4.7 Article

A combined microhydrodynamics-polymer adsorption analysis for elucidation of the roles of stabilizers in wet stirred media milling

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 439, 期 1-2, 页码 193-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2012.09.040

关键词

Drug nanoparticles; Wet stirred media milling; Breakage kinetics; Adsorption; Rheology; Microhydrodynamics

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Engineering Research Center for Structured Organic Particulate Systems (NSF ERC for SOPS) [EEC-0540855]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although polymers and surfactants are commonly used as stabilizers to impart physical stability to the suspensions produced by wet stirred media milling of poorly water-soluble drugs, scant information is available in pharmaceutical literature regarding their impact on the breakage kinetics. We present a combined microhydrodynamics-polymer adsorption analysis to elucidate the roles of stabilizers with a focus on the kinetics. Griseofulvin (GF), a model poorly water-soluble drug, was milled at various concentrations of hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) in the presence-absence of sodium dodecyl sulfate (SDS). Particle sizing, scanning electron microscopy, thermal analysis, and rheometry were used to determine the breakage kinetics, adsorption isotherm, and apparent viscosity, which were then used to analyze the aggregation state of the milled suspensions and the microhydrodynamics. In the absence of SDS, an increase in HPC concentration slowed the particle aggregation leading to faster apparent breakage. On the other hand, due to a synergistic stabilizing action of HPC with SDS, lower HPC concentration was needed to stabilize the suspensions, and an optimum HPC concentration for the fastest apparent breakage was identified. The microhydrodynamic analysis quantified, for the first time, the viscous dampening effect of polymers, while only the combined analysis could explain the observed optimum. (C) 2012 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