4.7 Article

Milling of pharmaceutical powder carrier excipients: Application of central composite design

期刊

ADVANCED POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 33, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.apt.2022.103881

关键词

Excipient; Milling; Quality by design; Particle size

资金

  1. Charles University Grant Agency [268120/2020, 70119/2019]
  2. Funding Agency of Charles University [SVV 260 547]
  3. 4EU + project [4EU+/21/F1/05]
  4. Zentiva, k.s.
  5. The Parc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the milling properties of 24 pharmaceutical excipients and identified ten excipients with acceptable milling performance. The effect of milling speed and time on particle size was evaluated using a circumscripted central composite design (CCD), and optimal milling conditions were established.
Pharmaceutical powder carriers are often used to prevent agglomeration of a micronized drug in the co -milling process. Twenty-four pharmaceutical excipients were subjected to preliminary mild milling con-ditions in this work. Ten of them showed acceptable milling properties with alginic acid, calcium alginate, microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel (R) 200), carrageenan, and hypromellose having the best particle size reduction without any aggregation while maintaining a narrow span. For the latter five substances, cir-cumscribed central composite design (CCD) evaluating the effect of the factors milling speed and timeon the responses (particle size, particle size distribution) for three milling ball sizes was used to establish optimal milling conditions. For all ten possible factor combinations and each ball size, a quadratic response surface model was used to predict the response variable. For three substances out of five, the best results were achieved using 5-mm balls. Thermal characteristics showed the good stability of excip-ients under optimized milling conditions.(c) 2022 The Society of Powder Technology Japan. Published by Elsevier B.V. and The Society of Powder Technology Japan. 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