Limits...
Evaluation of nanodispersion of iron oxides using various polymers.

Tanaka Y, Ueyama H, Ogata M, Daikoku T, Morimoto M, Kitagawa A, Imajo Y, Tahara T, Inkyo M, Yamaguchi N, Nagata S - Indian J Pharm Sci (2014)

Bottom Line: In order to create Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles, various polymers were used as dispersing agents, and the resulting effects on the dispersibility and nanoparticulation of the iron oxides were evaluated.Using the dispersing agents 7.5% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL, 6.0% Pharmacoat 603, 5.0% and 6.5% Pharmacoat 904 and 7.0% Metolose SM-4, Fe2O3 nanoparticles were successfully fabricated by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.The index for dispersibility developed in this study appears to be an effective indicator of success in fabricating nanoparticles of iron oxides by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima International University, 5-1-1 Hiro-koshingai, Kure, Hiroshima 7370112, Japan.

ABSTRACT
In order to create Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles, various polymers were used as dispersing agents, and the resulting effects on the dispersibility and nanoparticulation of the iron oxides were evaluated. It was revealed that not only the solution viscosity but also the molecular length of the polymers and the surface tension of the particles affected the dispersibility of Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O particles. Using the dispersing agents 7.5% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL, 6.0% Pharmacoat 603, 5.0% and 6.5% Pharmacoat 904 and 7.0% Metolose SM-4, Fe2O3 nanoparticles were successfully fabricated by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill. Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles could also be produced using 5.0% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL and 4.0 and 7.0% Pharmacoat 904. The index for dispersibility developed in this study appears to be an effective indicator of success in fabricating nanoparticles of iron oxides by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Relationships between IFD values of Fe2O3·H2O and penetration lengths of each polymer solution.a: all the polymers, b: HPC, c; HPMC. Correlation coefficients (R2) in figs. a, b and c were 0.698, 0.889 and 0.223, respectively; (N=3).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4007256&req=5

Figure 5: Relationships between IFD values of Fe2O3·H2O and penetration lengths of each polymer solution.a: all the polymers, b: HPC, c; HPMC. Correlation coefficients (R2) in figs. a, b and c were 0.698, 0.889 and 0.223, respectively; (N=3).

Mentions: The penetration length was measured as an index for surface tension. To avoid the influence of the viscosity of the polymer solution on the penetration length, the viscosity was constantly adjusted from 18.1 to 20.5 MPas (Table 2). The penetration length of the 6.5% Pharmacoat 603 solution into Fe2O3 showed the highest value (9.9 cm), followed by that of 7.5% HPC-SSL (9.7 cm) and Pharmacoat 904 (9.6 cm). The IFD of Fe2O3 in these polymer solutions showed a moderate value in 6.5% Pharmacoat 603 (60.8) and high values in both 7.5% HPC-SSL and Pharmacoat 904 (84.6 and 94.1, respectively). In the case of Fe2O3·H2O, the penetration lengths of 7.5% HPC-SSL, 5.0% Pharmacoat 904 and 5.0% Pharmacoat 645 were greater than 3.0 cm and the IFD values related to these polymers were also high (59.9-78.9). Then, the regression lines between the IFD values of the iron oxides and the penetration lengths were calculated (figs. 4 and 5). In Fe2O3, the correlation coefficients were 0.931 and 0.349 for HPC and HPMC, respectively (fig. 4b and c, respectively). Although a good correlation was observed in HPC, a negative slope was obtained in HPMC. Overall, the correlation coefficient (R2 =0.318) was low (fig. 4a). In Fe2O3·H2O, a relatively good correlation (R2 =0.698) between IFD values and the penetration lengths of all the polymer solutions was observed (fig. 5a). The correlation coefficient was high in HPC (R2 = 0.889) and low in HPMC (R2 = 0.223).


Evaluation of nanodispersion of iron oxides using various polymers.

Tanaka Y, Ueyama H, Ogata M, Daikoku T, Morimoto M, Kitagawa A, Imajo Y, Tahara T, Inkyo M, Yamaguchi N, Nagata S - Indian J Pharm Sci (2014)

Relationships between IFD values of Fe2O3·H2O and penetration lengths of each polymer solution.a: all the polymers, b: HPC, c; HPMC. Correlation coefficients (R2) in figs. a, b and c were 0.698, 0.889 and 0.223, respectively; (N=3).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4007256&req=5

Figure 5: Relationships between IFD values of Fe2O3·H2O and penetration lengths of each polymer solution.a: all the polymers, b: HPC, c; HPMC. Correlation coefficients (R2) in figs. a, b and c were 0.698, 0.889 and 0.223, respectively; (N=3).
Mentions: The penetration length was measured as an index for surface tension. To avoid the influence of the viscosity of the polymer solution on the penetration length, the viscosity was constantly adjusted from 18.1 to 20.5 MPas (Table 2). The penetration length of the 6.5% Pharmacoat 603 solution into Fe2O3 showed the highest value (9.9 cm), followed by that of 7.5% HPC-SSL (9.7 cm) and Pharmacoat 904 (9.6 cm). The IFD of Fe2O3 in these polymer solutions showed a moderate value in 6.5% Pharmacoat 603 (60.8) and high values in both 7.5% HPC-SSL and Pharmacoat 904 (84.6 and 94.1, respectively). In the case of Fe2O3·H2O, the penetration lengths of 7.5% HPC-SSL, 5.0% Pharmacoat 904 and 5.0% Pharmacoat 645 were greater than 3.0 cm and the IFD values related to these polymers were also high (59.9-78.9). Then, the regression lines between the IFD values of the iron oxides and the penetration lengths were calculated (figs. 4 and 5). In Fe2O3, the correlation coefficients were 0.931 and 0.349 for HPC and HPMC, respectively (fig. 4b and c, respectively). Although a good correlation was observed in HPC, a negative slope was obtained in HPMC. Overall, the correlation coefficient (R2 =0.318) was low (fig. 4a). In Fe2O3·H2O, a relatively good correlation (R2 =0.698) between IFD values and the penetration lengths of all the polymer solutions was observed (fig. 5a). The correlation coefficient was high in HPC (R2 = 0.889) and low in HPMC (R2 = 0.223).

Bottom Line: In order to create Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles, various polymers were used as dispersing agents, and the resulting effects on the dispersibility and nanoparticulation of the iron oxides were evaluated.Using the dispersing agents 7.5% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL, 6.0% Pharmacoat 603, 5.0% and 6.5% Pharmacoat 904 and 7.0% Metolose SM-4, Fe2O3 nanoparticles were successfully fabricated by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.The index for dispersibility developed in this study appears to be an effective indicator of success in fabricating nanoparticles of iron oxides by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Technology, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Hiroshima International University, 5-1-1 Hiro-koshingai, Kure, Hiroshima 7370112, Japan.

ABSTRACT
In order to create Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles, various polymers were used as dispersing agents, and the resulting effects on the dispersibility and nanoparticulation of the iron oxides were evaluated. It was revealed that not only the solution viscosity but also the molecular length of the polymers and the surface tension of the particles affected the dispersibility of Fe2O3 and Fe2O3·H2O particles. Using the dispersing agents 7.5% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL, 6.0% Pharmacoat 603, 5.0% and 6.5% Pharmacoat 904 and 7.0% Metolose SM-4, Fe2O3 nanoparticles were successfully fabricated by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill. Fe2O3·H2O nanoparticles could also be produced using 5.0% hydroxypropylcellulose-SSL and 4.0 and 7.0% Pharmacoat 904. The index for dispersibility developed in this study appears to be an effective indicator of success in fabricating nanoparticles of iron oxides by wet milling using Ultra Apex Mill.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus