4.7 Review

Characterisation of pore structures of pharmaceutical tablets: A review

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 538, 期 1-2, 页码 188-214

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2018.01.017

关键词

Pore structure; Solid dosage form; Terahertz technology; X-ray computed microtomography; Mercury porosimetry; Helium pycnometry; Nuclear magnetic resonance

资金

  1. Danish Council for Independent Research (DFF), Technology and Production Sciences (FTP) [12-126515/0602-02670B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Traditionally, the development of a new solid dosage form is formulation-driven and less focus is put on the design of a specific microstructure for the drug delivery system. However, the compaction process particularly impacts the microstructure, or more precisely, the pore architecture in a pharmaceutical tablet. Besides the formulation, the pore structure is a major contributor to the overall performance of oral solid dosage forms as it directly affects the liquid uptake rate, which is the very first step of the dissolution process. In future, additive manufacturing is a potential game changer to design the inner structures and realise a tailor-made pore structure. In pharmaceutical development the pore structure is most commonly only described by the total porosity of the tablet matrix. Yet it is of great importance to consider other parameters to fully resolve the interplay between microstructure and dosage form performance. Specifically, tortuosity, connectivity, as well as pore shape, size and orientation all impact the flow paths and play an important role in describing the fluid flow in a pharmaceutical tablet. This review presents the key properties of the pore structures in solid dosage forms and it discusses how to measure these properties. In particular, the principles, advantages and limitations of helium pycnometry, mercury porosimetry, terahertz time-domain spectroscopy, nuclear magnetic resonance and X-ray computed microtomography are discussed.

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