Skip to main content
NCBI home page
AAPS PharmSci logoLink to AAPS PharmSci
. 2000 Sep 20;2(3):102–113. doi: 10.1208/ps020331

Mathematical modeling of surface-active and non-surface-active drug transport in emulsion systems

Nachiappan Chidambaram 1,✉, Diane J Burgess 1
PMCID: PMC2761141  PMID: 11741247

Abstract

Mathematical models were developed for the prediction of surface-active and non- surface-active drug transport in triphasic (oil, water, and micellar) emulsion systems as a function of micellar concentration. These models were evaluated by comparing experimental and simulated data. Fick's first law of diffusion with association of the surface-active or complexation nature of the drug with the surfactant was used to derive a transport model for surface-active drugs. This transport model assumes that the oil/water (O/W) partitioning process was fast compared with membrane transport and therefore drug transport was limited by the membrane. Consecutive rate equations were used to model transport of non- surface-active drugs in emulsion systems assuming that the O/W interface acts as a barrier to drug transport. Phenobarbital (PB) and barbital (B) were selected as surface-active model drugs. Phenylazoaniline (PAA) and enzocaine (BZ) were selected as non- surface-active model drugs. Transport studies at pH 7.0 were conducted using side-by-side diffusion cells and bulk equilibrium reverse dialysis bag techniques. According to the surface-active drug model, an increase in micellar concentration is expected to decrease drug-transport rates. Using the Microft EXCEL program, the non- surface-active drug model was fitted to the experimental data for the cumulative amount of the model drug that disappeared from the donor chamber. The oil/continuous phase partitioning rates (k1) and the membrane transport rates (k2) were estimated. The predicted data were consistent with the experimental data for both the surface-active and non- surface-active models.

References

  • 1.Flynn GL, Yalkowsky SH, Roseman TJ. Mass transport phenomena and models: theoretical concepts. J Pharm. Sci. 1975;63:479–510. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600630403. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Baker RW. Controlled Release of Biologically Active Agents. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1989. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kydonieus AF. Controlled Release Technologies: Methods. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1980. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Martin A, Swarbrick J, Cammarata A. Pirysical Pharmacy. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger.; 1993. pp. 371–373. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Burgess DJ, Davis SS, Tomlinson E. Potential use of albumin microspheres as a drug delivery system. I. Preparation and in vitro release of steroids. Int J Pharm. 1987;39:129–136. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(87)90207-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Short PM, Abbs ET, Rhodes CT. Effect of nonionic surfactants on the transport of testosterone across a cellulose acetate membrane. J Pharm Sci. 1970;59:995–998. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600590716. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Amidon GE, Higuchi WI, Ho NFH. Theoretical and experimental studies of transport of micelle-solubilized solutes. J. Pharm Sci. 1982;71:77–84. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600710120. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Madan PL. Sustained-release drug delivery systems: Part V, Parenteral products Pharmaceutical Manufacturing: 1985:51–57.
  • 9.Goldberg H, Higuchi WI, Ho NFH, Zografi G. Mechanism of interface transport. I. Theoretical considerations of diffusion and interfacial barriers in transport of solubilized systems. J Pharm Sci. 1967;56:1432–1437. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600561112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ghanem A, Higuchi WI, Simonelli AP. Interfacial barriers in interphase transport: retardation of the transport of diethylphthalate across the hexadecane-water interface by an adsorbed gelatin film. J Pharm Sci. 1969;58:165–174. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600580203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ghanem A, Higuchi WI, Simonelli AP. Interfacial barriers in interphase transport. II. Influence of additives upon the transport of diethylphthalate across the hexadecane-gelatin-water interface. J Pharm Sci. 1970;59:232–237. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600590219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Ghanem A, Higuchi WI, Simonelli AP. Interfacial barriers in interphase transport. 3. Transport of cholesterol and other organic solutes into hexadecane-gelatin-water matrices. J Pharm Sci. 1970;59:659–665. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600590516. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Lostritto RT, Goei L, Silvestri SL. Theoretical considerations of drug release from submicron oil in water emulsions. J Pharm Sci Tech. 1987;41:214–219. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Bikhazi A, Higuchi W. Interfacial barrier limited interphase transport of cholesterol in the aqueous polysorbate 80-hexadecane system. J Pharm Sci. 1970;59:744–748. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600590603. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Yoon KA, Burgess DJ. Mathematical modeling of drug transport in emulsion systems. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1998;50:601–610. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1998.tb06893.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Chidambaram N, Burgess DJ. A novel in vitro release method for submicron-sized dispersed systems. AAPS Pharm Sci. 1999;1(n3) article 11 (http://www.pharmsci.org). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 17.Chidambaram N, Burgess DJ. Effect of non-ionic surfactant on transport of surface-active and non- surface-active model drugs and emulsion stability in triphasic systems. AAPS Pharm Sci. 2000, 2 (3) article 30 (http://www.pharmsci.org). [PubMed]
  • 18.Chidambaram N, Burgess DJ. Effect of cationic surfactant on transport of surface-active and non- surface-active model drugs and emulsion stability in triphasic systems. AAPS Pharm Sci. 2000; 2 (3) article 28 (http://www.pharmsci.org/). [PubMed]

Articles from AAPS PharmSci are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists

RESOURCES