Table 1.
Observed responses in BBD design for optimization of RDV-NLC formulation.
| Formulation code | Independent variables | Dependent variables | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total lipid (%) | Surfactant (%) | Hot bath time (h) | Y1: Particle size (nm) | Y2: Polydispersity index | Y3: Zeta potential (mV) | Y4: EE (%) | |
| F1 | 5.5 | 5 | 1 | 84.13 ± 46.28 | 0.34 ± 0.01 | −40.88 ± 0.63 | 75.47 ± 0.08 |
| F2 | 5.5 | 1 | 1 | 191.33 ± 19.66 | 0.43 ± 0.01 | −42.15 ± 1.89 | 79.1 ± 2.68 |
| F3 | 5.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 197.07 ± 61.06 | 0.35 ± 0.01 | −45.82 ± 0.52 | 83.65 ± 0.07 |
| F4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 58.97 ± 11.31 | 0.24 ± 0.01 | −44.46 ± 3.89 | 81.92 ± 0.04 |
| F5 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 111.47 ± 16.50 | 0.23 ± 0.01 | −30.99 ± 4.81 | 70.38 ± 0.04 |
| F6 | 10 | 3 | 4 | 130.07 ± 11.90 | 0.96 ± 0.00 | −46.4 ± 9.63 | 87.04 ± 0.13 |
| F7 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 189.87 ± 5.28 | 0.41 ± 0.00 | −49.56 ± 3.35 | 81.7 ± 0.03 |
| F8 | 5.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 176.17 ± 40.17 | 0.36 ± 0.01 | −46.3 ± 3.67 | 84.89 ± 0.15 |
| F9 | 5.5 | 1 | 4 | 65.61 ± 0.60 | 0.29 ± 0.00 | −42.6 ± 1.41 | 75.98 ± 5.56 |
| F10 | 5.5 | 5 | 4 | 128.7 ± 10.30 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | −57.90 ± 9.50 | 88.04 ± 0.07 |
| F11 | 5.5 | 3 | 2.5 | 105.83 ± 2.32 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | −37.60 ± 9.32 | 100 ± 00 |
| F12 | 1 | 1 | 2.5 | 4.57 ± 0.05 | 0.18 ± 0.00 | −45.2 ± 7.95 | 86.82 ± 0.05 |
| F13 | 10 | 1 | 2.5 | 80.23 ± 2.17 | 0.45 ± 0.01 | −43.22 ± 2.05 | 82.74 ± 0.09 |
| F14 | 1 | 5 | 2.5 | 38.80 ± 12.75 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | −47.8 ± 9.03 | 82.06 ± 0.45 |
| F15 | 10 | 5 | 2.5 | 158.70 ± 10.76 | 1.00 ± 0.00 | −55.1 ± 9.77 | 89.53 ± 0.05 |
The particle size, polydispersity index, and zeta potential were measured by the DLS technique. EE% was calculated using Eq. (1).
BBD box-behnken experimental design, NLC nanostructured lipid carrier, RDV remdesivir.