4.7 Article

Physicochemical characterization of grewia polysaccharide gum: Effect of drying method

期刊

CARBOHYDRATE POLYMERS
卷 84, 期 1, 页码 446-453

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.carbpol.2010.12.005

关键词

Grewia polysaccharide gum; Extraction; Excipient; Drying method

资金

  1. British Commonwealth
  2. Aston University
  3. EPSRC [EP/D077532/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/D077532/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Grewia polysaccharide gum, a potential pharmaceutical excipient was extracted from the inner stem bark of Grewia mollis, thereupon drying was achieved by three techniques: air-drying, freeze-drying and spray-drying. Analysis of the monosaccharide composition including H-1 and C-13 NMR spectroscopic analysis of the polysaccharide gum was carried out. The effect of the drying methods on the physicochemical properties of the gum was evaluated by Fourier transformed infra-red (FT-IR) spectroscopy, solid-state C-13 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), thermogravimetric analysis, differential scanning calorimetry and gel permeation chromatography. Monosaccharide sugar analysis revealed that the gum is composed of glucose. rhamnose, galactose. arabinose and xylose as the main neutral sugars. These were supported by the results from H-1 and C-13 NMR spectroscopic analysis. FT-IR and solid-state NMR results indicated that drying technique has little effect on the structure of the polysaccharide gum but XPS showed that surface chemistry of the gum varied with drying methods. Thermogravimetric analyses showed that oxidation onset varied according to the drying method. The molecular weight was also dependent on the drying technique. For industrial extrapolation, air-drying may be preferable to spray-drying and freeze-drying when relative cost, product stability and powder flow are required, for example in tablet formulation. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. 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