Two Stability Indicating Chromatographic Methods: TLC Densitometric versus HPLC Method for the Simultaneous Determination of Brinzolamide and Timolol Maleate in Ophthalmic Formulation in the Presence of Probable Carcinogenic Oxidative Degradation Product of Timolol Maleate

A comparative study between two stability-indicating chromatographic methods for the assay of brinzolamide and timolol maleate in the co-existence of the probable carcinogenic oxidative degradation product of timolol maleate in their ophthalmic formulation was demonstrated. The first method established the thin-layer chromatography coupled with the densitometric determination of the analyzed spots, using silica gel TLC aluminum plates F254 and a developing system of chloroform: methanol: ammonia (6:1:0.1, in volumes) at room temperature to give good separation for the three investigated components, where retardation factors for the oxidative degradation product of timolol maleate, brinzolamide and timolol maleate were (Rf 0.21), (Rf 0.46), and (Rf 0.55), respectively. The linear ranges were 2–10 and 3–16 μg/band for brinzolamide and timolol maleate, respectively. In the second method, high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), photo diode array detection was used on a Eurospher 5 µm C18 100 Å (4.6 × 250 mm) column, using triethylamine pH 3.5, adjusted by glacial acetic acid: acetonitrile (20:80, <i>v/v</i>) at a rate of 0.5 mL per minute. An acceptable separation was achieved, where the retention times for timolol maleate, the oxidative degradation product of timolol maleate and brinzolamide, were (Rt 3.6), (Rt 4.7), and (Rt 5.6), respectively. Linearity covered a range of 20–120 μg/mL for both drugs. It has been proved previously that timolol maleate is liable to oxidation, giving a high-probability carcinogenic product in female mice. The validation for the new proposed stability-indicating methods was optimized in line with the ICH guidelines with good outcomes. It is worth noting that the HPLC-DAD method showed superior separation, economic and time-saving results, while TLC method was more sensitive.