scalable controlled precipitation processto enhance the dissolution of poorly water-soluble drugs,”Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 2048–2057, 2004.

[21] E. Merisko-Liversidge, G. G. Liversidge, and E. R. Cooper,“Nanosizing: a formulation approach for poorly-water-solublecompounds,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol.18, no. 2, pp. 113–120, 2003.

[22] A. A. Thorat and S. V. Dalvi, “Liquid antisolvent precipitationand stabilization of nanoparticles of poorly water soluble

drugs in aqueous suspensions: recent developments and futureperspective,” Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 181-182, pp. 1–34, 2012.

[23] E. Reverchon, “Supercritical antisolvent precipitation of micro-and nano-particles,” The Journal of Supercritical Fluids, vol. 15,no. 1, pp. 1–21, 1999.

[24] M. Kakran, N. G. Sahoo, I.-L. Tan, and L. Li, “Preparationof nanoparticles of poorly water-soluble antioxidant curcuminby antisolvent precipitation methods,” Journal of NanoparticleResearch, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 757–768, 2012.

[25] Y.-Y. Kuang, Z.-B. Zhang, M.-L. Xie, J.-X. Wang, Y. Le, andJ.-F. Chen, “Large-scale preparation of amorphous cefiximenanoparticles by antisolvent precipitation in a high-gravityrotating packed bed,” Industrial and Engineering ChemistryResearch, vol. 54, no. 33, pp. 8157–8165, 2015.

[26] P. Mehta, A. More, and A. Kulkarni, “Effect of hydrophilicpolymers on cefixime complexationwith𝛽-cyclodextrin,” Inter-national Journal of Current Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 5, no.3, pp. 66–70, 2013.

[27] Y. Paul, M. Kumar, and B. Singh, “Formulation, evaluationand study of effect of hydrophilic polymers on release rate ofcefixime floating tablets,” International Journal of Pharma& BioSciences, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 472–488, 2011.

[28] S. Verma, A. Kumar, V. K. Malik, and V. Kumar, “CompritrolATO 888 based solid lipid nanoparticles of cefixime: formula-tion and evaluation,” Der Pharmacia Sinica, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 8–13, 2013.

[29] S. Timoumi, D. Mangin, R. Peczalski, F. Zagrouba, and J.Andrieu, “Stability and thermophysical properties of azithro-mycin dihydrate,”Arabian Journal of Chemistry, vol. 7, no. 2, pp.189–195, 2014.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

ScientificaHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

CorrosionInternational Journal of

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Polymer ScienceInternational Journal of



CeramicsJournal of


CompositesJournal of

NanoparticlesJournal of



International Journal of

Biomaterials


NanoscienceJournal of

TextilesHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

NanotechnologyHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

CrystallographyJournal of


The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


CoatingsJournal of

Advances in

Materials Science and EngineeringHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Smart Materials Research



MetallurgyJournal of


BioMed Research International

MaterialsJournal of


Nano

materials


Journal ofNanomaterials

research article synthesis of cefixime and azithromycin...

Documents