Table 6 A comparison between the proposed and the reported methods.
Method | Linear range (µg mL−1) | Mobile phase/ Solvent | LOD (µg mL−1) | LOQ (µg mL−1) | Application | Greenness evaluation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TAM | TTD | TAM | TTD | TAM | TTD | ||||
Spectrophotometry 20 | 5.0–25.0 | 10.0–50.0 | methanol | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | N.A. | dosage form | N.A. |
Spectrofluorimetry 21 | 0.75–3.50 | 2.5–20.0 | double distilled water | 0.17 | 0.68 | 0.52 | 2.04 | dosage form | N.A. |
HPLC-UV 22 | 0.2–0.6 | 2.0–6.0 | Acetonitrile: 20mM ammonium acetate buffer (pH 7.8) (60: 40, v/v) | 0.004 | 0.004 | 0.013 | 0.011 | dosage form | N.A. |
HPLC-UV 23 | 2.0–6.0 | 20.0–60.0 | phosphate buffer (pH 4.0): Methanol (60:40, v/v) | 0.89 | 2.92 | 2.70 | 8.84 | dosage form/ Stability indicating assay | N.A. |
HPTLC 24 | 16.0–64.0 | 160.0–640.0 | methanol: ethyl acetate: triethylamine in the ratio (5:5:0.3, v/v/v) | 4.42 | 7.48 | 14.78 | 24.95 | dosage form | N.A. |
HPTLC 25 | 10.0–70.0 | 40.0–400.0 | ethyl acetate: methanol: ammonia (6:4:0.05, v/v/v) | 3.0 | 12.0 | 10.0 | 40.0 | dosage form | N.A. |
HPTLC 26 | 2.0–40.0 | 20.0–180.0 | ethyl acetate: n-hexane: diethylamine (9:3:1, v/v/v) | 0.52 | 4.38 | 1.6 | 13.3 | dosage form/ Stability indicating assay | N.A. |
Proposed method | 0.1–1.5 | 1.0–15.0 | acetonitrile, water, and phosphate buffer (10 mM, pH 3.0) in a gradient elution | 0.03 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 0.92 | dosage form/ spiked plasma and urine | Applied to GAPI and AGREE |
