4.7 Article

Development of a solvent-free micellar HPLC method for determination of five antidiabetic drugs using response surface methodology

期刊

MICROCHEMICAL JOURNAL
卷 179, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.microc.2022.107446

关键词

Antidiabetic; Mixed Micellar Liquid Chromatography; Response Surface Methodology; Greenness Metrics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A totally green mixed micellar LC method was developed and used to analyze various antidiabetic combinations. The method was optimized and successfully applied to determine the examined drugs in laboratory mixtures and pharmaceutical products. Compared to previous methods, the new method was shown to be more efficient and effective.
Various antidiabetic combinations have recently been used to improve the management of type II diabetes mellitus. The first time a totally green mixed micellar LC method was used to analyze the biguanide metformin (MET) in a mixture with two sulfonylurea antidiabetics, glipizide (GPZ) and glimepiride (GLM), as well as pioglitazone (PGZ) as a thiazolidinedione derivative antidiabetic and repaglinide (RPG) as an insulin secreta-gogue antidiabetic. Response surface methodology (RSM) was used to optimize the method by using central composite design (CCD). The design space that represents the robustness zone was identified. Analytes were separated by elution of an aqueous mobile phase containing Brij-35 (12.05 mM) and SDS (76.25 mM) at pH 3.72 on a Symmetry C18 column (75*4.6 mm, 3.5 m) at a flow rate of 1 mL/min and UV detection at 225 nm and 210 nm, respectively, for MET and the other analytes. The laboratory mixtures and pharmaceutical products of the examined drugs were successfully determined using the established method. Using the Green Analytical Pro-cedure Index (GAPI) and Analytical Greenness Metric (AGREE) principles, the greenness of the created method was analyzed and compared to previously reported methods. In comparison to previous methods, the new method was shown to be more efficient and effective.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据