¹Faculty of Pharmaceutical Science, Mata Gujri College of Pharmacy,
Mata Gujri University, Kishanganj, Bihar, 855107, India

²Students of Pharmaceutical Science, Mata Gujri College of Pharmacy,
Mata Gujri University, Kishanganj, Bihar, 855107, India

Corresponding author email: jagjot.mgcop@gmail.com

Article Publishing History

INTRODUCTION

Pharmaceutical quality control must address inorganic contaminants present in pharmaceutical substances, particularly bulk drugs. Impurities such as chlorides, sulphates and iron may originate in raw materials, reagents, solvents or manufacturing equipment and, if left unmanaged, can have adverse consequences for product safety, efficacy and stability [1]. Inorganic contaminants, although present only in trace amounts, can produce unwanted reactions, changes to drug activity or toxic side-effects that must be properly estimated when conducting pharmaceutical analysis [2]. Compliance with pharmaceutical standards such as those detailed by IP, USP or International Council for Harmonisation guidelines must also be ensured for industry. These standards establish strict limits for inorganic impurities present in active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and excipients [3,4].

Controlling impurities is integral for regulatory approval as well as protecting both public health and product credibility. Traditional analytical techniques used for quantifying inorganic contaminants were gravity and volumetric analysis methods; although widely utilized, these can have limitations such as low sensitivity, operator dependency and time consumption [5] However, more recently nepheloturbidometry emerged as a rapid and reproducible solution to estimate trace contaminants when dealing with turbulent or colloidal systems [6].

Inorganic Contaminants in Bulk Drugs
Common Inorganic Impurities: Inorganic impurities, or non-carbon contaminants commonly encountered in pharmaceutical materials, may enter unknowingly during production, storage, and handling processes. Common examples are chlorides, sulfates, iron and heavy metals like palladium and platinum that remain after catalyst use [7]. While typically present only at trace amounts, inorganic impurities can significantly impair stability, efficacy and safety of drug products .

• Chlorides can enter drugs through hydrochloric acid or chloride-containing reagents. When present in excessive quantities, chlorides can corrode drug containers and interact negatively with drug molecules – this may compromise treatment processes as well as alter outcomes for users.
• Sulfates form when sulfuric acid or its salts are synthesized. They have the power to disrupt drug solubility and crystal growth [8].
• Iron contamination of equipment or water sources often results in corrosion of sensitive drug molecules for degradation by oxidation reactions that lead to their breakdown and eventually their degradation [9, 10, 12].

Regulatory Standards: International regulatory bodies like the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH), World Health Organization (WHO), as well as national pharmacopoeias such as Indian, United States Pharmacopeia (USP), and British pharmacopoeias provide guidelines that specify allowable levels and limits of inorganic impurities found in medicines.

The ICH Q3D guideline offers an inclusive framework for evaluating elemental impurities, with particular attention given to heavy metals, residual catalysts and potentially toxic elements such as heavy metals. It categorizes 24 elements according to their toxicity/likelihood of occurring and then specifies permissible daily exposure limits via oral, parenteral or inhalation routes [10]. Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022 edition provides specific limits for chlorides, sulphates, iron and heavy metals present in bulk drugs and excipients. Chlorine levels should not exceed 0.5% while 0.1% maximum of sulphates depending on substance under test may be permitted [11]. WHO and other regulatory authorities endorse stringent impurity profiling requirements for active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and excipients as part of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), to help ensure drug substances are suitable for long-term human use [12].

Sources of Contamination in Drug Synthesis and Storage: At various stages in drug manufacturing and postproduction handling, inorganic impurities may enter the process from sources. Examples may include:

Raw Materials and Reagents: Starting materials such as acids or bases may contain trace metal ions or inorganic salts that act as contaminants; impurities could also enter via solvents like water that have not been sufficiently purified [13].

Manufacturing Equipment: Stainless steel reactors, pipelines and mixing tanks may be used to leach iron, chromium and nickel into drug substances under acidic conditions with extended contact times [14].

Catalysts and Process Aids: Certain chemical synthesis processes utilise copper, palladium or platinum catalysts as formulation aids; should these remain present in their final product without proper removal [15], these could remain harmful components in it [16].

Storage and Packaging: Involvement with environmental elements like humidity, sunlight exposure or reactive containers may expose packaging materials to factors which cause leachable contaminants into them [16].

Conventional Analytical Methods: Estimating inorganic contaminants in pharmaceutical products has long relied upon traditional analytical techniques, including gravimetric, volumetric (titrimetric), colorimetric/spectrophotometric analyses. Although outdated in nature, such techniques remain essential tools in many quality control laboratories due to their cost efficiency, ease of implementation and historical reliability.

Gravimetric Analysis: Gravimetric analysis involves creating an insoluble precipitate of an analyte that is then filtered, dried and weighed to assess its concentration. For instance, chloride ions can form silver chloride precipitates while barium sulfate precipitations produces barium sulfate BaSO4 with mass directly correlating with its analytic presence [17].

Gravimetric methods offer excellent accuracy and precision; however, to operate smoothly they require strict control of experimental conditions including pH, temperature and completeness of precipitation [18]. Interferring ions may decrease selectivity for this technique as well.

Volumetric (Titrimetric) Analysis: Volumetric or titrimetric analysis involves mixing an analyte with an appropriate standard titrant until an endpoint has been met, typically after some period of reacting time has elapsed. Examples may include:

• Mohr or Volhard’s method for estimating chlorides by silver nitrate titration provides another reliable and accurate approach for measuring the levels of chlorides in solution. Complexometric titration with EDTA allows analysis of metal ions such as iron.
• Precipitation and redox titration techniques used in estimating sulphate and iron concentrations [5,11].
• Precipitation and redox titration techniques used in estimating sulphate and iron concentrations [5,11].

Volumetric analysis can be quick and relatively straightforward for routine laboratory applications; however, operator error may increase with color change endpoint detection or may lack the sensitivity necessary for precise trace-level quantification [19].

 Colorimetric and Spectrophotometric Techniques: These techniques involve creating colored complexes between an analyte and specific reagents which can then be measured either visually (colorimetry) or with instruments (spectrophotometry). Examples:

• Iron can be estimated using o-phenanthroline or thiocyanate compounds that produce colored complexes measurable at specific wavelengths [6].
• Sulphates can be measured turbidimetrically through interaction with barium chloride to form barium sulfate suspensions that allow measurement.

Gravimetric and volumetric methods offer greater sensitivity and automation capabilities compared to alternative techniques, yet require high purity reagents with results vulnerable to light scattering, turbidity or matrix effects [20].

Strengths and Limitations of Conventional Methods: Overall, conventional analytical techniques offer cost-effective and suitable ways of conducting qualitative to semiquantitative analyses in settings where advanced instrumentation is unavailable; however, these conventional practices have increasingly been supplemented or replaced with instrumental and automated technologies which offer greater precision, reproducibility, sensitivity (especially at trace impurity levels), reproducibility etc [21,22].

Table 1 Outlines The Strengths And Limitations Associated With Various Conventional
Analytical Methods For Inorganic Contamination Estimation.

Sl No	Method	Strengths	Limitations
1	Gravimetric	High accuracy, no need for calibration	Time-consuming, sensitive to interfering ions
2	Volumetric	Fast, simple, low-cost	Low sensitivity, subjective endpoints
3	Colorimetric	Moderate sensitivity, simple instrumentation	Affected by turbidity, interference from colors
3	Spectrophotometric	High sensitivity, quantitative	Requires calibration, affected by sample matrix

Conventional methods remain popular within academia, small industries and regulatory labs for both confirmatory testing as well as quality control purposes [23].

Nepheloturbidometric Method: Nepheloturbidometry is an instrumental analytical method widely utilized for quantitatively measuring suspended particles or precipitates present in solutions, providing a precise yet reproducible and cost-effective means of detecting inorganic contaminants such as chlorides, sulfates or iron compounds in pharmaceutical materials such as suspension suspension suspension suspension suspension or solutions.

Principle and Instrumentation: Nepheloturbidometry uses light scattered by suspended particles suspended in liquid to measure concentration levels of analytes such as BaSO4; when added as an analyte to samples containing these analytes using BaCl2, an insoluble precipitating agent such as BaCl2 precipitates fine particles which scatter light at specific angles – usually 90deg–resulting in proportionate light intensity related to concentration level [18, 19].

Nepheloturbidometry combines features from both types of measurements for improved detection across a wider concentration range [6].

Instrumentation typically consists of:

• A light source (usually a tungsten or LED lamp)
• A sample cell
• A photodetector placed at a right angle to the light source
• A readout system, often interfaced with software for calibration and quantification .

This method depends heavily on variables like particle size, light wavelength and sample clarity to achieve accurate analytes [5, 19].

 Application in Detection of Inorganic Contaminants:

• Nepheloturbidometry is used for quantifying various inorganic contaminants found in pharmaceutical products, such as:
• Chlorides may be measured by precipitating silver chloride with AgNO3 [11].
• Sulfates, identified through barium sulfate precipitation [24], may produce turbidity which reveals their identity [17].
• Finally, iron can often be identified indirectly via complex formation and precipitation reactions that involve ferric or ferrous ions [17].

This method of bulk drug analysis is especially suited for clarity-controlled solutions and particle behavior monitoring, making this an efficient approach to quality assurance of raw materials and finished products [20,22]. As it has become widely recommended in various pharmacopeial monographs for raw material testing as well as finished product quality checks [20,22], its value stands the test of time.

Advantages over Conventional Methods: Nepheloturbidometric techniques offer multiple advantages when compared to conventional analytical methods:

Table 2. Outlines The Advantages Of Employing Nepheloturbidometric
Method For Inorganic Contaminant Analysis.

Sl No	Advantage	Explanation
1	Higher Sensitivity	Can detect low levels of analytes (ppm or ppb range)
2	Faster Analysis	Shorter reaction and measurement time than gravimetric methods
3	Less Sample Preparation	Minimal heating or complex chemical reactions required
4	Automation-Friendly	Compatible with digital readouts, autosamplers, and software integration
5	Low Reagent Consumption	Requires small volumes, making it more economical

Nepheloturbidometry’s features make it an invaluable asset in environments involving large volumes or semiautomated workflow, including pharmaceutical industries and research labs [23].

 Limitations and Challenges: Notwithstanding its advantages, nepheloturbidometry presents several limitations:

• Interference from Colored or Opaque Samples: Solutions with strong hues may absorb light, interfering with measurements [25].
• Sensitivity to Particle Size and Aggregation: Variations in precipitate morphology can alter scattering behavior, producing nonlinear calibration curves.
• Requirement for Calibration and Standardization: This technique calls for precise preparation of standards; results may depend upon factors like light source, wavelength and cuvette cleanliness.
• Limited Use with Clear or Soluble Ions: Fully-dissolved species that do not form precipitates cannot be measured directly [26].

Temperature, pH and reagent purity all can have an effect on particle formation and light scattering; hence it is imperative that careful consideration be given when setting experimental conditions.

Comparative Evaluation of Methods: Assessing analytical techniques for quantifying inorganic contaminants requires taking a close look at various performance parameters. In this section we compare conventional (gravimetric, volumetric, spectrophotometric) to newer nepheloturbidometric methods in terms of sensitivities, precisions, costs, times-efficiencys and sample suitabilitys.

Sensitivity, Accuracy, and Precision: Sensitivity refers to a method’s ability to detect low concentrations of an analyte. Nepheloturbidometry typically offers greater sensitivity, with its detection capabilities reaching down into ppm or sub-ppm range – exceeding even gravimetric or basic titrimetric methods’ reach [5,18].

Gravimetric methods tend to be highly accurate due to mass measurement for analysis; volumetric methods may introduce subjectivity when endpoint detection takes place and thus reduce accuracy [7].

Precision in terms of results can generally be improved using instrument-based approaches like nepheloturbidometry and spectrophotometry, especially when combined with automation [19].

Table 3. Comparison of Analytical Techniques Based on Sensitivity, Accuracy, and Precision

Sl.No	Parameter	Gravimetric	Volumetric	Spectrophotometric	Nepheloturbidometric
1	Sensitivity	Low Moderate	Moderate	High	Very High
2	Accuracy	Very High	Moderate	High	High
3	Precision	High	Moderate	High	High

Time, Cost, and Ease of Operation: Analysis using gravity requires a significant amount of labor and is time-consuming and requires the filtration, drying and weighting that can require hours to complete [6]. Volumetric techniques can be a lot faster but are often constrained due to the manual process of titration and the possibility of errors by the operator [20].

Nepheloturbidometry provides rapid analysis (typically under 15 minutes per sample) and is therefore particularly suited to batch processing or automation, making it cost-effective even in large scale operations . Furthermore, less reagent is used and no drying or weighing steps are necessary – further cutting costs in larger operations [11].

Nepheloturbidometry may require greater initial equipment costs compared to more traditional glassware-based techniques; however, its long-term operational effectiveness often outweighs this [23].

Table 4. Comparison of Time, Cost, and Ease of Operation

Sl No	Parameter	Gravimetric	Volumetric	Nepheloturbidometric
1	Time requirement	High	Moderate	Low
2	Reagent cost	Moderate	Low	Low
3	Equipment cost	Low	Low	Moderate
4	Ease of operation	Low	Moderate	Low

Suitability for Different Sample Types: Conventional methods require clear, uncolored solutions with low viscousity for optimal performance. Volumetric analysis could fail with opaque or highly colored samples due to endpoint detection difficulties [25].

Gravimetric methods may not be ideal for low concentration analytes due to large sample sizes needed; on the contrary, nepheloturbidometry excels in analyzing dilute, turbid or colloidal solutions such as sulphate or chloride suspensions [24].

Nepheloturbidometry can also be advantageous when applied to samples where precipitate formation is key to analyte detection and visual changes such as cloudiness or turbidity are key analytical indicators [15].

However, very clear solutions or those without stable precipitates may not be suitable for direct nepheloturbidometric analysis [22].

Table 5. Evaluation of Analytical Techniques Based on Sample Characteristics

Sl. No	Sample Type	Gravimetric	Volumetric	Nepheloturbidometric
1	Turbid / Colloidal solutions	Moderate	Poor	Excellent
2	Colored solutions	Poor	Poor	Moderate (if corrected)
3	Clear aqueous solutions	Good	Good	Moderate
4	Low-concentration analytes	Poor	Moderate	Excellent

Application in Academic and Industrial Settings: Analytical methods used to detect inorganic contaminants like chlorides, sulphates and iron play an integral part in both academic research and industrial quality control (QC). Method selection depends upon regulatory compliance requirements, available resources and sample nature – this section discusses both conventional and nepheloturbidometric applications for both environments.

Analysis of Real Samples (Store and Industry Sources): Real-time analysis of samples collected from college drug stores and industrial partners at academic institutions like MGCOP College provides students and researchers with hands-on training in drug quality assessment. Such samples often consist of active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) and bulk drugs that could contain trace inorganic impurities due to synthetic procedures, solvents or storage conditions [27].

Example: Sulfate and chloride impurities found in industrial API samples are often evaluated using gravimetric or nephelometric techniques according to pharmaceutical guidance [11].

Iron contamination found in storage containers or processing equipment can often be detected using colorimetric or spectrophotometric techniques [5].

These analyses serve to confirm real world sample compliance with Indian Pharmacopoeia (IP) and International Council for Harmonisation (ICH Q3A/B) guidelines on elemental impurities [28].

Relevance of Each Method in Quality Control Labs: Industrial Quality Control Labs choose methods based on factors including speed, reproducibility, and compliance. Nepheloturbidometric analysis has become more and more preferred as an everyday method due to:

• Shorter analysis time
• Low reagent consumption and
• Compatibility with batch processing [18].

Validation methods rely upon legacy methodologies or Highly accurate weight-based data is needed Conventional methods continue to be utilized widely when: mes Instrumentation is unavailable, (for instance in gravimetric sulphate analysis) [6].

Quality Control labs often maintain method validation documentation that details linearity, precision and robustness when adopting novel instrument techniques such as nepheloturbidometry [23].

Integration into Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs): For any method to be successfully adopted consistently, it must be written into Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). This involves:

• Calibration of instruments such as nephelometers) Preparation of standard solutions, and
• Defined steps for addition, incubation and measurement [20].

Academic labs utilize Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) as part of training students and producing repeatable results, while in industries they are enforced under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), guaranteeing consistency across multiple production batches [29].

Nepheloturbidometric methods have become an integral component of medical monographs, encouraging their implementation into regulatory compliant standard operating procedures (SOPs) across academic and industrial settings.

Future Prospects and Recommendations: Pharmaceutical analysis has evolved in response to increasing demands for greater sensitivity, precision, regulatory compliance and cost-effectiveness. While traditional and nepheloturbidometric methods have long been relied upon for bulk drug contamination detection purposes, modern developments favor automation hybrid instrumentation standardization techniques as future directions of pharmaceutical quality control techniques. This section features such methodologies.

Emerging Techniques (e.g., Hybrid Methods, Automation): Integrating hybrid methods, which combine traditional and contemporary instrumental techniques to their maximum advantage, has become an emerging trend. One such example is coupling turbidimetric detection with spectrophotometric data analysis for increased both sensitivity and selectivity [30], while chemometric-assisted nephelometry has proven helpful for multicomponent analysis in complex matrices [31].

Automation is also becoming an essential aspect of analysis. Automated nephelometers with software-based calibration, data logging, and quality control checks have now made their debut in both academic and industrial lab environments [32], providing high throughput analysis without human error compromising reproducibility or increasing throughput rates .

Microfluidic platforms and lab-on-a-chip devices are being investigated as tools for on-site turbidimetric analysis in remote or field settings [33].

Need for Method Validation and Standardization: Method validation remains vital to ensure accuracy, precision, linearity and robustness in new techniques; validation should comply with ICH Q2(R1) guidelines which define parameters such as limit of detection (LOD), limit of quantitation (LOQ), specificity and system suitability [34].

Many laboratories, particularly academic institutions, still lack standardization of nepheloturbidometric protocols. Differences in instrument sensitivity, reagent quality and operator handling may result in inconsistent results; hence there is a growing demand to standardize such processes: Develop uniform Standard Operating Procedures, conduct inter-laboratory validations, and publish peer-reviewed performance comparisons between classical and modern methodologies [11, 20].

Potential Improvements in Current Practices:

1. Instrument Calibration: For consistent analysis, regular instrument calibration with pharmaceutical reference standards such as chloride, sulfate and iron is crucial [35].
2. Training and Capacity Building: Both academic and industrial labs should invest in technical training programs dedicated to modern analytical instrumentation as well as regulatory updates.
3. Eco-Friendly Practices: Subtlety reduction through eco-friendly analytical chemistry techniques such as miniaturized reagent systems and water-based reactions can increase sustainability during analysis [36].
4. Data Integration and Digitalization: Integrating instruments with Laboratory Information Management Systems (LIMS) will streamline processes and allow faster decision-making within Quality Control environments.

These steps will not only advance current practices but will also promote global harmonization of analytical methods used for bulk drug contaminant analyses.

CONCLUSION

The accurate estimation of inorganic contaminants like chlorides, sulfates and iron in bulk drugs is of vital importance in assuring their safety, efficacy and regulatory compliance. This review compares traditional analytical techniques such as gravimetric, volumetric, and spectrophotometric approaches with the more popularly adopted nepheloturbidometric technique. Standard techniques offer ease of use and historical reliability; however, their results tend to take more time for analysis, require operator intervention for implementation, and offer less sensitivity at trace levels than their alternatives. Nepheloturbidometry provides rapid, sensitive and reproducible results making it ideal for quality control in academic and industrial laboratories alike. Implementation requires instrumentation as well as standard protocols and validation – especially in resource constrained situations. Nepheloturbidometry should become even more integrated into standard quality control workflows as new advances emerge in automation, hybrid techniques and green analytical practices. As with any analytical method selection decision, selecting one ideally should depend on several considerations such as sample type, regulatory requirements, available infrastructure and required sensitivity. A balanced and validated approach incorporating both traditional and instrumental approaches may ensure high standards for safety and quality in drugs.

REFERENCES

1. Patel PM, Suhagia BN, Patel MM, Shah SA. Estimation of inorganic impurities in pharmaceuticals: an overview. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2013;4(6):2179–85.
2. Ahuja S, Alsante K. Handbook of Isolation and Characterization of Impurities in Pharmaceuticals. 1st ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2003.
3. Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022. Vol. 1–3. Ghaziabad: IPC; 2022.
4. International Council for Harmonisation (ICH). ICH Q3D(R1): Guideline for Elemental Impurities. Geneva: ICH; 2019.
5. Willard HH, Merritt LL, Dean JA, Settle FA. Instrumental Methods of Analysis. 7th ed. New Delhi: CBS Publishers; 1986.
6. Skoog DA, Holler FJ, Crouch SR. Principles of Instrumental Analysis. 6th ed. Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole; 2007.
7. Patel PM, Suhagia BN. Estimation of inorganic impurities in pharmaceuticals: an overview. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2013;4(6):2179–85.
8. Allen LV. Ansel’s Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms and Drug Delivery Systems. 11th ed. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer; 2020.
9. Loftsson T, Brewster ME. Pharmaceutical applications of cyclodextrins: effects on drug permeation through biological membranes. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2011;63(9):1119–35.
10. International Council for Harmonisation. ICH Q3D(R1) Guideline for Elemental Impurities. Geneva: ICH; 2019.
11. Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission. Indian Pharmacopoeia 2022. Vol 1–3. Ghaziabad: IPC; 2022.
12. World Health Organization. WHO guidelines for assessing quality of pharmaceutical products. Geneva: WHO; 2016.
13. Skoog DA, West DM, Holler FJ, Crouch SR. Fundamentals of Analytical Chemistry. 9th ed. Boston: Cengage Learning; 2014.
14. Halls J, Snodin D. Metal contamination of pharmaceuticals and personal care products. Pharm Technol Eur. 2010;22(11):28–32.
15. Alsante KM, Ando A, Brown R, Ensing J, Hatajik TD, Kong W, et al. The role of degradant profiling in active pharmaceutical ingredients and drug products. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2007;59(1):29–37.
16. Joshi V, Mehta P. Pharmaceutical Packaging Technology: A Review. PharmaTutor. 2017;5(4):20–8.
17. Vogel AI. Vogel’s Textbook of Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2000.
18. Harris DC. Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 9th ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company; 2016.
19. Christian GD. Analytical Chemistry. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
20. Ahuja S, Scypinski S. Handbook of Modern Pharmaceutical Analysis. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press; 2010.
21. Bansal AK, DeStefano AJ. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for small molecules. AAPS J. 2007;9(1):E109–14.
22. Dybowski C, Fraenkel G. Applications of Spectroscopic Techniques in Pharmaceutical Analysis. J Pharm Sci. 2015;104(5):1565–75.
23. Shrivastava A, Gupta VB. Methods for the determination of limit of detection and limit of quantitation of the analytical methods. Chron Young Sci. 2011;2(1):21–5.
24. Bansal AK, DeStefano AJ. Key elements of bioanalytical method validation for small molecules. AAPS J. 2007;9(1):E109–14.
25. Martin A, Bustamante P, Chun AHC. Physical Pharmacy: Physical Chemical Principles in the Pharmaceutical Sciences. 4th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2002.
26. Higuchi T, Brochmann-Hanssen E. Pharmaceutical Analysis. In: Remington: The Science and Practice of Pharmacy. 21st ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
27. Vogel AI. Vogel’s Textbook of Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 6th ed. Harlow: Pearson Education; 2000.
28. ICH. Q3A(R2) Impurities in New Drug Substances. International Council for Harmonisation; 2006.
29. WHO. Quality Assurance of Pharmaceuticals: A Compendium of Guidelines and Related Materials. Vol 2. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2007.
30. Kumar A, Bansal V. Hybrid analytical techniques in pharmaceutical analysis: A review. Pharm Anal Acta. 2018;9(4):1000593.
31. Barman RK, Mazumder B. Chemometric assisted UV-spectrophotometric and nephelometric techniques for simultaneous estimation of pharmaceuticals. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2016;7(6):2454–62.
32. Shrivastava A, Gupta VB. Methods for the determination of limit of detection and limit of quantitation. Chron Young Sci. 2011;2(1):21–5.
33. Belder D, Radtke G, Demming S. Microfluidic systems in chemical analysis: Current developments. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2016;408(13):3275–84.
34. Q2(R1): Validation of analytical procedures: Text and methodology. International Council for Harmonisation; 2005.
35. United States Pharmacopeia and National Formulary (USP 43–NF 38). Rockville: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 2020.
36. Gałuszka A, Migaszewski ZM, Namieśnik J. The 12 principles of green analytical chemistry. TrAC Trends Anal Chem. 2013;50:78–84.