| Literature DB >> 36079372 |
Olutayo A Adeleye1,2, Oluyemisi A Bamiro3, Doha A Albalawi4, Amenah S Alotaibi5, Haroon Iqbal6, Saheed Sanyaolu3, Mbang N Femi-Oyewo2, Kehinde O Sodeinde7, Zwanden S Yahaya8, Gobika Thiripuranathar9, Farid Menaa10.
Abstract
Cellulose is a non-toxic, bio-degradable, and renewable biopolymer which is abundantly available in nature. The most common source of commercial microcrystalline cellulose is fibrous wood pulp. Cellulose and its derivatives have found wide commercial applications in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, food, paper, textile, and engineering industries. This study aims to isolate and characterize cellulose forms from cocoa pod husk (CPH) and to assess its mechanical and disintegration properties as a direct compression excipient in metronidazole tablets. Two isolated cellulose types (i.e., cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC) and cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC)) were compared with avicel (AV). CAC and C-MCC were characterized for their physicochemical properties using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), FTIR spectroscopy, Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC), and X-Ray Powder Diffraction (XRD). Metronidazole tablets were produced by direct compression with cellulose. The mechanical and disintegration properties of the tablets were evaluated. CAC and C-MCC yield was 42.3% w/w and 38.25% w/w, respectively. Particle diameters were significantly different with CAC (282.22 μm) > C-MCC (161.32 μm) > AV (72.51 μm). CAC and C-MCC had a better flow than AV. SEM revealed the fibrous nature of the cellulose. FTIR and XRD analysis confirmed the presence of cellulose with crystallinity index of 69.26%, 43.83%, and 26.32% for AV, C-MCC, and CAC, respectively. C-MCC and AV are more crystalline and thermally stable at high temperatures compared to CAC. The mechanical and disintegration properties of C-MCC and AV tablets complied with pharmacopeia specifications. Taken together, C-MCC isolated from CPH displayed some fundamental characteristics suitable for use as a pharmaceutical excipient and displayed better properties compared to that of AV.Entities:
Keywords: alpha cellulose; cocoa pod husk; direct compression; metronidazole tablet; microcrystalline cellulose
Year: 2022 PMID: 36079372 PMCID: PMC9457090 DOI: 10.3390/ma15175992
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Chemical structure of cellulose (C6H10O5)n. ChemDraw Pro 8.0 was used to represent this linear homopolymer composed of repeated units of AUG linked together by β-(1-4)-glycosidic bonds.
Phytochemical Screening of Cocoa Pod Husk (CPH), Cocoa Alpha-Cellulose (CAC), Cocoa Microcrystalline Cellulose (C-MCC).
| Constituent | CPH | CAC | C-MCC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saponin | + | - | - |
| Tannins | + | - | - |
| Alkaloids | + | - | - |
| Carbohydrate | + | - | - |
| Flavonoids | + | - | - |
| Triterpenoids | + | - | - |
+ = present, - = absent.
Physicochemical properties of the cellulose types. Cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC) and cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC) were compared with avicel (AV).
| Parameters | CAC | C-MCC | AV |
|---|---|---|---|
| Color | Off white | White | White |
| Odor | Odorless | Odorless | Odorless |
| Mean particle diameter (μm) | 282.22 ± 0.12 | 161.32 ± 0.04 | 72.51 ± 0.53 |
| True density (g/cm3) | 1.535 ± 0.21 | 1.494 ± 0.13 | 1.507 ± 0.35 |
| Bulk density (g/cm3) | 0.273 ± 0.02 | 0.382 ± 0.06 | 0.316 ± 0.02 |
| Tapped density (g/cm3) | 0.337 ± 0.01 | 0.473 ± 0.04 | 0.469 ± 0.10 |
| Carr’s Index (%) | 18.93 | 19.11 | 32.62 |
| Hausner’s ratio | 1.23 | 1.24 | 1.48 |
| Angle of repose (°) | 35.05 ± 0.54 | 31.09 ± 0.33 | 44.29 ± 0.61 |
| Swelling Capacity (%) | 36.36 ± 0.05 | 27.5 ± 0.01 | 11.23 ± 0.08 |
| Moisture Content (%) | 7.20 ± 0.62 | 5.8 ± 0.37 | 6.6 ± 0.60 |
| pH | 6.7 ± 0.37 | 6.5 ± 0.14 | 6.5 ± 0.21 |
| Crystallinity Index (%) | 26.32 | 43.83 | 69.26 |
Figure 2(a) SEM micrograph of cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC), at 300× magnification. (b) SEM micrograph of cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC) at 300× magnification. (c) SEM micrograph of avicel (AV) at 300× magnification.
Figure 3FTIR spectra of avicel (AV), cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC) and cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC).
Figure 4XRD patterns of avicel (AV), cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC) and cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC).
Figure 5DSC curves of avicel (AV), cocoa alpha-cellulose (CAC) and cocoa microcrystalline cellulose (C-MCC).
Tablet hardness, friability, and disintegration time.
| Formulation Code | Hardness (kg/F) | Friability % | Disintegration (min) |
|---|---|---|---|
| F1 | 2.8 ± 3.2 | 2.84 ± 0.03 | 0.82 ± 0.20 |
| F2 | 2.5 ± 3.4 | 2.12 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.14 |
| F3 | 3.1 ± 2.1 | 1.60 ± 0.04 | 1.20 ± 0.17 |
| F4 | 3.8 ± 2.7 | 1.25 ± 0.05 | 4.12 ± 0.38 |
| F5 | 4.7 ± 3.2 | 0.85 ± 0.01 | 4.92 ± 0.25 |
| F6 | 5.4 ± 2.0 | 0.68 ± 0.06 | 5.21 ± 0.44 |
| F7 | 5.8 ± 2.6 | 0.60 ± 0.01 | 5.70 ± 0.32 |
| F8 | 7.1 ± 3.0 | 0.48 ± 0.02 | 6.55 ± 0.30 |
| F9 | 8.7 ± 2.1 | 0.32 ± 010 | 8.24 ± 0.56 |
F1 = CAC at 56.64 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F2 = CAC at 84.96 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F3 = CAC at 113.28 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F4 = C-MCC at 56.64 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F5 = C-MCC at 84.96 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F6 = C-MCC at 113.28 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F7 = AV at 56.64 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F8 = AV at 84.96 Mnm−2 compression pressure, F9—AV at 113.28 Mnm−2 compression pressure.