| Literature DB >> 31011337 |
Fatemeh Nowroozi1, Ameneh Almasi2, Jaber Javidi2, Azadeh Haeri2, Simin Dadashzadeh2,3.
Abstract
The present study was conducted to investigate the performance of different size reduction techniques including probe sonication, extrusion, and high pressure homogenization for nanosizing of niosomes. Also, the effects of cholesterol content and surfactant type on the size and poly dispersity index (PDI) of the formulations were evaluated. Various niosomal formulations composed of Brij 72, Span 60, or Tween 60 were prepared and then, to reduce vesicle size and minimize the PDI, the niosomes were treated by various post-processing procedures. Surfactant type showed a significant effect on the particle size of the niosomes. The particle size of Tween 60 niosomes was significantly larger than those of Span 60 and Brij 72 niosomes (P < 0.05), indicating that at the same cholesterol content, niosomes composed of a surfactant with a higher HLB value show larger particle size than those with a lower HLB value. The influences of cholesterol content as well as downsizing methods, on the particle size and distribution of niosomes were significantly dependent on the surfactant composition of the niosomes. Extrusion and probe sonication were found to be the most efficient methods for size reduction of the Tween 60 and Span 60 niosomes, while for downsizing of Brij 72 niosomes, all employed methods were efficient and resulted in the approximately similar size of about 200 nm. In conclusion, the selection of an efficient method for nanosizing of niosomes and also achievement of a desired size range, and homogeneity highly depends on the niosome composition, particularly on the employed surfactant type.Entities:
Keywords: Extrusion; High pressure homogenizer; Niosomes; Particle size; Probe sonication
Year: 2018 PMID: 31011337 PMCID: PMC6447874
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Pharm Res ISSN: 1726-6882 Impact factor: 1.696
Chemical structures, HLB values, molecular weights and phase transition temperatures of the non-ionic surfactants used in this study (5).
|
|
Composition of the prepared niosomes
|
|
|
|---|---|
| T-40 | Tween 60: Chol (60:40) |
| T-20 | Tween 60: Chol (80:20) |
| S-40 | Span 60: Chol (60:40) |
| S-20 | Span 60: Chol (80:20) |
| B-40 | Brij 72: Chol (60:40) |
| B-20 | Brij 72: Chol (80:20) |
Figure 1Schematic illustration of the preparation and downsizing process of niosomes
Particle size and PDI of niosomal formulations prepared by thin film hydration in either the presence or absence of the bath sonication treatment (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
|
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| T40 | 646 ± 4.54 | 0.553 ± 0.004 | 641 ± 6.98 | 0.766 ± 0.006 |
|
|
| T20 | 601 ± 5.65 | 0.212 ± 0.007 | 615 ± 2.56 | 0.512 ± 0.004 |
|
|
| S40 | 426 ± 2.18 | 0.363 ± 0.003 | 433 ± 4.50 | 0.415 ± 0.002 |
|
|
| S20 | 591 ± 5.08 | 0.410 ± 0.004 | 595 ± 7.12 | 0.598 ± 0.005 |
|
|
| B40 | 466 ± 7.32 | 0.347 ± 0.005 | 459 ± 4.21 | 0.556 ± 0.004 |
|
|
| B20 | 578 ± 5.79 | 0.341 ± 0.007 | 577 ± 5.21 | 0.512 ± 0.004 |
|
|
Effect of surfactant type on the particle size of niosomes (Mean ± SD, n = 3).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
| T40 | Tween 60 | 646 ± 4.54 |
| S40 | Span 40 | 426 ± 2.18 |
| B40 | Brij 72 | 466 ± 7.32 |
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01 and
P < 0.001 compared to T40 formulation.
Figure 2Effect of chol percentage on the particle size of the niosomes *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 (Mean ± SD, n = 3)
Figure 3The influence of various size reduction methods on the particle size of niosomes with 40% Chol: (a) Tween 60 niosomes,(b) Span 60 niosomes and (c) Brij 72 niosomes and niosomes with 20% Chol: (d) Tween 60 niosomes, (e) Span 60 niosomes and (f) Brij 72 niosomes. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 (Mean ± SD, n = 3)
Figure 4The influence of various size reduction methods on the PDI of niosomes with 40% Chol: (a) Tween 60 niosomes, (b) Span 60 niosomes and (c) Brij 72 niosomes and niosomes with 20% Chol: (d) Tween 60 niosomes, (e) Span 60 niosomes and (f) Brij 72 niosomes. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01 and ***P < 0.001 (Mean ± SD, n = 3)
Particle size of niosomes after storage at 4 °C and 25 °C (Mean ± SD, n = 3)
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| T40 | 4 °C | 97 ± 7.43 | 98 ± 6.32 | 101 ± 8.32 | 104 ± 5.21 |
| 25 °C | 111 ± 5.29 | 116 ± 8.91 | 145 ± 7.32 | ||
| S40 | 4 °C | 127 ± 5.87 | 129 ± 9.12 | 128 ± 8.01 | 134 ± 9.81 |
| 25 °C | 132 ± 9.43 | 138 ± 8.88 | 178 ± 9.12 | ||
| B40 | 4°C | 161 ± 9.32 | 162 ± 8.21 | 466 ± 9.12 | 569 ± 9.12 |
| 25 °C | 168 ± 8.21 | 492 ± 9.23 | 598 ± 7.21 | ||
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01 and
P < 0.001 compared to 0 day.
PDI of niosomes after storage at 4 °C and 25 °C (Mean ± SD, n = 3)
|
|
|
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| |||
| T40 | 4 °C | 0.220 ± 0.008 | 0.221 ± 0.006 | 0.211 ± 0.007 | 0.238 ± 0.005 |
| 25 °C | 0.231 ± 0.004 | 0.232 ± 0.008 | 0.301 ± 0.009 | ||
| S40 | 4 °C | 0.265 ± 0.006 | 0.276 ± 0.004 | 0.281 ± 0.005 | 0.291 ± 0.007 |
| 25 °C | 0.287 ± 0.007 | 0.291 ± 0.008 | 0.498 ± 0.009 | ||
| B40 | 4 C | 0.165 ± 0.006 | 0.198 ± 0.005 | 0.276 ± 0.004 | 0.498 ± 0.005 |
| 25 °C | 0.201 ± 0.006 | 0.431 ± 0.007 | 0.598 ± 0.009 | ||
P < 0.05,
P < 0.01 and
P < 0.001 compared to 0 day.