Table 1.

Characterization of liposomal formulations.

	PC/PG	Size/nm	PDI	Zeta potential/mV	EEa/%		LCb/%
					DMED	TTX	DMED	TTX
LipA	16:0	2010	0.62	− 1 ± 1	58 ± 7	26 ± 5	0.07 ± 0.01	0.3 ± 0.1
LipB	15:1	446	0.33	− 12 ± 1	65 ± 5	44 ± 4***	0.08 ± 0.01	0.5 ± 0.1
LipC	14:2	502	0.33	− 25 ± 1	72 ± 3†††	42 ± 3***	0.08 ± 0	0.5 ± 0.1
LipD	12:4	449	0.32	− 29 ± 1	73 ± 6††	52 ± 3***	0.09 ± 0	0.6 ± 0.1
sConA-LipB	15:1	508	0.32	− 14 ± 1	62 ± 3	43 ± 5	0.07 ± 0.01	0.5 ± 0.1

^aEE = Encapsulation efficiency, $\mathrm{EE}\%=\frac{\mathrm{Measured}\mathrm{drug}\mathrm{loading}}{\mathrm{Theoretical}\mathrm{drug}\mathrm{loading}}\times 100\mathrm{\%}$

^bLC = Loading capacity, $\mathrm{LC}\%=\frac{\mathrm{Weight}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{encapsulated}\mathrm{drug}}{\mathrm{Weight}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{lipoosme}}\times 100\mathrm{\%}$

Data are means ± SD (n = 3). Groups were compared using 2-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc test.

^***p < 0.001 compared with TTX encapsulation efficiency in LipA

^††p < 0.01 and

^†††p < 0.001 compared with DMED encapsulation efficiency in LipA. Encapsulation efficiency of both drugs in LipB was not statistically significantly different from that in sConA-LipB.