View Article

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality control standards of four different brands of pantoprazole gastro-resistant tablets IP 20 mg, which are commonly prescribed by medical practitioners in the surrounding area. Method: Four brands, labelled A, B, C, and D, were assessed using various in vitro quality control tests. These tests included physical appearance, thickness measurement, weight variation, hardness, friability, disintegration, and dissolution testing. The dissolution test was performed using the USP Paddle II method, and the drug release was analyzed using a UV Spectrophotometer. Results & Discussion: Quality control tests were conducted to assess whether the four pantoprazole tablet brands met the required standards. The tests examined parameters, such as weight variation, hardness, thickness, friability, disintegration, and dissolution. All four brands (A, B, C, and D) were enteric-coated tablets. When comparing dissolution profiles, Brand A demonstrated a superior drug release of 99.72%, followed by Brand B at 98.41%. Both brands met the Indian Pharmacopoeia standards for drug release. Similarly, Brand D exhibited better drug release (96.23%) than Brand C (92.74%), although both were within acceptable limits as per Indian Pharmacopoeia standards [1][2].

Keywords

Pantoprazole, Enteric-coated, Quality Control, hardness, Friability, Dissolution.

Introduction

Pantoprazoleis an oral route medication falling under proton pump inhibitor (PPI) and completes its action within the gastric cell by reducing the production of gastric acids as per the dosage availability. Moreover, it acts as an antibacterial agent that inhibits the effects of Helicobacter pylori in the stomach. Most reports indicate that pantoprazole tablets are effective  and well-tolerated drugs worldwide for the treatment of gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), including the management of acid-related disorders and the control and treatment of ulcers on the gastroduodenal due to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory diseases (NSAID). Pantoprazole also replaced benzimidazole to inhibit the blocking of the H+/K+ ATPase enzyme through  parietal cells,  thus inhibiting the secretion of gastric acid.[5]

Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs):

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) inhibit gastric acid production specifically on the H+/K+- ATPase present in the gastric parietal cell. This involves the absorption of the PPI by the parietal cell. PPIs are weak bases; thus, protonation occurs in the acidic area of the secretory canaliculus of parietal cells. In secretory canaliculi, the methylsulfinyl group is a highly reactive sulfenamide. The last step is the covalent bonding of the reactive sulfenamide to 2
Cysteine residues of the catalytic subunit of the H+/K+- ATPase of the proton pump. This leads to the inhibition of acid secretion, followed by an elevation in intragastric pH.[6]

Drug profile:

Chemical structure:  

Formula: C16H15F2N3O4S

Molecular weight: 383.37 g/mol

Chemical name: 5-(trifluoromethoxy) -2-[[(3,4-dimethoxy-2-pyridinyl)

Methyl]sulfinyl]-1H-benzimidazole Sesquihydrate.

Appearance: White to off-white powder.

Properties: Freely soluble in water.[7]

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Materials

For comparative evaluation of Pantoprazole Gastro-resistant tablets (20 mg), four tablet brands from different pharmaceutical companies were purchased from the local market: PAN20, Pantop20, Pentab20, and PANTAKIND, and randomly coded as A, B, C, and D, respectively. List of different brands of Pantoprazole tablets and their type are shown in Table 1

Table 1: List Of Different Brands of Pantoprazole Tablets

Sr. No

Brand Name

Pharma companies

Type

Named as

1

PAN20

Alkem Health Science

Enteric Coated

A

2

PANTOP20

Aristo Pharmaceuticals Pvt.Ltd.

Enteric Coated

B

3

PENTAB-20

Alembic Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

Enteric Coated

C

4

PANTAKIND

Mankind Pharma Ltd.

Enteric Coated

D

Table 2: Instruments Used During the Comparative Study

Sr.

No.

Equipment’s Name

Manufacture

Model

1

Weighing Machine

Contech

CH223

2

Thickness

Mitutoyo

CD-6-

ASX

3

Hardness

Orchid

NK-20

4

Friabilator

Electro lab

EF 2L

5

Disintegration

Veego

VTD-D

6

Dissolution

Electrolab

Inspire 8

7

UV Spectrophotometer

Shimadzu

UV-1800

Methods

The four brands designated as A, B, C, and D were subjected to quality control tests as described below.
1. Physical Appearance

2. Weight variation test

3. Thickness test

4. Hardness test

5. Friability test

6. Disintegration test

7. Preparation of Standard Calibration curve

8. Dissolution test carried out using the USP
Paddle II method and analysed using a UV
Spectrophotometer.[8][9]

  1. Physical Appearance

The color and shape of the tablets were observed with the naked eye to verify their uniformity. Some companies have added grooves to the tablet surface to identify their brands. All of these features were determined through visual inspection.

  1. Weight variation test

A weight variation test was conducted to ensure uniformity of the tablet weights. The weight of a tablet corresponds to the amount of medicinal component it contains. To verify consistency, tablet weights were frequently tested after manufacturing. In this study, 20 tablets were randomly selected and weighed. The average weight was calculated to determine the standard weight of a single tablet. The weight of each tablet was recorded individually and deviations from the acceptable weight range were noted. The standard limits of weight variation are listed in Table 3.[10]

Table 3: Standard Specifications of Weight Variation Tests

Sr. No.

Average wt. of tablets(mg)

Max.% Difference allowed

1.

84 or less

10%

2.

84 -250

7.5%

3.

More than 250

5%

  1. Thickness

Digital Vernier calipers were used to measure the tablet thickness. This provides information regarding the variation between tablets and provides precise measurements. Average results were determined using ten tablets.[10]

  1. Hardness test

The hardness of tablets determines their resistance to capping, abrasion, or breakage during handling, storage, and transit before use. The load necessary to break or fracture a tablet resting on its edge is known as tablet hardness. This is occasionally referred to as the pillar crushing strength. Five tablets of each brand were ingested, and pressure was applied while the tablet was positioned between the spindles of the hardness tester. Then, the pressure was raised as gradually as possible until the tablet broke, the amount of pressure needed to do so was recorded and read from the device, and the hardness tester's sliding scale was calibrated to zero. I.P. states that the range is 4– 8 kg/cm2.[11]

  1. Friability test

The friability test for pantoprazole tablets determines tablet strength by evaluating the weight loss under pressure in a friabilator. Because pantoprazole tablets are enteric-coated tablets, they were weighed, rotated 100 times at 25 rpm, and then reweighed; the permissible level was ≤1%.[11]

  1. Disintegration Time

The disintegration time test was performed as per the specifications. First, the disintegration tester was filled with 0.1N HCl and maintained at 37±2°C. Then, it was run for 2 h after placing six randomly selected tablets from each pantoprazole brand in the disintegration tester. Tablets were examined for signs of disintegration within 2 hrs running period. By changing the acidic fluid with phosphate buffer (pH 6.8 immediately after 2 h, the apparatus was operated for an additional 1 h at 37±2°C, and the disintegration time was noted. The tablets were considered completely disintegrated when all the particles passed through the wire mesh.[12]

7. Standard calibration curve

1. Preparation of Standard Stock Solution

Pantoprazole sodium (10 mg) was accurately weighed using an analytical balance and transferred into a 100 mL volumetric flask. The drug was dissolved in 100 mL of 0.1N HCl (or methanol, depending on solubility requirements) and sonicated if necessary for complete dissolution. The volume was made up to 100 mL using the same solvent to obtain a 100 µg/mL stock solution.

2. Preparation of Working Standard Solutions

Different concentrations were prepared from the stock solution by dilution with Phosphate Buffer (pH 6.8) to obtain concentrations of 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 µg/mL.

3. Measurement of Absorbance

The absorbance of each prepared concentration was recorded using a UV-Vis spectrophotometer at the maximum wavelength (λmax) of pantoprazole (usually approximately 294 nm, but should be determined experimentally). A blank solution (Phosphate Buffer, pH 6.8) was used for the baseline correction.

4. Plotting the Calibration Curve

A calibration curve was plotted by taking the concentration (µg/mL) on the X-axis and the absorbance on the Y-axis. A linear regression equation was derived to determine the correlation coefficient (R²) and to ensure good linearity.[14][15]

  1.  Dissolution Study

Gastro-resistant (enteric-coated) tablets of pantoprazole sodium are dissolved in the intestine, where absorption takes place, avoiding stomach breakdown. To replicate the physiological conditions, a two-stage dissolving test was performed:

1. Acid Stage: Maintains the integrity of the enteric coating (0.1N HCl, pH 1.2).

2. Alkaline stage: Assess drug release under intestinal conditions using phosphate buffer (pH 6.8).

Reagents and Materials

• 20 mg gastro-resistant tablets of pantoprazole sodium

• 0.1N HCl (0.1N hydrochloric acid; pH 1.2)

• pH 6.8 phosphate buffer

• UV-visible spectrophotometer

• USP Type II (Paddle) Dissolution Apparatus

• Glassware:

Pipettes Methodology of Volumetric Flasks (1000 mL, 100 mL)

Phase 1: Acidic (pH 1.2, 0.1N HCl) Two hours

Procedure

  1. Dissolution Medium: Add 750 mL of 0.1N HCl to each dissolution vessel.
  2. Temperature Control: Maintain at 37 ± 0.5°C.
  3. Stirring conditions: The paddle speed was set at 50 rpm.
  4. Tablet placement One pantoprazole gastro-resistant tablet (20 mg) was placed in each vessel.
  5. Sampling: Ten millilitres of the sample was withdrawn at 60, 90, and 120 min.
  6. Filtration: The samples using a 0.45 µm membrane filter.
  7. Analysis: Absorbance was measured using UV-Vis spectrophotometry at 290 nm.
  8. Acceptance Criteria: No 10% of the drug should be dissolved in this phase, confirming that the enteric coating remains intact.

Stage 2: Alkaline Phase (pH 6.8 Phosphate Buffer) – Until Complete Dissolution

Procedure

  1. Medium Replacement: After 2 h, the acidic medium was removed and replaced with 1000 mL of phosphate buffer (pH 6.8).
  2. Temperature Control: Maintain at 37 ± 0.5°C.
  3. Stirring conditions: the paddle speed was maintained at 50 rpm.
  4. Sampling: Ten milliliters of the sample was withdrawn at 10, 20, 30, 45, and 60 min.
  5. Filtration: The withdrawn samples using a 0.45 µm membrane filter.
  6. Analysis: Absorbance was measured using UV-Vis spectrophotometry at 290 nm.
  7. Acceptance Criteria: At least 80% of the drug should be dissolved within 60 min in phosphate buffer.[13]

RESULTS

  1. Physical Appearance

The color, surface, and shape of the tablets were visually inspected. The physical appearances of the different pantoprazole brands are shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Physical characteristics of Pantoprazole tablet

Sr. No.

Brands

Color

Shape

Surface

1

A

Brown

Round

Smooth

2

B

Orange

Round

Smooth

3

C

Yellow

Round

Smooth

4

D

Yellow

Round

Smooth

  1. Weight Variation Test

A weight variation test was conducted to assess the uniformity of tablet weight in accordance with pharmaceutical standards. A random sample of 20 (n = 20) pantoprazole tablets (20 mg) was selected and individually weighed using a calibrated analytical balance. Average weight was determined by dividing the total weight of the sample by 20. The weight variation of the tablets was calculated using the following formula:

Upper Limit = Average Weight + (7.5/100×Average weight)

Lower Limit = Average Weight - (7.5/100×Average weight)

According to USP/BP guidelines, tablets with an average weight between 80 and 250 mg must not deviate beyond ±7.5% of the mean weight. The batch was considered acceptable if no more than two tablets exceeded this limit and none deviated beyond ±15%. This test ensures consistency in tablet weight, which is critical for maintaining a uniform drug content and efficacy.

Table 5: Calculations and results of weight variation

Brands

Upper Limit(gm)

Lower Limit(gm)

Result

A

0.211

0.182

 

Comply

 

B

0.202

 

0.179

 

Comply

 

C

0.118

 

0.101

 

Comply

 

D

0.170

 

0.147

 

Comply

 

Fig. 2: Weight Variation of Diff. Brands

  1. Thickness

The thicknesses of different brands of Pantoprazole Tablets (20 mg) were determined using a digital Vernier caliper, and the results are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Individual thickness of tablets and results

Sr. No.

Brand A

Brand B

Brand C

Brand D

1

4.00

3.52

3.11

3.60

2

3.95

3.48

3.13

3.68

3

4.03

3.45

3.11

3.69

4

3.87

3.48

3.12

3.63

5

4.03

3.52

3.02

3.65

6

3.99

3.52

3.17

3.66

7

3.98

3.45

3.18

3.66

8

4.01

3.56

3.12

3.59

9

3.99

3.50

3.14

3.76

10

3.91

3.47

3.07

3.59

Average

3.976mm

3.495mm

3.117mm

3.651mm

Graphical Representations of The Average Thicknesses of The Individual Brands Are Shown In Fig 3.

  1. Hardness

The hardness of the different brands of pantoprazole tablets (10 mg) was determined using a digital hardness tester, and the results are listed in Table 7.

Table 7: Hardness of tablets and results

Sr. No.

Hardness of tablets (kg/cm2)

Std

A

B

C

D

1

5.4

5.3

5.5

5.2

4 to 10 kg/cm2

2

5.7

5.9

5.0

4.9

3

5.9

5.8

5.9

4.9

4

5.6

5.4

5.8

5.4

5

6.0

5.9

5.7

5.1

Average

5.72

5.66

5.58

5.1

Result

Comply

Comply

Comply

Comply

Fig. 4 Hardness of Diff. Brands of Tablets

  1. Friability Test

The friability of the different brands of Pantoprazole Tablets (10 mg) was determined using Roche Friability instruments for 4 min at 25 rpm, and the results are listed in Table 8.

Table 8: Friability of tablets

 

% Friability of tablets

 

Std.

A

B

C

D

0.5                to                     1

% acc. to I.P

Initial Wt.

3.967

3.847

2.216

3.216

Final Wt.

3.963

3.844

2.213

3.214

%

Friability

0.100

0.077

0.135

0.0621

Result

Comply

Comply

Comply

Comply

A graphical presentation of the friability of the individual brands is shown in Fig 5.

Fig. 5:  Friability of diff. brands

  1. In Vitro Disintegration Test

The test for decomposition time was performed according to the specifications. First, the disintegration tester was filled with 0.1 N HCl and maintained at 37 ± 2 °C. It was also run for 2 h after placing the six tablets from each pantoprazole brand in the decomposition tester. Tablets were examined for signs of decomposition within 2 hrs running period. By changing the acidic fluid with phosphate buffer (pH 6.8 incontinently after 2 h, the outfit was operated for 1 h at 37 ± 2 °C, and the decomposition time was noted. The tablets were considered fully disintegrated when all the patches passed through the line mesh.

Table 9: Disintegration of tablets

Product

Disintegration time in 0.1N HCL (min)

Disintegration time in 6.8 pH phosphate buffer (min)

Brand A

No evidence of disintegration for 2 hr.

16.32

Brand B

No evidence of disintegration for 2 hr.

19.43

Brand C

No evidence of disintegration for 2 hr.

24.15

Brand D

No evidence of disintegration for 2 hr.

20.32

  1. Standard Calibration Curve for Pantoprazole

The calibration curve of the standard was drawn by plotting the Absorbance against Concentration. Figure 7 shows the standard calibration curves. A correlation coefficient greater than 0.9999 reflected the occurrence of homogeneity in the concentration range of 0 – 10μg/ml. The absorbance of the Pantoprazole tablet was
Measurements were performed using a UV spectrophotometer (Table 10).

Table 10: Absorbance determined by UV Spectrophotometer

Sr. No.

Concentration

(μg/ml)

Absorbance

(%)

1

0

0

2

2

0.211

3

4

0.418

4

6

0.625

5

8

0.831

6

10

1.032

Fig. 7: UV estimation of Pantoprazole

  1. In Vitro Dissolution Study

The results of in vitro dissolution studies are presented in Table 11.

Table 11: Dissolution time and % drug release in 0.1% HCL

Time

Pan20

Pantop20

Pantab-20

Pantakind

0

0

0

0

0

60

3.357

3.226

2.485

2.354

90

5.101

4.97

3.793

4.098

120

7.281

6.715

4.665

5.843

Fig. 8: Cumulative % drug release in 0.1N HCL media

Table 12: Dissolution Time And % Drug Release in Phosphate Buffer Ph 6.8

Time

Pan20

Pantop20

Pantab-20

Pant kind

120

0

0

0

0

130

31.246

28.212

21.671

33.008

140

44.345

40.421

46.09

45.218

150

77.049

73.997

67.02

69.636

165

89.694

86.206

79.665

83.154

180

99.723

98.415

92.747

96.235

Fig. 9: Cumulative % drug release in phosphate Buffer

DISCUSSION:

Quality control parameters of different brands of marketed pantoprazole tablets with  Indian pharmacopeia standards.
All four brands' pantoprazole tablets were according to IP standards found to be within ±7.5% of the average weight of the tablets. All four brands performed within the specified ranges. The results show that brand A has more weight variation than brand B, and brand D has more weight variation than brand C (Fig 2). This could be attributed to the lower powder flowability under compression. The range of hardness is from 4 to 10 kg/cm2. Based on hardness tests, the average hardness values for
Brands A and B are 5.72 kg/cm2 and 5.66 kg/cm2, respectively, whereas the average hardness values of Brands C and D are 5.58 kg/cm2 and 5.1 kg/cm2, respectively (table 7). This shows that both brands are acceptable in the hardness test as all four Hardness values are less than the pharmacopeia limit. The pharmacopeia mentions that a 0.5 1% tablet loss during shipping is acceptable, and the friability equipment utilized in this friability test shows that the friability test was successful for all four tablet brands. The disintegration test of pantoprazole tablets was conducted in 0.1N HCl and phosphate buffer pH 6.8. In 0.1N HCl, no tablets disintegrated, which shows successful enteric coating intended to withstand acidic environments. In phosphate buffer (pH 6.8), the tablets disintegrated at different times: Brand A (16.32 min), Brand B (19.43 min), Brand D (20.32 min), and Brand C (25.15 min). The fastest disintegration was shown by Brand A, and the slowest was shown by Brand C, indicating differences in coating thickness or efficiency in the formulation. These differences might affect the release and efficacy of the drug. The dissolution profiles of four pantoprazole tablet brands (A, B, C, and D)  were compared. The experiment was carried out using USP Type II apparatus in 0.1N HCl (pH 1.2) at 37 ± 0.5°C with the drug release determined by UV spectrophotometry. The results indicated that Brand A released the most drug (99.72%), followed by Brand B (98.41%), Brand D (96.23%), and Brand C (92.74%). Although all brands satisfied pharmacopeial standards, variations in dissolution rates can influence therapeutic effectiveness.

REFERENCES

  1. Berhe DF, Assefa M, Gobezie T. In vitro comparative study of different brands of pantoprazole sodium enteric-coated tablets marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2019;10(5):2294-2300.
  2. Raval N, Sharma N, Patel P, Gandhi T. Comparative in vitro characterization of different commercially available brands of pantoprazole sodium tablets. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2020;11(2):1000-1006.
  3. Gupta A, Gupta V, Sonpal D. Comparative in vitro evaluation of marketed enteric-coated Pantoprazole tablets. J Adv. Pharm. Technol. Res. 2013 Jul;4(3):134–40.
  4. Qadir, MI, Hanif, R, Mushtaq, M. Comparative evaluation of different brands of pantoprazole available in the local market. Saudi Pharm J. 2013 Jan;21(1):85–8.
  5. Mostafa HF, Ibrahim MA, Mahrous GM, Sakr A. Assessment of the pharmaceutical quality of marketed enteric coated pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate products. Saudi Pharm J. 2011;19(2):123–7.
  6. Arafat M, Ahmed I, Fayed A, Habashy M. Enteric-coating film effect on the delayed drug release of pantoprazole gastro-resistant generic tablets. Saudi Pharm J. 2023;31(5):509–17.
  7. Gobinath T, Kamalakkannan V, Sambathkumar R. Formulation and evaluation of enteric-coated pantoprazole tablets. J Chem Pharm Sci. 2014;7(3):176–80.
  8. Sawant S, Sharma VK, Deshmukh S. Formulation and evaluation of pantoprazole enteric-coated tablet for the treatment of peptic ulcers. J Adv Zool. 2023;44(S7):1–10.
  9. Reddy KR, Mutalik S, Reddy S. Sustained release enteric coated tablets of pantoprazole: formulation, in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Acta Pharm. 2013;63(1):131–40.
  10. Mishra CK, Goyal A, Sahu M, Rani A, Sasmal D, Nema RK. Pantoprazole and its enteric coating polymer concentration for stable coating in acidic media in the stomach. Int J Pharm Clin Res. 2011;3(2):45–47.
  11. Marinho FDM, Nunan EA. Quality evaluation of the pantoprazole gastro-resistant compounded capsules. Lat Am J Pharm. 2009;28(1):45–50.
  12. Mahrous GM, Ibrahim MA, Mostafa HF, Sakr A. Assessment of the pharmaceutical quality of marketed enteric coated pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate products. Saudi Pharm J. 2011;19(2):123–127.
  13. Gobinath T, Kamalakkannan V, Sambathkumar R. Formulation and evaluation of enteric-coated pantoprazole tablets. J Chem Pharm Sci. 2014;7(3):176–180.
  14. El-Hay SS, El Sheikh R, Gouda AA, Ali M, El-Sayed HM. Simultaneous estimation of pantoprazole and piroxicam using HPLC: Response surface methodology approach. Microchem J. 2022;174:107092.
  15. Marinho FDM, Nunan EA. High-performance liquid chromatography determination of pantoprazole in tablet dosage form. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2005;37(3):453–457.
  16. Rajpurohit S, Suthar N, Choudhary M. Comparative study of in-process and finished products quality control test for tablet and capsules according to pharmacopoeias. Int. J Appl. Pharm. Biol. Res. 2017;2(6):29–32.
  17. Kak Bchkol D. Quality control tests for dosage forms and their effects on physical, chemical, and biological specifications: a review. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2024;3(1):45–53.
  18. Ghosh S, Chatterjee A. An updated review of IPQC tests for sterile and non-sterile products. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2014;5(7):1–6.
  19. Savale SK. Pharmaceutical solid dosage forms in-process quality control tests. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2018;50(1):1–5.
  20. Verma A. In-process quality control: A review. Int J Pharm Biol Sci. 2014;4(1):48–59.

Reference

  1. Berhe DF, Assefa M, Gobezie T. In vitro comparative study of different brands of pantoprazole sodium enteric-coated tablets marketed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2019;10(5):2294-2300.
  2. Raval N, Sharma N, Patel P, Gandhi T. Comparative in vitro characterization of different commercially available brands of pantoprazole sodium tablets. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2020;11(2):1000-1006.
  3. Gupta A, Gupta V, Sonpal D. Comparative in vitro evaluation of marketed enteric-coated Pantoprazole tablets. J Adv. Pharm. Technol. Res. 2013 Jul;4(3):134–40.
  4. Qadir, MI, Hanif, R, Mushtaq, M. Comparative evaluation of different brands of pantoprazole available in the local market. Saudi Pharm J. 2013 Jan;21(1):85–8.
  5. Mostafa HF, Ibrahim MA, Mahrous GM, Sakr A. Assessment of the pharmaceutical quality of marketed enteric coated pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate products. Saudi Pharm J. 2011;19(2):123–7.
  6. Arafat M, Ahmed I, Fayed A, Habashy M. Enteric-coating film effect on the delayed drug release of pantoprazole gastro-resistant generic tablets. Saudi Pharm J. 2023;31(5):509–17.
  7. Gobinath T, Kamalakkannan V, Sambathkumar R. Formulation and evaluation of enteric-coated pantoprazole tablets. J Chem Pharm Sci. 2014;7(3):176–80.
  8. Sawant S, Sharma VK, Deshmukh S. Formulation and evaluation of pantoprazole enteric-coated tablet for the treatment of peptic ulcers. J Adv Zool. 2023;44(S7):1–10.
  9. Reddy KR, Mutalik S, Reddy S. Sustained release enteric coated tablets of pantoprazole: formulation, in vitro and in vivo evaluation. Acta Pharm. 2013;63(1):131–40.
  10. Mishra CK, Goyal A, Sahu M, Rani A, Sasmal D, Nema RK. Pantoprazole and its enteric coating polymer concentration for stable coating in acidic media in the stomach. Int J Pharm Clin Res. 2011;3(2):45–47.
  11. Marinho FDM, Nunan EA. Quality evaluation of the pantoprazole gastro-resistant compounded capsules. Lat Am J Pharm. 2009;28(1):45–50.
  12. Mahrous GM, Ibrahim MA, Mostafa HF, Sakr A. Assessment of the pharmaceutical quality of marketed enteric coated pantoprazole sodium sesquihydrate products. Saudi Pharm J. 2011;19(2):123–127.
  13. Gobinath T, Kamalakkannan V, Sambathkumar R. Formulation and evaluation of enteric-coated pantoprazole tablets. J Chem Pharm Sci. 2014;7(3):176–180.
  14. El-Hay SS, El Sheikh R, Gouda AA, Ali M, El-Sayed HM. Simultaneous estimation of pantoprazole and piroxicam using HPLC: Response surface methodology approach. Microchem J. 2022;174:107092.
  15. Marinho FDM, Nunan EA. High-performance liquid chromatography determination of pantoprazole in tablet dosage form. J Pharm Biomed Anal. 2005;37(3):453–457.
  16. Rajpurohit S, Suthar N, Choudhary M. Comparative study of in-process and finished products quality control test for tablet and capsules according to pharmacopoeias. Int. J Appl. Pharm. Biol. Res. 2017;2(6):29–32.
  17. Kak Bchkol D. Quality control tests for dosage forms and their effects on physical, chemical, and biological specifications: a review. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2024;3(1):45–53.
  18. Ghosh S, Chatterjee A. An updated review of IPQC tests for sterile and non-sterile products. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2014;5(7):1–6.
  19. Savale SK. Pharmaceutical solid dosage forms in-process quality control tests. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2018;50(1):1–5.
  20. Verma A. In-process quality control: A review. Int J Pharm Biol Sci. 2014;4(1):48–59.

Photo
Anjali Pawar
Corresponding author

Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy, Pravaranagar.

Photo
Sneha Vikhe
Co-author

Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy, Pravaranagar.

Photo
Shreya Sabale
Co-author

Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy, Pravaranagar.

Photo
Deven Pardeshi
Co-author

Pravara Rural College of Pharmacy, Pravaranagar.

Anjali Pawar*, Shreya Sabale, Deven Pardeshi, Sneha Vikhe, A Comparative Analysis of In-Process Quality Control Parameters of Pantoprazole Gastro-Resistant Tablets, Int. J. of Pharm. Sci., 2025, Vol 3, Issue 5, 1364-1375 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15321767

More related articles
Development And Characterization of Bilayered Tabl...
Gavali Prashant, Gangurde Gayatri, Dhum Manohar , Sonawane Mitesh...
Improvement Of The Product Robustness Of Allopurin...
Pavithran P., Vasanthan A, Senthilkumar K. L. , ...
Formulation And Evaluation Of Lovastatin Loaded Na...
Anusha, G. Sumana, F. C. Miranda, ...
Formulation And Comparative Evaluation of Marketed Paracetamol Tablets ...
Vaibhavi deepak jape , Varsha R bhati, Disha s gangule, Vaishnavi R gangule, Snehal s nikam, ...
Formulation And Evaluation of Floating Gastroretentive Drug and Delivery System...
Mayuri Raut , Payal Malekar , Dr. A. Chandewar, Dr. Madhuri Channawar, ...
RP-HPLC Method Development and Validation for The Determination of Active Ingred...
Rupali Tambe, Vishakha Toradmal, Megha Kirve, Tanaya Wakchaure, Kavita Gaikwad, Ekta Chouthe, Snehal...
Related Articles
A Review on In-Vitro Dissolution Apparatus ...
Vanita Deore, Nisha Deshmukh, Deepali Borade, Janhavi Darunte, Dr. Rajendra K. Surawase, ...
Comparative Quality Assessment of 500mg Paracetamol Tablet Brands: Safety and Ef...
Omkar Jadhav, Poonam Sable , Vaishnavi Keshav Jivrak, Disha Harne , Sakshi Jaiswal, ...
Development And Evaluation Of Sustained Release Venlafaxine Hydrochloride Tablet...
Prasanna Babu Racheeti, A.LAKSHMAN RAO, L.BHUSHAN KUMAR, B.YELLAMANDA, Y.RAMYA, ...
Solubility Modification of Phytochemicals via Pharmaceutical Cocrystal ...
Kalyani Avhale , Dr. Kawade Rajendra M., Mayuri Lodha, Shivani Matsagar, Arti Tupe, ...
Development And Characterization of Bilayered Tablet of Paracetamol & Diclofenac...
Gavali Prashant, Gangurde Gayatri, Dhum Manohar , Sonawane Mitesh, ...