Comparative binding and disintegrating property of Echinochloa colona starch (difra starch) against maize, sorghum, and cassava starch

Figures & data

Table 1. Experimental design for preliminary experiments with different binders.

	Factors
Run	F1 (wet massing time)	F2 (povidone)	F3 (starch)	Tablet weight (mg)
F1	+1 (12)	+1 (15)	+1 (30)	298
F2	−1 (4)	+1 (15)	+1 (30)	298
F3	+1 (12)	+1 (15)	−1 (15)	283
F4	0 (8)	−1 (9)	+1 (30)	292
F5	+1 (12)	−1 (9)	−1 (15)	277
F6	0 (8)	+1 (15)	−1 (15)	283
F7	−1 (4)	−1 (9)	+1 (30)	292
F8	−1 (4)	+1 (15)	−1 (15)	283
F9	+1 (12)	−1 (9)	+1 (30)	292
F10	0 (8)	−1 (9)	−1 (15)	277
F11	−1 (4)	−1 (9)	−1 (15)	277
F12	0 (8)	+1 (15)	+1 (30)	298

The figures in brackets show the actual quantities used.

Figure 1. Physical characteristics of preliminary formulations.

Figure 2. Response surface plots depicting effect of disintegrants on DT and % friability.

Figure 3. Particle size distribution of blends prepared by suing starch from different sources.

Figure 4. Effect of lubrication on tablet DT and % friability.

Figure 5. Effect of different types of starch on DT and weight variation.

Figure 6. Effect of lubrication on drug release. Key: formulations: 1 = 1 + +; 2 = 1 − +; 3 = 1 + −; 4 = 1 − −; 5 = 2 + +; 6 = 2 − +; 7 = 2 + −; 8 = 2 − −; 9 = 3 + +; 10 = 3 + −; 11 = 3 + −; 12 = 3 − −; “1”, sorghum starch; “2”, difra starch; “3”, maize starch; “+”, high lubricant concentration; “−”, low lubricant concentration; “+”, high lubrication time; “−”, low lubrication time.

Figure 7. Effect of lubrication on tensile strength of tablets prepared from different starch types.