4.7 Article

Characterisation of freeze-dried wafers and solvent evaporated films as potential drug delivery systems to mucosal surfaces

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 389, 期 1-2, 页码 24-31

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.01.008

关键词

Carboxymethyl cellulose; Sodium alginate; Solvent evaporated films; Physical properties; Freeze-dried wafers

资金

  1. Pfizer Ltd., Sandwich, Kent, UK

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Freeze-dried (lyophilised) wafers and solvent cast films from sodium alginate (ALG) and sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) have been developed as potential drug delivery systems for mucosal surfaces including wounds. The wafers (ALG, CMC) and films (CMC) were prepared by freeze-drying and drying in air (solvent evaporation) respectively, aqueous gels of the polymers containing paracetamol as a model drug. Microscopic architecture was examined using scanning electron microscopy, hydration characteristics with confocal laser scanning microscopy and dynamic vapour sorption. Texture analysis was employed to investigate mechanical characteristics of the wafers during compression. Differential scanning calorimetry was used to investigate polymorphic changes of paracetamol occurring during formulation of the wafers and films. The porous freeze-dried wafers exhibited higher drug loading and water absorption capacity than the corresponding solvent evaporated films. Moisture absorption, ease of hydration and mechanical behaviour were affected by the polymer and drug concentration. Two polymorphs of paracetamol were observed in the wafers and films, due to partial conversion of the original monoclinic to the orthorhombic polymorph during the formulation process. The results showed the potential of employing the freeze-dried wafers and solvent evaporated films in diverse mucosal applications due to their ease of hydration and based on different physical mechanical properties exhibited by both type of formulations. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据