The coefficient of restitution of some pharmaceutical tablets/compacts

International Journal of Pharmaceutics

Volumn 402, Issue 1-2, 2010, Pages 50-56

  Bharadwaj, Rahul ^a   Smith, Carson ^b   Hancock, Bruno C ^c  

^a Jenike & Johanson Inc   (United States)

^b Clarkson University   (United States)

^c PFIZER INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Coefficient of restitution; Collision; DEM; Tablet

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ASCORBIC ACID; CALCIUM PHOSPHATE DIBASIC; FASTFLO; HYDROXYPROPYLCELLULOSE; IBUPROFEN; KLUCEL EXF; LACTOSE; MANNITOL; MICROCRYSTALLINE CELLULOSE; PARACETAMOL; TYLENOL PM; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ARTICLE; ELASTICITY; ENERGY; FORCE; MATERIALS TESTING; PHYSICAL STRESS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REPRODUCIBILITY; TABLET; TABLET FORMULATION; TABLET PROPERTY; VELOCITY; YOUNG MODULUS;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; ELASTICITY; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; POROSITY; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TABLETS;

EID: 78349304632     PISSN: 03785173     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2010.09.018     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. ASTM Standard Test Method for Measuring Coefficient of Restitution (COR) of Baseballs and Softballs 2003, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA.
2. Balog, S., Hiestand, E.N., 1989. Tablet press. US Patent 4880373.
3. Bassam F., York P., Rowe R.C., Roberts R.J. Young's modulus of powders used as pharmaceutical excipients. Int. J. Pharm. 1990, 64:55-60.
4. Bharadwaj R., Wassgren C., Zenit R. The unsteady drag force on a cylinder immersed in a dilute granular flow. Phys. Fluids 2006, 18:43301-43307.
5. Di Renzo A., Di Maio F.P. Comparison of contact-force models for the simulation of collisions in DEM-based granular flow codes. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2004, 59:525-541.
6. Foerster S.F., Louge M.Y., Chang H., Allia K. Measurement of the collision properties of small spheres. Phys. Fluids 1994, 6:1108-1115.
7. Goldsmith W. Impact: The Theory and Physical Behaviour of Colliding Solids 1960, Edward Arnold Publishers, London.
8. Hancock B.C., Carlson G.T., Ladipo D.D., Langdon B.A., Mullarney M.P. Comparison of the mechanical properties of the crystalline and amorphous forms of a drug substance. Int. J. Pharm. 2002, 241:73-85.
9. Hancock B.C., Mojica N., St.John-Green K., Elliott J.A., Bharadwaj R. An investigation into the kinetic (sliding) friction of some tablets and capsules. Int. J. Pharm. 2010, 384:39-45.
10. Johnson K.L. Contact Mechanics 1985, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
11. Ketterhagen W.R., am Ende M.T., Hancock B.C. Process modeling in the pharmaceutical industry using the discrete element method. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98:442-470.
12. Ketterhagen W.R., Curtis J.S., Wassgren C.R., Hancock B.C. Modeling granular segregation in flow from quasi-three-dimensional, wedge-shaped hoppers. Powder Technol. 2008, 179:126-143.
13. Kharaz A.H., Gorham D.G., Salman A.D. Accurate measurement of particle impact parameters. Meas. Sci. Technol. 1999, 10:31-35.
14. Kremer D.M., Hancock B.C. Process simulation in the pharmaceutical industry: a review of some basic physical models. J. Pharm. Sci. 2006, 95:517-529.
15. Kruggel-Emden H., Simsek E., Rickelt S., Wirtz S., Scherer V. Review and extension of normal force models for the discrete element method. Powder Technol. 2007, 171:157-173.
16. Kuo H.P., Knight P.C., Parker D.J., Tsuji Y., Adams M.J., Seville J.P.K. The influence of DEM simulation parameters on the particle behaviour in a V-mixer. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2002, 57:3621-3638.
17. Kuwabara G., Kono K. Restitution coefficient in a collision between two spheres. Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 1987, 26:1230-1233.
18. Labous L., Rosato A.D., Dave R.N. Measurements of collisional properties of spheres using high-speed video analysis. Phys. Rev. E 1997, 59:5717-5725.
19. Mangwandi C., Cheong Y.S., Adams M.J., Hounslow M.J., Salman A.D. The coefficient of restitution of different representative types of granules. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2007, 62:437-450.
20. Mullarney M.P., Hancock B.C. Mechanical property anisotropy of pharmaceutical excipient compacts. Int. J. Pharm. 2006, 314:9-14.
21. Paitich, R.M., 2006. Device for testing balls. US Patent 7111492.
22. Schwager T., Pöschel T. Coefficient of restitution for viscoelastic spheres: the effect of delayed recovery. Phys. Rev. E. Stat. Nonlin. Soft Matter Phys. 2008, 78(051304):1-12.
23. Sondergaard R., Chaney K., Brennen C.E. Measurements of solid spheres bouncing of flat plates. J. Appl. Mech. 1990, 57:694-700.
24. Sonnergaard J.M. A critical evaluation of the Heckel equation. Int. J. Pharm. 1999, 193:63-71.
25. Stevens A.B., Hrenya C.M. Comparison of soft-sphere models to measurements of collision properties during normal impacts. Powder Technol. 2005, 154:99-109.
26. Thornton C. Coefficient of restitution for collinear collisions of elastic-perfectly plastic spheres. J. Appl. Mech. 1997, 64:383-386.
27. Thornton C., Ning Z. A theoretical model for the stick/bounce behaviour of adhesive, elastic-plastic spheres. Powder Technol. 1998, 99:154-162.
28. TSM Tableting Specification Manual 2006, American Pharmacists Association, Washington, DC.
29. Walton O.R., Braun R.L. Viscosity, granular temperature, and stress calculations for shearing assemblies of inelastic, frictional disks. J. Rheol. 1986, 30:949-980.
30. Weir G., Tallon S. The coefficient of restitution for normal incident, low velocity particle impacts. Chem. Eng. Sci. 2005, 60:3637-3647.
31. Wu C.-y., Li L.-y., Thornton C. Rebound behaviour of spheres for plastic impacts. Int. J. Impact Eng. 2003, 28:929-946.
32. Zener C. The intrinsic inelasticity of large plates. Phys. Rev. 1941, 59:669-673.
33. Zeiss, T.R., 1993. Ball testing device. US Patent 5245862.