↓ Skip to main content

Impact breakage of pharmaceutical tablets

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Pharmaceutics, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
patent
2 patents

Readers on

mendeley
118 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Impact breakage of pharmaceutical tablets
Published in
International Journal of Pharmaceutics, December 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2017.11.066
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Tablets are the most common solid dosage form of pharmaceutical active ingredients due to their ease of use. Their dissolution behaviour depends on the particle size distribution and physicochemical properties of the formulation, and the compression process, which need to be optimised for producing consistently robust tablets, as weaker tablets are often prone to breakage during production, transport and end use. Tablet strength is typically determined by diametric compression and friability tests. The former gives rise to propagation of a crack on a plane along the compression axis, whilst the latter, carried out in a rotating drum, incurs surface damage and produces chips and debris. These tests produce different measures of strength, neither of which have been correlated with mechanical properties that are accountable for breakage, i.e. hardness, elastic modulus and fracture toughness. We propose a new method based on single tablet impact testing, following the work of Ghadiri and Zhang, 2002, who analysed particle damage by propagation of sub-surface lateral cracks and identified the fundamental form accountable for impact surface damage to be a lumped parameter related to hardness and fracture toughness. Microindentation, carried out separately, to determine fracture toughness led to complete failure of the tablets, hence an unreliable measurement of fracture toughness and no correlation with the experimental trend. In addition, by assuming the fracture toughness to be proportional to the square root of Young's modulus, the indentation measurements do not correlate well with the impact breakage. The discrepancy between the impact and indentation methods is expected to be due to mechanical property variation across the tablet surface, and with strain rate. The impact method is a more suitable test to describe tablet propensity for attrition as it directly represents the failure mode tablets may experience during processing under well-defined conditions. In contrast, the friability test subjects tablets to a similar breakage mechanism but under less well-defined conditions, whilst the compression test represents a different failure mode that is not representative of stresses incurred during processing.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 118 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 118 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 8%
Researcher 9 8%
Student > Master 7 6%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 9 8%
Unknown 64 54%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 16 14%
Engineering 11 9%
Chemistry 7 6%
Unspecified 5 4%
Chemical Engineering 4 3%
Other 6 5%
Unknown 69 58%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 9. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 April 2026.
All research outputs
#5,521,555
of 32,718,554 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Pharmaceutics
#1,448
of 10,209 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#86,653
of 481,979 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Pharmaceutics
#14
of 99 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,718,554 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 83rd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,209 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 481,979 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 99 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.