Air Pollution Tolerence Index, Anticipated Performance Index of plants studied near selected sites at Salem, Dharmapuri District

 

 M. Krishnaveni¹, M . Saran Kumar², G. Anithasri², S. Nanthini², K .Gowsalya², P. Devayani², P. Karuppuchamy², V. Vijay²

¹Assistant Professor, Department of Biochemistry, Periyar University, Salem-11.

²M.Sc Students, Department of Biochemistry, Periyar University, Salem-11.

 

ABSTRACT:

Air pollution due to huge number of vehicles emitting toxic gas poisons both living environment affecting fauna and flora. Road side plants are affected mostly by pollution as they are primary acceptors and gets reflected in terms of tolerance and sensitivity to pollution. Hence, the present work was designed to study the air pollution tolerance (APTI) using biochemical parameters and anticipated performance index (API) of the plants collected near seven different locations. Among the plants assessed, all plants selected does not show much difference in ascorbic acid, total chlorophyll, pH, relative water content, but that slight difference exhibited variations in air pollution tolerance index. Pongamia pinnata (33.16), Ficus religiosa (34.05) Near Asian rubber Industry, Kandampatty Byepass, Salem was found to be a tolerant species, Polyalthia longifolia (8.21) as very sensitive in plants studied Near KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. Kottagoundampatty, Salem, and the rest was found to be moderately tolerent. Since, the studied plants show lesser surface area, the amount of dust collected was also less, which might be due to the climatic condition prevailed at that time of sample collection. Likewise, the API was found to be excellent in Yercaud lake view and very good in study area Duroflex company, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri, poor in study area Thanithotty Quarry, Salem as well as in KMB granites Pvt.Ltd. and good for the remaining three locations. So, the sensitive plants has to be protected that are  located in these sites to reduce the pollution load.

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

Plants are the natural source to reduce air pollution by retaining carbon dioxide. Plant leaves exhibiting different surface area show adsorbtion, absorption of air pollutants and dust particles. Plant leaves are first subjected to physiological changes as they have the potential of accumulating pollutants, dusts before getting damaged, which depicts their tolerance, sensitivity nature as well as in improving the air quality via gas exchange and also act as a natural filters to minimize air pollution.

 

The physiological changes in plants brought out by exposure to air pollutants, dusts induce changes in biochemical parameters, which vary from plant to plant, type of pollutants they are exposed to and also duration, climatic condition, location, developmental stage etc. Since, the plants are continuously exposed to atmospheric pollution, as a natural mechanism to protect themselves from any damage/stress, they produce or accumulate antioxidants in order to maintain a balance. Plants possess inherent antioxidants because of their innate capacity to secrete low molecular weight secondary metabolites such as phenolic acids, flavonoids as well as tannin of high molecular weight. These antioxidants function as buffers for redox system maintenance, aids plant defense system and also stimulates plant growth and development by regulating the oxidation of biomolecules that are essential to be free from damage as well as to survive in the fluctuating environment which in-turn increases free radical generation from pollution. Among the several different environmental stress factors that causes oxidative damage is pollution from vehicular and industrial load. Hence, the present study was planned to study the air pollution tolerance index, anticipated performance index for the plants selected near the study area and their co-ordinates (Fig. 1, 2, 3): Asian rubber Industry, Kandampatty Byepass, Salem

 

(Lat.11 39'04.71"N,Lon.78 07'21.68"E); KMBGranites PVT. LTD., Kottagoundampatty, Salem (Lat.11 43'7.41"N, Lon.78 4'16.55"E); Balajirubberindustry, Rasipuram, Namakkal (Lat.11 27^’26.65”N, Lon.78 11’25.75”E); JSW Steel PVT. LTD, Mecheri, Salem (Lat.11 49'25.21"N, Lon.78 12'37.18"E); Quarry, Thannithotti, Salem (Lat.11 43'50.17"N, Lon.78 4'33.64"E); LakeView, Yercaud, Salem (Lat.11 47'1.53"N, Lon.78 12'37.18"E); Duroflexcompany, Karimangalam, Dharmapuri (Lat.12 18^’5.74”N, Lon.78 14’6.70”E). Their short forms represent the following: Lon.- longitude; Lat.- latitude; E-east; N-north; -degree;‘-minutes;’’- seconds, in and around Salem, Krishnagiri Districts of Tamil Nadu, India. The following plants were collected and studied from seven different places: Ricinus communis, Muntingia calabura, Pongamia pinnata, Wrightia tinctoria, Ficus religiosa, Thespesia populnea, Polyalthia longifolia, Saraca asoca, Senna siamea, Phyllanthus reticulates, Tecoma stans, Syzygium cumini, Artocarpus heterophyllus, Ficus carcia, Psidium guajava, Avocado, Pisum sativam, Phyllanthus emblica, Mangifera indica.

 

Fig.1, 2 and 3 Showing seven different study area

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Leaf sample collection:

After a regular assessment in the specific sites, the plants in common were selected and every day fresh leaves picked, took to laboratory for work during the month of Dec. 2018 to March. 2019. All the selected plants were identified though google search as they were common.

 

Extract preparation:

Aqueous extract was prepared from the fresh leaves on each day

 

Air pollution tolerance index assessment via Biochemical parameters:

Leaf Area:

Calculated by measuring with scale the leaf length and width. Formula: Leaf Area= leaf length×leaf width

 

Dust Accumulated:

Dust collected by leaf was calculated by formula :Leaf with dust - Leaf without dust/ Leaf Area.

 

Ascorbic acid:

Ascorbic acid was studied as per Sadasivam et.al., 1987¹. Extracted ascorbic acid with 4% oxalic acid using 500mg fresh leaf. Titrated against 2, 6, dichlorophenolindophenol dye. Observed for a permanent pale pink color. Performed a blank also.

 

Total chlorophyll:

Total chlorophyll was studied as per Arnon et.al., 1949.² Extracted chlorophyll with 10ml 80% acetone using 500mg fresh leaves, kept aside for 15min. Decanted the supernatant into another test tube, added acetone and centrifuged at 2,500 rpm for 3min. Repeated the extraction until the sediment becomes white. Measured the absorbance at 645,663nm using Schimadzu Spectrophotometer model UV 1800.The formulae usedfor calculation was :Chlorophyll a= 12.7 (A663)–2.69(A645)Chlorophyll b=22.9(A645)–4.68(A663)Total chlorophyll Content = 20.2 (A645) + 8.02 (A663).

 

pH Analysis:

pH was analysed using digital pH meter after homogenizing 5g of fresh leaves in 10ml deionized water, filtering.³

 

Relative water content:

Relative water content was analysed as per Singh et.al., 1997.⁴ Measured the weight of fresh leaves, then immersed in water overnight, blotted dry on next day, weighed (turgid weight), dried overnight in an oven at 70˚ C, reweighed (dry weight).The formulae used was: RWC=(WF-WD)×100/(WT-WD) Where, WF-Fresh weight, WD-Dry weight,WT-Turgid weight

Air pollution tolerance index assay:

Calculated as per Singh and Rao(1983)³ using the formula : APTI= [A (T+P) + R] /10.Where: A=Ascorbic acid content (mg/gm), T=Total chlorophyll (mg/gm),P=pH of the leaf extract, R=Relative water content of leaf (%).

 

Anticipated Performance Index (API):

API was calculated by combining APTI values along with few biological,socio-economic parameters such as habitat, shade structure, sort of plant, laminar structure, profit. Each feature will be given either + / - by comparing with the standard grades.Each selected study site was graded.^5,6,7 The formulae used was

 

                                   Number of + obtained

Anticipated = ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– X 100

                                          Total number of +

 

Stastical tool:

The Mean and Standard deviation (S) was calculated by using the following formula:

 

Mean = Sum of x values / N (Number of values)

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Table. 1 Showing Leaf area and Dust Collected for the plants studied

Botanical Name	Leaf area (m2)	Dust Collected (mg/g)
Near Asian rubber Industry, Kandampatty Byepass, Salem
Ricinus communis	2.38±1.31	0.21±0.13
Muntingia calabura	0.23±0.03	0.34±0.028
Pongamia pinnata	0.44±0.10	0.17±0.00
Wrightia tinctoria	0.63±0.07	0.13±0.11
Ficus religiosa	1.48±0.17	0.47±0.02
Thespesia populnea	0.81±0.46	0.77±0.65
Near KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. Kottagoundampatty, Salem
Muntinga calabura	0.23±0.17	0.11±0.07
Ricinus communics	4.50±1.14	0.06±0.03
Wrightia tinctoria	0.73±0.1	0.12±0.15
Pongamia pinnata	0.65±0.14	0.59±0.55
Ficus religosia	1.62±1.32	0.17±0.2
Polyalthia longifolia	0.14±0.01	0.03±0.1
Near Balaji rubber industry,Rasipuram,Namakkal
Muntingia calabura	33.0±0.07	0.04±0.02
Pongamia pinnata	0.49±0.07	0.04±0.01
Wrightia tinctoria	1.07±0.09	0.01±0.01
Ricinus communis	1.72±0.23	0.02±0.01
Saraca asoca	0.87±0.13	0.01±0.01
Near JSW Steel Pvt. Ltd, Mecheri, Salem
Senna siamea	0.09±0.01	0.02±0.00
Phyllanthus reticulatus	0.01±0.00	0.01±0.00
Tecoma stans	0.24±0.02	0.01±0.00
Terminalia catappa	3.52±0.02	0.01±0.00
Syzygium cumini	1.01±0.05	0.01±0.00
Thespesia populnea	1.01±0.12	0.09±0.05
Near Quarry,Thannithotti, Salem
Muntingia calabura	0.32±0.20	00.02±0.01
Ricinus communics	1.30±0.00	23.33±0.81
Pongamia pinnata	0.68±0.00	00.05±0.07
Ficus religiosa	0.72±0.06	00.05±0.07
Wrightia tinctoria	0.88±0.04	00.31±0.48
Near Lake View, Yercaud, Salem
Artocarpus heterophyllus	1.21±0.10	0.05±0.01
Ficus carcia	8.53±1.49	0.03±0.01
Psidium guajava	0.32±0.03	0.02±0.01
Syzygium cumini	0.74±0.06	0.02±0.01
Avocado	3.40±0.46	0.04±0.01
Pisum sativam	0.28±0.04	0.01±0.00
Near Duroflex company Karimangalam,Dharmapuri
Mutingia calabura	0.38±0.02	0.09±0.08
Phyllanthus emblica	0.16±0.02	0.04±0.02
Mangifera indica	0.70±0.03	0.48±0.78
Pal indigo	0.60±0.13	0.09±0.06
RicinusCommunis	0.50±0.07	0.17±0.27

 

Values are Mean±SD for three experiments:

Table. 1 Shows the results of leaf area and dust collected. According to the results obtained pertaining to the leaf area, no hypothesis is observed between leaf area and dust collection. Because, leaf having larger/moderate surface area also showed less dust accumulation. Balaji rubber industry: Muntingia calabura (33.0±0.07m²/0.04±0.02mg/g), Ricinus communis (1.72±0.23m²/0.02±0.01mg/g), Wrightia tinctoria (1.07±0.09m²/0.01±0.01mg/g) KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd.: Ricinus communis (4.50±1.14m²/ 0.06±0.03mg/g), Ficus religosia (1.62±1.32m²/ 0.17±0.2mg/g) Asian rubber Industry: Ricinus communis (2.38±1.31m²/0.21±0.13mg/g), Ficus religiosa (1.48±0.17m²/0.47±0.02mg/g), JSW Steel Pvt. Ltd.: Terminalia catappa (3.52±0.02m²/0.01±0.008mg/g), Syzygium cumini (1.01±0.05m²/0.01± 0.00mg/g), Thespesia populnea (1.01±0.12m²/0.09±0.05mg/g) Lake View: Ficus carcia (8.53±1.49m² /0.03± 0.01 mg/g), Avocado (3.40±0.46m²/0.04±0.01mg/g), Artocarpus heterophyllus (1.21±0.10m²/0.05±0.01mg/g) and only Ricinus communics near Quarry, Thannithotti exhibited moderate leaf area and higher dust accumulation (1.30±0.00m²/23.33±0.81mg/g). All the other plants demonstrates lesser leaf area and lesser dust accumulation ranging from 0.14±0.01m²/0.03±0.10mg/ g to 0.88±0.04m² to 00.31±0.48mg/g.

 

Table.2 Air pollution tolerance Index of plants selected near selected study area

Botanical name	Ascorbic acid (mg/g)	Total Chlo rophyll (mg/g)	pH	RWC (%)	APTI
Near Asian rubber Industry, Kandampatty Byepass, Salem
Ricinus communis	25.60±1.11	0.24±0.05	6.13±0.00	69.66±03.50	23.27
Muntingia calabura	24.00±0.40	0.80±0.55	6.02±0.00	48.33±11.23	21.20
Pongamia pinnata	36.80±10.0	0.62±0.03	6.50±0.00	69.66±02.50	33.16
Wrightia tinctoria	20.46±0.28	0.30±0.17	6.36±0.00	63.66±03.90	19.99
Ficus religiosa	37.30±1.00	0.20±0.08	6.82±0.00	78.66±27.53	34.05
Thespesia populnea	18.66±0.50	0.56±0.07	6.22±0.00	84.33±05.50	20.09
Near KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. Kottagoundampatty, Salem
Muntingia calabura	22.4±1.0	1.30±1.18	6.00±0.00	31.60±2.10	19.50
Ricinus communis	09.6±1.2	1.33±1.10	6.92±0.00	38.30±3.05	11.50
Wrightia tinctoria	09.8±1.8	1.68±0.57	6.17±0.00	53.00±1.70	12.89
Pongamia pinnata	19.0±0.31	2.15±1.61	6.10±0.01	05.43±1.52	21.31
Ficus religiosa	11.2±0.50	0.65±0.42	6.67±0.00	45.00±1.52	12.69
Polyalthia longifolia	10.6±0.90	0.97±0.76	6.17±0.00	05.43±1.52	08.21
Near Balaji Rubber Industry, Rasipuram
Muntingia calabura	18.2±1.66	1.43±0.10	6.22±0.00	31.6±2.82	17.08
Pongamia pinnata	18.2±1.70	1.21±0.50	6.25±0.00	35.6±4.20	17.13
Wrightia tinctoria	08.4±0.31	1.10±0.17	6.39±0.00	62.66±3.4	12.55
Ricinus communis	08.4±0.20	1.15±0.15	6.44±0.00	53.0±3.00	11.67
Saraca asoca	23.0±0.60	2.39±0.37	6.42±0.00	62.3±3.05	26.44
Near JSW Steel Pvt. Ltd, Mecheri, Salem
Senna siamea	20.4±1.20	0.30±0.07	7.03±0.01	70±4.5	21.89
Phyllanthus reticulates	24.8±1.60	0.60±0.15	6.90±0.01	81±3.6	26.70
Tecoma stans	24.0±4.00	0.20±0.07	7.25±0.00	61±4.5	23.86
Terminalia catappa	17.6±2.00	0.90±0.17	6.95±0.00	66±4.5	20.32
Syzygium cumini	29.2±1.60	0.40±0.07	6.00±0.00	71±4.5	25.78
Near Quarry,Thannithotti, Salem
Muntingia calabura	18.06±0.28	1.17±0.52	6.15±0.01	25.00±3.00	10.17
Ricinus communis	11.40±0.60	0.13±0.01	6.60±0.00	54.00±1.58	14.33
Pongamia pinnata	14.46±1.01	0.21±0.08	6.18±0.00	12.33±2.51	10.16
Ficus religiosa	11.60±0.60	0.97±0.43	6.73±0.01	34.00±3.55	24.91
Wrightia tinctoria	28.80±3.01	1.01±0.50	6.46±0.00	62.30±3.05	26.44
Near Lake View, Yercaud, Salem
Artocarpus heterophyllus	16.5±1.7	1.2±0.0	6.4±0.0	53.3±5.7	17.90
Ficus carcia	22.9±1.8	1.4±0.1	7.0±0.0	43.3±5.7	23.70
Psidium guajava	16.5±4.2	1.3±0.4	6.5±0.0	50.0±3.8	17.90
Syzygium cumini	22.9±3.3	1.4±0.2	6.0±0.0	53.3±5.7	22.30
Avocado	19.6±9.0	1.3±0.4	6.5±0.0	66.6±5.6	22.20
PisumSativam	16.0±4.7	1.3±0.6	6.5±0.0	66.6±5.7	19.20
Near Duroflex company Karimangalam, Dharmapuri
Mutingia calabura	25.8±0.31	0.39±0.12	6.39±0.00	45.66±4.03	22.05
Phyllanthus embica	28.6±2.80	0.47±0.09	6.36±0.00	92.60±2.51	28.85
Mangifera indica	12.8±0.80	2.36±2.40	6.23±0.00	78.30±2.08	18.82
Wrightia tinctoria	13.0±2.60	0.39±0.17	6.15±0.00	85.60±3.05	17.06
Ricinus communis	13.2±0.40	0.31±0.26	6.36±0.00	66.33±1.52	15.43

Values are Mean ±SD for three experiments

 

Table.2 presents the results of Air pollution tolerance index of the studied plants obtained by synergising with biochemical parameters.Asian rubber Industry:Ricinus communis (25.60±1.11mg/g/69.66±03.50%), Muntingiacalabura (24.00±0.40mg/g/48.33±11.23%), Pongamia pinnata (36.80±10.0mg/g/69.66±02.50%), Wrightia tinctoria (20.46±0.28mg/g/63.66±03.90%), Ficus religiosa (37.30±1.00mg/g/78.66±27.53%), Thespesia populnea (18.66±0.50mg/g/84.33±05.50%) showed increased ascorbic acid/RWC.And pH observed in plants was in the range of 6.02±0.00 to 6.82±0.00. Similarly, Total chlorophyll was very low ranging from 0.20±0.08mg/g to 0.80±0.55mg/g in the studied plants. KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. Ricinus communis (22.4±1.0mg/g/31.6±2.10%), Muntingia calabura (22.4±1.0mg/g/31.6±2.10%), Pongamia pinnata (19.0±0.31mg/g/5.43±1.52%), Wrightia tinctoria, Ficus religiosa (11.2±0.5mg/g/45.0±1.52%), Polyalthia longifolia (10.6±0.90mg/g/5.43±1.52%) presented moderate ascorbic acid and RWC.pH observed in plants falls in 6.02±0.00 to 6.82±0.00 range. Total chlorophyll in plants was moderate from 1.30±1.18mg/g to 2.15±1.61mg/g except Polyalthia longifolia (0.97±0.76mg/g) Ficus religiosa (0.65±0.42mg/g). Balaji Rubber Industry Ricinus communis (08.4±0.2mg/g/53.0±3.00%), Muntingiacalabura (18.2±1.66mg/g/31.6±2.82%), Pongamiapinnata (18.2±1.70mg/g/35.6±4.20%), Wrightia tinctoria (08.4±0.20mg/g/62.66±3.4%), Saraca asoka (11.2±0.50mg/g/23.0±0.60mg/g/62.3±3.05%). Total chlorophyll ranges from 1.10±0.17 to 2.39±0.37mg/g. pH from 6.22±0.00 to 6.44±0.00. Similar results were reported in the plants studied near JSW Steel Pvt. Ltd, Quarry, Thannithotti, Salem (exhibit low relative water content), Duroflex company and Lake view Yercaud, but yercaud shows higher chlorophyll content. The air pollution tolerance index of the studied plants at different location was ranging from 08.21 to 34.05. Lakshmi et.al 2009 ⁸reports, that APTI value of 30-100 as tolerant species, 29-17 as intermediate, 16-1sensitive, <1 very sensitive. Comparing the obtained results with standard, majority of the plants were found to be moderately tolerant as the APTI values falls between 17 to29. Only Pongamia pinnata (33.16), Ficus religiosa (34.05) was tolerant and very few like Ricinus communis (11.67, 14.33, 15.43), Wrightia tinctoria (12.55), Muntingia calabura (10.17), Pongamia pinnata (10.16) was identified as sensitive species and Polyalthia longifolia (8.21) alone as very sensitive species. In general highly polluted areas show reduced chlorophyll content.⁹ Decreased chlorophyll shows lesser productivity, poor vigor in plants. So, plants having lower chlorophyll in polluted environment are tolerant to pollution according to Singh and Verma 2007.¹⁰ High RWC favors drought resistance in plants.¹¹

 

Table. 3 Grading characters of the plants studied near study locations for Anticipated Performance Index Calculation along with standards

 

Table. 3 shows the parameters taken for the calculation of anticipated performance index. The considered characters for the plants at the study location was air pollution tolerance index, biological and socio economic aspects like Plant Habitate, Shape, Deciduous/Evergreen and also Laminar structure like Size, Morphology, Delineate/Hardy and uses of plants. Based on the information recorded from the study area , the grades (+/-) were given and the obtained grades were totalled, scored and given assessment category by comparing with their standards (Table.4). From the results, the plants collected Near Lake View, Yercaud, Salem was excellent, and plants collected Near Duroflex company Karimangalam, Dharmapuri was found to be very good, while, plants collected Near Asian Rubber Industries Near JSW Steel plant Pvt. Ltd. was good and the remaining two locations were poor.

 

Table 4: Standard grading chart of plant species and their  assessment category

Grade	Score (%)	Assessment category
0	Upto 30	Not recommended
1	31-40	Very poor
2	41-50	Poor
3	51-60	Moderate
4	61-70	Good
5	71-80	Very good
6	81-90	Excellent
7	91-100	Best

 

CONCLUSION:

The results of the present study showed good ascorbic, reduced chlorophyll, moderate relative water content in almost all the sites studied and the observed pH was 6.  All these biochemical parameters were helpful  in the air pollution tolerance index calculation. The air pollution tolerance index was  found to be  moderately tolerant for most of the plants studied in different locations, only Pongamia pinnata and Ficus religiosa was tolerant to air pollution and Ricinus communis from three locations, Wrightia tinctoria, Muntingia calabura, Pongamia pinnata was sensitive species reported and Polyalthia longifolia from KMB Granites Pvt. Ltd. was very sensitive species to air pollution. So, the results of the present study concludes, as a suggestive measure, more tolerant species could be planted in the specific location to  protect the sensitive plants in that particular location as well as to increase the withstanding capacity of plants towards air pollution.

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

The author wishes to acknowledge Former Vice Chancellor  Periyar University Prof. T. Balakrishnan Avl. as well as Former Vice Chancellor Bharathiyar University and Periyar University Prof. Dr. C. Swaminathan Avl. and also my family.

 

REFERENCE:

1.      Sadasivam, S, Balasubraminan T. In: Practical Manual in Biochemistry. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore,14. 1987.

2.      Arnon DI. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts polyphenol oxidase in Beta Vulgaris, Plant Physiol. 1983; 24(1):1-15.

3.      Singh, S.K, Rao, DN. Evaluation of plants for their tolerance to air pollution, In:Proceedings Symposiumon Air Pollution Control. Indian Association for Air Pollution Control, New Delhi, India.1983; 1: 218-224.

4.      Singh A. Practical Plant Physiology. New Delhi: Kalyari Publishers; 1977.

5.      Tsega YC, Prasad AGD. Variation in air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index of roadside plants in Mysore, India. J. Env. Bio. 2014; 35:185.

6.      Prajapati SK, Tripathi BD. Anticipated Performance Index of some tree species considered for green belt development in and around an urban area: A case study of Varanasi city. J. Environ. Manag .2008; 88: 1343-49.

7.      Govindraju M, Ganeshkumar RS, Muthukumaran VR, Visvanathan P. (2011). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2011; 19(4):1210.

8.      Lakshmi PS, Sravanti, Srinivas N. Air pollution tolerance index of various plant species growing in industrial areas. Ecoscan.2009; 2: 203-206.

9.      Lakshmikantha Panda LR, Aggarwal RK, Bharadwaj DR. A review on air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index. Current World Environment. 2018; 13(1): 55-65.

10.   Singh SN, Verma A. Phytoremediation of Air Pollutants: A Review. In: Environmental Bioremediation Technology, Singh, SN. and Tripathi RD(Eds.). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2007; 293-314.

11.   Seyyednjad SM, Majdian K, Koochak H, Niknejad M. Air Pollution Tolerance Indices of Some Plants Around Industrial Zone in South of Iran. Asian Journal of Biological Sciences, 2011; 4: 300-305.

 

 

Accepted on 11.11.2020           © RJPT All right reserved

Research J. Pharm. and Tech 2021; 14(11):5931-5936.