AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 528–535 | Cite as

Pore Direction in Relation to Anisotropy of Mechanical Strength in a Cubic Starch Compact

  • Yu San Wu
  • Lucas J. van Vliet
  • Henderik W. Frijlink
  • Ietse Stokroos
  • Kees van der Voort Maarschalk
Research Article

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the relation between preferential direction of pores and mechanical strength of cubic starch compacts. The preferential pore direction was quantified in SEM images of cross sections of starch compacts using a previously described algorithm for determination of the quotient of transitions (Q). This parameter and the mechanical strength were evaluated in compacts of different porosities. Starch was chosen as a model compound for materials with ductile behaviour of which tablets with low porosities can be made and which shows some elastic recovery after compaction. At medium and high porosity Q was significantly higher in the images providing a side view of the compact than in the images providing a top view (0.973 vs. 0.927 and 0.958 vs. 0.874 at 0 mm from the side of the compact and 0.956 vs. 0.854 and 0.951 vs. 0.862 at 3.5 mm), indicating that the pores were mainly oriented in the direction perpendicular to the direction of compression. This was accompanied by a lower crushing force in this direction. This could be explained by considering the pores as cracks which propagate through the sample during crushing. For both directions the crushing force decreased with increasing porosity. The yield strength of the compacts also decreased with increasing porosity, but this parameter was not dependent on the direction of crushing when the porosity was below 10%. The results show that pore direction significantly influences the crushing force but does not influence the yield strength, at porosities below 10%.

Key words

anisotropy compact fracture mechanical strength pore direction 

References

  1. 1.
    K. van der Voort Maarschalk, and G. K. Bolhuis. Improving properties of materials for direct compression. Pharm. Technol. 23:34–38 (1999).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    B. Johansson, M. Wikberg, R. Ek, and G. Alderborn. Compression behaviour and compactability of microcrystalline cellulose pellets in relationship to their pore structure and mechanical properties. Int. J. Pharm. 117:57–73 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Eriksson, and G. Alderborn. The effect of original particle size and tablet porosity on the increase in tensile strength during storage of sodium chloride tablets in a dry atmosphere. Int. J. Pharm. 113:199–207 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. W. Rice. Relation of tensile strength–porosity effects in ceramics to porosity dependence of Young's modulus and fracture energy, porosity character and grain size. Mat. Sci. Eng. A-Struct. A112:215–224 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    E. Ryshkewitch. Compression strength of porous sintered alumina and zirconia. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 36:65–68 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. H. Duckworth. Discussion of Ryshkewitch paper by Winston Duckworth. J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 36:68 (1953).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    J. M. Newton, G. Alderborn, and C. Nyström. A method of evaluating the mechanical characteristics of powders from the determination of the strength of compacts. Powder Technol. 72:97–99 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    G. Alderborn, and C. Nyström. Studies on direct compression of tablets IV. The effect of particle size on the mechanical strength of tablets. Acta Pharm. Suec. 19:381–390 (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Ando, H. Yuasa, Y. Kanaya, and K. Asahina. Studies on anisotropy of compressed powder. III. Effects of different granulation methods on anisotropy, pore size and crushing strength of tablets. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 31:2045–2054 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    G. Alderborn, and C. Nyström. Radial and axial tensile strength and strength variability of paracetamol tablets. Acta Pharm. Suec. 2:1–8 (1984).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Malamataris, T. Hatjichristos, and J. E. Rees. Apparent compressive elastic modulus and strengths isotropy of compacts formed from binary powder mixes. Int. J. Pharm. 141:101–108 (1996).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    C. Nyström, K. Malmquist, and J. Mazur. Measurement of axial and radial tensile strength of tablets and their relation to capping. Acta Pharm. Suec. 15:226–232 (1978).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J. M. Newton, G. Alderborn, C. Nyström, and P. Stanley. The compressive to tensile strength ratio of pharmaceutical compacts. Int. J. Pharm. 93:249–251 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    K. Kachrimanis, and S. Malamataris. Compact size and mechanical strength of pharmaceutical diluents. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 24:169–177 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    G. Alderborn, E. Borjesson, M. Glazer, and C. Nyström. Studies on direct compression of tablets XIX. The effect of particle size and shape on the mechanical strength of sodium bicarbonate tablets. Acta Pharm. Suec. 25:31–40 (1988).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. Galen, and A. Zavaliangos. Strength anisotropy in cold compacted ductile and brittle powders. Acta Mater. 53:4801–4815 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    M. P. Mullarney, and B. C. Hancock. Mechanical property anisotropy of pharmaceutical excipient compacts. Int. J. Pharm. 314:9–14 (2006).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. T. Fell, and J. M. Newton. Determination of tablet strength by the diametral-compression test. J. Pharm. Sci. 59:688–691 (1970).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E. H. Andrews. Fracture phenomena in polymers I. In E. H. Andrews (ed.), Fracture in polymers, Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, 1968, pp. 37–73.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. M. Ward. Review: the yield behaviour of polymers. J. Mater. Sci. 6:1397–1417 (1971).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Y. S. Wu, H. W. Frijlink, L. J. van Vliet, I. Stokroos, and K. van der Voort Maarschalk. Location dependent analysis of porosity and pore direction in tablets. Pharm. Res. 22:1399–1405 (2005).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    http://www.diplib.org. (accessed 7/1/07).
  23. 23.
    T. Q. Pham, and L. J. van Vliet. Separable bilateral filtering for fast video preprocessing. in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Multimedia & Expo. 2005. Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. van der Voort Maarschalk, H. Vromans, G. K. Bolhuis, and C. F. Lerk. The effect of viscoelasticity and tabletting speed on consolidation and relaxation of a viscoelastic material. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 42:49–55 (1996).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    J. E. Rees, and K. D. Tsardaka. Some effects of moisture on the viscoelastic behaviour of modified starch during powder compaction. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 40:193–197 (1994).Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    K. van der Voort Maarschalk, H. Vromans, W. Groenendijk, G. K. Bolhuis, and C. F. Lerk. Effect of water on deformation and bonding of pregelatinized starch compacts. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 44:253–260 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    M. F. Ashby, and S. D. Hallam. The failure of brittle solids containing small cracks under compressive stress states. Acta Metall. 34:497–510 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    C. E. Renshaw, and E. M. Schulson. Universal behaviour in compressive failure of brittle materials. Nature. 412:897–900 (2001).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yu San Wu
    • 1
    • 5
  • Lucas J. van Vliet
    • 2
  • Henderik W. Frijlink
    • 1
  • Ietse Stokroos
    • 3
  • Kees van der Voort Maarschalk
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and BiopharmacyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Quantitative Imaging Group, Department of Imaging Science & Technology, Faculty of Applied SciencesDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Laboratory for Cell Biology and Electron MicroscopyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Pharmaceutics, NV Organon, part of Schering-PloughOssThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Solvay PharmaceuticalsWeespThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations