| Literature DB >> 35012237 |
Kumbakonam Balachandran Ilango1, Senguttuvan Gowthaman1, Kumbakonam Ilango Seramaan2, Kumarappan Chidambaram3, Mohammad F Bayan4, Mohamed Rahamathulla5, Chandrasekaran Balakumar6.
Abstract
Natural eco-friendly materials are recently employed in products to replace synthetic materials due to their superior benefits in preserving the environment. The herb Coccinia grandis is widely distributed in continents like Asia and Africa and used traditionally to treat fever, leprosy, asthma, jaundice, and bronchitis. Mucilage of Coccinia grandis was accordingly extracted, isolated by a maceration technique, and precipitated. The mucilage was evaluated for its physicochemical, binding, and disintegrant properties in tablets using paracetamol as a model drug. The crucial physicochemical properties such as flow properties, solubility, swelling index, loss on drying, viscosity, pH, microbial load, cytotoxicity was evaluated and the compatibility was analyzed using sophisticated instrumental methods (TGA, DTA, DSC, and FTIR). The binding properties of the mucilage was used at three different concentrations and compared with starch and PVP as examples of standard binders. The disintegrant properties of mucilage were used at two different concentrations and compared with standard disintegrants MCCP, SSG, and CCS. The tablets were punched and evaluated for their hardness, friability, assay, disintegration time, in vitro dissolution profiles. In vitro cytotoxicity studies of the mucilage were performed in a human embryonic kidney (HEK) cell line. The outcome of the study indicated that the mucilage had good performance compared with starch and PVP. Further, the mucilage acts as a better disintegrant than MCCP, SSG and CCS for paracetamol tablets. Use of a concentration of 3% or less demonstrated the ability of the mucilage to act as a super disintegrating agent and showed faster disintegration and dissolution, which makes it as an attractive, promising disintegrant in formulating solid dosage forms to improve the therapeutic efficacy and patient compliance. Moreover, the in vitro cytotoxicity evaluation results demonstrated that the mucilage is non-cytotoxic to human cells and is safe.Entities:
Keywords: Coccinia grandis; binding agent; disintegrating agent; mucilage; natural polymer
Year: 2022 PMID: 35012237 PMCID: PMC8747206 DOI: 10.3390/polym14010215
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Polymers (Basel) ISSN: 2073-4360 Impact factor: 4.329
Composition of paracetamol tablet formulation using the different binding agents of Coccinia Grandis mucilage, Starch and PVP.
| Ingredients | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paracetamol | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 |
| Starch | 125 | 113 | 101 | 125 | 113 | 101 | 125 | 113 | 101 |
| mucilage (Binder) | 12 | 24 | 36 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Starch (Binder) | - | - | - | 12 | 24 | 36 | - | - | - |
| Polyvinylpyrrolidone | - | - | - | - | - | - | 12 | 24 | 36 |
| Sodium methylparaben | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Sodium propylparaben | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Demineralised water | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s |
| Talc | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Magnesium stearate | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Total weight | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
Note: All the above ingredients quantities are mg/tablet.
Composition of paracetamol tablet formulation using the different disintegrating agents of Coccinia grandis mucilage, MCCP, CCS, and SSG.
| Ingredients | G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G7 | G8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Paracetamol | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 | 250 |
| Starch (diluent) | 99 | 95 | 99 | 95 | 99 | 95 | 99 | 95 |
| Starch (Binder) | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 30 |
| mucilage | 8 | 12 | - | - | - | - | - | - |
| Microcrystalline cellulose powder | - | - | 8 | 12 | - | - | - | - |
| Croscarmellose sodium | - | - | - | - | 8 | 12 | - | - |
| Sodium starch glycollate | - | - | - | - | - | - | 8 | 12 |
| Sodium methylparaben | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Sodium propylparaben | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Demineralised water | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s | q.s |
| Talc | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 |
| Magnesium stearate | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| Total weight | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 | 400 |
Note: All the above ingredients quantities are mg/tablet.
Identification test results of the mucilage.
| Tests | Observed | Results |
|---|---|---|
| Molisch’s test: | Violet green colour present at junction of two layers | Carbohydrate present |
| Ruthenium test: | Pink colour developed | Mucilage present |
| Iodine test: | No colour present in solution | Polysaccharides present |
Results of Physicochemical characterization of Coccinia grandis mucilage.
| Parameters | Observed |
|---|---|
| Organoleptic properties | White colour, amorphous nature, tasteless, characteristic odour. |
| Solubility | Slightly soluble in hot water, in cold water forming viscous colloidal solution and practically insoluble in acetone, ethanol, chloroform and other organic solvents. |
| Loss on drying (%) | 5.7% |
| Swelling index in distilled water | 46.3% |
| Bulk density | 0.083 g/cm3 |
| Tapped density | 0.125 g/cm3 |
| Carr’s index | 33.6 |
| Hausner’s ratio | 1.50 |
| Angle of repose (°) | 39.5° |
| pH (1% | 6.7 |
| Total Ash (%) | 3.0% |
| Water-soluble ash (%) | 6.7% |
| Acid insoluble ash (%) | 0.5% |
| Viscosity (1% | 4.9 cps |
| Total Microbial (Load) count | 107 |
Figure 1DSC, TGA, DTA of mucilage (CGM).
Figure 2DSC, TGA, DTA of paracetamol + CGM.
Figure 3DSC, TGA, DTA of Paracetamol.
Figure 4FTIR analysis of the mucilage.
Figure 5FTIR analysis of paracetamol.
Figure 6FTIR analysis of the mucilage (CGM) + paracetamol.
Figure 7XRD analysis of mucilage (CGM).
Figure 8SEM analysis of mucilage in ×5000.
Concentration vs. absorbance of cell viability of test and control.
| S. No | Concentration (µg/mL) | Absorbance |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.5 | 0.451 |
| 2 | 25 | 0.446 |
| 3 | 50 | 0.413 |
| 4 | 100 | 0.388 |
| 5 | 200 | 0.367 |
Average control absorbance = 0.451.
Concentrations vs. % cell viability.
| S. No | Concentration (µg/mL) | % Cell Viability |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 12.5 | 99.92 |
| 2 | 25 | 98.81 |
| 3 | 50 | 91.65 |
| 4 | 100 | 85.96 |
| 5 | 200 | 81.38 |
Flow properties of formulated granules (Binding agents).
| Binders | CGM | STARCH | PVP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | F1 (3%) | F2 (6%) | F3 (9%) | F4 (3%) | F5 (6%) | F6 (9%) | F7 (3%) | F8 (6%) | F9 (9%) |
| Parameters | |||||||||
| Bulk density (g/mL) | 0.438 | 0.446 | 0.446 | 0.434 | 0.442 | 0.446 | 0.438 | 0.446 | 0.442 |
| Tapped density (g/mL) | 0.510 | 0.500 | 0.495 | 0.526 | 0.500 | 0.490 | 0.505 | 0.490 | 0.480 |
| Carr’s index (%) | 14.1 | 10.8 | 9.9 | 17.5 | 11.6 | 9.0 | 13.3 | 9.0 | 7.9 |
| Hausner’s ratio | 1.16 | 1.12 | 1.11 | 1.21 | 1.13 | 1.10 | 1.15 | 1.10 | 1.10 |
| Angle of repose (°) | 29.3° | 25.1° | 26.2° | 29.7° | 26.4° | 25.9° | 29.9° | 28.4° | 27.8° |
CGM = mucilage, PVP = polyvinylpyrrolidone.
Flow properties of formulated granules (Disintegrating agents).
| Disintegrants | CGM | MCCP | CCS | SSG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | G1 (2%) | G2 (3%) | G3 (2%) | G4 (3%) | G5 (2%) | G6 (3%) | G7 (2%) | G8 (3%) |
| Parameters | ||||||||
| Bulk density (g/mL) | 0.446 | 0.442 | 0.446 | 0.442 | 0.442 | 0.446 | 0.442 | 0.446 |
| Tapped density (g/mL) | 0.495 | 0.500 | 0.500 | 0.505 | 0.500 | 0.495 | 0.505 | 0.490 |
| Carr’s index (%) | 9.9 | 11.6 | 10.8 | 12.5 | 11.6 | 9.9 | 12.5 | 9.0 |
| Hausner’s ratio | 1.11 | 1.13 | 1.12 | 1.14 | 1.13 | 1.11 | 1.14 | 1.10 |
| Angle of repose (°) | 28.3° | 29.1° | 28.7° | 29.7° | 28.4° | 28.9° | 29.2° | 28.8° |
CGM = mucilage, MCCP = microcrystalline cellulose powder, CCS = croscarmellose sodium, SSG = sodium starch glycollate.
Evaluation of tablets using different binding agents.
| Binders | CGM | STARCH | PVP | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | F1 (3%) | F2 (6%) | F3 (9%) | F4 (3%) | F5 (6%) | F6 (9%) | F7 (3%) | F8 (6%) | F9 (9%) |
| Parameters | |||||||||
| Weight variation (mg) | 400.1 | 400.0 | 401.4 | 400.0 | 401.1 | 400.2 | 401.0 | 401.2 | 400.1 |
| Hardness (kg/cm2) | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 4.5 | 5.0 | 6.5 |
| Thickness (mm) | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 5.0 | 4.8 |
| Diameter (mm) | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.12 | 10.14 | 10.12 | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.14 |
| Friability (% | 0.97 | 0.68 | 0.49 | 0.85 | 0.61 | 0.47 | 0.77 | 0.52 | 0.41 |
| Disintegration time (min) | 2 min/5 s | 4 min/2 s | 6 min/28 s | 1 min/48 s | 3 min/52 s | 5 min/22 s | 1 min/54 s | 5 min/49 s | 13 min/36 s |
| Assay (%) | 99.7 | 99.6 | 98.9 | 100.1 | 98.8 | 99.8 | 98.7 | 100.2 | 99.9 |
Evaluation of tablets using different disintegrating agents.
| Disintegrants | CGM | MCCP | CCS | SSG | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | G1 (2%) | G2 (3%) | G3 (2%) | G4 (3%) | G5 (2%) | G6 (3%) | G7 (2%) | G8 (3%) |
| Parameters | ||||||||
| Weight variation (mg) | 400.0 | 400.3 | 400.1 | 401.0 | 400.1 | 399.9 | 401.2 | 400.7 |
| Hardness (kg/cm2) | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 4.0 |
| Thickness (mm) | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 4.9 | 4.8 | 4.8 | 5.0 | 4.9 |
| Diameter (mm) | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.12 | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.14 | 10.14 |
| Friability (% | 0.44 | 0.42 | 0.45 | 0.42 | 0.48 | 0.43 | 0.44 | 0.47 |
| Disintegration time (min) | 2 min/58 s | 2 min/22 s | 2 min/51 s | 2 min/36 s | 2 min/49 s | 2 min/12 s | 2 min/51 s | 2 min/17 s |
| Assay (%) | 98.9 | 99.9 | 99.7 | 100.1 | 99.8 | 98.9 | 99.6 | 98.7 |
Figure 9Standard graph of paracetamol drug.
Figure 10Comparative dissolution profiles for formulations F1 to F9.
Statistical factors of CGM compared with STARCH and PVP as binding agents.
| Binders | CGM vs. STARCH | CGM vs. PVP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | F1 vs. F4 (3%) | F2 vs. F5 (6%) | F3 vs. F6 (9%) | F1 vs. F7 (3%) | F2 vs. F8 (6%) | F3 vs. F9 (9%) |
| Statistical Factors | ||||||
| Difference factor (f1) | 2.01 | 3.90 | 4.93 | 3.91 | 13.99 | 9.98 |
| Similarity factor (f2) | 87.48 | 80.91 | 78.15 | 76.69 | 54.37 | 63.82 |
| Rescigno index (ξ) | 0.0113 | 0.0207 | 0.0252 | 0.0209 | 0.0606 | 0.0468 |
Statistical factors of CGM compared with MCCP, CCS and SSG as disintegrating agents.
| Disintegrants | CGM vs. MCCP | CGM vs. CCS | CGM vs. SSG | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Formulations Code | G1 vs. G3 (2%) | G2 vs. G4 (3%) | G1 vs. G5 (2%) | G2 vs. G6 (3%) | G1 vs. G7 (2%) | G2 vs. G8 (3%) |
| Statistical Factors | ||||||
| Difference factor (f1) | 2.00 | 1.49 | 1.99 | 1.94 | 1.03 | 0.99 |
| Similarity factor (f2) | 87.71 | 89.75 | 87.51 | 87.51 | 92.04 | 92.04 |
| Rescigno index (ξ) | 0.0099 | 0.0070 | 0.0114 | 0.0098 | 0.0059 | 0.0057 |
Figure 11Comparative dissolution profiles for formulations G1 to G8.
Accelerated stability studies of F2.
| S. No | Temperature | Time in Days | Physical Change | Hardness | Disintegration Time (min) | Drug Content (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | 25 °C | 1 | No change | 4.5 | 4 min/22 s | 99.4 |
| 30 | No change | 5.0 | 5 min/14 s | 98.9 | ||
| 90 | No change | 5.0 | 5 min/27 s | 98.3 | ||
| 2. | 30 °C | 1 | No change | 4.5 | 4 min/15 s | 99.6 |
| 30 | No change | 5.0 | 5 min/32 s | 98.7 | ||
| 90 | No change | 5.5 | 6 min/40 s | 98.1 | ||
| 3. | 40 °C | 1 | No change | 4.5 | 4 min/5 s | 98.9 |
| 30 | No change | 5.0 | 5 min/34 s | 98.2 | ||
| 90 | No change | 5.0 | 5 min/48 s | 97.8 |