Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T02:43:44.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Use of MRI as a Technique for Hydrophilic Polymer Swelling Characterization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2015

Michaela Gajdošová ,
Nina Sarvašová ,
Daniel Pěček  and
František Štěpánek
Michaela Gajdošová
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic, Tel.: +420 220 443 048
Nina Sarvašová
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic, Tel.: +420 220 443 048
Daniel Pěček
Affiliation:
Zentiva k.s., U Kabelovny 130, 102 37 Prague 10, Czech Republic
František Štěpánek
Affiliation:
Department of Chemical Engineering, Institute of Chemical Technology, Prague, Technická 5, 166 28 Prague 6, Czech Republic, Tel.: +420 220 443 048
Get access

Abstract

The advantage of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is mainly the direct visualization of the physico-chemical processes occurring during the polymer dissolution in real time. Nowadays, polymeric matrices as a means to control the release of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) are widely used. Hence it seems necessary to describe the polymer swelling and find the relationship between the type of used polymer and the dissolution profile of API.

The aim of our research was to monitor the dissolution kinetics of polymeric matrices with the different ratio of hydrophilic and lipophilic components utilizing MRI technology. For this purpose, six different matrices were prepared. For the dissolution experiments in MRI magnet, plastic flow through cell and tablet holder were designed and manufactured using a 3-D printer. The experiments were performed under specific conditions i.e. phosphate buffer saline pH 6 as a medium, medium temperature - 37°C, the flow rate of medium - 4 ml/min, the time of experiment - 8 hours. To improve the visibility of the erosion front, composite magnetic nanoparticles SiO2/FeOx as a MRI contrast agent were used. Each matrix was measured three times and the thickness of gel layer was evaluated in three different regions. Results from MRI experiments were compared to the results obtained by utilizing the texture analyzer, and then the relationship between polymer swelling and drug release was evaluated.

To sum up, MRI turned out to be a suitable imaging method for polymer swelling quantification. For the future measurements, the effect of different additives on the polymer swelling kinetics will be evaluated. The results from the whole research should lead to the database of matrix components and conditions of technological processes and their effects on the dissolution profile of API, thus simplifying the formulation of dosage forms with the desired drug release.

Keywords

polymerdiffusionkinetics
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1718: Symposium B – Multifunctional Polymeric and Hybrid Materials , 2015 , pp. 117 - 122
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Colombo, P., Bettini, R., Santi, P. and Peppas, N. A., Pharmaceutical Science & Technology Today 3 (6), 198–204 (2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, P. I. and Peppas, N. A., J. Control. Rel. 6, 207–215 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nazzal, S., Nazzal, M. and El-Malah, Y., International Journal of Pharmaceutics 330 (1–2), 195–198 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, H. and Gu, X., International Journal of Pharmaceutics 342 (1–2), 18–25 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazarian, S. G. and Chan, K. L. A., Macromolecules 36 (26), 9866–9872 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wray, P., Chan, K., Kimber, J. and Kazarian, S. G., Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 97 (10), 4269–4277 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazarian, S. G., Kong, K. W. T., Bajomo, M., Van Der Weerd, J. and Chan, K. L. A., Food and Bioproducts Processing 83 (2), 127–135 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huanbutta, K., Terada, K., Sriamornsak, P. and Nunthanid, J., European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics: official journal of Arbeitsgemeinschaft fur Pharmazeutische Verfahrenstechnik e.V 83(3), 315–321 (2013).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostergaard, J., Meng-Lund, E., Larsen, S. W., Larsen, C., Petersson, K., Lenke, J. and Jensen, H., Pharmaceutical Research 27 (12), 2614–2623 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ostergaard, J., Ye, F., Rantanen, J., Yaghmur, A., Larsen, S. W., Larsen, C. and Jensen, H., Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 100 (8), 3405–3410 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pajander, J., Baldursdottir, S., Rantanen, J. and Ostergaard, J., International Journal of Pharmaceutics 427 (2), 345–353 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorozynski, P. P., Kulinowski, P., Mlynarczyk, A. and Stanisz, G. J., Drug Discovery Today 17 (3–4), 110–123 (2012).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omidian, H. and Park, K., Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology 18 (2), 83 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiwari, S. B., Murthy, T. K., Pai, M. R., Mehta, P. R. and Chowdary, P. B., AAPS PharmSciTech 4 (3), E31 (2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stepanek, F., Loo, A. and Lim, T. S., Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 95 (7), 1614–1625 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Štěpánek, F, Comput. Mater. Sci 44, 145–151 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar