# Ecofriendly Simple UV Spectrophotometric and Chemometric Methods for Simultaneous Estimation of Paracetamol Aceclofenac and Eperisone Hydrochloride in Pharmaceutical Formulation: Assessment of Greenness Profile

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

^{−1}for paracetamol, 3.69–5.53 µg mL

^{−1}for Aceclofenac, and 2.76–4.15 µg mL

^{−1}Eperisone hydrochloride. The results obtained for accuracy and precision by the simultaneous equation method were within the permissible limits. Principal component regression and partial least squares were the tools used for chemometric methods. The calibration set and prediction set were constructed, and the UV spectra were recorded in zero order mode, further subjected to chemometric analysis. The % recoveries obtained for Paracetamol, Aceclofenac, and Eperisone Hydrochloride by chemometric techniques showed good accuracy, and the results obtained for analytical figures of merit were acceptable. Statistical comparison of the assay results obtained for the proposed methods showed no significant difference found among the methods using one way analysis of variance. Greenness evaluation tools revealed the greenness profile of the proposed methods and found them to be ecofriendly. The described methods were appropriate for routine quality control laboratories, facilitating eco-friendly, fast, and cost effective determination of Paracetamol, Aceclofenac, and Eperisone Hydrochloride in Acemyoset P tablets.

## 1. Introduction

_{max}, the concentration of all the three analytes (C

_{x}, C

_{y}, and C

_{z}) is calculated using a simple simultaneous equation [9] using absorptivity of X at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(ax

_{1}, ax

_{2}, ax

_{3}); the absorptivity of Y at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(ay

_{1}, ay

_{2}, ay

_{3}); and absorptivity of Z at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(az

_{1}, az

_{2}, az

_{3}) and absorbance of the sample at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(A

_{1}, A

_{2}, and A

_{3})

- C
_{X}, C_{Y}, and C_{Z}are X, Y, and Z concentrations, respectively, in the mixture. - A
_{1}, A_{2}, and A_{3}are the absorbances of the sample at λ_{1}, λ_{2}, and λ_{3}, respectively. - ax
_{1}, ax_{2}, and ax_{3}are the absorptivity of X at λ_{1}, λ_{2}, and λ_{3}nm, respectively. - ay
_{1}, ay_{2}, and ay_{3}are the absorptivity of Y at λ_{1}, λ_{2}, and λ_{3}nm, respectively. - az
_{1}, az_{2}, and az_{3}are the absorptivity of Z at λ_{1}, λ_{2}, and λ_{3}nm, respectively.

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Instrumentation

#### 2.2. Reference Samples

#### 2.3. Marketed Formulation

#### 2.4. Software

#### 2.5. Chemicals and Reagents

#### 2.6. Preparation of Diluent

#### 2.7. The Standard Stock Solution of Analytes

^{−1}) were prepared by dissolving 100 mg in 100 mL of diluent.

#### 2.8. Methodology for Simultaneous Equation Spectrophotometric Method

#### 2.8.1. Overlay Spectrum Analysis and Wavelength Selection

^{−1}for each PAR, ACE, and ES. The prepared solutions were scanned over 200 to 400 nm against phosphate buffer pH 7.80 as blank. The maximum absorptions (λ

_{max}) of PAR, ACE, and ES were 243, 272, and 262 nm, respectively. All the drugs have shown ideal absorbance at the λmax of others. Standard solutions of 15 µg mL

^{−1}for PAR, 4.61 µg mL

^{−1}for ACE, and 3.46 µg mL

^{−1}for ES were prepared separately to quantify pharmaceutical formulation from the stock solution. The absorbtivities were calculated for PAR (X) at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(ax

_{1}, ax

_{2}, and ax

_{3}); ACE (Y) at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(ay

_{1}, ay

_{2}, and ay

_{3}); and ES (Z) at λ

_{1}, λ

_{2}, and λ

_{3}(az

_{1}, az

_{2}, and az

_{3}). The absorbance of sample solutions was measured at 243 nm (λ

_{1}), 272 nm (λ

_{2}), and 262 nm (λ

_{3}).

#### 2.8.2. Analysis of Pharmaceutical Formulation

^{−1}of PAR, containing 4.61 µg mL

^{−1}of ACE and 3.46 µg mL

^{−1}of ES. The absorbance was measured at the selected wavelengths, and the concentration of three analytes was determined.

#### 2.8.3. Solution Stability

^{−1}of solution of PAR, ACE, and ES were prepared separately with the diluent and were assessed for solution stability at 0, 6, and 12 h, respectively. Following that, the assay solution was prepared as stated in Section 2.8.2 was assessed for solution stability. The stability was measured by % assay value with that of freshly made standard solutions.

#### 2.8.4. Method Validation

^{−1}for PAR, 3.69–5.53 µg mL

^{−1}for ACE, and 2.76–4.15 µg mL

^{−1}for ES. Calibration curves were obtained by plotting concentration against absorbance. System precision, Intraday, and Interday precision were performed at 100% of test concentration. Accuracy was performed using the standard enrichment technique at three different levels of 80%, 100%, and 120% of test concentration. The standard deviation approach has been used to determine the LOD and LOQ.

#### 2.9. Chemometrics Methods (PCR and PLS)

#### 2.9.1. Designing of Experiment

^{−1}of PAR, 4.61 µg mL

^{−1}of ACE, and 3.46 µg mL

^{−1}of ES. The measured drug concentrations were chosen based on the ratio of PAR, ACE, and ES (10:4.61:3.46) in their formulation and their spectral sensitivity. The concentration design matrix is illustrated in Table 1.

#### 2.9.2. Constitution of the Calibration Set

_{cal}) were prepared by spreading appropriate volumes from their stock solution to attain diverse concentrations, as shown in Table 1. Calibration set solutions scanned in the range of 200 to 400 nm, and the absorbance (A

_{cal}) was recorded.

#### 2.9.3. Constitution of Prediction Set

_{pre}) were prepared as shown in Table 1 to measure the predictive ability of the suggested PCR and PLS methods to study such mixtures. Prediction set solutions scanned in the range of 200 to 400 nm, and the absorbance (A

_{pre}) was recorded.

#### 2.9.4. Construction of Models

_{cal}and C

_{val}were utilized to obtain a regression equation applied to the unknown concentration of PAR, ACE, and ES. The absorbance and concentration matrix of the training set fed in the computer and calculations carried out to obtain the PCR and PLS models.

## 3. Results and Discussion

#### 3.1. Simultaneous Equation Method

^{−1}each of PAR, ACE, and ES recorded in the zero-absorbance mode, as shown in Figure 3, revealed that the simultaneous equation method was suitable for concurrent estimation of PAR, ACE, and ES. Wavelength of 243, 272, and 262 nm were selected to determine PAR, ACE, and ES as all the three-drug showed absorbance at the λ

_{max}of the other two drugs.

#### 3.2. Chemometric Method

#### 3.2.1. Selection of Wavelength Range for PCR and PLS

#### 3.2.2. Selection of Principal Components and Variables

#### 3.3. Assessment of Greenness of the Proposed Method

#### 3.4. Application of the Developed Methods in Pharmaceutical Formulation

_{x}), ACE (C

_{y}), and ES (C

_{z}) obtained by simultaneous equation method as well as chemometrics models PCR and PLS along with dilution factor were used to calculate the amount of each analyte present in their tablet formulation. The results attained are shown in Table 8 and agreed with the label claim for the analytes.

#### 3.5. Statistical Comparison of the Developed Methods Using One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Williams, M. The Merck Index: An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals. 14th Edition. Merck Inc., Whitehouse Station/Rahway, New Jersey, October 2006. Cloth 0-911910-00X. $125. Pp. 2564. Drug Dev. Res.
**2006**, 67, 870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - El-Gindy, A.; Emara, S.; Shaaban, H. Validation and Application of Chemometrics-Assisted Spectrophotometry and Liquid Chromatography for Simultaneous Determination of Two Ternary Mixtures Containing Drotaverine Hydrochloride. J. AOAC Int.
**2010**, 93, 536–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version] - Ertokuş, G.P.; Yildiz, M. Chemometric Analysis of Paracetamol and Metaclopromide In Binary Drug Combinations. Int. J. Pharm. Sci. Res.
**2018**, 9, 1268–1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Rohman, A.; Dzulfianto, A.; Riswanto, F. The Employment of UV-Spectroscopy Combined with Multivariate Calibration for Analysis of Paracetamol, Propyphenazone and Caffeine. Indones. J. Pharm.
**2017**, 28, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Glavanović, S.; Glavanović, M.; Tomišić, V. Simultaneous Quantitative Determination of Paracetamol and Tramadol in Tablet Formulation Using UV Spectrophotometry and Chemometric Methods. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc.
**2016**, 157, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Carolin Nimila, I.; Balan, P.; Yaswanth Kumar, D.; Rajasekar, S. Simultaneous Estimation of Diacerein and Aceclofenac in Bulk and Pharmaceutical Dosage Form by UV Spectroscopy Method. Int. J. Pharm. Technol. Res.
**2010**, 2, 2313–2318. [Google Scholar] - Ragupathy, V.; Arcot, S. Simultaneous Spectrophotometric Determination of Diacerein and Aceclofenac in Tablets By Chemometric Methods. Int. Res. J. Pharm.
**2013**, 4, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Beckett, A.H.; Stenlake, J.B. Practical Pharmaceutical Chemistry, 4th ed.; CBS: London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Kalyani, L.; Rao, C.V.N. Simultaneous Spectrophotometric Estimation of Salbutamol, Theophylline and Ambroxol Three Component Tablet Formulation Using Simultaneous Equation Methods. Karbala Int. J. Mod. Sci.
**2018**, 4, 171–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Héberger, K. Chemoinformatics-Multivariate Mathematical-Statistical Methods for Data Evaluation. In Medical Applications of Mass Spectrometry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2008; pp. 141–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tawakkol, S.M.; El-Zeiny, M.B.; Hemdan, A. Full Spectrum and Selected Spectrum Based Chemometric Methods for the Simultaneous Determination of Cinnarizine and Dimenhydrinate in Laboratory Prepared Mixtures and Pharmaceutical Dosage Form. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc.
**2017**, 173, 892–896. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Ghasemi, J.; Niazi, A. Simultaneous Determination of Cobalt and Nickel. Comparison of Prediction Ability of PCR and PLS Using Original, First and Second Derivative Spectra. Microchem. J.
**2001**, 68, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hadad, G.M.; El-Gindy, A.; Mahmoud, W.M.M. HPLC and Chemometrics-Assisted UV-Spectroscopy Methods for the Simultaneous Determination of Ambroxol and Doxycycline in Capsule. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc.
**2008**, 70, 655–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wold, S.; Ruhe, A.; Wold, H.; Dunn Iii, W.J. The Collinearity Problem in Linear Regression. The Partial Least Squares (PLS) Approach to Generalized Inverses. SIAM J. Sci. Stat. Comput.
**1984**, 5, 735–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Sjöström, M.; Wold, S.; Lindberg, W.; Persson, J.Å.; Martens, H. A Multivariate Calibration Problem in Analytical Chemistry Solved by Partial Least-Squares Models in Latent Variables. Anal. Chim. Acta
**1983**, 150, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Karstang, T.V.; Eastgate, R.J. Multivariate Calibration of an X-Ray Diffractometer by Partial Least Squares Regression. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst.
**1987**, 2, 209–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Esbensen, K.H.; Martens, H. Predicting Oil-Well Permeability and Porosity from Wire-Line Petrophysical Logs—A Feasibility Study Using Partial Least Squares Regression. Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst.
**1987**, 2, 221–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Oliveri, A.J.; Faber, N.M. Uncertainity Estimation and Figure of Merit for Multivariate Calibration (IUPAC Technical Report). Int. Union Pure Appl. Chem.
**2006**, 78, 633–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Gałuszka, A.; Migaszewski, Z.M.; Konieczka, P.; Namieśnik, J. Analytical Eco-Scale for Assessing the Greenness of Analytical Procedures. In TrAC—Trends in Analytical Chemistry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pena-Pereira, F.; Wojnowski, W.; Tobiszewski, M. AGREE—Analytical GREEnness Metric Approach and Software. Anal. Chem.
**2020**, 92, 10076–10082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - ICH. Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology Q2(R1) Current Step 4 Version. In Guideline on Validation of Analytical Procedures: Methodology Developed to Complement the Parent Guideline; International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: Geneva, Switzerland, 2005; Volume Q2(R1). [Google Scholar]
- Brereton, R.G. Multilevel Multifactor Designs for MultivariateCalibration. Analyst
**1997**, 122, 1521–1529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Valderrama, P.; Braga, J.W.B.; Poppi, R.J. Variable Selection, Outlier Detection, and Figures of Merit Estimation in a Partial Least-Squares Regression Multivariate Calibration Model. A Case Study for the Determination of Quality Parameters in the Alcohol Industry by near-Infrared Spectroscopy. J. Agric. Food Chem.
**2007**, 55, 8331–8338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Haaland, D.M.; Thomas, E.V. Partial Least-Squares Methods for Spectral Analyses. 1. Relation to Other Quantitative Calibration Methods and the Extraction of Qualitative Information. Anal. Chem.
**2002**, 60, 1193–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Camo. Workshop on Industrial Perspectives in Analytical Techniques & Training on Chemometrics Software; Camo: Bangalore, India, 2017. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 2.**Example of agree metrics output including 12 principles of green chemistry with an overall score in the middle.

**Figure 3.**Zero-order overlay absorption spectrum of 10 µg mL

^{−1}of PAR, 10 µg mL

^{−1}of ACE, and 10 µg mL

^{−1}of ES.

**Table 1.**Calibration set of 5 levels 3 factors and Validation set of 3 levels 3 factor experimental design shown as coding level and concentrations of the mixture components.

Standard Mixture | PAR | ACE | ES | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Coding Level | Concentration (µg mL^{−1}) | Coding Level | Concentration (µg mL^{−1}) | Coding Level | Concentration (µg mL^{−1}) | |

Calibration Set | ||||||

1 | 0 | 15.00 | 0 | 4.61 | 0 | 3.46 |

2 | 0 | 15.00 | −2 | 3.69 | −2 | 2.76 |

3 | −2 | 12.00 | 2 | 3.69 | 2 | 4.15 |

4 | −2 | 12.00 | 2 | 5.53 | −1 | 3.11 |

5 | 2 | 18.00 | −1 | 4.15 | 2 | 4.15 |

6 | −1 | 13.50 | 2 | 5.53 | 0 | 3.46 |

7 | 2 | 18.00 | 0 | 4.61 | −1 | 3.11 |

8 | 0 | 15.00 | −1 | 4.15 | −1 | 3.11 |

9 | −1 | 13.50 | −1 | 4.15 | 1 | 3.80 |

10 | −1 | 13.50 | 1 | 5.07 | 2 | 4.15 |

11 | 1 | 16.50 | 2 | 5.53 | 1 | 3.80 |

12 | 2 | 18.00 | 1 | 5.07 | 0 | 3.46 |

13 | 1 | 16.50 | 0 | 4.61 | 2 | 4.15 |

14 | 0 | 15.00 | 2 | 5.53 | 2 | 4.15 |

15 | 2 | 18.00 | 2 | 5.53 | −2 | 2.76 |

16 | 2 | 18.00 | −2 | 3.69 | 1 | 3.80 |

17 | −2 | 12.00 | 1 | 5.07 | −2 | 2.76 |

18 | 1 | 16.50 | −2 | 3.69 | 0 | 3.46 |

19 | −2 | 12.00 | 0 | 4.61 | 1 | 3.80 |

20 | 0 | 15.00 | 1 | 5.07 | 1 | 3.80 |

21 | 1 | 16.50 | 1 | 5.07 | −1 | 0.05 |

22 | 1 | 16.50 | −1 | 4.15 | −2 | 2.76 |

23 | −1 | 13.50 | −2 | 3.69 | −1 | 3.11 |

24 | −2 | 12.00 | −1 | 4.15 | 0 | 3.46 |

25 | −1 | 13.50 | 0 | 4.61 | −2 | 2.76 |

Prediction Set | ||||||

26 | 0 | 15.00 | 0 | 4.61 | 0 | 3.46 |

27 | −1 | 13.50 | 1 | 5.07 | 1 | 3.80 |

28 | 1 | 16.50 | 1 | 5.07 | 0 | 3.46 |

29 | 1 | 16.50 | 0 | 4.61 | 1 | 3.80 |

30 | 0 | 15.00 | 1 | 5.07 | −1 | 3.11 |

31 | 1 | 16.50 | −1 | 4.15 | −1 | 3.11 |

32 | −1 | 13.50 | −1 | 4.15 | 0 | 3.46 |

33 | −1 | 13.50 | 0 | 4.61 | −1 | 3.11 |

34 | 0 | 15.00 | −1 | 4.15 | 1 | 3.80 |

**Table 2.**Validation parameters and results obtained by the developed UV spectrophotometric method for the simultaneous determination of PAR, ACE, and ES.

Description | Observations | ||
---|---|---|---|

PAR | ACE | ES | |

Detection wavelength (nm) | 243 | 272 | 262 |

Solution stability standard, (% RSD) | 0.37 | 0.47 | 0.55 |

Solution stability formulation, (% RSD) | 0.92 | 0.82 | 1.41 |

Linearity ^{a} (µg mL^{−1}) | 12–18 | 3.69–5.53 | 2.76–4.15 |

LOD (µg mL^{−1}) | 0.48 | 0.20 | 0.13 |

LOQ (µg mL^{−1}) | 1.44 | 0.61 | 0.38 |

Slope | 0.0644 | 0.0252 | 0.0287 |

Standard deviation of the slope | 0.0006 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 |

Confidence limit of the slope 95% | 0.0005 | 0.0003 | 0.0003 |

Intercept | 0.0614 | 0.0072 | 0.0062 |

Standard deviation of the Intercept | 0.0093 | 0.0015 | 0.0011 |

Confidence limit of the Intercept | 0.0081 | 0.0013 | 0.0010 |

Regression coefficient (r^{2}) | 0.9994 | 0.9996 | 0.9995 |

System precision ^{b}, (% RSD) | 0.39 | 1.00 | 0.71 |

Confidence limit for System precision | 0.0032 | 0.0010 | 0.0006 |

Intraday precision ^{b}, (% RSD) | 0.32 | 0.31 | 0.15 |

Confidence limit for Intraday precision | 0.2520 | 0.2436 | 0.1158 |

Interday precision ^{c}, (% RSD) | 0.23 | 0.3476 | 0.35 |

Confidence limit for Interday precision | 0.2252 | 0.1740 | 0.1834 |

Accuracy ^{d}, % w/w | 98.25–100.43 | 98.16–100.33 | 99.23–100.07 |

Confidence limit for accuracy | 0.5263 | 0.4050 | 0.1703 |

^{a}Mean of five replicates.

^{b}Mean of six determinations.

^{c}Mean of 18 findings in three consecutive days.

^{d}Mean of three findings at each level.

Standard Mixture | PAR | ACE | ES | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | |||||||

Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | |

1 | 15.01 | 100.07 | 15.01 | 100.07 | 4.61 | 100.05 | 4.61 | 100.05 | 3.46 | 100.01 | 3.46 | 100.01 |

2 | 15.09 | 100.57 | 15.08 | 100.53 | 3.72 | 100.77 | 3.72 | 100.72 | 2.78 | 100.68 | 2.78 | 100.64 |

3 | 11.89 | 99.09 | 11.89 | 99.12 | 3.65 | 98.99 | 3.65 | 99.04 | 4.13 | 99.52 | 4.13 | 99.55 |

4 | 12.00 | 99.98 | 12.00 | 100.02 | 5.53 | 100.01 | 5.53 | 100.04 | 3.10 | 99.81 | 3.11 | 99.86 |

5 | 17.76 | 98.69 | 17.76 | 98.69 | 4.09 | 98.54 | 4.09 | 98.54 | 4.10 | 98.68 | 4.10 | 98.68 |

6 | 13.49 | 99.92 | 13.49 | 99.90 | 5.53 | 99.92 | 5.53 | 99.91 | 3.45 | 99.79 | 3.45 | 99.78 |

7 | 18.09 | 100.48 | 18.09 | 100.48 | 4.64 | 100.56 | 4.64 | 100.56 | 3.12 | 100.48 | 3.12 | 100.48 |

8 | 15.04 | 100.29 | 15.04 | 100.29 | 4.16 | 100.33 | 4.16 | 100.33 | 3.12 | 100.27 | 3.12 | 100.27 |

9 | 13.46 | 99.74 | 13.46 | 99.72 | 4.14 | 99.69 | 4.14 | 99.68 | 3.79 | 99.82 | 3.79 | 99.80 |

10 | 13.60 | 100.76 | 13.58 | 100.62 | 5.11 | 100.75 | 5.10 | 100.64 | 4.18 | 100.80 | 4.18 | 100.73 |

11 | 16.50 | 99.99 | 16.50 | 99.99 | 5.53 | 99.93 | 5.53 | 99.93 | 3.79 | 99.84 | 3.79 | 99.84 |

12 | 18.05 | 100.29 | 18.05 | 100.29 | 5.08 | 100.27 | 5.08 | 100.26 | 3.47 | 100.18 | 3.47 | 100.18 |

13 | 16.47 | 99.80 | 16.47 | 99.81 | 4.59 | 99.67 | 4.60 | 99.68 | 4.14 | 99.78 | 4.14 | 99.80 |

14 | 14.94 | 99.61 | 14.94 | 99.61 | 5.51 | 99.59 | 5.51 | 99.59 | 4.13 | 99.58 | 4.13 | 99.58 |

15 | 17.64 | 98.01 | 17.65 | 98.06 | 5.42 | 98.02 | 5.42 | 98.08 | 2.70 | 97.98 | 2.71 | 98.09 |

16 | 18.03 | 100.19 | 18.03 | 100.15 | 3.70 | 100.18 | 3.69 | 100.11 | 3.81 | 100.21 | 3.81 | 100.16 |

17 | 12.04 | 100.32 | 12.04 | 100.31 | 5.08 | 100.30 | 5.08 | 100.29 | 2.76 | 100.16 | 2.76 | 100.16 |

18 | 16.54 | 100.21 | 16.54 | 100.22 | 3.70 | 100.25 | 3.70 | 100.26 | 3.47 | 100.25 | 3.47 | 100.25 |

19 | 11.94 | 99.49 | 11.97 | 99.75 | 4.59 | 99.56 | 4.60 | 99.76 | 3.79 | 99.64 | 3.79 | 99.76 |

20 | 15.31 | 102.06 | 15.31 | 102.06 | 5.17 | 102.01 | 5.17 | 102.01 | 3.88 | 101.99 | 3.88 | 101.99 |

21 | 16.56 | 100.37 | 16.56 | 100.37 | 5.09 | 100.36 | 5.09 | 100.36 | 3.12 | 100.28 | 3.12 | 100.28 |

22 | 16.60 | 100.62 | 16.60 | 100.61 | 4.18 | 100.79 | 4.18 | 100.78 | 2.78 | 100.73 | 2.78 | 100.72 |

23 | 13.52 | 100.18 | 13.53 | 100.20 | 3.70 | 100.22 | 3.70 | 100.26 | 3.12 | 100.21 | 3.12 | 100.23 |

24 | 11.97 | 99.77 | 11.97 | 99.77 | 4.14 | 99.79 | 4.14 | 99.79 | 3.45 | 99.85 | 3.45 | 99.85 |

25 | 13.37 | 99.01 | 13.37 | 99.02 | 4.57 | 99.03 | 4.57 | 99.04 | 2.73 | 98.95 | 2.73 | 98.96 |

Standard Mixture | PAR | ACE | ES | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | |||||||

Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | Amount Found (µg mL ^{−1}) | % R | |

1 | 15.01 | 100.07 | 15.01 | 100.07 | 4.61 | 100.05 | 4.61 | 100.05 | 3.46 | 100.01 | 3.46 | 100.01 |

2 | 13.46 | 99.74 | 13.46 | 99.74 | 5.06 | 99.74 | 5.06 | 99.74 | 3.79 | 99.74 | 3.79 | 99.74 |

3 | 16.45 | 99.67 | 16.45 | 99.67 | 5.05 | 99.64 | 5.05 | 99.64 | 3.45 | 99.57 | 3.45 | 99.57 |

4 | 16.50 | 100.01 | 16.50 | 100.01 | 4.61 | 99.94 | 4.61 | 99.94 | 3.80 | 99.95 | 3.80 | 99.95 |

5 | 15.04 | 100.25 | 15.04 | 100.25 | 5.08 | 100.23 | 5.08 | 100.23 | 3.11 | 100.14 | 3.11 | 100.14 |

6 | 16.58 | 100.50 | 16.58 | 100.50 | 4.17 | 100.57 | 4.17 | 100.57 | 3.13 | 100.50 | 3.13 | 100.50 |

7 | 13.49 | 99.95 | 13.49 | 99.95 | 4.15 | 99.94 | 4.15 | 99.94 | 3.46 | 99.96 | 3.46 | 99.96 |

8 | 13.52 | 100.15 | 13.52 | 100.15 | 4.62 | 100.15 | 4.62 | 100.15 | 3.11 | 100.09 | 3.11 | 100.09 |

9 | 14.93 | 99.56 | 14.93 | 99.56 | 4.13 | 99.49 | 4.13 | 99.49 | 3.78 | 99.57 | 3.78 | 99.57 |

Statistical Parameters | PCR | PLS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

PAR | ACE | ES | PAR | ACE | ES | |

Concentration range (µg mL^{−1}) | 12–18 | 3.69–5.53 | 2.76–4.15 | 12–18 | 3.69–5.53 | 2.76–4.15 |

No. of factors | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |

R^{2} | 0.9978 | 0.9977 | 0.9981 | 0.9978 | 0.9977 | 0.9981 |

RMSEC | 0.0976 | 0.0306 | 0.0210 | 0.0976 | 0.0306 | 0.0210 |

RMSECV | 0.1188 | 0.0370 | 0.0249 | 0.1214 | 0.0379 | 0.0255 |

RMSEP | 0.0439 | 0.0137 | 0.0098 | 0.0976 | 0.09770 | 0.0210 |

PRESS | 0.3686 | 0.0361 | 0.0163 | 0.3530 | 0.0344 | 0.0156 |

Slope | 0.9978 | 0.9977 | 0.9981 | 0.9978 | 0.9977 | 0.9981 |

Intercept | 0.0318 | 0.0102 | 0.0063 | 0.0317 | 0.0102 | 0.0210 |

Calibration set Mean ± SD | 99.98 ± 0.77 | 99.98 ± 0.80 | 99.93 ± 0.76 | 99.99 ± 0.75 | 99.99 ± 0.78 | 99.89 ± 0.74 |

Validation set Mean ± SD | 99.99 ± 0.30 | 99.97 ± 0.33 | 99.98 ± 0.77 | 99.99 ± 0.32 | 99.97 ± 0.33 | 99.95 ± 0.30 |

Assay Mean ± SD | 99.85 ± 0.10 | 99.83 ± 0.10 | 99.98 ± 0.77 | 99.96 ± 0.10 | 99.83 ± 0.10 | 99.79 ± 0.18 |

Parameters | PCR | PLS | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

PAR | ACE | ES | PAR | ACE | ES | |

Sensitivity (mL µg ^{−1}) | 1.0022 | 1.0023 | 1.0019 | 1.0022 | 1.0023 | 1.0019 |

Analytical sensitivity γ^{−1} (µg mL ^{−1}) | 5.9337 | 5.5011 | 5.7088 | 5.9337 | 5.5011 | 5.7088 |

LOD (µg mL^{−1}) | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.58 | 0.56 | 0.60 | 0.58 |

LOQ (µg mL^{−1}) | 1.69 | 1.82 | 1.75 | 1.69 | 1.82 | 1.75 |

Description | Penalty Points | Total Penalty Points | Score |
---|---|---|---|

Phosphate buffer | 1 | 4 | 96 |

Instrument | 0 | ||

Occupational hazard | 0 | ||

Waste | 3 |

Drug | Description | Simultaneous Equation Method | Chemometrics Method | |
---|---|---|---|---|

PCR | PLS | |||

PAR | Label Claim (mg) | 325 | 325 | 325 |

C_{x} | 14.97 | 14.96 | 14.98 | |

Amount found(mg) | 324.46 | 324.41 | 324.52 | |

% Label Claim | 99.83 | 99.82 | 99.85 | |

ACE | Label Claim (mg) | 100 | 100 | 100 |

C_{y} | 4.59 | 4.58 | 4.59 | |

Amount found(mg) | 99.66 | 99.42 | 99.69 | |

% Label Claim | 99.66 | 99.42 | 99.69 | |

ES | Label Claim (mg) | 75 | 75 | 75 |

C_{z} | 3.43 | 3.43 | 3.45 | |

Amount found(mg) | 74.32 | 74.40 | 74.78 | |

% Label Claim | 99.09 | 99.20 | 99.71 |

_{X}, C

_{Y}, and C

_{Z}are the concentrations obtained for PAR, ACE, and ES, respectively.

Statistical Term | PAR | ACE | ES | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

Simultaneous Equation Method | Chemometrics Method | Simultaneous Equation Method | Chemometrics Method | Simultaneous Equation Method | Chemometrics Method | ||||

PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | PCR | PLS | ||||

Mean | 99.83 | 99.82 | 99.85 | 99.66 | 99.42 | 99.69 | 99.09 | 99.20 | 99.71 |

Mean ± S.D | 0.04 | 0.06 | 0.12 | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 0.38 | 0.21 | 0.16 |

n | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 |

F ratio | 0.13 | 4.31 | 4.58 | ||||||

Theoretical F values at (p = 0.05) | 5.14 | 5.14 | 5.14 |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Rathinam, S.; Karunanidhi Santhana, L.
Ecofriendly Simple UV Spectrophotometric and Chemometric Methods for Simultaneous Estimation of Paracetamol Aceclofenac and Eperisone Hydrochloride in Pharmaceutical Formulation: Assessment of Greenness Profile. *Processes* **2021**, *9*, 1272.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081272

**AMA Style**

Rathinam S, Karunanidhi Santhana L.
Ecofriendly Simple UV Spectrophotometric and Chemometric Methods for Simultaneous Estimation of Paracetamol Aceclofenac and Eperisone Hydrochloride in Pharmaceutical Formulation: Assessment of Greenness Profile. *Processes*. 2021; 9(8):1272.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081272

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Rathinam, Seetharaman, and Lakshmi Karunanidhi Santhana.
2021. "Ecofriendly Simple UV Spectrophotometric and Chemometric Methods for Simultaneous Estimation of Paracetamol Aceclofenac and Eperisone Hydrochloride in Pharmaceutical Formulation: Assessment of Greenness Profile" *Processes* 9, no. 8: 1272.
https://doi.org/10.3390/pr9081272