Functionalized Fe₃O₄ Magnetic Nanoparticle Potentiometric Detection Strategy versus Classical Potentiometric Strategy for Determination of Chlorpheniramine Maleate and Pseudoephedrine HCl

Table 7

Statistical comparison between the results obtained by the proposed sensors and the reported method for the determination of CPM and PSE in pure form.

Parameter		Mean^a	SD	Variance		t test	F test
CPM	Sensor 1	100.04	0.886	0.785	4	0.484 (2.36^b)	1.445 (9.12^b)
	Sensor 2	99.89	0.783	0.613	4	0.265 (2.36^b)	1.850 (9.12^b)
	Sensor 3	99.97	1.068	1.141	6	0.384 (2.26^b)	1.006 (6.26^b)
	Reported method [23]^c	99.72	1.065	1.134	5
PSE	Sensor 4	100.06	0.897	0.804	4	0.943 (2.36^b)	1.271 (9.12^b)
	Sensor 5	100.12	1.256	1.577	5	0.944 (2.31^b)	1.543 (6.39^b)
	Sensor 6	100.01	1.026	1.052	7	0.951 (2.23^b)	1.029 (6.16^b)
	Reported method [23]^c	99.45	1.011	1.022	5

^aAverage of six determinations; ^bfigures between parentheses represent the corresponding tabulated values of t and F at ; ^creported HPLC method using C18 column, flow rate 1.5 mL·min⁻¹, mobile phase is a gradient elution of acetonitrile:phosphate buffer (15 : 85, v/v) for 5.5 min, (45 : 55, v/v) for 5.5–12 min, and (60 : 40, v/v) for 12–17 min at pH = 3 and UV detection at 220 nm.