4.4 Article

Physicochemical and Binder Properties of Starch Obtained from Cyperus esculentus

期刊

AAPS PHARMSCITECH
卷 13, 期 2, 页码 379-388

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-012-9761-z

关键词

Cyperus esculentus; Cyperus starch; pharmaceutical excipient; physicochemical evaluation; starch characterization

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to isolate starch from the tubers of Cyperus esculentus L. and evaluate its physicochemical and binder properties. Extraction of starch using sodium metabisulfite yielded 37 g of starch per 100 g of the tubers. Scanning electron microscopy indicated that Cyperus starch consists of oval to elliptical particles with a smooth surface. Cyperus starch demonstrates a narrow particle size distribution with a mean of 8.25 mu m. Cyperus starch conforms well to United States Pharmacopeia standards established for widely used starches like maize and potato. The X-ray powder diffraction pattern and moisture sorption profile of Cyperus starch were comparable to that of maize starch. Cyperus starch had lower swelling power than maize and potato starch, indicative of stronger associative forces within the granules. Carr's index and Hausner ratio indicate that Cyperus starch should have comparable flow properties with respect to maize and potato starch. Cyperus starch was employed as binder for the formulation of metronidazole tablets. Formulations containing 5%, 7.5%, and 10% Cyperus starch were compared with those containing 10% potato starch. At 10% binder concentration, the tablets containing Cyperus starch exhibited better hardness and negligible friability as compared with those with potato starch. Although the binder concentration had a significant effect on the disintegration time of the tablets, it did not seem to affect the dissolution profile. These results indicate that Cyperus starch provides excellent binding properties without compromising drug release characteristics and should be explored in pharmaceutical formulations.

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

4.4
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