low diffusion coefficient. An IL form of the actives does not
necessarily address the solubility factor per se, other than the
fact that the active ions are presented at very high concentra-
tions. However, in cases where neutral species are present in
the IL, the solubility in a membrane such as that used here
would be enhanced. Solubility measurements in model mem-
branes such as these would allow determination of the rela-
tionship between permeability and structure to be understood
more fully and thus enable IL design. However, such measure-
ments are difficult to achieve accurately.
In summary, we have shown that protic pharmaceutically
active ILs are, in some cases, rapidly transported through a
model membrane, most likely as hydrogen bonded complexes.
We hypothesize that these paired compounds behave more like
‘‘neutral’’ species and hence cross the membrane faster than
the more ‘‘ionic’’ drugs. It is interesting to note that hydrogen
bonded complexes of un-ionised acid–base mixtures have also
been found to display unusual properties recently.15 One of the
advantages of this protic IL approach is that active formula-
tions can be designed that will be more membrane diffusive in
a way that is not otherwise possible.
Fig. 3 Membrane diffusion of the various types of Protic ILs.
against time were fitted using a previously reported membrane
diffusive flux equation:12a,b
!
1
n
2
X
A
4
ðꢀ1Þ
ꢀDð2n þ 1Þ p2t
¼ 1 ꢀ
ꢁ exp
ð1Þ
A
1
p
n¼0 2n þ 1
4h2
where A is the absorbance intensity at time t, D the permeant
diffusion coefficient, h the film thickness and AN the intensity
of the permeant peak corresponding to the saturation of the
membrane. Table 1 summarises the diffusion values obtained
from a fit of eqn (1) for the compounds studied. A single
diffusion coefficient did not provide an adequate fit to the data
Notes and references
1 M. Freemantle, An Introduction to Ionic Liquids, RSC Publishing
2009, Cambridge, UK, 2010.
2 R. D. Rogers, D. T. Daly, R. P. Swatloski, W. L. Hough,
J. H. Davis, M. Smiglak, J. Pernak and S. K. Spear, Application:
WO 2007044693, The University of Alabama, USA, 2007, p. 199.
3 (a) J. Stoimenovski, D. R. MacFarlane, K. Bica and R. D. Rogers,
Pharm. Res., 2010, 27, 521–526; (b) R. Ferraz, L. C. Branco,
C. Prudencio, J. P. Noronha and Z. Petrovski, ChemMedChem,
2011, 6, 975–985.
4 P. Heinrich Stahl and C. G. Wermuth, Handbook of Pharmaceutical
Salts; Properties, Selection, and Use, VHCA and Wiley-VCH, 2008.
5 (a) W. L. Hough, M. Smiglak, H. Rodriguez, R. P. Swatloski,
S. K. Spear, D. T. Daly, J. Pernak, J. E. Grisel, R. D. Carliss,
M. D. Soutullo, J. J. H. Davis and R. D. Rogers, New J. Chem.,
2007, 31, 1429–1436; (b) W. L. Hough and R. D. Rogers, Bull.
Chem. Soc. Jpn., 2007, 80, 2262–2269; (c) P. M. Dean,
J. Turanjanin, M. Yoshizawa-Fujita, D. R. MacFarlane and
J. L. Scott, Cryst. Growth Des., 2009, 9, 1137–1145.
6 K. Bica, C. Rijksen, M. Nieuwenhuyzen and R. D. Rogers, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010, 12, 2011–2017.
7 J. Cybulski, A. Wisniewska, A. Kulig-Adamiak, Z. Dabrowski,
T. Praczyk, A. Michalczyk, F. Walkiewicz, K. Materna and
J. Pernak, Tetrahedron Lett., 2011, 52, 1325–1328.
8 W. L. Hough-Troutman, M. Smiglak, S. Griffin, W. M. Reichert,
I. Mirska, J. Jodynis-Liebert, T. Adamska, J. Nawrot, M. Stasiewicz,
R. D. Rogers and J. Pernak, New J. Chem., 2009, 33, 26–33.
9 J. Stoimenovski, P. M. Dean, E. I. Izgorodina and D. R. MacFarlane,
Faraday Discuss., 2011, DOI: 10.1039/C1FD00071C.
10 P. K. Wotton, B. Moellgaard, J. Hadgraft and A. Hoelgaard, Int.
J. Pharm., 1985, 24, 19–26.
11 C. H. Purdon, C. G. Azzi, J. Zhang, E. W. Smith and H. I. Maibach,
Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug Carrier Syst., 2004, 21, 97–132.
12 (a) V. Tantishaiyakul, N. Phadoongsombut, W. Wongpuwarak,
J. Thungtiwachgul, D. Faroongsarng, K. Wiwattanawongsa and
Y. Rojanasakul, Int. J. Pharm., 2004, 283, 111–116;
(b) A. C. Watkinson, H. Joubin, D. M. Green, K. R. Brain and
J. Hadgraft, Int. J. Pharm., 1995, 121, 27–36; (c) W. J. McAuley,
K. T. Mader, J. Tetteh, M. E. Lane and J. Hadgraft, Eur. J. Pharm.
Sci., 2009, 38, 378–383.
+
(including up to an n = 3 fit), except for the NBH3 Aceꢀ
case. However, introducing a second component, involving a
second diffusion coefficient, provided a very good fit to the
data (see ESI), as also observed by Dias et al.14 It appears
therefore that there are two processes contributing to the
diffusion of these compounds (D1 and D2, Table 1), one
approximately an order of magnitude slower than the other.
In the work of Dias et al., it was suggested that the second
process arose from diffusion through a membrane already
swollen by the permeant. It is interesting to note that the
diffusion processes being observed here are relatively rapid, in
some cases only two orders of magnitude slower than typical
diffusion coefficients of ions in water.
From Fick’s equation the overall flux, F, of molecules
through the membrane is determined by F = P.CIL where P
is the permeation coefficient given by P = DK/h and CIL is the
concentration of the IL, K the partition coefficient of the
species between the liquid phase and the membrane and h is
the thickness of the membrane. The appearance of the parti-
tion coefficient in these relationships indicates the role of the
intrinsic solubility of the permeant in the membrane. It is
likely that the very low permeability of some species in Fig. 2
and 3 relate primarily to a very low solubility, rather than a
Table 1 Membrane diffusion coefficients and t50 values for PILs
D1
Fraction
D1 ꢁ10ꢀ8
D2 ꢁ 10ꢀ8 t50
(hours)
Ra
(cm2 sꢀ1
)
(cm2 sꢀ1
)
13 J. Stoimenovski, E. I. Izgorodina and D. R. MacFarlane, Phys.
Chem. Chem. Phys., 2010, 12, 10341–10347.
14 M. Dias, S. L. Raghavan and J. Hadgraft, Int. J. Pharm., 2001,
216, 51–59.
15 K. Bica, J. Shamshina, W. L. Hough, D. R. MacFarlane and
R. D. Rogers, Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 2267–2269.
NTH3 Salꢀ 0.9982 0.69 ꢂ 0.03 1.3 ꢂ 0.1
10.1 ꢂ 1.7 B2
6.1 ꢂ 0.9 B2
1.5 ꢂ 0.2 B20
+
Bro+ Ibuꢀ
0.9933 0.50 ꢂ 0.02 0.5 ꢂ 0.1
NHH3 Aceꢀ 0.9977 0.74 ꢂ 0.03 0.17 ꢂ 0.01
+
NBH3 Aceꢀ 0.9981 —
0.097 ꢂ 0.003 —
B50
+
SalH in PG 0.9993 0.58 ꢂ 0.01 1.11 ꢂ 0.02
15.6 ꢂ 0.8 B2
c
This journal is The Royal Society of Chemistry 2011
Chem. Commun., 2011, 47, 11429–11431 11431