4.6 Article

Solid-state analysis of amorphous solid dispersions: Why DSC and XRPD may not be regarded as stand-alone techniques

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpba.2019.112937

关键词

Amorphous solid dispersions; (M)DSC; XRPD; Cryo-milling; Spray drying; Hot melt extrusion

资金

  1. Rousselot N.V.(Meulestedekaai, Gent, Belgium)
  2. Laboratoires SMB (Rue de la Pastorale, Brussels)
  3. Het Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Vlaanderen (FWO)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Amorphous solid dispersions (ASDs) are single-phase amorphous systems, where drug molecules are molecularly dispersed (dissolved) in a polymer matrix. The molecular dispersion of the drug molecules is responsible for their improved dissolution properties. Unambiguously establishing the phase behavior of the ASDs is of utmost importance. In this paper, we focused on the complementary nature of (modulated) differential scanning calorimetry ((m)DSC) and X-ray powder diffraction (XRPD) to elucidate the phase behavior of ASDs as demonstrated by a critical discussion of practical real-life examples observed in our research group. The ASDs were manufactured by either applying a solvent-based technique (spray drying), a heat-based technique (hot melt extrusion) or mechanochemical activation (cryo-milling). The encountered limiting factors of XRPD were the lack of sensitivity for small traces of crystallinity, the impossibility to differentiate between distinct amorphous phases and its impossibility to detect nanocrystals in a polymer matrix. In addition, the limiting factors of (m)DSC were defined as the well-described heat-induced sample alteration upon heating, the interfering of residual solvent evaporation with other thermal events and the coinciding of enthalpy recovery with melting events. In all of these cases, the application of a single analytical technique would have led to erroneous conclusions, whilst the combination of (m)DSC and XRPD elucidated the true phases of the ASD. (C) 2019 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

4.6
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