Abstract
Active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) and excipients are often classified as ‘brittle’ or ‘ductile’ based on their yield pressure determined through the Heckel analysis. Such a brittle/ductile classification is often correlated to some measure of elasticity, die-wall stresses, and brittle fracture propensities from studies performed with a handful of model excipients. This subsequently gives rise to the presumption that all ductile materials behave similarly to microcrystalline cellulose (MCC) and that all brittle materials to lactose, mannitol, or dicalcium phosphate. Such a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach can subsequently lead to inaccurate classification of APIs, which often behave very differently than these model excipients. This study compares the commonly reported mechanical metrics of two proprietary APIs and two classical model excipients. We demonstrate that materials classified as ‘ductile’ by Heckel's ‘standards’ may behave very differently than MCC and in some cases may even have a propensity for brittle failure. Our data highlight the complexity of APIs and the need to evaluate a set of mechanical metrics, instead of binary assignments of ductility or brittleness based on quantities that do not fully capture the tableting process, to truly optimize a tablet formulation as part of the overall target product profile.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.