Assessing Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn as an Excipient in Sustained-Release Tablets - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Assessing Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn as an Excipient in Sustained-Release Tablets
Natural gums and mucilage are biocompatible, cheap, readily available, and represent a potential source of excipients. The authors examine the functionality of mucilage extracted from the leaves of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis Linn as an excipient in a sustained-release tablet formulation.


Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 32, Issue 1


Table V: Results of regression analysis for dependent variables.
The dissolution data of batch HL6 were compared with the ideal release profile using f2 statistics. An f2value of 87.86 indicates that the release profile of batch HL6 was comparable with the ideal batch. A value of f2 ≥ 50 is necessary for similarity in dissolution profile at 10% difference. Table V shows the results of multiple linear regression for the response Y60, Y300, and t80. The high values of r2 indicate good fit. The drug release of the best batch HL6 was also conducted in phosphate buffer (pH 6.8). The dissolution data of batch HL6 in distilled water were compared with the dissolution data in phosphate buffer (pH 6.8). An f2 of 89.68 indicated that the release profile of batch HL6 in distilled water and phosphate buffer were comparable. Lastly, the dissolution of batch HL6 was compared with the market preparation of the drug in distilled water. The dissolution data of both were compared using f2 statistics. An f2 of 90.48 indicates that the release profile of batch HL6 and the market preparation of the drug were comparable.


Figure 1
Kinetics of drug release. The methods of Bamba and Puisieux were adopted as the most appropriate model for studying the kinetics of the drug release (37). The dissolution data of the best batch (HL6) were fitted to zero order, first order, Higuchi, Hixson-Crowell, Korsemeyer and Peppas, and Weibull models. The results of F-statistics were used for selecting the most appropriate model. The release profile of the best batch (HL6) fitted best to the zero-order equation (F = 16.13), showing the least residual sum of square compared with Higuchi (F = 27.93) and Korsmeyer and Peppas (F = 21.80) models. This superiority, however, is statistically insignificant among these three models, as shown by the goodness of fit test (F-ratio test). The priority should be given to the model with the lowest F-value. The drug release from the hydrophilic matrix of diclofenac sodium tablets, therefore, may be best explained by the zero-order model. The values of slope and intercept for the zero-order models are 0.1259 and 11.7007, respectively.


Figure 2
Hydration capacities and erosion. Figure 1 shows the percentage increase in the weight of the hydrated pure gum matrices at various time intervals up to 6 h. There is a strong degree of water uptake by the mucilage powder (≈ 1107% weight increase after 6 h. It is noteworthy, however, that there is little difference in water uptake of the mucilage powder at different agitation speeds (< 10% weight difference at 100 and 50 rpm after 6 h). Hydration is independent of agitation. The large increase in weight resulted from the very strong hydration capacity of the mucilage powder, coupled with very little simultaneous weight loss because of erosion. Erosion was greatly influenced by the agitation speed. Figure 2 shows that only 54% of the mucilage material remained after 6 h at 50 rpm, whereas after the same time period at 100 rpm, the amount remaining was ≈ 74%. Erosion occurred readily from compressed mucilage matrices that were highly influenced by agitation speed. The weight difference with time was clearly a measure of both the hydration and erosion processes occurring simultaneously.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
|Monthly
| Weekly

Survey
How does your company apply quality-by-design (QbD) principles to manufacturing processes?
To all processes for both new and legacy products
To all process for new products only
To select process for new products only
To select processes for both new and legacy products
Do not use QbD
To all processes for both new and legacy products
18%
To all process for new products only
13%
To select process for new products only
22%
To select processes for both new and legacy products
22%
Do not use QbD
24%
View Results
UPCOMING CONFERENCES

Programs for Investigational and Pre-Launch Drugs
Philadelphia, PA
July 17-18, 2013
Request Brochure

Strategic Pipeline Planning & Portfolio Valuation
Philadelphia, PA
August 13-14, 2013
Request Brochure

MES 2013 - Forum on Manufacturing Execution Systems
Philadelphia, PA
August 14-15, 2013
Request Brochure

Mobile Innovation for the Life Sciences Industry
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2013
Request Brochure

See All Conferences >>

Eric Langer Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy
Patricia Van Arnum Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry
Nathan Jessop Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues
Lynn Torbeck Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality
 More
Inadequate Access to Medicines Puts EU at Risk
FDA Offers Insight on QbD for Modified-Release Products
Global Biosimilars Market to Reach $2.445 Billion in 2013
Adapting to Change
AstraZeneca and Exco InTouch Collaborate to Augment Current COPD Pathways
FindPharma Custom Search
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here