AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 1, Issue 3, pp 37–43 | Cite as

Evaluation of quick disintegrating calcium carbonate tablets

Article

Abstract

The purpose of this investigation was to develop a rapidly disintegrating calcium carbonate (CC) tablet by direct compression and compare it with commercially available calcium tablets. CC tablets were formulated on a Carver press using 3 different forms of CC direct compressed granules (Cal-Carb 4450®, Cal-Carb 4457®, and Cal-Carb 4462®). The breaking strength was measured using a Stokes-Monsanto hardness tester. The disintegration and dissolution properties of the tablets were studied using USP methodology. The calcium concentration was determined by an atomic absorption spectrophotometer. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the surface topography of the granules and tablets. Breaking strength of Cal-Carb 4450®, Cal-Carb 4457®, and Cal-Carb 4462® tablets was in the range of 7.2 to 7.7 kg, as compared with a hardness of 6.2 kg and 10 kg for the commercially available calcium tablets Citracal® and Tums®, respectively. The disintegration time for the tablets presented in the order earlier was 4.1, 2.1, 1.9, 2.9, and 9.7 minutes, respectively. The dissolution studies showed that all formulations released 100% of the elemental calcium in simulated gastric fluid in less than 20 minutes. In summary, this study clearly demonstrated that quick disintegrating CC tablets can be formulated without expensive effervescence technology.

Keywords

Calcium Carbonate Tablets Quick Disintegrating Effervescence 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Speckmann EW. What is the calcium requirement for optimal bone health? A workshop report.Proceedings of the XIII International Congress of Nutrition. Taylor TG, Jenkins NK, eds. London: John Libbey & Company Ltd.; 1985:580–583.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sheikh MS, Santa-Ana CA, Nicar MJ, Schiller LR, Fordtran JS. Gastrointestinal absorption of calcium from milk and calcium salts.N Engl J Med. 1987;317:532–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Recker RR, Bammi A, Barger-Lux MJ, Heaney RP. Calcium absorbability from milk products, an imitation milk and calcium carbonate.Am J Clin Nutr. 1988;47:93–95.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Greenspan SL. 73-year old woman with osteoporosis.JAMA. 1999;281:1531–1540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Peel N, Eastell R. ABC of rheumatology. Osteoporosis.Br Med J. 1995;310:989–992.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walker R. General management of end stage renal disease.Br Med J. 1997;315:1429–1432.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mayo M, Middleton RK. Calcium carbonate in hyperphosphatemia.DICP. 1991;25:945–947.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ekman M, Reizenstein P, Teigen SW, Ronneberg R. Comparative absorption of calcium from carbonate tablets, lactogluconate/carbonate effervescent tablet, and chloride solution.Bone. 1991;12:93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hansen C, Werner E, Erbes HJ, Larrat V, Kaltwasser JP. Intestinal calcium absorption from different calcium preparations: influence of anion and solubility.Osteoporos Int. 1996;6:386–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whiting SJ, Pluhator MM. Comparison of in vitro and in vivo tests for determination of availability of calcium from calcium carbonate tablets.J Am Coll Nutr. 1992;11:553–560.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mason NA, Patel JD, Dressman JB, Shimp LA. Consumer vinegar test for determining calcium disintegration.Am J Hosp Pharm. 1992;49:2218–2222.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schirmer RE, Kleber JW, Black HR. Correlation of dissolution, disintegration, and bioavailability of aminosalicylic acid tablets.J Pharm Sci. 1973;62:1270–1274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bhagavan HN, Wolkoff BI. Correlation between the disintegration time and the bioavailability of vitamin C tablets.Pharm Res. 1993;10:239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Garf E, Ghanem AH, Mahmoud H, Abdel-Alim H. Studies on the direct compression of pharmaceuticals. Part 19, Effect of moisture on tablet physical parameters and bioavailability.Pharm Ind. 1986;48:292–295.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chowhan ZT. The effect of low- and high-humidity aging on the hardness, disintegration time and dissolution rate of dibasic calcium phosphate-based tablets.J Pharm Pharmacol. 1980;32:10–14.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Garr JS, Bangudu AB. Evaluation of sorghum starch as a tablet excipient.Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1991;17:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nasipuri RN. Evaluation of cocoyam starch as tablet binder and disintegrant.Pharm Acta Helv. 1979;54:48–53.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gazikalovic E, Obrenovic D, Nidzovic Z, Toskic-Radojicic M. Use of domestically produced corn starch in the manufacture of calcium carbonate tablets.Vojnosanit Pregl. 1988;55:407–10.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Makino T, Yamanka M, Kitamori N. Behavior of pregelatinized starch during granulation and its influence on tablet properties.Chem Pharm Bull. 1995;43:2264–2266.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mollan Jr. MJ, Celik M. Characterization of directly compressible maltodextrins manufactured by three different processes.Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1993;19:2335–2358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hector Fausett
    • 1
  • Charles Gayser
    • 2
  • Alekha K. Dash
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical & Administrative Sciences, School of Pharmacy & AHPCreighton UniversityOmaha
  2. 2.Chr. Hansen/Ingredient Techn.Mahwah

Personalised recommendations