Table 9.

Comparison of sensitivity and greenness report between the suggested and reported HPLC methods.

Method	Linearity range μg/mL	Studied drugs	Mobile phase	Run time (min.)	Flow rate (mL/min.)	Waste (g/run) Run time × flow rate10	NEMI	Eco-scale score	Complex GAPI	AGREE
Reported HPLC method 16	5 to 30 diethyl-carbamazine 0.1 to 1 LVC	diethylcarbamazine and LVC	potassium dihydrogen orthophosphate buffer (pH: 3.2): acetonitrile (50:50 v/v)	6	1	6		66
Reported HPLC method 17	5–35 for all the drugs	Salbutamol sulfate, Guaifenesin, and AMB	potassium dihydrogen ortho-phosphate buffer and methanol (58:42 v/v), pH 4.5	7	1	7		70
Reported HPLC method 18	2.5–10 PHN, 250–750 PAR, 15–45 caffeine and 1.25–3.54 LVC	PHN, PAR, LVC and caffeine	Three steps gradient elution, 10 mM phosphate buffer (pH 3.3) and methanol 2–80%	18	1	18		67
Reported HPLC method 19	50–150% for all the drugs	Ascorbic acid, PHN, PAR and LVC	A gradient elution using phosphate buffer pH 4.0: Acetonitrile	23	1.5	34.5		64
Reported HPLC method 20	Not available	chlorpheniramine maleate, PAR and PHN	acetonitrile: a buffer solution of 0.01 M dipotassium phosphate and monopotassium phosphate (50:50), pH 7.8	14	1	14		65
Reported HPLC method22	250–750 PAR, 1.25–3.75 LVC, 2.5–7.5 PHN and 30–90 AMB	PAR, LVC, PHN and AMB	Acetonitrile and Phosphate buffer, pH 3.5, three steps gradient elution	17.9	1.0	17.9		76
Reported HPLC method23	162.5–975 PAR, 2.5–15 LVC, PHN and 15–90 AMB	PAR, LVC, PHN and AMB	Methanol: Sodium Phosphate dibasic anhydrous Buffer (65:35 V/V), pH of buffer 7.0 ± 0.02	12.3	1.0	12.3		79
Proposed HPLC method	50 -500 PAR 0.5–20 LVC, PHN and 0.5–100 AMB	PAR, LVC, PHN and AMB	Ethanol: acetonitrile: 2.5 mM HSA (20:5:75), pH 6.5	9	1.0	9		89