Table 7 Comparison between the proposed HPTLC and the reported methods in terms of greenness assessment using GAPI and AGREE tools
Chromatographic condition | GAPI | AGREE* |
|---|---|---|
Proposed HPTLC method Chromatographic conditions: Aluminum HPTLC plates precoated with silica gel 60 F254 as stationary phase, mobile phase consisted of Acetone, Dichloromethane, n-Butanol, Glacial acetic acid and Water (3: 2.5: 2: 2: 1.75, by volume) and UV detection was done at 280 nm |
|
|
Reported HPLC method [18] Chromatographic conditions: reversed phase Nova pack C18 column as stationary phase, mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile, methanol and 0.025 M phosphate buffer (Containing 1 mL TEA in each 250 mL, pH was adjusted to 5.5 with 0.2 M phosphoric acid) in a ratio of (40: 30: 30%, by volume). Flow rate at 1.2 mL/min and UV detection was performed at 225 nm |
|
|
Reported HPLC method [39] Chromatographic conditions: Hypersil-ODS column as stationary phase, mobile phase consisted of methanol and 0.002 M KH2PO4 (pH 5) solution in a ratio of (25: 75%, v/v). Flow rate at 1 mL/min and column temperature was adjusted at 30 °C. Diode array detector was used and photometric detection was done in the range of 190–400 nm |
|
|
