Research J. Pharm. and Tech.

4(5): May 2011

ISSN 0974-3618 www.rjptonline.org

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Formulation and Evaluation of Matrix-Type Transdermal Delivery System
of Ondansetron Hydrochloride Using Solvent Casting Technique
Farsiya Fathima1, Vijaya Kumar B1*, Shashi Ravi Suman Rudrangi2, Satish Kumar Vemula1,
Prasad Garrepally1, Swathi Chilukula1 and Samatha Rudrangi3
1
Department of Pharmaceutics, Jangaon Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Kakatiya University,
Yeshwanthapur, Jangaon-506167, Andhra Pradesh, India
2
Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, School of Science, University of Greenwich, Chatham Maritime, Kent,
United Kingdom ME4 4TB
3
Department of Pharmaceutics, Talla Padmavathi College of Pharmacy, Kakatiya University, Urus, Kareemabad-
506002, Andhra Pradesh, India
*Corresponding Author E-mail: suman_rudrangijips@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT:
The purpose of this research was to develop a matrix-type Transdermal therapeutic system containing drug
Ondansetron hydrochloride (OSH) with different ratios of hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymeric systems by the
solvent evaporation technique by using 25 % w/w of di-butyl phthalate to the polymer weight, incorporated as
plasticizer. 5% menthol was used to enhance the Transdermal permeation of OSH. Formulated transdermal patches
were physically evaluated with regard to thickness, weight variation, drug content, flatness, folding endurance,
percentage of moisture content and water vapour transmission rate. All prepared formulations indicated good physical
stability. Ex vivo permeation studies of formulations were performed by using Franz diffusion cells. Formulation
prepared with combination of hydrophilic polymers containing permeation enhancer showed best ex vivo skin
permeation through rat skin (Wistar albino rat) as compared to all other formulations. The release profile of OSH
followed zero-order kinetics in all formulations. However, the release profile of the optimized formulation F17 (r2 =
0.999 for Higuchi) indicated that the permeation of the drug from the patches was governed by a diffusion mechanism.
Formulation F showed highest flux among all the formulations in drug permeation. These results indicate that the
formulations containing menthol as the penetration enhancer (5%) giving better penetration of OSH through rat skin
were considered as suitable for large scale manufacturing with a backing layer and a suitable adhesive membrane.

KEYWORDS: Transdermal drug delivery, penetration enhancers, hydrophilic and hydrophobic polymers,
Ondansetron hydrochloride.

INTRODUCTION:
Transdermal drug delivery systems are topically Patient satisfaction has been realized through decreased side
administered medicaments in the form of patches that are effects, reduced dosing frequency, and improved plasma
mainly used for non-invasive “intravenous infusion” of profiles as compared with conventional oral dosing or
drugs for systemic effects at a predetermined and controlled painless administration as compared with injection therapy.
rate.1 In the last two decades, among the greatest successes in CR
drug delivery is the commercialization of transdermal
Transdermal systems are designed to deliver the therapeutic dosage forms 2-7
for the systemic treatment of a variety of
agent at a controlled rate from the device to and through the diseases.
skin into the systemic circulation. This route of
administration avoids unwanted presystemic metabolism To date, nearly 20 drugs alone or in combination have been
(first-pass effect) in the GI tract and the liver. launched into transdermal products worldwide. Additional
drugs are in the late development phases (phase II to
registration). Matrix based transdermal formulations have
been developed for a vast number of drugs that include
ephedrine, ketoprofen, metoprolol, labetolol hydrochloride,
Received on 21.02.2011 Modified on 12.03.2011 triprolidine, nitrendipine, lercanidipine, and propranolol. 8-14
Accepted on 24.03.2011 © RJPT All right reserved
Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011; Page 806-814

806
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

Ondansetron is a potent antagonist of Serotonin (5 HT3)
receptor which has been proved effective in prevention of
chemotherapy and radiotherapy-induced nausea and
vomiting. It can control diarrhoea and nausea in up to 100%
of patients and occasionally ameliorate the flushing. In this
work an attempt was made to formulate and evaluate TDDS
for sustained release OSH by solvent casting method. Low
molecular weight, good permeability, poor bioavailability
(60%) and shorter half-life (5-6 h) of OSH made it a
suitable drug candidate for the development of Transdermal
patches. The main objective of formulating the Transdermal
system was to prolong the drug release time, reduce the
frequency of administration and to improve patient
compliance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
Materials: Ondansetron hydrochloride was obtained as a
generous gift from Sun Pharmaceuticals (Baroda, India).
Eudragit RL100 and Eudragit RS100 were procured from
Aurobindo Pharmaceuticals (Hyderabad, India). Di-butyl
phthalate, menthol, hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, ethyl
cellulose, cellulose acetate phthalate were purchased from
SD Fine Chemicals (Mumbai, India). All the polymers
received were of pharmaceutical grade and were used as
received. Other materials and solvents used were of
analytical grade.
Preparation of standard solution: Firstly, stock solution-1
of OSH was prepared by dissolving 10 mg of drug in 100
ml of PBS pH 7.4, so as to get a solution of 1 mg/ml
concentration. Then stock solution -2 was prepared by
taking 10 ml from the previous stock solution and
dissolving in 100 ml of PBS pH 7.4, so as to get a solution
of 100 mg/ml concentration. Accurately measured aliquot
portions of standard drug solution, like 0.4 ml, 0.6 ml, 0.8
ml, 1.0 ml, 1.2 ml, 1.4 ml and 1.6 ml were taken from stock
solution-2 and were transferred in to 10 ml volumetric
flasks and were diluted up to the mark with PBS pH 7.4.
Absorbance of each solution was measured at max of 310
nm against PBS pH 7.4 as the blank, by using UV-
spectrophotometer. A graph of concentration of drug vs.
absorbance was plotted.
Formulation of Transdermal Patches16, 17
Preparation of blank patches: Polymers of single or in
combination were accurately weighed and dissolved in
respective solvent and then casted in a Petri-dish with
mercury as the plain surface. The films were allowed to dry
overnight at room temperature.
Development of Transdermal Patches: Mercury substrate
method was employed in preparing transdermal patches of
OSH.

Methodology: Table 1: Formulations of OSH Transdermal Patch

Formu EC: RL: PVA: HPMC SOLVENT
Preformulation study:
lation PVP RS PVP K4M:
Solubility study: OSH has very low aqueous solubility and code PVP
has not been reported in any official book, so determination F1 8:2 - - - CHLOROFORM
of solubility is important. The solubility was determined in F2 7:3 - - - CHLOROFORM
distilled water and Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) pH F3 6:4 - - CHLOROFORM
7.4. F4 5:5 - - - CHLOROFORM
F5 4:6 - - - CHLOROFORM
F6 - 8:2 - - ACETONE
Saturated solution of OSH was prepared using 10 ml of F7 - 6:4 - - ACETONE
distilled water/ PBS pH 7.4 in 25 ml volumetric flasks in F8 - 5:5 - - ACETONE
triplicate. Precautions were taken so that the drug remained F9 - 4:6 - - ACETONE
in medium in excess. Then by employing mechanical F10 - 8:2 - WATER
F11 - - 6:4 - WATER
shaker, the flasks were shaken for 48 h and the sampling F12 - - 5:5 - WATER
was done on 24th & 48th h. The sample withdrawn (1 ml F13 - - - 8:2 EDCM
after filtration) was diluted with appropriate medium and F14 - - - 6:4 EDCM
analyzed by using UV spectrophotometer (Systronic Pc- F15 - - - 5:5 EDCM
Based Double-Beam Spectrophotometer 2202, Ahmedabad, F16 4:6 EDCM
India) at 310 nm and 303.5 nm for PBS and distilled water F17 2:8 EDCM
EDCM= Ethanol: Dichloromethane
respectively.15
Mercury Substrate Method: The polymers,
Construction of standard graph: Standard graph of OSH
hydroxypropyl methylcellulose, ethyl cellulose, cellulose
was plotted in PBS pH 7.4 which was selected from
acetate phthalate, Eudragit RL100 and Eudragit RS100,
solubility study. OSH was estimated spectrophotometrically
poly vinyl Pyrrolidone, poly vinyl alcohol were taken in a
at max of 310 nm.
weighing bottle. About 10ml of solvent mixture of
dichloromethane: methanol (6:4) / chloroform / acetone
Preparation of Phosphate Buffer pH 7.4: Accurately
were added and shaked to prevent the formation of lumps
measured 250 ml of 0.2 M potassium dihydrogen phosphate
and kept aside for swelling of polymers. After complete
(KDHP) was taken in a 1000 ml of volumetric flask and
solubilization of polymers in mixture of solvent, required
added 195.5 ml of 0.2 M sodium hydroxide, and then water
quantity of dibutyl phthalate was added to the mixture and
was added to make up the volume and adjusted pH 7.4 by
stirred. Finally weighed quantity of OSH was dissolved in
using 0.2 M KDHP/sodium hydroxide.
5ml of solvent mixture, added to the polymer solution and
mixed well. It was set-aside for some time to exclude any

807
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

entrapped air and was then transferred into a previously
cleaned Petri plate (70.00 cm2) and kept aside for solvent
evaporation. The rate of solvent evaporation was controlled
by inverting a glass funnel over the Petri plate. After 12h,
the dried films were taken out and stored in a desiccator.
The composition of the patches is given in Table 1.
membranes (in weight %) was calculated in terms of
percentage increase in weight of membrane over the initial
weight of the specimen. The experiments were carried out
in triplicate and the average values were used for the
calculation. The percentage degree of swelling (DS) was
calculated as

Evaluation of Transdermal Patches: DS%= Ws-Wd/Wd * 100

Physical Methods: Where Ws and Wd indicate the weight of the swollen
Weight Variation: All the transdermal patches were and dry membranes respectively
visually inspected for color, clarity, flexibility &
smoothness. Drug Content Determination: The patch of area 3.83 cm2
was cut and dissolved in PBS pH 7.4. Then ethanol and
Thickness: Thickness of the patches was assessed at 3 dichloromethane were added to the mixture to make
different points using digital micrometer (Digital Caliper, polymer soluble, and the remaining volume was made up
Aerospace, India). For each formulation, three randomly with PBS pH 7.4 to 100 ml in 100 ml volumetric flask.1 ml
selected patches were used. was withdrawn from the solution and diluted to 10 ml. The
absorbance of the solution was found at 310 nm and
Physical Appearance: Three disks of 2x2 cm were cut and concentration was calculated. By correcting dilution factor,
weighed on electronic balance (Shimadzu, Aux*220) for the drug content was calculated.21
weight variation test. The test was done to check the
uniformity of weight and thus check the batch- to- batch Water Vapour Transmission Rate: Glass vials of 5 ml
variation. 16 capacity were washed thoroughly and dried to a constant
weight in an oven. About 1 g of fused calcium chloride was
Flatness: Longitudinal strips were cut out from each patch, taken in the vials and the polymer films of 3.83 cm2 were
one the centre and two from either side. The length of each fixed over the brim with the help of an adhesive tape. Then
strip was measured and the variation in the length was the vials were weighed and stored in a humidity chamber of
measured by determining present constriction, considering 80-90 % RH condition for a period of 24 h. The vials were
0% constriction equivalent to 100% flatness18. removed and weighed at 24 h time intervals to note down
the weight gain. The values are noted in table 4. Water
Folding Endurance: The folding endurance of the vapour transmission rate is expressed as the number of
prepared patch was measured manually. A strip of the film grams of moisture gained/hr/cm2. 22
(4x3 cm) was cut evenly and repeatedly folded at the same
place till it was broken. The thinner the patch more flexible Water Vapour Transmission Rate= Final weight-Initial
it is.19 weight/ Time*Area
Moisture Uptake: The patches were placed in the
Permeation Studies:
desiccators containing 200 ml of saturated potassium
In vitro Permeation Studies using Dialysis Membrane: In
chloride to get the humidity inside the desiccators at 84 %
vitro permeation of OSH from Transdermal patches through
RH. After 3 days the films were taken and weighed, the
dialysis membrane (Hi-Media) with molecular weight cut
percentage moisture absorption of the patch was found.19
off of 12000 was studied. The membrane was mounted over
a Franz diffusion cell and a transdermal patch. The receiver
% moisture absorbed= Final weight-Initial weight/ Initial compartment of the diffusion cell was filled with 15.0 ml of
weight * 100. PBS pH 7.4 and the setup was placed over a magnetic
stirrer with temperature maintained at 370C. Samples of 3
Moisture Content: The patches were weighed ml were withdrawn and replenished immediately from the
individually and kept in a desiccator containing fused receiver compartment at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12h. They were
calcium chloride at 40 ºC for 24 h. The patches were stored in refrigerated condition till the analysis was
reweighed until a constant weight was obtained. Moisture performed. The content of drug in the samples was
content was calculated in percentage based on the analyzed by UV-Visible spectrophotometer at 310 nm.
difference between the initial and constant final weights. An .
average of three readings was noted20. Ex vivo Rat Skin Permeation Studies:
Preparation of skin: A full thickness of skin was excised
Swelling Study: Completely dried membranes with a from dorsal site of dead rat and was washed with water. The
specified area (3.83 cm2) were weighed and put in fatty tissue layer was removed by using nails of fingers. The
desiccators for 24 h. They were removed and exposed to outer portion with hairs was applied with depilatory and
relative humidity conditions of 75 % (containing saturated allowed to dry. With the help of wet cotton the hairs were
solution of sodium chloride) in desiccators. Weight was scrubbed and washed with normal saline solution. The skin
taken on a single pan balance periodically until a constant was kept in normal saline solution and stored in refrigerator
weight was obtained. The swelling capacity of the
808
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

until further use. The skin was allowed to equilibrate with Table 3: Standard graph of OSH in PBS pH 7.4
room temperature prior to use and was mounted between CONCENTRATION(µG/ML) ABSORBANCE
donor and receptor compartment of cell. It was clamped in 0 0.00
2 0.129
such a way that the dermal side was in contact with receptor 4 0.231
23
medium . 6 0.359
8 0.482
Method: PBS pH 7.4 was used as receptor solution. The 10 0.591
volume of diffusion cell was 15 ml and stirred with 12 0.697
14 0.837
magnetic beads. The temperature was maintained at 37 ± 16 0.982
1°C with the help of hot plate. The diffusion was carried out Slope 0.06
for 10 h and 3 ml sample was withdrawn at an interval of 1 R2 0.998
h. The same volume of PBS pH 7.4 was added to receptor
compartment to maintain sink conditions and the samples
were analyzed at 310 nm.

Analysis of Permeation Data:

Determination of Flux: The flux (J) of OSH was
calculated from the slope of the plot of cumulative amount
of drug permeated per cm2 of skin at steady state against the
time using linear regression analysis. The steady state
permeability coefficient (Kp) of the drug through rat
epidermis was calculated by equation:

Kp =J / C
Where, J= flux (µg/cm2/hr) and C= concentration of drug
in the patch Fig.1: Standard curve of OSH

Kinetic Modeling of Drug Release: Various models were

tested for explaining the kinetics of drug release. To analyze
the mechanism of the drug release rate kinetics of the
dosage form, the obtained data were fitted into zero-order,
first order, Higuchi, and Korsmeyer-Peppas release
model.24-27

Stability study of Optimized Formulation: Stability

studies were carried out at 45 °C and 75% RH for three
months (climatic zone IV condition for accelerated testing)
to assess their long-term (2 years) stability of Transdermal
formulation. The protocols of stability studies were in
compliance with the guidelines in the WHO document for
stability testing of products intended for the global market.
After 3 months samples were withdrawn and evaluated for
physical properties and in vitro diffusion study. 28 Fig2a: In-vitro release profile of F1-F7

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION:

Preformulation study: Preformulation studies were
primarily done to investigate the physical properties of
drug.

Solubility Study: Ondansetron was best soluble in the PBS

Buffer pH 7.4. The solubility results are shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Solubility data for OSH

SOLUBILITY TIME DURATION SOLUBILITY
MEDIUM ( g/ml)
Distilled water 24 hours 62.03±3.35
48 hours 78.63±1.25
Buffer pH 7.4 24 hours 82.14±1.49
48 hours 96.34±1.92 Fig.2b: In-vitro release profile of F8-F12

809
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

Table 4: Physical evaluation data of OSH Transdermal patches. Results are the mean of triplicate observations ± SD
Formul Weight Thickness Folding (%)Moistur (%) Moisture WVT Rate Drug Swellability
ation variation (mm) endurance e uptake content (g.cm2/day content (%)±SD
code (mg) ±SD ±SD ±SD ±SD ±SD X10-4 ±SD (%)±SD
F1 65.34±1.6 0.025±1.6 71±0.9 2.96±0.95 3.08±0.97 2.36±0.14 97.24±0.2 12.73±0.43
F2 65.87±1.6 0.025±1.6 72±1 3.27±0.62 3.11±0.83 2.48±0.15 97.36±0.2 13.25±0.36
F3 66.12±1.8 0.024±1.6 71±0.9 3.89±0.86 3.28±0.75 2.62±0.16 97.45±0.2 14.28±0.38
F4 66.45±1.8 0.026±1.6 72±1 4.85±0.91 3.32±.058 2.93±0.16 98.41±0.3 16.34±0.42
F5 65.34±1.6 0.026±1.6 72±0.9 4.55±1.14 3.98±1.17 3.07±0.17 98.58±0.3 18.94±0.48
F6 66.39±1.8 0.025±1.6 71±1 4.75±1.08 4.63±0.67 3.14±0.17 98.34±0.3 20.67±0.46
F7 65.48±1.6 0.025±1.6 71±0.9 4.27±1.17 4.92±1.38 3.35±0.18 101.17±0.3 22.01±0.38
F8 67.28±1.7 0.045±1.8 77±1 4.93±0.6 3.12±0.3 3.66±0.13 99.38±0.4 38.59±0.61
F9 67.91±1.7 0.045±1.7 77±1 4.68±0.6 3.26±0.3 3.82±0.12 96.75±0.4 35.48±0.45
F10 68.08±1.7 0.047±1.9 80±2 4.86±0.8 3.53±0.6 3.91±0.13 96.81±0.4 32.87±0.46
F11 68.36±1.8 0.046±1.8 79±2 4.53±0.8 3.34±0.3 4.15±0.11 96.84±0.5 30.13±.055
F12 68.94±1.8 0.046±1.8 77±1 4.37±0.7 3.47±0.3 4.28±0.13 96.48±0.5 28.63±0.54
F13 64.86±1.8 0.045±1.5 78±2 4.48±0.5 4.39±0.5 4.12±0.26 98.28±0.7 42.15±0.62
F14 64.53±1.5 0.036±1.3 78±2 4.65±0.4 4.62±0.5 4.16±0.28 98.46±0.7 44.86±0.64
F15 64.21±1.4 0.037±1.4 77±2 4.83±0.6 4.92±0.8 4.28±0.24 98.74±0.3 46.38±0.39
F16 64.83±1.5 0.037±1.3 77±1 4.96±0.4 4.87±0.6 4.38±0.21 98.83±0.7 48.34±0.42
F17 64.46±1.4 0.036±1.3 79±2 5.03±0.5 5.01±0.7 4.48±0.21 100.15±0.8 48.92±0.64
WVT=Water Vapour Transmission; SD=Standard Deviation.
Table 5a: In vitro drug release from F-1 to F-7
Cumulative % drug released
Time F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
0 0.00 0.00± 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 6.81±0.45 7.06±0.54 7.91±0.71 8.50±0.86 8.94±0.94 9.31±0.96 9.75±1.01
2 13.80±0.46 14.29±0.56 16.33±0.74 16.89±0.89 17.32±0.97 17.77±0.98 18.45±1.07
3 20.98±0.49 22.74±0.58 23.63±0.76 24.30±0.92 24.93±0.99 25.92±1.01 26.34±1.11
4 28.49±0.51 30.61±0.61 32.23±0.77 33.49±1.02 34.37±1.01 35.34±1.05 36.44±1.15
5 34.58±0.53 37.16±0.63 38.19±0.82 41.56±1.05 42.53±1.05 43.85±1.12 45.11±1.18
6 41.73±0.55 44.38±0.66 47.01±0.85 50.68±1.06 53.89±1.08 55.33±1.16 57.16±1.23
12 76.31±0.57 79.76±0.69 84.07±0.87 88.47±1.07 90.38±1.13 92.98±1.18 96.79±1.29
Release profile data with mean ±SD
Table 5b: In vitro drug release from F-8 to F-12
Time F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 8.94±0.41 8.16±0.48 7.75±0.53 7.22±0.65 6.69±0.77
2 16.63±0.41 15.94±0.51 15.33±0.54 14.82±0.66 13.99±0.79
3 24.82±0.43 24.31±0.52 23.93±0.56 23.03±0.68 21.93±0.81
4 33.89±0.45 32.86±0.54 32.01±0.58 31.31±0.71 29.79±0.83
5 41.95±0.46 40.43±0.56 39.64±0.59 38.74±0.74 37.13±0.86
6 50.27±0.48 49.01±0.58 47.91±0.62 46.81±0.76 44.58±0.89
12 93.19±0.49 88.40±0.61 85.99±0.63 80.30±0.79 76.63±0.91
Release profile data with mean ±SD
Table 5c: In vitro drug release from F-13 to F-17
Time F13 F14 F15 F16 F17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 7.06±0.21 7.94±0.31 8.63±0.42 8.78±0.52 9.09±0.61
2 14.91±0.22 15.93±0.33 16.66±0.46 16.91±0.54 17.23±0.63
3 22.99±0.24 23.86±0.35 24.81±0.49 25.16±0.57 25.78±0.66
4 30.67±0.27 31.74±0.37 33.29±0.51 33.61±0.59 34.11±0.67
5 38.57±0.28 39.61±0.39 41.11±0.52 41.59±0.61 42.61±0.68
6 46.67±0.29 47.93±0.42 49.89±0.55 50.99±0.62 51.76±0.69
12 90.22±0.35 93.79±0.45 94.54±0.56 96.66±0.64 98.43±0.75
Release profile data with mean ±SD
Table 6a: Ex vivo diffusion release data for F1-F7
Cumulative % drug permeated
Time F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 4.19±0.45 4.29±0.53 4.36±0.68 4.41±0.77 4.54±0.83 4.43±0.87 4.28±0.93
2 7.32±0.46 7.41±0.57 7.54±0.69 7.67±0.79 7.83±0.86 7.63±0.89 7.50±0.95
3 9.82±0.51 10.12±0.59 10.23±0.72 10.38±0.81 10.91±0.89 10.43±0.92 10.27±0.98
4 12.06±0.49 13.13±0.62 13.99±0.75 15.02±0.84 16.12±0.91 14.96±0.94 14.21±1.01
5 16.18±0.53 17.65±0.66 18.32±0.76 19.38±0.89 21.64±0.93 20.20±0.96 19.16±1.06
6 20.10±0.55 21.78±0.68 23.59±0.79 25.14±0.92 27.09±0.96 25.78±0.99 24.92±1.08
12 50.69±0.57 51.35±0.71 52.26±0.82 54.81±0.94 56.64±0.99 57.42±1.02 58.60±1.13
Release profile data with mean ±SD
810
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

Fig.2c: In vitro release profile of F13-F17 Fig.3b: Ex vivo release profile of F8-F12

Fig.3a: Ex vivo release profile of F1-F7 Fig.3c: Ex vivo release profile of F13-F17

Table 6b: Ex vivo diffusion release data for F8-F12

Cumulative % drug permeated
Time F8 F9 F10 F11 F12
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 4.36±0.61 4.59±0.71 4.85±0.81 4.94±0.85 4.99±0.89
2 7.70±0.63 8.03±0.72 8.57±0.83 8.83±0.87 8.96±0.92
3 10.70±0.67 11.88±0.75 12.61±0.86 13.63±0.89 14.23±0.95
4 15.09±0.69 16.37±0.77 18.01±0.89 19.20±0.93 20.04±0.98
5 20.42±0.72 21.65±0.81 23.42±0.91 24.27±0.96 25.70±1.02
6 25.73±0.74 27.45±0.83 29.00±0.94 31.21±0.99 30.63±1.06
12 54.84±0.75 56.64±0.85 59.25±0.97 61.88±1.03 63.17±1.11
Release profile data with mean ±SD

Table 6c: Ex vivo diffusion release data for F13-F17

Cumulative % drug permeated
Time F13 F14 F15 F16 F17
0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1 4.27±0.81 5.02±0.85 6.01±0.91 8.19±0.97 8.27±1.01
2 8.57±0.82 9.03±0.87 9.57±0.93 16.16±0.99 17.3±1.04
3 12.65±0.85 15.04±0.91 17.00±0.96 23.10±1.02 24.28±10.8
4 17.79±0.87 21.28±0.93 22.15±0.97 32.59±1.06 35.36±1.11
5 24.59±0.89 26.90±0.95 28.15±0.98 40.17±1.09 42.84±1.14
6 31.61±0.92 31.78±0.97 35.33±0.99 48.59±1.11 48.76±1.18
12 60.27±0.94 63.64±0.99 68.47±1.02 70.63±1.15 73.15±1.21
Release profile data with mean ±SD

811
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

Table 7: Ex vivo skin permeation steady state flux, permeability coefficients of Transdermal patches
Formulation code Flux (µgcm-2h-1) Permeability coefficient (Kp)
F1 4.266 0.533
F2 4.336 0.542
F3 4.433 0.554
F4 4.676 0.584
F5 4.851 0.606
F6 4.928 0.616
F7 5.041 0.630
F8 4.686 0.585
F9 4.824 0.603
F10 5.035 0.629
F11 5.268 0.658
F12 5.355 0.669
F13 5.203 0.65
F14 5.388 0.673
F15 5.779 0.722
F16 5.683 0.710
F17 5.937 0.742

Table 8: Ex vivo skin permeation kinetics followed by formulations of OSH Transdermal patches
Formulation code Zero order model First order model R2 Higuchi model Peppas model
R2 R2
n R2
F6 0.990 0.847 0.958 0.992 0.989
F8 0.994 0.771 0.971 0.703 0979
F17 0.971 0.970 0.972 0.766 0.991

Table 9: Physical evaluation data of OSH Transdermal patches before and after 3 months
Formulation Weight Thickness Folding (%)Moisture (%)Moist WVT Drug Swellability
code variation (mm) endurance uptake ure Rate(g.cm2/ content (%)±SD
(mg) ±SD ±SD ±SD ±SD content day X10-4 (%)±SD
±SD ±SD
F6 Before 66.39±1.8 0.025±1.6 71±1.8 4.75±1.08 4.63±0.67 3.14±0.17 98.34±0.3 21.67±0.46
After 66.58±1.6 0.027±1.6 72±2.1 4.97±1.17 4.82±1.38 3.25±0.18 99.17±0.3 22.01±0.38
F8 Before 67.28±1.7 0.045±1.8 77±1 4.93±0.6 3.12±0.3 3.66±0.13 99.38±0.4 38.59±0.61
After 67.91±1.7 0.046±1.7 78±1 4.98±0.6 3.26±0.3 3.82±0.12 99.75±0.4 39.48±0.45
F17 Before 64.46±1.5 0.036±1.3 79±1 5.03±0.4 5.01±0.6 4.38±0.21 98.83±0.7 48.34±0.42
After 64.83±1.4 0.037±1.3 80±2 4.98±0.5 4.99±0.7 4.48±0.21 99.15±0.8 48.92±0.64

Table10: In vitro drug release data of optimized formulations before and after 3 months
OPTIMIZED Before stability After stability
FORMULATION
CODE 0 month 1st month 2nd month 3rd month
F6 92.98±1.18 93.06±1.19 93.13±1.20 93.21±1.21
F8 93.19±0.49 93.38±0.51 93.45±0.52 93.49±0.54
F17 98.43±0.75 98.56±0.76 98.62±0.77 98.71±0.79
SIMILARITY FACTOR 80.23

Table 11: Ex vivo skin permeation steady state flux, permeability coefficient, kinetics followed by optimized formulations of transdermal
patches
Formulation Flux (µgcm-2h-1) Permeability Zero order First order Peppas model
code coefficient (Kp) model R2 model R2 HiguchimodelR2
n R2
F6 4.968 0.636 0.987 0.849 0.921 0.993 0.991
F8 4.716 0.592 0.999 0.781 0.976 0.711 0981
F17 5.981 0.761 0.999 0.975 0.977 0.774 0.992

Standard graph of OSH in PBS pH 7.4: Standard graph
of drug was plotted as per the procedure in experimental
method and its linearity was shown in table 3 and graph.
The standard graph showed good linearity with R2 of 0.998
which indicates that it obeys “Beer-Lambert’s” law.
812
The physical evaluation of Transdermal patches for all
formulations was performed. Weight variation was found in
the range of 64.21±1.4 to 68.94±1.8 and thickness was
found to be between 0.024±1.6 to 0.047±1.9. The results of
flatness study showed that none of the formulations had the
difference in the strip lengths before and after longitudinal
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011
cut, indicating 100% flatness, thus they could maintain a
smooth surface when applied to the skin. The folding
endurance was found to be in the range of 71±0.9 to 80±2
which indicated that the patches would not break and would
maintain their integrity with general skin folding when
used. The folding endurance of Eudragit patches was higher
than patches containing Ethyl cellulose and PVA-PVP.
Drug content was found to be in the range of 96.48±0.5 to
101.17±0.3 indicating that the drug was uniformly
distributed throughout the patches and evidenced by the low
values of SD. Hydrophilic polymers showed considerable
swelling, as they increased the surface wettability and
consequently water penetration within the matrix varied
between 12.73 to 48.92%.
Patches containing higher amount of PVP showed good
water vapour transmission (4.48±0.21) than that of Eudragit
and Ethyl cellulose patches. The enhancement of water
vapour permeation with increase of PVP is due to the
irregular arrangement of molecules in the amorphous state,
which causes the molecules to be spaced further apart than
in crystal. Hence the specific volume is increased and the
density decreased compared to that of crystal, which leads
to the absorption of vapour into their interstices. All the
formulations were permeable to water vapour.
Diffusion Studies:
In vitro Release: The in vitro release studies were
conducted for all the formulations and the data was
represented in tables 5a, b and c. The in-vitro release
profiles for all the formulations were shown in fig.2a, b and
c. The percentage release was found to be highest (98.43%)
for formulation carrying PVA: PVP in ratio 2:8 because of
the hydrophilic nature of the polymer.
Ex vivo Permeation Studies: The cumulative amount 1)
permeated was calculated and presented in tables 6a, b and
c and figures 3a, b and c. It was higher in case of PVA-PVP 2)
polymer containing matrix.
The reason for high release from PVA-PVP polymers could
be explained by the hydrophilic nature of the polymers and
due to leaching of PVP and pore formation. This leads to an
increase in the external film area exposed to the solvent,
increased internal porosity and decreased tortuosity. The
enhancement in solubility of drug increased with
thermodynamic activity that facilitated permeation of dug
across the skin. The patch coded F1 (EC: PVP 8:2) showed
the slowest permeation. This could be attributed to the
hydrophobic nature of the polymer which helped to retain
the drug in the matrix by reducing the penetration of the
solvent molecules into the patch. On the basis of the ex vivo
skin permeability experiment, it appeared that menthol at a
concentration of 5% w/w was effective for enhancing the
transdermal transport of Ondansetron. The permeability
coefficients were in the order of 0.533 to 0.742 (table-7).
Kinetic Modelling of Drug Release: The drug release
from OSH matrix patches was best explained by the
Korsmeyer and Peppas model and zero order. The value of
813
the slope (0.992) indicated that the drug released by zero
order type as shown in Table 8.
Stability: After storage, the formulations were subjected to
drug content, physical evaluation and in vitro release
studies. The statistical analysis of these parameters after
storage at 45 °C and 75% RH for three months showed no
significant change Table 9-11.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
We would like to express our deepest gratitude towards
Prof. Stephen. R. Wicks, University of Greenwich, U.K.,
Prof. D. Rambhau and Prof. Shashank Apte, Natco
Research Centre, Hyderabad for their noble guidance
throughout the project.
CONCLUSION:
Seventeen formulations were prepared using different
polymers in different ratios and combinations, along with
plasticizers and penetration enhancer. Mercury was used as
a substrate for pouring the polymeric solution. The films
were evaluated for uniformity of thickness, weight
variation, drug content, folding endurance, % elongation, %
moisture absorption, moisture content, water vapour
transmission study, in vitro release and ex-vivo diffusion
studies using Franz diffusion cell. The formulations
followed the Higuchi’s model for the drug diffusion study.
Since the formulations follow Higuchi’s model, thus they
indicate diffusion mechanism. The Peppa’s plot showed the
n value of 0.766 for formulation F17, thus indicating non-
fickian diffusion. There is scope for the further study and
development of the Ondansetron Hydrochloride
Transdermal patches.
REFERENCES:
Chien YW. Novel Drug Delivery Systems. Drugs and the
Pharmaceutical Sciences. Marcel Dekker, New York. 1992.
Kydonieus A and Berner B. Transdermal Delivery of Drugs.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 1987.
3) Chien Y. Transdermal Controlled System Medications. Marcel
Dekker, New York. 1987.
4) Hadgraft J and Guy R. Transdermal Drug Delivery:
Developmental Issues and Research Initiatives. Marcel Dekker,
New York. 1989.
5) Gurney R and Teubner A. Dermal and Transdermal Drug
Delivery. Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft, 1993.
6) Ghosh T, Pfister W and Yum S. Transdermal and Topical Drug
Delivery Systems. Interpharm Press, Buffalo Grove, Illinois.
1997.
7) Brahmankar DM and Jaiswal SB. Biopharmaceutics and
Pharmacokinetics- A Treatise. Vallabh Prakashan, New Delhi,
India. 1995.
8) Aquil M, Sultana Y and Ali A. Matrix type transdermal drug
delivery systems of metoprolol tartrate: In vitro characterization.
Acta Pharm, 53; 2003: 119-125.
9) Ramesh G, Vamshi Vishnu Y, Kishan V and Madhusudan Rao Y.
Development of nitrendipine transdermal patches: in vitro and ex
vivo characterization. Current Drug Del, 4; 2007: 69-76.
10) Singh J, Tripathi KP and Sakia TR. Effect of penetration
enhancers on the in vitro transport of ephedrine through rat skin
and human epidermis from matrix based transdermal
formulations. Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm, 19; 1993: 1623-1628.
 Research J. Pharm. and Tech. 4(5): May 2011

11) Valenta C and Almasi-Szabo I. In vitro diffusion studies of

ketoprofen transdermal therapeutic system. Drug Dev. Ind.
Pharm, 21, 1995:1799-1805.
12) Krishna R and Pandit JK. Transdermal delivery of Propranolol.
Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm, 20, 1994: 2459-2465.
13) Aqil M, Zafar S, Ali A and Ahmad S. Transdermal drug delivery
of labetolol hydrochloride: System Development, In vitro; Ex
vivo, and In vivo characterization. Curr Drug Deliv, 2(2); 2005:
125-31.
14) Shin, S. and Lee, H. Enhanced transdermal delivery of
triprolidine from the ethylene-vinyl acetate matrix. Eur. J. Pharm.
Biopharm, 54; 2002: 161-164
15) Murthy S N, Sateesh M and Hamsa V. Drug release from
terbutaline sulphate Transdermal Films across human cadaver
skin, Indian J Pharm Sci. 59(2); 75-76
16) Saxena M, Mutalik S and Reddy MS. Formulation and evaluation
of Transdermal patches of metoclopramide hydrochloride. Indian
drugs. 43(9); 2006:740-5.
17) Ubaidulla U, Reddy MV and Ruckmani K. Transdermal
therapeutic system of Carvedilol: Effect of hydrophilic and
hydrophobic matrix on in vitro and in vivo characteristics. AAPS
Pharmsci Tech. 2007; 8(1).
18) Arora P and Mukherjee B. Design, development,
physicochemical and in vitro and in vivo evaluation of
Transdermal patches containing diclofenac diethylammonium
salt. J Pharm Sci. 91; 2002: 2076-2089.
19) Devi K, Saisivum S, Maria GR, Deepti PU. Design and
evaluation of matrix diffusion controlled Transdermal patches of
verapamil hydrochloride. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 5; 2003: 495-503.
20) Rajan R. et al Design and in vitro evaluation of Chlorpheniramine
maleate from different Eudragit based matrix patches: Effect of
plasticizer and chemical enhancers. Ars Pharm. 50 (4); 2010:177-
194.
21) Prashant M, Satturwar S, Fulzele V and Avinash K. Dorle
Evaluation of polymerized rosin for the formulation and
development Transdermal drug delivery systems. AAPS
PharmSciTech 6(4); 2005:48-53.
22) Carmelo Puglia and Francesco Bonina. Effect of Polyunsaturated
Fatty Acids and some conventional Penetration Enhancers on
Transdermal Delivery of Atenolol. Drug Delivery. 15; 2008:
107–112.
23) Bharkatiya M and Nema RK. Skin penetration enhancement
techniques J. Young Pharm. 1(2); 2010:110-115.
24) Higuchi T. Mechanism of sustained-action medication:
theoretical analysis of rate of release of solid drugs dispersed in
solid matrices, J. Pharm Sci. 52; 1963:1145-1149.
25) Higuchi T. Rate of release of medicaments from ointment bases
containing drugs in suspension. J. Pharm Sci. 50; 1961:874-875.
26) Korsmeyer R, Gurny R and Peppas N. Mechanisms of solute
release from porous hydrophilic polymers. Int J. Pharm. 15;
1983:25-35.
27) Peppas NA. Analysis of Fickian and non-Fickian drug release
from polymers. Pharm Acta Helv. 60; 1985:110-111
28) Eseldin K, Rakesh KS, Esmaeil B and Abd-alkadar ZA.
Transdermal Drug Delivery System- Design and Evaluation.
International Journal of Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences.1;
2010: 201-211.

814