4.7 Article

Study of viscoelastic, sorption and mucoadhesive properties of selected polymer blends for biomedical applications

Journal

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR LIQUIDS
Volume 361, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.molliq.2022.119623

Keywords

Mucoadhesive polymers; Flow rheometry; Oscillatory rheometry; Mucoadhesive strength; Texture analyzer; Principal component analysis

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education and Science, Poland
  2. European Union [778051]
  3. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [778051] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Oral mucoadhesive dosage formulations offer numerous advantages but require suitable physicochemical properties. This study examined the physicochemical properties of different polymers and their blends and evaluated them using various testing methods.
Oral mucoadhesive dosage formulations reveal numerous advantages they offer, like easy application, discrete handling and no need to swallow the drug product. Nevertheless, in order to ensure correct performance of these preparations, they must show suitable physicochemical properties, such as sorption and wetting, viscosity and adhesion to mucous membrane. In this study, the physicochemical properties of selected mucoadhesive polymers and their blends composed of acrylic acid polymers (Carbopol 974P NF, Noveon AA-1), cellulose derivatives (HEC, HPMC) and film-forming polymer (Kollidon VA 64) were examined. The tested formulations have been analyzed by techniques, such as flow rheometry, oscillatory rheometry and liquid penetration method. Moreover, the mucoadhesive strength of the investigated formulations was measured with the use of a texture analyzer. The tests have shown that the blends of anionic and nonionic polymers show significantly worse adhesive properties than the discs containing only Carbopol 974P NF or Noveon AA-1. (C) 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available