AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 22–28 | Cite as

Compression, compaction, and disintegration properties of low crystallinity celluloses produced using different agitation rates during their regeneration from phosphoric acid solutions

  • Vijay KumarEmail author
  • Sanjeev H. Kothari
  • Gilbert S. Banker


The tabletting characteristics of low crystallinity celluloses (LCPC)-LCPC-700, LCPC-2000, and LCPC-4000-prepared using agitation rates of 700, 2000, and 4000 rpm, respectively, during their regeneration from phosphoric acid, were evaluated and compared with those of Avicel PH-102 and Avicel PH-302. The mean deformation pressure values calculated from the linear region of the Athy-Heckel curves indicated LCPC-4000 to be the most ductile material. The area under the Athy-Heckel curve for LCPC-4000 was 330 MPa, whereas LCPC-700 and LCPC-2000 showed a corresponding value similar to that of Avicel PH-102 and Avicel PH-302 (192–232 MPa). The tensile strength of LCPC and Avicel compacts increased linearly with increasing applied pressures. A comparison of the area under the tensile strength-compression pressure curves indicated that LCPC-4000 formed the strongest tablets. The strengths of LCPC-700 and LCPC-2000 compacts, in contrast, were slightly lower than that of Avicel PH-302 and Avicel PH-102, respectively. The compacts of both LCPC-4000 and Avicel PH-102 were intact in water for 6 hours, whereas LCPC-2000 and Avicel PH-302 compacts disintegrated in 4 minutes and 2 minutes, respectively. In conclusion, LCPC-4000 was the most ductile material and exhibited the highest compression and compaction characteristics. The corresponding properties of LCPC-700 and LCPC-2000, in contrast, were comparable to that of Avicel PH-102 or Avicel PH-302.


Low crystallinity cellulose Microcrystalline cellulose Direct compression cellulose excipients Compression and compaction characteristics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Wei S, Kumar V, Banker GS. Phosphoric acid mediated depolymerization and decrystallization of cellulose. Preparation of low crystallinity cellulose—a new pharmaceutical excipient. Int J Pharm. 1996;142:175–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wei S. Preparation and Physical/Mechanical Evaluation of New Low crystallinity forms of cellulose as pharmaceutical excipients. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota; 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banker GS, Wei S. Low crystallinity cellulose. US patent 5 417 984. May 23, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kumar V, Kothari SH, Banker GS. Effect of agitation rate on the generation of low crystallinity cellulose from phosphoric acid. J Appl Polym Sci. 2001; in press.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doelker E. Comparative compaction properties of various microcrystalline cellulose types and generic products. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1993;19:2399–2471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Landin M, Martinexx-Pacheco R, Gomez-Amoza JL, et al. Effect of country of origin on the properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm 1993;91:123–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rowe RC, McKillop AG, Bray D. The effect of batch and source variation on the crystallinity of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm. 1994;101:169–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Podczek F, Revesz P. Evaluation of the properties of microcrystalline and microfine cellulose powders. Int J Pharm. 1993;91:183–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pesonen T, Paronen P. Evaluation of a new cellulose material as a binding agent for the direct compression of tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1986;12:2091–2111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carr RL. Classifying flow properties of solids. Chem Eng. 1965;72:69–72.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hausner HH. Friction conditions in a mass of metal powders. Int J Powder Metall. 1967;3:7–13.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ramsey PJ. Physical Evaluation of Compressed Powder Systems: The effect of particle size and porosity variation on Hiestand and compaction indicies. Iowa City, IA: The University of Iowa; 1996.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fell JT, Newton JM. Determination of tablet strength by the diametral compression test. J Pharm Sci. 1970;59:668–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habib Y, Augsburger L, Reier G, Wheatley T, Shangraw R. Dilution Potential: a new perspective. Pharm Dev Tech. 1996;1:205–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wells JI. Pharmaceutical preformulation: the physicochemical properties of drug substances. New York, NY: Wiley; 1988:p. 210.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Celik M. Overview of compaction data analysis techniques. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1992;18:767–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alderborn G, Nystrom C., eds. Pharmaceutical powder compaction technology. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 1996.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Duberg M, Nystrom C. Studies on direct compression of tablets XII. The consolidation and bonding properties of some pharmaceutical compounds and their mixtures with Avicel PH-105. Int J Pharm Tech Prod Manuf. 1985;6:17–25.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sixsmith DG. Microcrystalline cellulose as a tablet excipient. Manuf Chemist Aerosol News. 1976;August:27–28.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Khan KA, Rhodes CT. Effect of compaction on particle size. J Pharm Sci. 1975;64:444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khan KA, Rhodes CT. Effect of compaction pressure on the dissolution efficiency of direct compression systems. Pharm Acta Helv. 1972;47:594–607.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vijay Kumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sanjeev H. Kothari
    • 1
  • Gilbert S. Banker
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmaceutics Division, College of PharmacyThe University of IowaIowa City

Personalised recommendations