Table 3.
Analysis of laboratory prepared mixture of RDV and MFX by the proposed methods
| Method | Laboratory prepared mixture (µg/mL) | % Recovery* | ||||
| RDV | MFX | RDV | MFX | |||
| Ratio derivative | 1 | 2 | 98.18 | 98.96 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 100.78 | 99.13 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 100.32 | 100.87 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 99.03 | 101.02 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 101.72 | 99.13 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 100.01 ± 1.406 | 99.82 ± 1.033 | ||||
| Ratio difference | 1 | 2 | 101.77 | 99.65 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 100.08 | 101.55 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 100.71 | 98.37 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 101.67 | 101.08 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 99.98 | 98.14 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 100.84 ± 0.842 | 99.76 ± 1.547 | ||||
| Mean centering | 1 | 2 | 101.38 | 100.79 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 99.36 | 101.86 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 100.42 | 98.72 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 101.50 | 100.98 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 99.48 | 98.12 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 100.43 ± 1.007 | 100.10 ± 1.593 | ||||
|
Area under curve |
1 | 2 | 98.55 | 101.51 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 100.36 | 98.18 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 99.88 | 98.50 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 100.06 | 99.02 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 98.27 | 100.76 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 99.42 ± 0.952 | 99.59 ± 1.468 | ||||
|
Q- analysis |
1 | 2 | 102.08 | 99.75 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 99.71 | 100.80 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 100.70 | 98.71 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 101.10 | 101.32 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 100.90 | 100.91 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 100.90 ± 0.844 | 100.30 ± 1.053 | ||||
| Bivariate | 1 | 2 | 98.48 | 98.76 | ||
| 1 | 4 | 98.87 | 101.88 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 101.63 | 101.30 | |||
| 2 | 8 | 98.76 | 100.92 | |||
| 4 | 4 | 99.72 | 100.22 | |||
| Mean ± %RSD | 99.29 ± 0.887 | 100.62 ± 1.191 | ||||
* Average of three determinations