Influence of Biofield Treatment on Physicochemical Properties of Hydroxyethyl Cellulose and Hydroxypropyl Cellulose

Journal: Journal of Molecular Pharmaceutics & Organic Process Research PDF  

Published: 20-Jul-15 Volume: 3 Issue: 2

DOI: 10.4172/2329-9053.1000126 ISSN: 2329-9053

Authors: Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Shrikant Patil*, Rama Mohan Tallapragada and Rakesh Mishra

Citation: Trivedi MK, Nayak G, Patil S, Tallapragada RM, Mishra R(2015) Influence of Biofield Treatment on Physicochemical Properties of Hydroxyethyl Cellulose and Hydroxypropyl Cellulose. J Mol Pharm Org Process Res 3: 126. doi:10.4172/2329-9053.1000126

  • 2959 Views
  • 906 Downloads

Abstract

Cellulose based polymers have shown tremendous potential as drug delivery carrier for oral drug delivery system (DDS). Hydroxyethyl cellulose (HEC) and hydroxypropyl cellulose (HPC) are widely explored as excipients to improve the solubility of poorly water soluble drugs and to improve self-life of dosage form. This work is an attempt to modulate the physicochemical properties of these cellulose derivatives using biofield treatment. The treated HEC and HPC polymer were characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD), differential scanning calorimetry (DSC) and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). The XRD studies revealed a semi-crystalline nature of both the polymers. Crystallite size was computed using Scherrer’s formula, and treated HEC polymer showed a significant increase in percentage crystallite size (835%) as compared to the control polymer. This higher increase in crystallite size might be associated with greater crystallite indices causing a reduction in amorphous regions in the polymer. However treated HPC polymer showed decrease in crystallite size by -64.05% as compared to control HPC. DSC analysis on HEC polymer revealed the presence of glass transition temperature in control and treated HEC polymer. We observed an increase in glass transition temperature in treated HEC, which might be associated with restricted segmental motion induced by biofield. Nonetheless, HPC has not showed any glass transition. And no change in melting temperature peak was observed in treated HPC (T2) however melting temperature was decreased in T1 as compared to control HPC. TGA analysis established the higher thermal stability of treated HEC and HPC. CHNSO results showed significant increase in percentage oxygen and hydrogen in HEC and HPC polymers as compared to control samples. This confirmed that biofield had induced changes in chemical nature and elemental composition of the treated polymers (HEC and HPC).

Conclusion

Mr. Trivedi’s biofield treatment had substantially improved the physicochemical properties of HEC and HPC polymers. XRD showed that treatment with biofield had significantly enhanced the crystallite size by 835% in treated HEC as compared to control and possibly this increased the crystallinity. It was presumed that enhanced crystalline indices in treated HEC caused increase in crystalline size. DSC showed the increase in melting temperature of treated HEC and HPC as compared to control polymers. It was postulated that biofield treatment probably assisted the formation of long range order in crystal of polymers (HEC and HPC) which increased the melting temperature and thermal stability. CHNSO results showed substantial increase in percentage hydrogen and oxygen which confirmed that biofield had possibly induced structural changes in the treated polymers (HEC and HPC). Thermal analysis by TGA showed significant improvement in thermal stability of treated HEC (T1) and HPC (T1) as compared to control. ‘We hypothesize that biofield treatment probably caused changes at structural and atomic level due to weak interactions in the polymers. Based on the results the treated polymers could be used as a matrix for oral targeted DDS.