Advertisement

Pharmaceutisch Weekblad

, Volume 4, Issue 6, pp 191–196 | Cite as

Studies on different dissolution models

IV. Erosion of tablets
  • P. De Haan
  • C. F. Lerk
Original Articles

Abstract

A comparative study of the action of erosion on non disintegrating theophylline tablets was performed in the threeusp xx dissolution models, the rotating basket, the paddle and the modified disintegration apparatus, as well as in a new (sandwich) model. The results show erosion to be dependent on the mechanical strength of the tablets and to be promoted by the phenomenon of softening of the tablets during the process of dissolution. A considerable and moderate erosion was found for ‘soft’ tablets in the rotating basket and disintegration apparatus, respectively, whereas no or only slight erosion was observed in the paddle and sandwich models. The phenomenon of dissolution intensified erosion and erosion intensified dissolution is shown to affect the description of the release profiles. The dissolution profiles of the ‘hard’ tablets in the models preferred to be described by the square root equation, whereas the profiles of the ‘soft’ tablets in the case of erosion showed a tendency to a better fit with the cube root of mass versus time relation.

Keywords

Public Health Internal Medicine Theophylline Mechanical Strength Release Profile 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Blaey, C.J. De, andH. Van Der Graaff (1977)J. Pharm. Sci. 66, 1696.Google Scholar
  2. Carstensen, J.T., J.L. Wright, K. Blessel andJ. Sheridan (1978)J. Pharm. Sci. 67, 982.Google Scholar
  3. Carstensen, J.T., R. Kothari, V.K. Prasad andJ. Sheridan (1980)J. Pharm. Sci. 69, 290.Google Scholar
  4. Gumma, A., H. Hess andR.A. Ramsay (1971)Pharm. Ind. 33, 291.Google Scholar
  5. Jonkman, J.H.G., R. Schoenmaker, N. Grimberg andR.A. De Zeeuw (1981)Intern. J. Pharm. 8, 153.Google Scholar
  6. Lagas, M., andC.F. Lerk (1977)Pharm Weekbl. 112, 845.Google Scholar
  7. Möller, H., andD. Steinbach (1979)Pharm. Ztg. 124, 1207.Google Scholar
  8. Möller, H., S.L. Ali andD. Steinbach (1980)Intern. J. Pharm. 7, 157.Google Scholar
  9. Parrott, E.L., D.E. Wurster andT. Higuchi (1955)J. Am. Pharm. Assoc, Sci. Ed. 44, 269.Google Scholar
  10. Steinbach, D., andH. Möller (1977a)Pharm. Ztg. 122, 507;Ibidem (1977b)122, 2067.Google Scholar
  11. Tingstad, J., E. Gropper, L. Lachman andE. Shami (1973)J. Pharm. Sci. 62, 293.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. De Haan
    • 1
  • C. F. Lerk
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory for Pharmaceutical Technology and DispensingUniversity of GroningenAW GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations