Formulation development and evaluation
140
7. Formulation development and evaluation
7.1. Introduction
Hippocrates, the father of medicine insisted, "Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy
food," nearly 2,500 years ago, which has found a renewed interest in the present health
conscious world. Prevention and management of chronic diseases has been prime focus today
and hence an explosion of consumer interest in the health enhancing role of specific foods or
physiologically-active food components, so-called functional foods [1]. Today herbs and
animal based products are therefore in a new shoe of segment called functional food and
dietary supplements. A dietary supplement is defined as “a product taken by mouth that
contains a „dietary ingredient‟ intended to supplement the diet that may include: vitamins,
minerals, herbs or other botanicals [2]. On the other hand Functional foods are defined by
health Canada as “ordinary food that has components or ingredients added to give it a
specific medical or physiological benefit, other than purely nutritional effect”.
Dietary supplements and functional foods make a huge market across the globe about $ 120
billion in 2007 while in India it was Rs. 18.75 billion market which was expected to grow at
33% and estimated to reach Rs.55,000 crore by 2015. While India and China still recognizing
the potential of nutraceuticals, the US has a well-established market for the botanical dietary
supplements (Cygnus Business Consulting & Research 2008) especially after DSHEA
(1994), making it a $17.1 billion market (estimated in the year 2000) [3].
A dietary supplement can be a tablet or a capsule or can simply be a powder [2].
Development of any of these formulations involve various stages first being, selection of herb
or a part of herb, its collection, authentication followed by drying and storage. The next stage
is to select a suitable dosage form which is followed by processing of the stored plant
material which includes, grinding of the plant material, extraction of the material by suitable
method and drying of the extract. The raw material and the extracts are subjected to stringent
quality control tests and evaluated for safety and efficacy of the selected raw material by in
vitro and in vivo methods and LD50 and ED50 are established. The third step is to incorporate
the standardized extract in the selected dosage form and the last stage is to evaluate the
developed formulation.
The preliminary steps for the present study, namely selection, collections, authentication and
standardization have already been carried out (chapter 4). The standardized plant material
Formulation development and evaluation
141
was extracted and the extracts were characterized and standardized for specific markers. The
extracts were subjected to intense in vitro and in vivo biological studies for antioxidant and
antiosteoporotic potentials and effective dose of each extract was established along with their
safety profile (chapter 5). Based on the efficacy of individual extracts a blend was formulated
and an elaborate study has been carried out which is described in chapter 6. The present
work, therefore, aims at development and evaluation of a tablet dosage forms as herbal
dietary supplement. In the foregoing chapter the development of tablet dosage form on the
test blend will be explained.
7.2 Experimental
7.2.1 Analytical methods
7.2.1.1 Preparation of hydrochloric acid buffer (pH- 1.2)
To the 50 ml of 0.2 M KCl in a 200 ml volumetric flask, 85 mL of 0.2M HCl was added and
then water was added to volume.
7.2.1.2 Preparation of phosphate buffer saline (pH- 7.4)
To the 50 ml of 0.2 M potassium dihydrogen phosphate in a 200 mL volumetric flask, 39.1
mL of 0.2 M sodium hydroxide was added and water was added to volume
7.2.1.3 Standard plots of lupeol, scopoletin and guggulsterone
1 mg/mL solution of each of the standards, lupeol, scopoletin and guggulsterone E was
prepared in methanol. Different concentrations 10 to 100 µg/mL solutions of each of the
standards were prepared and the absorption was measure at 365 nm (for lupeol), 228 nm (for
scopoletin) and 281 nm (for guggulsterone E). A linearity curve was then plotted
concentration vs. absorbance for each of the standard.
Formulation development and evaluation
142
7.2.2 Dose Selection
A dose of 500 mg/kg b.w. of the test combination was found effective in our previous study.
A human equivalent dose (HED) was calculated according to FDA requirement [4] using
following formula.
HED = Animal dose (mg/kg) x [Animal Km/Human Km]
Table 7-1Concentratins and absorbance of standards.
Concentration
(µg/ml) Absorbance of
lupeol at 365 nm. Absorbance of scopoletin
at 228 nm.
Absorbance of guggulsterone-E
at 281 nm.
10 0.071 0.124 0.133
20 0.173 0.207 0.227
30 0.273 0.297 0.327
40 0.381 0.389 0.423
50 0.497 0.471 0.541
60 0.613 0.567 0.648
70 0.738 0.658 0.761
80 0.853 0.769 0.893
90 0.976 0.879 1.012
100 1.106 0.997 1.139
Formulation development and evaluation
143
Table 7-2: conversion of Animal dose to HED and BSA.
The above values are based on data from FDA Draft Guidelines [4]. To convert dose in
mg/kg to dose in mg/m2, multiply by Km value.
7.2.3 Pre-formulation studies
7.2.3.1 Pre-formulation studies include studies of-
Assessment of physicochemical properties of herbal extracts and their relevance to the
final formulation.
The physical and chemical stability of the herbal extracts.
Compatibility studies of the herbal extracts with potential excipients.
7.2.3.2 Compatibility studies
7.2.3.2.1 Sample preparation for physical compatibility studies
Binary/ tertiary blends of extracts and excipients were stored at 40C (refrigerator) as control,
and at 250C at room temperature for 4 weeks. The observations (colour, flow, and sticking)
were recorded every week.
7.2.3.2.2 Sample preparation for chemical compatibility studies by HPTLC
Compatibility between herbal extracts and between extracts and excipients was determined
by HPTLC using specific markers and the finger print. β-Sitosterol, lupeol, guggulsterones E
& Z and scopoletin were used as markers for Cissus quadrangularis, Commiphora mukul and
Morinda citrifolia respectively. Individual extracts, their binary mixture in all combinations
and tertiary mixtures were mixed together at least 1 hour before analysis. The mixtures were
then ground and known quantities of the mixtures were sonicated in quantity sufficient
Formulation development and evaluation
144
methanol to dissolve the ingredients thoroughly. A known strength of the mixture and
individual extracts was then prepared. Known concentrations of the standards were also
prepared and HPTLC was carried out as described in chapter 4 for individual markers.
7.2.3.2.3 Sample preparation for solid state compatibility studies by DSC-
Drug-drug and drug- excipients mixtures were prepared in 1:1 ratio and pure drug samples
were weighed and all the samples were subjected for the DSC. The thermograms obtained
were compared for any differences.
7.2.4 Tablet formulation
7.2.4.1 Preparation of blend and characterization
Various batches of the blends namely F1 to F9 were prepared keeping active composition
constant and varying the excipients as per the formula.
Active Extracts: Ethanol extract of C. quadrangularis and ethanol extract of M. citrifolia
were converted to dry powder by Lyophilisation. The ethanol extract of C. mukul was oily
lyophilisation was not possible and hence adsorbed on known quantity of diluent or filler to
form a free flowing powder.
The Cissus and Morinda dry extracts absorbs moisture (highly hygroscopic) hence the
powder was pulverized with known weight of diluent/ filler to minimize moisture absorption.
The extract diluent mixture was passed through sieve 60 on a tray and rest of the ingredients
were added by passing through sieve 60 as well. The mixture was then mixed thoroughly or
pulverized. .Different blends were packed in airtight containers separately and labelled until
further use.
The blends were then characterized for various parameters like flow property, moisture
content and the batch that meet the parameters was selected for final formulation.
7.2.4.2 Characterization of the powdered blend
Bulk density [5]
Tapped density [5]
Angle of repose [6]
Carr‟s index IC% = Density Tapped Density Bulk/Density Tapped
Hausner‟s ratio = Density Tapped / Density Bulk
Formulation development and evaluation
145
Table 7-3: Relation of flow property with powder parameters.
Flow property Angle of repose
(degrees)
Carr’s index Hausner Ratio
Excellent 25-30 10 1.00-1.11
Good 31-35 11-15 1.12-1.18
Fair 36-40 16-20 1.19-1.25
Passable 41-45 21-25 1.26-1.34
Poor 46-55 26-31 1.35-1.45
Very poor 56-65 32-37 1.46-1.59
Very very poor >66 >38 >1,60
7.2.4.3 Evaluation of Dosage Form
7.2.4.3.1 Weight variation [7]: For carrying out this test, 20 tablets were taken randomly and
weighed. The average weight was calculated, and then each tablet was weighed individually
and their weights were compared with the average weight.
7.2.4.3.2 Hardness [6]: The hardness of tablets is defined as the force required to break the
tablet in diametric compression test. The hardness of three tablets from each formulation was
determined by Monsanto hardness tester. Hardness was expressed in kg.
7.2.4.3.3 Friability [6] Tablet hardness is not absolute indicator of strength since some
formulations, when compressed into hard tablet tend to cap on attrition, losing their crown
positions. Six weighed tablets were place in friabilator and operated for 4 min at 25 rpm. The
tablets were made free from dust and reweighed. The % friability is determined as difference
in weight *100. The acceptable limit of friability is less than 1%.
7.2.4.3.4 Disintegration [8] Six tablets were placed in the tubes along with a plastic disk
over the tablets. The disk imparts pressure on the tablets. The tubes were allowed to move up
and down in the media as 29- 32 cycles per minute in water media maintained at 37°C. Time
required to pass all tablets through the mesh is determined as its disintegration time.
7.2.4.3.5 Drug content (Estimation of Lupoel, Scopoletin and Guggulsterone E.)- Three
tablets from different batches were randomly selected and crushed separately in a mortar. The
Formulation development and evaluation
146
contents were sonicated with suitable quantity of methanol and filtered. The mark was
washed carefully and the volume of the extract was made up to produce a 1 mg/ml solution.
Assay for the reference standards was performed by the method described in chapter 4 by
HPTLC as per the procedure given earlier.
7.2.4.3.6 Dissolution [8]: The drug release is studied by using six panel USP XXIII
dissolution apparatus 2 at 50 rpm. The dissolution study was studied in 900 ml of acidic
buffer (pH 1.2) and phosphate saline buffer (pH 7.4) maintained at 37 ± 20C. Samples were
taken at appropriate time intervals for analysis. After every withdrawal an equal amount of
fresh dissolution medium was added to the flask. The study was carried out over a period of
24 hrs. All the tests were performed in duplicate. The release of markers were determined by
UV/Vis spectrophotometer
7.2.4.3.7 Real time stability studies
The formulation being herbal tablet containing no thermo labile substances the prescribed
storage conditions for the formulation are, room temperature (25 °C ± 2 °C) with relative
humidity of about 60 ± 5 %. The tablet being herbal generally no degradation is expected and
hence, a real time or long term stability testing was carried out at end one year as per the ICH
guideline [9] by HPTLC estimation of drug (Lupeol, scopoletin and guggulsterone E)
content. The content of reference standard was measured and compared with that of original
values.
7.3 Results and discussion
7.3.1 Dose selection
As described in the previous chapter, a 500 mg/kg b.w of the combined mixture of the three
ethanol extracts of C. quadrangularis, M. citrifolia and C. mukul was found safe and effective
in the reversal of osteoporotic conditions. To develop a formulation the animal dose was
converted to human equivalent does (HED) as per US FDA recommendations [10]. The
calculations for determining starting dose in humans as extrapolated from animals should use
the more appropriate normalization of body surface area (BSA) [10, 11] which can be made
by multiplying the animal dose in mg/kg with Km factor of the animal [12]. In our study the
effective dose being 500 mg/kg an equivalent HED would be 81.08 mg/kg which by
calculation a 600 mg was decided as unit dosage. Calculations are given below
Formulation development and evaluation
147
500 (animal dose in mg/kg) x 6 (Km factor for 200 g rat)/ 37 (Km Factor for 60 kg human) =
81.08 mg/kg = 4864.86 mg/day for a 60 kg individual.
It was accordingly decided to make it in 4 divided doses 4864.86/4 = 1216.21.
1216.21 mg of the blend must therefore be carried by 2 tablets. 1216.21/2 = 608.108 mg
Hence the dose of blend for the tablet was decided as 600 mg.
7.3.2 Pre-formulation studies
7.3.2.1 Compatibility studies
Incompatibility is generally chemical interactions or reactions, between the active ingredients
or some times between the active ingredients and excipients [13], if the content (actives/
excipients or both) are reactive or made reactive in presence of each other or in the conditions
provided. These reactions may manifest into change in colour, degradation of the formulation
or development of foul smell or sometimes formation of newer substances which may be
harmful [14] and most importantly loss of activity. The physical interactions can be observed
by change in colour, consistency, odour and taste of the mixture while the chemical changes
can be assessed through FTIR or HPLC or HPTLC. HPTLC is a sensitive instrument that can
be used as tool for determination of chemical interactions. Howida et al. [15] used TLC for
the determination of interactions, HPTLC is more sophisticated instrument hence it was used
for the purpose in our study.
In the herbal preparations, a number of active ingredient are involved, understanding the
reactivity of theses extracts in solid state when mixed together and with excipient is critical to
commercial formulation development [16]. In determining the drug-drug and drug excipient
interaction, thermoanalysis offers significant advantages in saving both time and substance
[17]. Thus differential scanning colorimeter (DSC) can provide valuable information as
thermal transitions associated with the active ingredients can be observed [18] and hence it
has been used most frequently for detecting such incompatibilities. In the present study the
drug or actives being the plant extracts which are multi component semisolid mixtures, the
thermal data must be supported with other methods like FTIR [19]. In our study HPTLC has
been used as a supportive method for identifying possible incompatibilities.
7.3.2.2 Chemical incompatibility studies by HPTLC
HPTLC is a reliable tool for the detection of chemical incompatibility especially when herbal
extracts are involved. The individual extracts used in the formulation have been standardized
Formulation development and evaluation
148
to specific marker compound(s). The markers and the chromatogram of a specific extract
were taken as a standard. The presence of both marker as well as the undesignated peaks in
the chromatogram at least, the major peaks when two or more extracts or excipients were
combined and eluted in homogeneous chromatographic conditions signifies the compatibility.
Our HPTLC results showed no interactions between any of the combinations after mixing in
1:1 (binary mixture) or 1:1:1 (tertiary mixture) ratios of the active extracts and with the
excipients.
7.3.2.2.1 Compatibility studies using β-sitosterol and lupeol as reference standards
Solvent System: Benzene: Ethyl acetate (9.5: 0.5 v/v).
Visualization: 10% methanolic sulphuric acid followed by heating at 110 °C for 5 min
Scanning wave length: 366 nm
Fig 7.4A Standard chromatograms.
Fig 7-4A a: Chromatogram of standard β-sitosterol Fig 7-4A b: Chromatogram of standard Lupeol
Fig 7.4B Chromatograms of individual extracts and mixtures in the solvent system.
Fig 7.4B a: Chromatogram of C. quadrangularis
Fig 7.4B b: Chromatogram of C. mukul
Fig 7. 4B c: Chromatogram of M. citrifolia
Formulation development and evaluation
149
Mixture of the extracts 1:1
Fig 7. 4B d: Chromatogram of mix of C. quadrangularis and C. mukul
Fig 7. 4B e: Chromatogram of mix of C. quadrangularis and M. citrifolia
Fig 7. 4B f: Chromatogram of mix of M. citrifolia and C. mukul
Tertiary mixture and blend with excipients
Fig 7. 4B g: Chromatogram of mixture of all three extracts C. quadrangularis, M. citrifolia and C. mukul
Fig 7. 4B h: Chromatogram of mixture of 3 extracts C. quad, M. citrifolia and C. mukul and excipents (Blend)
Fig 7. 4B i: UV Spectral matching of the standards
Table 7-4 Compatibility chart with reference to different peaks.
Peaks Cq Cm Mc Cq+Cm Cq+Mc Cm+Mc Cq+Cm+Mc Blend
Unknown -0.01 0.02 0.01 0 0 0.01 -0.02 -0.02
Unknown 0.01 ** 0.08 ** ** ** 0.02 0.02
Unknown 0.17 0.17 ** 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.18 0.19
β-sitosterol 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26 0.26 0.26
Unknown ** 0.31 ** 0.31 ** 0.32 0.32 0.32
Lupeol 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.41 0.41 0.41 0.42
Unknown ** ** ** ** ** ** ** 0.83
Unknown ** ** 0.86 ** 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.89
β-sitosterol and lupeol are the reference standards used for the compatibility study for Cissus
quadrangularis. β-sitosterol was present in all the extracts and their combinations in all ratios
as well as the blend showed the peak. Lupeol being specific to the C. quadrangularis at
appeared only in those combinations in which C. quadrangularis was present. The
Formulation development and evaluation
150
chromatograms (major peaks) of each extract could be located in the combination (Table 7-
4). Thus no sign of incompatibility was found in the combinations.
7.3.2.2.2 Compatibility studies using Scopoletin
as reference standards
Solvent system: Chloroform: acetone (9.5:0.5)
Visualization: UV 366 nm
Fig 7-5B: Chromatograms of individual extracts.
Fig 7-5B a: Chromatogram of C. quadrangularis
Fig 7-.5B b: Chromatogram of C. mukul
Fig 7-5B c: Chromatogram of M. citrifolia
Fig 7-5C: Chromatograms of binary mixtures (1:1) of the extracts.
Fig 7-5C a: Chromatogram of C. quad + C. mukul
Fig 7-5C b: Chromatogram of C. quad + M.citrifolia
Fig 7-5C c: Chromatogram of M.citrifolia + C. mukul
Fig 7-5D: Chromatograms of Tertiary mixtures (1:1:1) of the extracts and the blend with excipients.
Fig 7-5D a: Chromatogram of C. quad+C.mukul+M.citrf
Fig 7-5D b: Chromatogram of blend along with Xcpients
Fig 7-5D c: UV absorption spectra of Scopoletin
Fig 7-5A Standard chromatogram.
Formulation development and evaluation
151
Table 7-5: Compatibility chart with reference to different peaks.
Peaks C.quad C. mukul M. citri C.q+Cm C.q + Mc Cm+Mc Cq+Cm+Mc Blend
Unknown ** 0.06 ** ** 0.1 0.1 0.03 **
Unknown ** ** ** ** ** ** 0.06 0.06
Unknown ** 0.11 0.11 0.11 ** ** 0.11 0.11
Unknown ** 0.28 ** 0.28 ** 0.28 0.28 0.28
Scopoletin ** ** 0.36 0.36 0.36 0.37 0.37
Unknown ** 0.67 ** 0.67 ** 0.68 0.68 0.68
Unknown ** 0.73 ** 0.72 ** ** 0.73 0.73
Scopoletin is a specific marker for M. citrifolia. The marker and it associated chromatogram
in the M. citrifolia extract was taken as a standard for the compatibility study. All the peaks
of the standard chromatogram could be observed in all combinations involving M. citrifolia
extract (Table 7-5) convincing that there is no sign of any incompatibility between any
combination(s).
7.3.2.2.3 Compatibility studies using Guggulsterone E and Z as reference standards
Solvent system: Toluene:acetone (9: 1 v/v). Visualization: UV 366 nm
Fig 7-6A Standard chromatograms.
Fig 7-6A a: Chromatogram of Gst E
Fig 7-6A b: Chromatogram of Gst Z
Fig 7.6B: Chromatograms of individual extracts.
Fig 7-6B a: Chromatogram of C. quadrangularis
Fig 7-6B b: Chromatogram of C. mukul
Fig 7-6B c: Chromatogram of M. citrifolia
Formulation development and evaluation
152
Fig 7-6C: Chromatograms of binary mixtures (1:1) of the extracts.
Fig 7-6C a: Chromatogram of C. quad + C. mukul
Fig 7-6C b: Chromatogram of C. quad + M. citrifolia
Fig 7-6C c: Chromatogram of M. citrifolia + C. mukul
Fig 7-6D: Chromatograms of Tertiary mixtures (1:1:1) of the extracts and the blend with excipients.
Fig 7-6D a: Chromatogram of C. quad+C. mukul+M. citrf
Fig 7-6D b: Chromatogram of blend along with Xcpients
Fig 7-6D c: UV absorption spectra of Scopoletin
Table 7-6: Compatibility chart with reference to different peaks.
Peaks C.quad C. mukul M. citri C.q+Cm C.q + Mc Cm+Mc Cq+Cm+Mc Blend
Unknown ** 0.1 ** ** 0.09 0.11 0.1 0.11
Unknown ** ** 0.16 0.17 ** 0.17 0.16 0.18
Unknown ** 0.27 0.25 0.26 0.25 0.29 0.28 0.28
Unknown ** 0.3 0.28 0.29 0.28 0.32 0.31 0.31
Gug. E ** 0.4 ** 0.41 ** 0.43 0.43 0.42
Gug. Z ** 0.48 ** 0.48 ** 0.52 0.53 0.5
Unknown ** 0.59 ** 0.59 ** 0.63 0.66 0.61
Unknown 0.77 0.78 ** 0.78 0.77 0.74 86 0.78
Guggulsterone E and Z are specific markers for Commiphora mukul. The markers and
associated chromatogram in the C. mukul extract was taken as a standard for the
compatibility study. The chromatogram (major peaks) of the C. mukul extract and that of
other extracts located in all combinations (Table 7-6) evidencing that there is no sign of any
incompatibility between any combination(s).
Formulation development and evaluation
153
The HPTLC analysis of the extracts and their combinations along with excipients using
standard markers convincingly suggested that there is no chemical incompatibility between
the extracts; extracts and excipients.
7.3.2.3 Solid state incompatibility studies by DSC
The incompatibility studies between the multi component mixtures (extracts) using DSC
showed no sign of incompatibility. In our study all three pure extracts showed a common
exothermic peak between 132°C and 147°C apart from other peaks suggesting a common
phytoconstiuent in all three extracts. Literatures as well as our HPTLC analysis showed that
β-sitosterol is present in all three extracts. The melting point of β-sitosterol was found to be
136 °C, while the common peak fluctuate between 132°C and 147°C . The peak can therefore
be assigned as β-sitosterol and fluctuations can be attributed to the presence of other
constituents which alter the melting point. The peak and the thermographic pattern could be
observed in all the combinations indicating no physical incompatibility between the extracts.
Fig 7-7: Thermograms of individual extracts C. quadrangularis, C. mukul and M. citrifolia.
Fig 7-8: Thermograms of mixture of extracts C. quadrangularis, C. mukul and M. citrifolia.
Table no. 5.19:- Peak
100.00 200.00 300.00
Temp [C]
0.00
5.00
10.00
mW
DSC
148.09x100COnset
152.74x100CEndset
149.49x100CPeak
-1.29x100mcalH eat
124.47x100COnset
135.49x100CEndset
130.11x100CPeak
-6.93x100mcalH eat
44.39x100COnset
66.87x100CEndset
54.55x100CPeak
-16.30x100mcalH eat
Cissus+Noni
100.00 200.00 300.00
Temp [C]
-10.00
0.00
10.00
mW
DSC
122.58x100COnset
135.08x100CEndset
125.95x100CPeak
-26.77x100mcalH eat
Guggal+Noni
Formulation development and evaluation
154
Table: 7-7: Thermal events of individual extracts and their mixtures.
S. No. SAMPLE PEAK VALUE(0c) ONSET
VALUE(0c) ENDSET
VALUE(0c) HEAT
(m cal.)
1 Cissus Peak 1 55.46 46.78 73.15 -9.77
Peak 2 147.94 142.66 148.89 -42.17
2 Guggul Peak 1 33.08 28.94 42.66 -6.12
Peak 2 132.40 120.64 133.76 -16.88
3 Noni
Peak 1 126.92 123.31 133.40 -99.28
Peak 2 141.85 140.13 146.94 -9.13
Peak 3 170.67 169.45 174.15 -2.53
4 Cissus+Noni
Peak 1 54.55 44.39 66.87 -16.3
Peak 2 130.11 124.47 135.49 -6.93
Peak 3 149.49 148.09 152.74 -1.29
5 Cissus+Guggul Peak 1 85.48 81.06 93.04 -4.68
Peak 2 134.04 124.71 142.9 -94.55
6 Guggul+Noni Peak 1 125.95 122.58 135.08 -26.77
7.3.3 Tablet formulation
7.3.3.1 Preparation of blend and its characterization
Until late 1950s the vast majority of tablets produced in the world were manufactured by a
process requiring granulation of the powdered constituent prior to tableting. The advent of an
alternative technology called “Direct compression” with many advantages made tableting
economical and hazel free [20]. In the present study, direct compression was therefore
adopted for punching of the tablets.
The technology though looks simpler it requires critical approach to the sections of raw
material, their physical and physicochemical properties. It requires optimum flow properties
of the blend and knowledge of the effects of formulation variable on compressibility index of
the powdered blend [20]. In the current study the active raw material is a combination of
three biologically active ethanol extracts. Two of them (ethanol extract of Cissus
quadrangularis and that of Morinda citrifolia) were converted to dry powder by
lyophilisation while the third extract (ethanol extract of Commiphora mukul) was oily and
Formulation development and evaluation
155
remained semisolid. The dried powdered extracts were highly hygroscopic and absorbing
moisture rapidly.
Mannitol DC is specialized filler for direct compressible tablet which is insensitive to
moisture and retains its flow properties [20]. Anhydrous lactose is important direct
compressible filler most commonly used in tableting. It has excellent fluidity and is relatively
non hygroscopic [21] and hence was used. Both excipients were tried in separate batches.
Known weights of the dried lyophilised extracts were homogenized in a mortar together with
known weight of a diluent (mannitol or lactose) and the mixture was passed through mesh 60
to minimize moisture absorption. Guggul extract being semisolid, a known weight of the
extract was adsorbed on a known quantity of diluent (mannitol or lactose) by trituration in
mortar till a free flowing powder was obtained.
Microcrystalline cellulose (Avicel) and starch are specialized dry filler binders frequently
used in direct compression. Avicel is the most compressible binder and has highest dilution
potential, however it is a hygroscopic powder that absorbs moisture. Starch on the other hand,
has been a subject of argument with respect to its fluidity. Various modifications have been
done to improve its fluidity. Starch 1500 has better fluidity and compressibility. PVP (Poly
vinyl pyrolidone) is also used in the direct compression as a filler binder. It is a very strong
binder which forms stable complex with active ingredients [22]. Starch has been known to
disintegrate tablets by swelling and so is MCC which dissolves easily in water [20]. Fluidity
is an important criteria for the direct compression, for which talc is best used in the oral
dosage forms, however, it is a known retarder of dissolution rate [23,24,25] and hence its use
must as minimal as possible.
Table 7-8: Composition of the blend for a 600 mg tablet (in weight).
Ingredient
Different trial batches of 50 tablets each
Quantity per tablet in mg
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
Actives
Cissus 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225
Noni 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225 225
Guggul 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Excipients
MCC 24 39 42 50 30 - - - -
Mannitol 60 72 60 55 60 - 75 62 50
Talc 36 9 18 15 30 32 22 22 18
Starch - - - - - 30 20 20 30
PVP - - - - - 22 5 5 10
Lactose - - - - - 36 - 10 20
Weight/tab 720 720 720 720 720 720 722 719 728
Formulation development and evaluation
156
Different batches (9 batches) with varying ratios of these excipients were formulated and a
blend was prepared. As the direct compressibility depends on various factors, the blend was
characterized for flow properties by measuring, angle of repose, compressibility by Cars‟
index and moisture content. Of 9 batches F7 and F9 showed good flow properties and better
compressibility, F7 was found best in its flow properties.
The flow properties and compressibility of each batch of the blends was tested as per the
standard procedures. The bulk and tap densities of a solid represent inter-particulate
interaction and friction in the powder that determine the flow and compressibility [26]. Lesser
the friction/ interaction better is the flow and compressibility. Compressibility index and
Husners‟s ratio are the measures of the propensity of powder to be compressed. Both are the
relative to inter-particulate interactions given by density measurement. Angle of repose or
critical angle of repose [27] is the coefficient of static friction [28] which is a function of
fluidity of the powder and the moisture plays a significant role in the flow of powder. Hence
the measurement becomes crucial for the success of a formulation.
Nine different batched were made by varying the excipients. Mostly the excipients play a
vital role in the flow and compressible properties of the powder. In our study Batch F7
showed excellent characteristics. While F9 showed good fluid and compression
characteristics, F2 and F8 showed acceptable range. Rest of them were found to be poor or un
acceptable. All batches irrespective of their properties were punched into a tablet using 12
mm dye in a manually operated single punch machine to get a round convex tablet of
approximately 0.75 cm2
thickness.
Table 7-9: Composition of the blend for a 600 mg (mg%).
Ingredients Different trial batches of 50 tablets each
Quantity per tablet in mg%
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9
Cissus 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
Noni 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31
Guggul 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21
MCC 3 5 6 7 4 -- -- -- --
Mannitol 8 10 8 8 8 -- 10 7 7
Talc 5 1 2 2 4 4 3 3 3
Starch -- -- -- -- -- 8 3 3 4
PVP -- -- -- -- -- 3 1 1 1
Lactose -- -- -- -- -- -- -- 1 3
Formulation development and evaluation
157
Table 7-10: Characterization of the various blends.
Tablet
batch
Bulk
density
(g/ml)
Tapped
density
(g/ml)
LO
D
%
Hausne
r
Ratio
Carr’s
Index
%
Angle
of
repose
Flow pr—
operty
F1 0.33 0.44 2 1.3 25 26 Poor
F2 0.29 0.46 2.2 1.6 37 32 Passable
F3 0.28 0.43 1.89 1.5 35 28 Poor
F4 0.34 0.47 1.8 1.4 28 42 Poor
F5 0.31 0.58 1.3 1.9 47 23 Poor
F6 0.22 0.52 1.36 2.4 58 47 V. poor
F7 0.38 0.48 1.2 1.3 21 21 V. Good
F8 0.34 0.44 1.8 1.3 23 24 Passable
F9 0.37 0.49 2 1.3 24 28 Good
7.3.3.2 Tablet evaluation
The obtained tablets were evaluated for pharmacopoeial physicochemical tests like; tablet
hardness, friability, weight variation and dissolution studies. Disintegration was omitted
because the tablets were showing sustained release properties in the dissolution test.
Table 7-11: Tablet evaluation.
Tablet
batch
Color
&
Shape
Thickness (cm2)
Hardness
(kg/cm2)
Friability (%)
Weight
variation
(mg%)
F1
Dar
k b
row
n;
rou
nd
con
vex
0.75±0.031 2.5 ± 0.22 0.92±0.046 4.6 ± 0.002
F2 0.73±0.053 4.3 ± 0.14 0.44±0.052 3.9 ± 0.14
F3 0.73±0.031
Formulation development and evaluation
158
variation must be least. In the current study all batches showed minimum variation in the
weight mostly because the punching was done in a manually operated single punch machine.
Of all the batches batch number F2 and F7 showed best results in evaluation. In addition, the
blend of the F7 batch showed excellent flow properties and good compressibility prompting
us to select this batch for further studies.
7.3.3.2.1 Estimation of drug content by HPLTC
The drug content in our study was carried out by estimation of the specific markers in the
tablet formulation by HPTLC. Each extract has already been standardized to specific marker
by its estimation using HPTLC.
7.3.3.2.1.1 Estimation of lupeol
Each tablet contained 225 mg of ethanol extract of Cissus quadrangularis standardised to
2.29% of lupeol. Thus each tablet is expected to contain 5.15 mg of lupeol
Fig 7-9 Chromatograms of Standard Lupeol and the formulation.
Fig 7-9a Chromatograms of Standard Lupeol Fig 7-9b Chromatogram of the formulation
Table 7-12: Estimation of Lupeol in the formulation.
Rf Strength Inj. vol Conc. Content per tablet
Standard 0.4 100 µg/ml 2 µl 98%
Formulation 0.42 1 mg/ml 2 µl 2.29% 5.15 mg
Assay result reveals 5.15 mg lupeol in the formulation which is same as expected 5.15 mg.
7.3.3.2.1.2 Estimation of Scopoletin
Each tablet contained 225 mg of ethanol extract of Morinda citrifolia standardized to 1.66%
of Scopoletin which means each tablet contained 3.41mg of Scopoletin
Formulation development and evaluation
159
Fig 7-10 Chromatograms of Standard scopoletin and the formulation.
Fig 7-10a Chromatograms of Standard scopoletin Fig 7-10b Chromatograms of the formulation
Our assay results showed 3.54 mg of Scopoletin in the formulation as against 3.41 mg
expected which is about +3% variation and it is with in accepted limit of variation.
7.3.3.2.1.3 Estimation of Guggulsterone E
Each tablet contained 150 mg of ethanol extract of Commiphora mukul standardized to
2.52% of Guggulsterone E which is equivalent to 3.78 mg.
Table 7-13: Estimation of Scopoletin in the formulation. Rf Strength Inj. vol Conc. Content per tablet
Standard 0.45 100 µg/ml 6 µl 98 3.92 mg
Formulation 0.43 1 mg/ml 2 µl 2.61
Fig 7-11 Chromatograms of Standard Guggulsterone E and the formulation.
Fig 7-11a Chromatograms of Standard Guggulsterone E
Fig 7-11b Chromatograms of the formulation
Formulation development and evaluation
160
The assay revealed 3.92 mg of guggulsterone E as against incorporated quantity of 3.78 mg
which is about +4% variation which is well within the accepted limit of variation.
HPTLC has been used as tool in herbal drug standardization for estimation of specific
phytoconstituents. Sullivan and Sharma developed method for assay of glucosamine in herbal
dietary supplement tablets and capsules [30]. Curcumin has been determined as an stability
indicator in bulk drugs and formulations [31] and a number of such studies have been
published. Hence the method was adopted in in our study. Our results showed a minimum
variation in the content which was well within the permissible limits.
7.3.3.2.2 Dissolution studies
The formulation under investigation is a poly herbal formulation for which there is no set
dissolution procedure. In contrast to the synthetic medicinal products poly herbal
formulations are complex mixtures of active and inactive principles which makes its
dissolution all the more complex and difficult [32]. However the marker based assays have
been used in studying dissolution patterns of herbal drugs. Bhope et al. [32] used
androgrpholide as a marker for dissolution of a poly herbal formulation containing
Andrographis paniculata. Compendial standards for the dissolution of herbal formulation are
not available, currently only 4 monographs on herbal drugs published in USP have
dissolution specification [33]. In the current study, three specific markers namely, lupeol,
Scopoletin and Guggulsterone E, were used for estimation of drug release in vitro. Each
marker has its biological relevance in the management of osteoporosis and therefore their
selection is justified. Among the markers, lupeol and guggulsterone are steroidal tripterpenes
which are highly lipophilic in nature and very poorly soluble in water. As there no standard
procedure both hydrochloric acid buffer (pH- 1.2) and phosphate saline buffer (pH7.4) media
were selected for the study.
Scopoletin a coumarin from Morinda citrifolia is partially soluble in water and in our study a
complete release of scopoletin was witnessed within 4 h in both media suggesting least role
of pH in its dissolution. USP [34] requires a minimum of 75% release for botanical dietary
Table 7-14: Estimation of guggulsterone E in the formulation
TABLE
Rf Strength Inj. Vol Conc. Content per tablet
Standard 0.53 100 µg/ml 4 µl 98% 3.51 mg
Formulation 0.53 1 mg/ml 2 µl 1.56%
Formulation development and evaluation
161
supplement in vitro. Our formulation complies with the requirement as far as scopoletin
concerned, however, lupeol and guggulsterone E being water insoluble constituent showed
slow release. \About 44% of guggulsterone E was released in the acid pH while lupeol was
the least which showed only 11% release in 24 h.
The release pattern was appeared to change in the saline buffer (pH 7.4) which showed a
definite increase in the release percentage of both guggulsterone E (60%) as well as lupeol
(18%). The plant extract contains number phenols; total phenol content of C. quadrangularis,
M. citrifolia and C. mukul was determined to be 107, 38.05 and 256 mgGAEq respectively.
The phenols being mild acids, gets destabilize in basic pH and forms an anion which
actsufactants. An ionic and non-ionic surfactants have commonly been used to improve the
dissolution of poorly water soluble drugs [35]. Therefore, it can be hypothesized that the
formation anionic surfactant in the basic pH has facilitated the dissolution of both lipophilic
constituents. The dis advantage of this study is, it was carried out on only one batch and no
effort was made to improve dissolution of lupeol and guggulsterone E due to time constraint.
Table 7-15: Cumulative percentage drug release in Hydrochloric acid buffer (pH 1.2).
Time (h) Guggulsterone E Scopoletin Lupeol
5 min 0 38.4±4.2 0
15 min 3.2 ± 0.025 47.8 ±1.168 3.1±0.02
30 3.92±0.079 66.81±2.34 4.47±0.06
1 11.18±0.68 83.0±3.25 5.9±0.026
2 22.2±0.65 96.31±2.87 7.1±0.24
4 26.71±1.17 104.5±3.28 8.14±0.16
6 29.6±0.93 -- 8.39±0.28
8 31.89±1.3 -- 9.89±0.48
10 33.66±1.22 -- 10.48±0.36
12 33.35±1.93 -- 10.6±0.27
16 37.6±1.53 -- 10.4±0.49
20 41.57±3.66 -- 10.8±0.67
24 44.29±4.55 -- 11.10±0.78
Formulation development and evaluation
162
7.3.3.2.3 Real time stability studies
Formulations are pharmaceutical dosage forms that are intended to be used orally or
parentally over a period of time. The formulations should therefore have certain shelf life to
be used for long period of time. Solid dosage forms usually have longer shelf life than liquid
dosage forms as solid dosage forms offer little scope for microbial contamination or
Table 7-16: Cumulative percentage drug release in phosphate buffer saline (pH 7.4).
Time (h) Guggulsteron E Scopoletin Lupeol
5 min 8.3±0.69 40.4±2.8 0
15 min 17.95±1.24 52.6±4.25 6.5±0.82
30 min 22.94±1.65 66.4±4.68 7.02±0.46
1 26.56±2.84 76.21±3.67 8.26±1.04
2 28.89±4.24 97.05±6.84 9.48±1.46
4 32.72±2.26 99.45±4.63 11.62±0.98
6 33.95±3.54 -- 11.6±0.85
8 36.0±2.94 -- 12.45±1.28
10 36.87±3.48 -- 12.59±1.86
12 46.72±4.36 -- 13.73±1.74
16 51.42±4.98 -- 13.92±2.24
20 55.01±4.22 -- 15.95±2.68
24 60.0±4.69 -- 18.38±2.72
Formulation development and evaluation
163
oxidation unless the drugs are highly reactive. Stability study can be carried out either as a
long term or real time stability study or under accelerated conditions as accelerated stability
study. Our formulation is a herbal formulation that are known to have longer shelf life and
hence we carried out a real time stability study of the product at room temperature (25 °C ± 2
°C) with relative humidity of 60±5 for a period of 1 yr. The tablet at end of one year were
examined physically for any sign of degradation or damage and evaluated for colour, shape,
thickness, friability, weight and hardness.
In our study no striking change could be observed in the physical characteristics. Colour,
shape, thickness and weight of the tablet remained same while a marginal increase in
hardness was observed which is negligible. The estimation of marker constituents also
revealed no significant changes.
Thus it is concluded that the tablet formulation is stable up to 1 year or more.
Table 7-17 Physical characteristics of tablets after one year.
Color and shape Thickness Friability Weight Hardness(kg/cm2)
Dark brown 0.74±0.011 0.47±0.086 721 mg 5.2
7.3.3.2.3.1 Estimation of lupeol after 1 year
Fig 7-14 Chromatograms of Standard Lupeol and the formulations.
Fig 7-14a Chromatogram of lupeol Fig 7-14b Chromatogram of the formulation before 1
yr.
Fig 7-14c Chromatogram of the formulation after 1 yr.
Table 7-18 Peak area and drug content of Lupeol.
Rf Strength Inj. vol Peak area Conc.
Content per tablet
Standard 0.4 100 µg/ml 2 µl 2674.9 98% 5.15 mg
Formulation 0.44 1 mg/ml 2 µl 685.9 2.29%
Formulation after 1 year 0.42
1 mg/ml
2 µl 618.1 2.26% 5.1 mg
Formulation development and evaluation
164
7.3.3.2.3.2 Estimation of Scopoletin
Fig 7-15 Chromatograms of standard scopoletin and the formulation after 1 yr.
7.3.3.2.3.3 Estimation of Guggulsterone E
Fig 7-16 Chromatograms of standard Guggulsterone E and the formulation after 1 yr.
Fig 7-15a Chromatogram of Standard scopoletin
Fig 7-15b Chromatogram of the formulation before 1 yr.
Fig 7-15c Chromatogram of the formulation after 1 yr.
Table 7-19 Peak area and drug content of Scopoletin.
Rf Strength Inj. vol Peak area Conc. (%) Content per tablet
Standard 0.45 100 µg/ml 6 µl 10279.6 98 3.92 mg
Formulation before 1 yr.
0.43 1 mg/ml 2 µl 915.8 2.61
Formulation after 1 yr.
0.43 1 mg/ml 4 µl 1665.3 2.38 3.57 mg
Fig 7-16a Chromatogram of Standard Guggulsterone E
Fig 7-16b Chromatogram of the formulation before 1 yr. Fig 7-16c Chromatogram of the formulation after 1 yr.
Formulation development and evaluation
165
7.4 Conclusion The present study was undertaken to develop a herbal formulation for the pharmacologically
developed dietary supplement combination. Development of a formulation from herbal
extracts is a challenge, and in our study three ethanol extracts were involved. The physical
and physicochemical properties of the extracts cause hurdles in the development of a
formulation. Herbal extracts contain a number of phytoconstituents besides the active
principles which makes dissolution a difficult task. Biologically active constituents have been
estimated in the in vitro dissolution studies. In our study we estimated three biologically
active constituents as reference standards for dissolution studies.
Development of a formulation from an extract or a combination of extracts deserves an entire
length of the study. Our study is a small part of a full length dietary supplement development
program and hence only preliminary work is done on the formulation. A detailed study on the
physical characteristics of extracts, their possible modification different formulations and a
detailed in vitro release study is required for the formulation.
Nevertheless, tablets of the combination of extracts were prepared as per human dose (600
mg) and their physical and chemical characteristics were evaluated. Round convex, dark
brown tablets containing 225 mg of ethanol extract of Cissus quadrangularis equivalent to
5.15 mg of lupeol; 225 mg Morinda citrifolia extract equivalent to 3.92 mg of scopoletin and
150 mg of ethanol extract of Commiphora mukul equivalent to 3.21 mg of guggulsterone E.
The formulation releases scopoletin within 4 hours while the lupeol and guggulsterone
release is slow and sustained which extends over a period of 24 h or more.
Table 7-20 Peak area and drug content of Guggulsterone E.
Rf Strength Inj. vol Peak area Conc.
Content per tablet
Standard 0.53 100 µg/ml 4 µl 1930.4 98% 3.54 mg
Formulation 0.53 1 mg/ml 2 µl 654.3 1.56%
Formulation after 1 yr.
0.53 1mg/ml 4 µl 298.5
1.52% 3.41 mg
Formulation development and evaluation
166
7.5 References
1 Hasler, C.M. 1998. A new look at an ancient concept. Chem. Industry Feb. 2: 84-89.
2 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), 1994. Available at http://www.fda.gov/Food/DietarySupplements/ucm109764.htm, accessed on 21 Nov. 2010
3 Goldman, P., 2001. Herbal medicines today and the roots of modern pharmacology. Annal of International Medicine, 135, 594–600.
4 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. (2002) Estimating the safe starting dose in clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, Maryland, USA
5 US Pharmacopeia. XXIX, The United States Pharmacopeial Convention; Rockville; MD; 2006: 2638-2639 and 2675-2676.
6 Cooper J, Gunn C. Powder flow and compaction. In: Tutorial Pharmacy. Edts. Carter SJ, CBS Publishers and Distributors; New Delhi; India; 1986: 211-233
7 Lachman L, Lieberman HA, Kanig JL.The Theory and Practice of Industrial Pharmacy. 3rd Edn, Varghese Publishing House; Bombay; 1991: 296-300.
8 Revision bulletin. 2040 Disintegration and dissolution of dietary supplements. The United States Pharmacopoeal commission; Official June 1 2011
9 Guidance for Industry, Q1A(R2) Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products. Revision 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER); ICH; November 2003
10 Regan-Shaw S, Nihal M, Ahmad N. Dose translation from animal to human studies revisited. The FASEB Journal 2007; 22:659-661
11 Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Estimating the safe starting dose in clinical trials for therapeutics in adult healthy volunteers. U.S. Food and Drug Administration; Rockville; Maryland USA; 2002
12 Anonymous (2007) A compound in red wine makes mice live longer, healthier. Mayo Clin. Health Lett. 5, 4
13 Sonali SB, Sandip BB, Amrita NB. Interactions and incompatibilities of pharmaceutical excipients with active pharmaceutical ingredients: a comprehensive review. J Excipients and Food Chem 2010; 1: 3-26
14 Rowe RC; Sheskey PJ; Quinn ME, Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. 6th Edition ed.; Pharmaceutical Press: London, 2009.
15 Howida KI, Ahmed MA, Mahmoud MG. Biopharmaceutical evaluation of formulated metformin/ rosiglitazone tablets. Drug Discoveries & Therapeutics 2010; 4:100-108.
16 Antipas AS, Landis MS. Solid state excipient compatibility testing. In: Pharmaceutical stress testing: Predicting drug degradation. edts Baertschi SW. Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton FL; 2005; 419-453.
17 Bruni G, Amici L, Berbenni V, Marini A, Orlandi A. Drug-Excipient compatibility studies: Search of interaction indicators. J Therm Anal Calorim 2002; 68: 561-3.
18 Differential Scanning Calorimetry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_scanning_calorimetry.
19 Javed S, Kohli K, Ali M. Solid State Compatibility between Silymarin and Tablet Excipients by Thermal and Non-Thermal Methods, its pH Stability and Solubility Analysis. J Pharmacy Res 2012; 5:1300-1305
20 Shangrqw RF. Compressed tablet by direct compression. In: Pharmaceutical dosage forms: Tablet. Edts: Lieberman HA, Lachman L, Schwwartz JB. Vol 1 Ed. 2. Marcel Dekkar Inc; New York; 2005; 195-245
21 Milosovitch G. Grud Cosmet Ind 1963; 92:557
22 Folttmann F, Anisul Quadir. Polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) – One of the Most Widely Used Excipients in Pharmaceuticals: An Overview. Drug Delivery Technology 2008; 8: 22-27
Formulation development and evaluation
167
23 Fassihi RA, McPhillips AM, Uraizee SA, Sakr AM. Potential use of magnesium stearate and talc as
dissolution retardants in the development of controlled release drug delivery systems. Pharm Ind 1994; 56: 579–583.
24 Fassihi R, Fabian J, Sakr AM. Application of response surface methodology to design optimization in formulation of a typical controlled release system. Drugs Made Ger 1996; 39: 122–126.
25 Schultz P, Tho I, Kleinebudde P. New multiparticulate delayed release system. Part 2. Coating formulation and properties of free films. J Control Release 1997; 47: 191–199.
26 Sheehan C. Excipient general chapters. USP 29-NF 24 (Page 2638). Pharmacopoel forum 2005; 32: 909
27 Mehta A, Barker GC. The dynamics of sand. Rep Prog Phys 1994; 57: 383
28 Leamington NE, Suddards FW . The Elements of Physics. Macmillan; www. books.google.com; 101.
29 Patil BS, Bhavik P, Kulkarni U, Ahmad QJ. A study on formulation and evaluation of Triphala Tablets. IJPI‟s J Pharmacog Herbal Form 2010; 1: Online journal
30 SullivanC, Sherma J. Development and Validation of an HPTLC–Densitometry Method for Assay of Glucosamine of different forms in Dietary Supplement Tablets and Capsules, Acta Chromatographica 2005; 15:119-130
31 Ansari MJ, Ahmad S, Kohli K, Ali j, Khar RK. Stability-indicating HPTLC determination of curcumin in bulk drug and pharmaceutical formulations. J Pharma Biomed Analysis 2005; 39:132–138
32 Ghosh VKR, Bhope SG, Kuber VV, Gaikwad PS, Patil MJ. Development and Validation of Dissolution Test Method for Andrographolide from Film Coated Polyherbal Tablet Formulation. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2012; 4: 307-312
33 The United States Pharmacopoeia/The National Formulary (USP 32/NF 27), Rockville, United States Pharmacopeial Convention, 2010.
34 Revision bulletin. 2040 Disintegration and dissolution of dietary supplements. The United States Pharmacopoeal commission; Official June 1 2011
35 Pradeep KG. Solutions and phase equillibria In: Remington‟s The Science and Practice of Pharmacy Pharmaceutical sciences. Edts Paul Beringer.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07317085http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/07317085/39/1