Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 65–74 | Cite as

The Effect of Moisture on the Flowability of Pharmaceutical Excipients

  • Allison Crouter
  • Lauren Briens
Research Article

Abstract

The effect of moisture content on flowability of six pharmaceutical powders (microcrystalline cellulose (MCC), hydroxypropyl methylcellulose (HPMC), carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), corn starch, and potato starch) was investigated. Powder flowability was measured using established static techniques and emerging dynamic avalanche behavior measurements. Static techniques did not provide enough resolution to clearly identify changes in flowability due to increasing powder moisture content. Avalanche time and its standard deviation showed that flowability of MCC, CMC, PVP, and potato starch decreased after a critical moisture content, flowability of corn starch increased and flowability did not significantly change for HPMC. The moisture decreased flowability by forming stronger interparticle liquid bridges and increased flowability by acting as a lubricant. The dynamic density of the celluloses and PVP decreased linearly with increasing moisture content as the particles swelled with water. The starches also swelled and decreased in dynamic density, but only after a moisture content corresponding to monolayer coverage of water around the particles was reached. As flowability and dynamic density change with moisture content, to ensure consistent production of high-quality tablets, the moisture content of the powders must be measured and controlled.

KEY WORDS

adsorption isotherms avalanche behavior flowability moisture content pharmaceuticals 

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and support through Ontario Graduate Scholarships (OGS) for Allison Crouter. Kylie O’Donnell is also acknowledged for her work on the preliminary trials of this study.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Callahan JC, Cleary GW, Elefant M, Kaplan G, Kensler T, Nash RA. Equilibrium moisture content of pharmaceutical powders. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1982;8:355–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Newman AW, Reutzel-Edens SM, Zografi G. Characterization of the “hygroscopic” properties of active pharmaceutical ingredients. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:1047–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Malamataris S, Goidas P, Dimitriou A. Moisture sorption and tensile strength of some tableted direct compression excipients. Int J Pharm. 1991;68:51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brunauer S, Deming LS, Edwards Deming W, Teller E. On a theory of the van der Waals adsorption of gases. J Am Chem Soc. 1940;62:1723–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donohue MD, Aranovich GL. Classification of Gibbs adsorption isotherms. Adv Colloid Interf Sci. 1998;76–77:137–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oksanen CA, Zografi G. The relationship between the glass transition temperature and water vapor absorption by poly(vinylpyrrolidone). Pharm Res. 1990;7:654–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Amidon AE, Houghton ME. The effect of moisture on the mechanical and powder flow properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Pharm Res. 1995;12:923–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kontny MJ, Zografi G. Sorption of water by solids. In: Brittain HG, editor. Physical characterization of pharmaceutical solids. New York: Informa Healthcare; 1995. p. 387–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peng G, Chen X, Wu W, Jiang X. Modeling of water sorption isotherm for corn starch. J Food Eng. 2007;80:562–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zografi G, Kontny MJ, Yang AYS, Brenner GS. Surface area and water vapor sorption of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm. 1984;18:99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shi L, Feng Y, Sun CC. Initial moisture content in raw material can profoundly influence high shear wet granulation process. Int J Pharm. 2011;416:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun CC. Mechanism of moisture induced variations in true density and compaction properties of microcrystalline cellulose. Int J Pharm. 2007;346:93–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fassihi AR, Kanfer I. Effect of compressibility and powder flow properties on tablet weight variation. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1986;12:1947–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Torres MD, Moreira R, Chenlo F, Vazquez MJ. Water adsorption isotherms of carboxymethyl cellulose, guar, locust bean, tragacanth and xanthan gums. Carbohydr Polym. 2012;89:592–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dawoodbhai S, Rhodes CT. The effect of moisture on powder flow and on compaction and physical stability of tablets. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1989;15:1577–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Emery E, Oliver J, Pugsley T, Sharma J, Zhou J. Flowability of moist pharmaceutical powders. Powder Technol. 2009;189:409–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faqih AMN, Mehrotra A, Hammond SV, Muzzio FJ. Effect of moisture and magnesium stearate concentration on flow properties of cohesive granular materials. Int J Pharm. 2007;336:338–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sandler N, Reiche K, Heinamaki J, Yliruusi J. Effect of moisture on powder flow properties of theophylline. Pharmaceutics. 2010;2:275–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bravo-Osuna I, Ferrero C, Jimenez-Castellanos MR. Influence of moisture content on the mechanical properties of methyl methacrylate-starch co-polymers. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2007;66:63–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Jong JAH. Tablet properties as a function of the properties of granules made in a fluidized bed process. Powder Technol. 1991;65:293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Khan F, Pilpel N, Ingram S. The effect of moisture on the density, compaction and tensile strength of microcrystalline cellulose. Powder Technol. 1988;54:161–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abdullah EC, Geldart D. The use of bulk density measurements as flowability indicators. Powder Technol. 1999;102:151–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Carr R. Evaluating flow properties of solids. Chem Eng. 1965;72:163–8.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Perfetti G, Alphazan T, Wildeboer WJ, Meesters GMH. Thermo-physical characterization of Pharmacoat® 603, Pharmacoat® 615 and Mowiol® 4-98. J Therm Anal Calorim. 2012;109:203–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nokhodchi A, Ford JL, Rubinstein MH. Studies on the interaction between water and (hydroxypropyl)methylcellulose. J Pharm Sci. 1997;86:608–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Muhtaseb AH, McMinn WAM, Magee TRA. Water sorption isotherms of starch powders. Part 1: mathematical description of experimental data. J Food Eng. 2004;61:297–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Czepirski L, Komorowska-Czepirska E, Szymonska J. Adsorptive properties of biobased adsorbents. Adsorption. 2005;11:757–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Briens L, Logan R. The effect of the chopper on granules formed using a PMA-1 high shear granulator. AAPS Pharm Sci Technol. 2012;12:1358–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tan SB, Newton JM. Powder flowability as an indication of capsule filling performance. Int J Pharm. 1990;61:145–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chemical and Biochemical Engineering, Faculty of EngineeringWestern UniversityLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations