COMPARATIVE APPLICATION OF RAW-ANN AND PCA-ANN FOR THE SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC DETERMINATION OF CAFFEINE, PROPYPHENAZONE, AND PARACETAMOL IN TABLETS

Authors

  • Asiye ÜÇER Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ankara University, 06560 Yenimahalle, Ankara, Türkiye; Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, 06010 Etlik, Keçiören, Ankara, Türkiye. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9286-3211
  • Nazangül ÜNAL Department of Pharmacy Services, Eşme Vocational School, Uşak University, 64600, Uşak, Turkey. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9481-1354
  • Erdal DİNÇ Department of Analytical Chemistry, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ankara University, 06560 Yenimahalle, Ankara, Türkiye. *Corresponding author: dinc@ankara.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6326-1441

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24193/subbchem.2026.2.06

Keywords:

Spectrophotometric determination, artificial neural networks, principal component analysis, caffeine, propyphenazone, paracetamol

Abstract

Comparative chemometric approaches based on raw artificial neural networks (RAW-ANN) and principal component analysis-artificial neural networks (PCA-ANN) were developed and applied to the simultaneous spectrophotometric determination of caffeine (CFN), propyphenazone (PRPN), and paracetamol (PRC) in a commercial ternary pharmaceutical formulation. The spectral overlap of the three components within the 220-300 nm region renders conventional spectrophotometric methods inadequate without prior separation. The proposed ANN-based models enabled direct analysis of raw UV spectral data without requiring any separation procedure over concentration ranges of 2.5-12.0 µg/mL (CFN), 3.0-12.0 µg/mL (PRPN), and 3.0-16.0 µg/mL (PRC).

Both training approaches demonstrated satisfactory analytical performance, with mean recoveries ranging between 97% and 105%. In particular, PCA-ANN yielded relative standard deviations below 2.5%, indicating enhanced precision and predictive stability compared to RAW-ANN. Statistical evaluation confirmed the robustness and reliability of the developed models. The methods were successfully applied to the quantitative analysis of pharmaceutical tablets, demonstrating their suitability for routine quality control of complex multicomponent formulations.

References

1. K. Palur; S. C. Archakam; B. Koganti; Spectrochim. Acta A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc., 2020, 243, 118801.

2. V. Boerlin; B. Maeglin; W. Hägler; M. Kuhn; E. Nüesch; Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 1986, 31, 127-131.

3. J. K. Aronson; Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs: The International Encyclopedia of Adverse Drug Reactions and Interactions (Fifteenth Edition), Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2006, pp. 2954-2955.

4. V. S. Reddy; S. Shiva; S. Manikantan; S. Ramakrishna; "Pharmacology of caffeine and its effects on the human body". European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry Reports. 2 March 2024, 10, 100138.

5. G. Faudone; S. Arifi; D. Merk; Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 2021, 64 (11), 7156-7178.

6. A. Rajput; R. Sharma; R. Bharti; Materials Today: Proceedings, 2022, 48, 1407-1415.

7. L. C. Adam; D. Repantis; N. Boris; B. N. Konrad; M. Dresler; S. Kühn; Brain and Cognition, 2021, 154, 105802.

8. K. Delvadiya; P. Kabra; R. Kimbahune; N. Patel; L. V. G. Nargund; Indian J Pharm Educ Res, 2013, 47(4), 65-72.

9. F. Soponar; D. Staniloae; G. Moise; B. Szaniszlo; V. David; Rev. Roum. Chim, 2013, 58(4-5), 433-440.

10. H. Ibrahim; A. M. Hamdy; H. A. Merey; A. S. Saad; J. Chromatogr. Sci., 2021, 59(2), 140-147.

11. H. Tománková; M. Vasatova; Pharmazie, 1989, 44(3), 197-198.

12. N. Kosmeas; J. T. Clerc; Pharm. Acta Helv., 1989, 64(1), 2-7.

13. A. Hałka-Grysińska; P. Ślązak; G. Zaręba; W. Markowski; A. Klimek-Turek; T. H. Dzido; Anal. Methods, 2012, 4(4), 973-982.

14. K. Bober-Majnusz; A. Pyka-Pająk; Processes, 2024, 12(6), 1153.

15. S. Markovic; Z. Kusec; Pharmazie, 1990, 45(12), 935-936.

16. R. Injac; B. Srdjenovic; M. Prijatelj; M. Boskovic; K. Karljikovic-Rajic; B. Strukelj; J. Chromatogr. Sci., 2008, 46(2), 137-143.

17. W.P. Silva; L.A.J. Silva; C.H. França; R.M.F. Sousa; R.A.A. Muñoz; E.M. Richter; Electroanalysis, 2017, 29, 1860-1866.

18. E. Dinç; G. Kökdil; F. Onur; J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal., 2001, 26(5-6), 769-778.

19. A. F. Pulungan; D. L. P. Effendy; M. S. Siti; AJPRD, 2018, 6(5), 5-8.

20. H. Rosaldi; A. F. Pulungan; R. Ridwanto; A. S. Daulay; IJSP, 2023, 1(2), 74-79.

21. G. Gergov; A. Alin; P. Katsarov; V. Simeonov; D. Yankov; Y. Al-Degs; Bulg. Chem. Commun., 2018, 50, 265-273.

22. M. Ü. Özgür; G. Alpdoğan; B. Aşçi; Monatsh. Chem., 2002, 133(2), 219-223.

23. A. Domínguez Vidal; P. Ortega Barrales; A. Molina Díaz; Microchim. Acta, 2003, 141(3), 157-163.

24. J. M. Xia; X. J. Wu; Y. J. Yuan; Metabolomics, 2007, 3(4), 531-537.

25. G. Absalan; M. Soleimani; Anal. Sci., 2004, 20(5), 879-882.

26. G. Ioele; M. De Luca; E. Dinç; F. Oliverio; G. Ragno; Chem. Pharm. Bull., 2011, 59(1), 35-40.

27. E. Dinç; D. Baleanu; N. Ş. Köktaş; Rev. Anal. Chem., 2011, 30 (1), 11-15.

Downloads

Published

2026-06-23

How to Cite

ÜÇER, A., ÜNAL, N., & DİNÇ, E. (2026). COMPARATIVE APPLICATION OF RAW-ANN AND PCA-ANN FOR THE SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC DETERMINATION OF CAFFEINE, PROPYPHENAZONE, AND PARACETAMOL IN TABLETS. Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai Chemia, 71(2), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.24193/subbchem.2026.2.06

Issue

Section

Articles

Similar Articles

<< < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.