THE EFFECT OF DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF PEG ON THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUPPOSITORY

1. Introduction

Suppositories are solid dosage forms of various sizes, appearance (shapes) and weights intended for administration by rectal route where they melt, soften or dissolve to exert their effect. They are capable of being easily inserted into the intended orifice without causing undue distention.

The suppository usually composed of a medicament incorporated (dissolved or suspended) in a suppository base, this medicament may be intended for retention within the cavity for localized drug effect or to be absorbed for the exertion of systemic effect. For example, rectal localized action such as relief of constipation, pain, itching and inflammation associated with hemorrhoid conditions. Suppositories are indicated for systemic action in pediatric patients and in patients who cannot take or tolerate oral medication due to variety of reasons e.g. to relief nausea, vomiting and pain.

The drug must be spread in a suitable base of suppository. Ideal suppository bases should be easily formed by compression or molding; release any medicament readily; melt at body temperature or dissolve or disperse in body fluids; keep its shape when handled; compatible with the drugs, non-irritant and non-toxic.

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) polymers have received much attention as suppository bases in recent years because they possess many desirable properties. They are chemically stable, non-irritating, miscible with water and mucous secretions, and can be formulated, either by molding or compression, in a wide range of hardness and melting point. Moreover, they do not melt at body temperature, but dissolve to provide a prolonged release.

Certain PEG polymers may be used singly as suppository bases but, more commonly, formulas call for compounds of two or more molecular weights mixed in various proportions as needed to yield a finished product of satisfactory hardness and dissolution time.

2. Objectives

·         To calibrate suppository mould with PEG before preparing medicated suppositories.

·         To determine the effect of different compositions of PEG base on the physical characteristics of suppositories.

3. Materials and methodology

3.1 Apparatus

·         Analytical balance

·         1 x Suppository mould set

·         Water bath at 37^oC

·         1 x Spatula

·         Hotplate

·         4 x Weighing boats

·         4 x 50 mL beaker

·         2 x Glass rod

·         1 x 5 mL pipette and pipette bulb

·         1 x 5 mL measuring cylinder

3.2 Materials

·         Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 1000

·         Distilled water

·         Polyethylene glycol (PEG) 6000

·         Liquid paraffin

·         Paracetamol

3.3 Methodology:

3.3.1 Calibration of Suppository Molds with PEG Base

10 g of the following proportions of PEG 1000 and PEG 6000 were used for this exercise.

Ingredients	Percentage	Weight Basis
PEG 1000	60%	6g
PEG 6000	40%	4 g

The mold was calibrated with PEG suppository base:

1. A clean and dry mold was prepared.

2. 6g of PEG 1000 were melted on a hot plate and mixed with 4g of PEG 6000.

3. The mixture was removed from the heat and allowed to cool before pouring into the mold.

4. The cavities in the mold were overfilled. It was put at the room temperature to become solid form.

5. The excess was removed carefully with a hot spatula; then the suppositories were removed from the mold.

6. The suppositories were weighed and the total weight was recorded. The average suppository weight was calculated.

3.3.2 Preparation of paracetamol suppositories

1. A saturated stock solution of paracetamol was prepared by adding 10 g of paracetamol in 5 mL distilled water.

2. The following paracetamol suppositories (10 g) were prepared using the formulation below:

Suppositoy	PEG 1000 (g)	PEG 6000 (g)	Paracetamol stock solution (mL)	Total (g)
I	9	0	1	10
II	6	3	1	10
III	0	9	1	10

3. One type of PEG was melted on a hot plate, then, the heat was reduced and the other PEG was mixed in.

4. The mixture was removed from the heat and allowed to cool before pouring into the mold.

5. The cavities in the mold were overfilled. It was put at the room temperature to become solid form.

6. The excess was removed carefully with a hot spatula; then the suppositories were removed from the mold.

7. The shape, texture and color of the suppositories were observed and recorded.

8. Each of the suppositories were put into a separate beaker containing distilled water (10 mL and pre-warmed at 37^oC) and then, the beaker was put into a water bath (37^oC).

9. The time for the suppositories to melt was recorded.

4. Results

Part 3.3.1

No of mold	1
Total weight for 6 suppositories (g)	6.0708
Average weight for 1 suppositories (g)	6.0708/6 = 1.0118

Part 3.3.2

Suppository	Shape	Texture	Colour
I	Bullet	Soft, greasy	Clear white
II	Bullet	Hard. smooth, slightly greasy	Cloudy white
III	Bullet	Hard, smooth, less greasy	White

Amount of PEG 6000 (g)	0	3	9
Time (mins)	7.30	5.25	3.08

5. Discussion

1. Describe the important of calibrating suppository mould before preparing medicated suppository. 

  

Suppository mould should be calibrated before preparing medicated suppository to ensure that each suppository will contain the correct amount of active compounds. The volume of each mould will be uniform, but the weight of the produced suppository will be different depending on base used. There are often slight differences between molds and even in the cavities within a mold. Dosage errors may occur which are under dose and overdose. Therefore after calibration with the base, we can determine the correct amount of active compound in the suppositories produced with the mould after calculating the displacement value of the active drug used.

2. Compare the physical appearance of suppositories that are formed and discuss.

Suppository	PEG 1000 (g)	PEG 6000 (g)	Shape	Texture	Color
I	9	0	Bullet-shaped	Softer, most greasy	Most transparent, opaque
II	6	3	Bullet-shaped	Soft, greasy	Translucent white
III	0	9	Bullet-shaped	Hard, least greasy	Clear white

All the suppositories are in bullet-shaped as they are put inside the same suppositories moulds.

 As the active ingredient used is Paracetamol which is white in color, so the suppositories are all in white colour but different in the transparency. The suppositories I containing only PEG 1000 and Paracetamol solution are Most transparent and opaque in color, the suppositories II containing a mixture of PEG 1000, 6000 and Paracetamol solution are translucent white while the suppositories III made of only PEG 6000 are in clear white color. This is due to increasing amount of PEG 6000 and increasing amount of PEG 1000 used. PEG 1000 is white paste which is opaque and PEG 6000 is white flake which is slightly clear.

          The hardness of suppositories is related to the chemical structure of the overall suppository. Suppositories III which contain only PEG 6000 is the hardest while suppositories I which contain only PEG1000 is the softest among these three. The hardness of the suppositories increases when the amount of PEG 6000 increases. This is because PEG 6000 contains higher content of hydroxyl groups within the structure. More of intra-molecular and inter-molecular hydrogen bonds are formed between PEG molecules, thus increasing the overall structure strength.

           On the other hand, greasiness of the suppositories are related to the amount and effect of PEG 1000, which is considered more hydrophobic than PEG 6000. Suppositories I is the most greasy while suppositories III is the least greasy. PEG 1000 is less hydrophilic and has more lipophilic property. Therefore, when the amount of PEG 1000 decreases with the increase of PEG 6000, the degree of greasiness decreases. Thus, suppositories with the high content of PEG 1000 will result in the formation of more greasy suppositories.

3) Graph of the time required to melt the suppository vs. the amount of PEG 6000 in the formulation.

Amount of PEG 6000 (g)	0	3	9
Time needed for the suppositories to melt (min)	38.36	42.45	55.57

       

The graph above shows the time needed for the suppository to melt vs. the amount of PEG 6000 in the formulation. The time required for the suppository to melt increases as the amount of PEG 6000 increases in the formulation. This is because when the PEG 6000 was not added in the formulation, the time needed for the suppository to melt was 38.36 minutes whereas when 3g of PEG 6000 was added, the time needed to melt the suppository increased to 42.45 minutes. Besides, when 9g of PEG 6000 was used, the time required for the suppository to melt was even longer which was 55.57 minutes.

In the experiment, at constant room temperature of 37the suppository III with the highest amount of PEG 6000 needs the longest time to melt whereas suppository I with the lowest amount of PEG 6000 needs the shortest time to melt. This is due to the increased content of PEG 6000 in the suppository increases its insolubility in the water and hence the time required to dissolve in water.

            Although the theory regarding the time needed for the suppository to melt which depends on the amount of PEG 6000 was proven right through the experiment, but the results obtained were inaccurate. This is because the time after the suppositories started to melt were taken rather than the time when the suppositories started to melt.

4) Describe function(s) of each ingredients used in the suppository formulation.

The ingredients used in preparing paracetamol suppository formulation are paracetamol, polyethylene glycol (PEG), distilled water and liquid paraffin.

Paracetamol is the main active ingredient in the paracetamol suppository formulation where it has a major role in giving the required therapeutic effect in the body of the patients. It is also used as an analgesic and antipyretic medication.

Polyethylene glycol (PEG) is often used as an excipient in pharmaceutical formulations as the PEG polymers are water miscible type of bases. The PEGs used in the experiment are PEG 1000 and PEG 6000. Both PEG 1000 and PEG 6000 are water-soluble carrier bases where they increase the effective dispersion and delivery of the drugs through rectal route by diffusing out from PEG as it degrades. The difference in the properties such as the molecular weight of PEG 1000 and PEG 6000 affects the physical properties of the drug such as its melting point, hardness, smoothness, greasiness and time taken for it to melt at body temperature. PEG 6000 has higher molecular weight than PEG 1000. The higher the molecular weight of PEG, the harder the suppository and the longer its retention time in the body. High amount of PEG 6000 causes the suppository to solidify faster, become harder than the one produced with PEG 1000 and have sustained release besides affecting the rate of absorption of suppository into the body.

Besides, distilled water was used to dissolve paracetamol in preparing saturated stock solution of paracetamol. Liquid paraffin was also used to lubricate the suppository mold. The solidified suppository was able to be taken out easily from the mold by lubricating the mold.

5. Conclusion

 The physical characteristic of suppositories can be affected by the different composition of base. It can be observed through their physical appearance, hardness, greasiness and ease of melting. Suppository mould was calibrated with 6g of PEG 1000 and 4g of PEG 6000 before preparing medicated suppositories. Different amount of PEG 6000 will also affect the time needed for the suppository to melt in body fluid. Hence influencing the rate of release of drug from the suppositories.

6. References

http://pharmlabs.unc.edu/labs/suppository/bases.htm

http://chemicalland21.com/industrialchem/organic/POLYETHYLENE%20GLYCOL.htm

GROUP 1 - DPP1 LAB

GROUP MEMBERS

1. TAN BEE YOKE  A152820
2. HONG YING YING  A152588
3. NG JING ENN  A153238
4. WOO KAI XUAN  A152564
5. HAFIZAH BINTI MAHMOOD ALI  A153432
6. RAMAVISITHIRA A/P RAMASAMY  A153348

PRACTICAL 3 ASSESSMENT OF QUALITY OF TABLETS AND CAPSULES

TITLE

Assessment of Quality of Tablets and Capsules

AIM

1.  To examine the shape, colour, diameter, thickness and/or other physical characteristics.

2.      To measure the uniformity of diameter, thickness and hardness of tablets.

3.      To determine the tablet friability.

4.      To determine the uniformity of weight of tablets and capsules.

5.      To discover the content of ibuprofen (assay).

DATE OF EXPERIMENT

21^st November 2016

INTRODUCTION

Tablets and capsules are the example of the oral dosage form used. Like all other dosage forms, they are subjected to those pharmacopoeial standards dealing to the “added substances” respecting their toxicity, interference with analytical methods and more. There are certain procedures that is applied specifically to tablets and capsules and they are designed to ensure that a tablet or a capsule exerts its full pharmacological actions. Furthermore, they also to determine the uniformity of the physical properties of the official tablet or capsule. These standards are found in the British Pharmacopoeia and United Pharmacopoeia and they include, uniformity of diameter, uniformity of weight (mass), content of active ingredient, uniformity of content, friability, disintegration and dissolution. There are a number of quality control procedures that is widely applied but are not defined by the pharmacopoeias such as the thickness, and hardness.

In this assessment, there are five experiments conducted:

      1.      Examining the characteristics of tablets and capsules.

      2.      Testing the uniformity of diameter, thickness and hardness.

      3.      Testing the tablet friability

      4.      Testing the uniformity of weight of tablets and capsules.

      5.      Content of ibuprofen (assay)

Experiment 1: Physical Appearance

Procedures:

      1)      One tablet and capsule were selected randomly from the provided samples. The shape, colour, diameter, thickness and other physical characteristics were examined and determined for the samples chosen.

Results:

Characteristics	Tablet	Capsule
Shape	Oval	Cylindrical with hemispherical ends
Colour	Pink	Red and Black
Diameter	1.8 cm	0.6 cm
Thickness	0.5 cm	-
Other physical characteristics	Brand – APP Weight – 250 mg	Brand – AMPILLIN Weight – 250 mg Length – 1.7 cm

Experiment 2: Uniformity of diameter, thickness and hardness

Procedures:

      1.      10 tablets are selected and carried out tests for uniformity of diameter, thickness and hardness using the Tablet Testing Instrument (PHARMATEST PTB 311)

      2.      The deviation of individual unit from the mean diameter should not exceed ±5% for tablets with diameter of less than 12.5 and ±3% for diameter of 12.5mm or more.

Results:

Tablet	Thickness (mm)	Diameter (mm)	Hardness (N)	Deviation of diameter (%)
1	5.45	13.16	113.80	0.228
2	5.48	13.11	150.01	-0.152
3	5.50	13.11	150.01	-0.152
4	5.47	13.12	137.08	-0.076
5	5.42	13.12	122.30	-0.076
6	5.45	13.11	143.55	-0.152
7	5.33	13.17	138.19	0.305
8	5.47	13.14	203.78	0.076
9	5.44	13.13	175.32	0.000
10	5.48	13.12	118.98	-0.076
Mean:	5.45	13.13	145.30

Formula for deviation = x100%

The tablets are manufactured by compression of the powder with force. So the thickness of tablet depends on the amount of force applied during the compression to produce the tablet. When larger force is applied, the tablet will be more compact and thinner. A compact tablet will takes a longer time to dissolve and disintegrate, so the absorption of drug by our body will be slower. If the tablet is thick then it might break easily because the particles are not compressed to compact. This cause the tablet couldn’t survive the whole manufacturing process or might break before use by patients. Therefore it is very important to achieve the optimum thickness for the tablet. In this experiment, we used Tablet Testing Instrument (PHARMATEST PTB 311) to measure the thickness, diameter and the hardness of the tablet. The mean thickness of the tablet from the result of the experiment is 5.45mm. The mean diameter for the tablets in the experiment is 13.13mm, so the tolerance for the tablets deviation of individuals unit from the mean diameter must not exceed ±3%. From the result table, it shows that the deviation of the individual unit does not exceed ±3%, the deviation at most only 0.305%. Thus, we can confirm that the tablets have uniform diameters.

Experiment 3 : Tablet friability

Procedures :

      1.      10 tablets were selected and weighed.

      2.      All tablets were put into the drum of the tablet abration and friability tester. The rate of rotation was set to 25 rpm, time to 10 minutes and the operation was started.

      3.      At the end of operation, all the tablets were removed and the dust or powder on the tablets was cleaned by using brush. The tablets were reweighed. The percentage loss of weight was determined.

Results :

Original weight of 10 tablets	5.7811g
Weight of 10 tablets after the test	5.7583g
Weight of loss	0.0228g
Percentage loss of weight

Discussion :

            The objective of testing the friability of tablet is to ensure the stability of tablets during collision in the bottle. To do this, the tablet abration and friability tester is used as a standard to test the tablet friability. During the test, the dust and powder on the tablets were cleaned with brush before reweighing for the second time to determine the loss of weight. This is a precaution to ensure the accuracy of the results.

According to the results, only 0.39% of the weight was lost after the friability test. Since the percentage of lose weight does not exceed 1%, hence, we can say that the friability of tablets is satisfactory.

Experiment 4: Uniformity of weight of tablets and capsules

Procedures :

Tablets

1.     20 tablets from previously selected at random were weighed and the average weight was determined.

2.     Then, the tablets were individually being weighed and the percentage deviation of its weight from the average weight was determine for each tablet.

3.     The deviation of individual weight from the average weight should not exceed the limits given below.

Capsules

1.     20 capsules were selected at random.

2.     One capsule was weighed. Capsule was opened and the content was removed completely as possible. The emptied shell was weighed. The net weight of its contents was determined, that was by subtracting the weight of the shells from the weight of the intact capsule.

3.     The procedure was repeated with other 19 capsules.

4.     The average net weight from the sum of the individual net weights was determined.

5.     The percentage deviation from the average net weight for each capsules was determined. The deviation of individual net weight should not exceed the limits given below.

Results :

Tablet

No.	Weight of tablet (g)	Deviation
		Weight (mg)	Percentage (%)
1.	0.6427	+0.7	0.11
2.	0.6293	-12.7	1.98
3.	0.6345	-7.5	1.17
4.	0.6092	-32.8	5.11
5.	0.6362	-5.8	0.90
6.	0.6285	-13.5	2.10
7.	0.6636	+21.6	3.36
8.	0.6331	-8.9	1.39
9.	0.6458	+3.8	0.59
10.	0.6449	+2.9	0.45
11.	0.6686	+26.6	4.14
12.	0.6426	+0.6	0.09
13.	0.6416	-0.4	0.06
14.	0.6324	-9.6	1.50
15.	0.6330	-0.9	0.14
16.	0.6305	-11.5	1.79
17.	0.6471	+5.1	0.79
18.	0.6690	+2.7	0.42
19.	0.6405	-1.5	0.23
20.	0.6663	+24.3	3.79

Average weight of tablet = total weight of 20 tablet / 20

Average weight = 12.8394g / 20

= 0.6420g

Deviation in percentage is calculated using the formula below:
Deviation (%) = (weight of individual tablet) – (average weight of tablet) X  100%

                                    Average weight of tablet

Number of tablets have percentage of deviation ±5.0 = 19
Number of tablets have percentage of deviation ±10.0 = 1

Capsule

No.	Weight of capsule(g)	Weight of capsule shell (g)	Net weight of capsule (g)	Deviation
				Weight (mg)	Percentage (%)
1.	0.4688	0.0748	0.3940	+4.6	1.18
2.	0.4680	0.0733	0.3947	+5.3	1.36
3.	0.4604	0.0816	0.3788	-10.6	2.72
4.	0.4708	0.0759	0.3949	+5.5	1.41
5.	0.4718	0.0764	0.3954	+0.6	0.15
6.	0.4756	0.0804	0.3952	+5.8	1.49
7.	0.4748	0.0799	0.3949	+5.5	1.41
8.	0.4557	0.0743	0.3814	-0.8	0.21
9.	0.4803	0.0795	0.4008	+11.4	2.93
10.	0.4674	0.0797	0.3877	-1.7	0.44
11.	0.4726	0.0776	0.3950	+5.6	1.44
12.	0.4742	0.0810	0.3932	+3.8	0.98
13.	0.4669	0.0767	0.3902	+0.8	0.21
14.	0.4569	0.0819	0.3750	-14.4	3.70
15.	0.4644	0.0786	0.3858	-3.6	0.92
16.	0.4596	0.0768	0.3828	-6.6	1.69
17.	0.4614	0.0823	0.3791	-10.3	2.65
18.	0.4720	0.0775	0.3945	+5.1	1.31
19.	0.4613	0.0790	0.3823	-7.1	1.82
20.	0.4658	0.0735	0.3923	+2.9	0.74

Net weight of 20 capsules: 7.7880g
Average net weight of capsule = net weight of 20 capsules/ 20

Average net weight = 7.7880g / 20

= 0.3884g

Deviation in percentage is calculated using the formula below:

Deviation (%) = (net weight of individual capsule) – (average net weight of tablet) X 100%

                                    Average net weight of tablet

Number of capsules have percentage of deviation ±5.0 = 20
Number of capsules have percentage of deviation ±10.0 = 0

Discussion:

Based on the experiment, the uniformity of weight of tablets and capsules were determined respectively in order to make sure that the dosage units are consistent. The average weight of the tablets obtained was 0.6420 g. Since the average weight obtained is more than 250 mg, minimum 18 tablets did not deviate from 0.6420 g by 5 %. Maximum 2 tablets did not deviate from 0.6420 g by 10 %. The uniformity of the tablets weighed had minimal deviation between the range and fall within the range limit of weight. The average weight obtained for the capsules was 0.3894 g. Since the average weight obtained is more than 300 mg, minimum 18 capsules did not deviate from 0.3894 g by 7.5 % and maximum 2 capsules did not deviate from the average weight by 15 %. The uniformity of the capsules weighed had minimal deviation and fall within the range limit of weight. Therefore, all the tablets and capsules passed the test conducted and both are considered as a successful batch respectively.

Besides, the results of the test of uniformity of weight for capsules may not be that accurate as there is might be some powder left in the capsules when they were emptied from the shells. As a precaution, the shells of capsules should always be completely emptied before weighing in order to increase the accuracy of result.

Questions
1.      What are the objectives of the tests for uniformity of diameter and uniformity of content?

To identify the uniformity of diameter, thickness and hardness for 10 samples of tablet. To test the ability for tablet to withstand sufficient mechanical strength and fracture/ erosion during manufacturing and handling.

2.  State the types of tablets and capsules that must be tested for uniformity of diameter and uniformity of content.

All the uncoated and coated tablets except the enteric tablets, film-coated tablets and sugar-coated tablets. Whereas, the uniformity of content tests normally involves single dose preparations. Tablets and capsules included are coated tablets, others than film-coated tablets containing 50mg or more of an active ingredient that comprises 50% or more of one tablet. Tablets or capsules have active ingredients less than 5% are needed. Liquid-filled soft capsules, solids packaged in single-unit containers with or without added substances and solutions for inhalation packaged in glass or plastic ampules are not applicable for testing uniformity of content.

3.      Why is it important that tablets and capsules have uniform weight and content?

To ensure accurate and consistent dosage form to be administered by patients. The safety and efficacy of drug products can be guaranteed when their quality is reliable and reproducible from batch to batch.

4.      Give reasons for the non-compliance to test for uniformity of weight.

The reasons for non-compliance to test for uniformity of weight are uneven feeding of granules into the die and due to irregular movement of the lower punch that cause variation in capacity die space. This result in unsatisfactory mix of ingredients at blending stage, and segregation of  compound in formulation is also can happen.

5.      Explain why is it beneficial for any tablets or capsules to have distinctive or identifying features.

Differences in features may affect patient compliance and acceptability of medication regimens. It could prevent medication errors when patients could mistaken having the same tablet twice if the features of medications given are similar.

Experiment 5 : Content of ibuprofen (assay)

Procedures :

1.      20 Ibuprofen Tablets previously selected at random were weighed and powdered.

2.   A quantity of powder containing 0.5g ibuprofen were extracted with 20ml chloroform for 15 minutes and was filtered through sintered glass crucible (BS Porosity No. 1).

3.  The residue were washed with 3 . 10 ml chloroform and the combined filtrate were gently evaporated just to dryness in a current of air. The residue were dissolved in 100ml with ethanol (96%) previously neutralized to phenolphthalein solution.

4.    The solution was titrated with 0.1 M sodium hydroxide to end point with phenolphthalein solution as the indicator. The content of ibuprofen was calculated if each ml of 0.1 M sodium hydroxide is equivalent to 0.002063 g of C₁₃H₁₈O₂.

Results :

Calculate the powder of ibuprofen that contain 0.5g active ingredients of ibuprofen:

Weight of powder of ibuprofen = 10.97g

1 ibuprofen tablet contains 400mg active ingredients of ibuprofen

20 ibuprofen tablets contain 20 x 400mg = 8000mg (8g) of active ingredients of ibuprofen.

8g ibuprofen contain in 10.97g of tablet powder

0.5g ibuprofen contain in= 0.69g of tablet powder.

Thus, 0.69g of tablet powder was weighed and dissolved in 20ml of chloroform.

Calculate the weight of content of ibuprofen after titration:

C₁₃H₁₈O₂  + NaOH = C₁₂H₁₇COONa + H₂O

Volume of sodium hydroxide used = 14ml

Given that 1mL of 0.1M sodium hydroxide is equivalent to 0.02063g C₁₃H₁₈O₂, 

So, the weight of Ibuprofen in the tablet is 14 x 0.02063g = 0.289g.

Percentage of standard deviation =x 100%

                                                            

                                                         =   x 100%

                                                         

                                                         = 57.8%

Discussion :

            From the calculation, we obtained a standard deviation of 57.8%. Based on the value given by British Pharmacopoeia (B.P.), the standard deviation accepted is between 90%-110% which proved that some errors occurred during the experiment because the percentage of standard deviation obtained from experiment is lower than the accepted value.

Firstly, some of the ibuprofen powder might left behind during weighing and filtration process. The powder might stick at the weighing boat when transferred to the conical flask and filter paper where the residue is not being filtered completely before we proceed to the next step. Then, the content of ibuprofen in powder given might be inaccurate or the ibuprofen tablets used were expired, these might cause the reduced in amount of ibuprofen. Another error might occur when drying the filtrate. The solution may not dry completely, causing to inaccurate results of mass of ibuprofen. In addition, error would occur during the titration with sodium hydroxide. This is because we titrated too fast and missed the first volume of sodium hydroxide to change the colourless solution changed to pink colour. To avoid this, we should titrate slowly with drop by drop because we were not sure about the volume needed.

CONCLUSION

To design drugs with similar size and shape so that the patients do not confuse, the uniformity of the diameter is important.  The thickness of the tablets is important in order to package the tablets either in blister or plastic container. The hardness of the tablets is important in order to ensure the drugs or tablets have effective hardness that will makes them dissolve in dissolution, but cannot easily break due to any pressure or forces applied to them.

REFERENCES

1.      http://www.slideshare.net/mallikarjunvasm/quality-control-tests-for-tablets

2.      http://www.pharmacopeia.cn/v29240/usp29nf24s0_m39890.html