• Ayobami O. Oyedele Department of Pharmaceutics, Faculty of Pharmacy, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria
  • Okikiolu O. John Obafemi Awolowo University
  • Hannah O. Ogungbemi Obafemi Awolowo University
  • Samuel O. Olateju Obafemi Awolowo University


Objective: Chloramphenicol is poorly released from official eye ointment (EO) base. This study investigated alternative promising bases, enhanced drug release with surfactant and evaluated ocular tolerance of prototypes.

Methods: Chloramphenicol eye ointment (1 %w/w) was prepared by levigation in five bases: EO, simple ointment (SO), hydrous wool fat (HW), hydrous sheabutter (HS), and neat sheabutter (NS). In-vitro drug release of these and EO and SO formulations containing graded concentrations (0.1–10.0 %w/v) of surfactant (polysorbate 80 or propylene glycol) were studied over 3 h by dialysis technique, and the release kinetics assessed. Water-absorption capacity (WAC) and melting temperature of the bases was determined for probable influence on drug release. Ocular tolerance of the formulations, bases and surfactants was evaluated by in vivo irritancy test on albino rabbits.

Results: Total drug released from test formulations differed with base used: NS 12, HS 11, SO 7, HW 5, and EO 4 %. The Higuchi release kinetics was determined. HS and NS demonstrated highest release extent and rate; EO and HW exhibited poor release. WAC and softening temperature of bases showed some correlation with drug release propensity. Propylene glycol in EO and polysorbate 80 in SO formulations showed 3-fold and 2-fold enhanced drug release, respectively. All items for ocular toxicity test gave scores indicating practically no irritation, except neat HW that was mildly irritant.

Conclusion: HS and NS proved best alternatives to EO. Propylene glycol (10 %) in the EO formulation was 3-fold drug-release enhanced. All prototype formulations were non-irritant to eye tissue.

Keywords: Chloramphenicol, Ointment, Base, Surfactant, In-vitro Release, Ocular tolerance


Download data is not yet available.


1. Blogg JR. Chloramphenicol 4: Responsible topical use in ophthalmology. Aust Vet J 1991;68:8-9.
2. Scruggs J, Wallace T, Hanna C. Route of absorption of drug and ointment after application to the eye. Ann Ophthalmol 1978;10:267-71.
3. Orafidiya LO, Oyedele AO, Shittu AO, Elujoba AA. The formulation of an effective topical antibacterial product containing Ocimum gratissimum leaf essential oil. Int J Pharm 2001;224:177-83.
4. Lee M, Hammarlund ER. Corneal absorption of ophthalmic drugs. J Pharm Sci 1974;63:721-4.
5. Cserhati T. Alkyl ethoxylated and alkylphenol ethoxylated nonionic surfactants: Interaction with bioactive compounds and biological effects. Environ Health Perspect 1995;103:358-64.
6. Jiao J. Polyoxyethylated nonionic surfactants and their applications in topical ocular drug delivery. Adv Drug Deliver Rev 2008;60:1663-73.
7. Zimmer AK, Maincent P, Thouvenot P, Kreuter J. Hydrocortisone delivery to healthy and inflamed eyes using a micellar polysorbate 80 solution or albumin nanoparticles. Int J Pharm 1994;110:211-22.
8. Vandamme TF. Microemulsions as ocular drug delivery systems: recent developments and future challenges. Prog Retinal Res 2002;21:15-34.
9. Squillante E, Needham T, Maniar A, Kislalioglu S, Zia H. Codiffusion of propylene glycol and dimethyl isosorbide in hairless mouse skin. Eur J Pharm Biopharm 1998;46:265-71.
10. Conquet P, Durand G, Laillier J, Plazonnet B. Evaluation of ocular irritation in the rabbit: Objective versus subjective assessment. Toxicol Appl Pharm 1977;39:129-39.
11. Wieslander G, Norbäck D, Lindgren T. Experimental exposure to propylene glycol mist in aviation emergency training: acute ocular and respiratory effects. J Occup Environ Med 2001;58:649-55.
12. Flume MM, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Hill RA, Klaassen CD, Liebler D, et al. Safety assessment of propylene glycol, tripropylene glycol, and PPGs as used in cosmetics. Int J Toxicol 2012;31 Suppl 2:245-60.
13. Draize JH, Woodward G, Calvary HO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944;82:377-90.
14. Wilson SL, Ahearne M, Hopkinson A. An overview of current techniques for ocular toxicity testing. Toxicology 2015;327:32-46.
15. British Pharmacopoeia (BP) Volumes I, II and III British Pharmacopoeia Commission: The Stationery Office, London; 2009.
16. Maurer JK, Parker RD, Carr GJ. Ocular Irritation: Microscopic changes occurring over time in the rat with surfactants of known irritancy. Toxicol Pathol 1998;26:217-25.
17. Brown VKH, Hunter CG. Experimental studies on skin hazard with cyclo octa-I,5-diene and cyclo dodeca-I,5,9-triene. Br J Ind Med I968;25:75-6.
18. Takahashi Y, Hayashi K, Abo T, Koike M, Sakaguchi H, Nishiyama N. The short time exposure (STE) test for predicting eye irritation potential: Intra-laboratory reproducibility and correspondence to globally harmonized system (GHS) and EU eye irritation classification for 109 chemicals. Toxicol In Vitro 2011;25:1425-34.
19. Oyedele AO. Delivery of metronidazole from purified Nigerian sheabutter in comparison to standard and modified ointment bases. Ife J Sci 2012;14:253-7.
20. Odusote MO, Ifudu ND. Nigerian shea butter as an ointment base. Nigerian J Pharm 1987;18:31-3.
21. Blainey M, de Avila C, Van der Zandt P. Review of REACH Annex IV–Establishing the minimum risk of a substance based on its intrinsic properties. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 2010;56:111-20.
22. Oyedele AO. Investigation of ointment bleeding in some absorption and water-miscible base preparations. Nigerian J Pharm Res 2007;6:94-100.
23. Adebayo AS, Akala EO. Kinetics model for the in vitro release of an hydrophilic drug (Amodiaquine) from fat-based Suppositories. Int J Arts Technol 2005;2:1-11.
24. Fischer FH, Wiederholt M. Human precorneal tear film pH measured by microelectrodes. Graefe's Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 1982;218:168-70.
25. Draize JH, Woodward G, Calvary HO. Methods for the study of irritation and toxicity of substances applied topically to the skin and mucous membranes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1944;82:377-90.
26. Kay JH, Calandra JC. Interpretation of eye irritation tests. J Soc Cosmet Chem 1962;13:281-9.
27. Rojanasakul Y, Wang L, Bhat M, Glover DD, Malanga CJ, Ma JKH. The transport barrier of epithelia: a comparative study on membrane permeability and charge selectivity in the rabbit. Pharm Res 1992;9:1029-34.
28. Marulanda AT, Maya JV. Ocular tolerance profile of a cosmetic product for babies in vivo. Cuban J Pharm 2012;46:49-60.
29. Mekkawy A, Fathy M, El-Shanawany S. Study of fluconazole release from o/w cream and water-soluble ointment bases. Br J Pharm Res 2013;3:686-96.
30. Kaur IP, Rana C, Singh M, Bhushan S, Singh H, Kakkar S. Development and evaluation of novel surfactant-based elastic vesicular system for ocular delivery of fluconazole. J Ocul Pharmacol Ther 2012;28:484-96.
31. Rafiee-Tehrani M, Mehramizi A. In-vitro release of piroxicam from oil-in-water creams and hydroalcoholic gel topical formulations. Drug Dev Ind Pharm 2000;26:409-14.
32. Sieg JW, Robinson JR. Vehicle effects on ocular drug bioavailability. J Pharm Sci 1979;68:724-8.
278 Views | 1286 Downloads
How to Cite
Oyedele, A. O., O. O. John, H. O. Ogungbemi, and S. O. Olateju. “OCULAR TOLERANCE AND IN-VITRO RELEASE OF CHLORAMPHENICOL IN PROSPECTIVE EYE OINTMENT BASES”. International Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vol. 7, no. 11, Oct. 2015, pp. 306-11, https://innovareacademics.in/journals/index.php/ijpps/article/view/8479.
Original Article(s)