Tablet binding compositions

Abstract

Provided are tablet binding compositions for binding cleaning and/or disinfecting formulation components into tablets. The tablet binding compositions are suitable replacements for traditional tablet binder compounds, such as boric acid or zeolites. The tablet binding compositions provided herein can produce tablets of increased hardness at lower compression forces and, when dissolved, yield solutions of increased clarity compared to some traditional binder compounds. Also provided are processes for preparing the tablet binding compositions and methods for formation of tablets containing the tablet binding compositions.

Claims

1. A method of producing a tablet containing a component, comprising: blending together a sodium acetate salt and a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant that is a gluconolactone to form a tablet binder composition, wherein: the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant is an anhydrous crystalline or anhydrous powder form having a particle size greater than 250 μm and is present in an amount from 20% to about 80% by weight of the tablet binder composition; the sodium acetate salt is an anhydrous crystalline or anhydrous powder form having a particle size greater than 250 μm and is present in an amount from 80% to about 20% by weight of the tablet binder composition; and the ratio of the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant to the acetate salt is in the range of about 4:1 to about 1:4; mixing the component with an amount of the tablet binder composition from about 10% to about 25% by weight of the tablet to produce a uniform mix that does not contain zeolites, boric acid, borates or perborates; and forming the uniform mix into a tablet having a tablet friability of about 1% or less by compression by: depositing the uniform mix into a press mold or die; and applying a compression force of about 1750 pounds per square inch (PSI) to compress the mix to produce the tablet.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the mixing or the forming or both is/are performed in a humidity controlled environment.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the component and the tablet binder composition are mixed using a planetary mixer, a vee-blender, a vee-cone blender, a rotary batch mixer, a fluidized bed mixer, a ribbon blender, a paddle blender, a plow blender, or a combination thereof.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the gluconolactone is glucono-delta-lactone.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein applying the compression force results in the tablet having a weight loss percentage of less than 0.5%.

6. The method of claim 1, further comprising mixing a liquid with the component and the tablet binder composition prior to forming the tablet.

7. The method of claim 6, wherein the liquid is selected from among an alcohol, a glycol, a polyglycol, a glycol ether, a propanediol, glycerin, an ester, a terpene, an anionic surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, a cationic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a zwitterionic surfactant, and a combination thereof.

8. The method of claim 6, wherein the liquid is an alcohol ethoxylate alone or in combination with one or more of a water-soluble or water-dispersible nonionic surfactant, a semi-polar nonionic surfactant, an anionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, an amphoteric surfactant, or zwitterionic surfactant.

9. The method of claim 6, wherein the liquid is a polyethylene glycol.

Description

G. Examples

(1) The following examples illustrate specific aspects of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope thereof in any respect and should not be so construed.

Example 1

(2) Preparation of Tablet Binding Compositions Containing an Acetate Salt and a C6 Saccharide Derivative Sequestrant

(3) Tablet binding compositions provided herein containing an acetate salt and a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant were prepared. The formulation for each of the tablet binding compositions is provided in Table 1. The tablet binding compositions provided herein have a ratio of acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant in the range of from about 5:1 to about 1:5. To prepare each tablet binding composition, each of the indicated amounts of the acetate salt and the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was placed in a 16 oz. Mason jar. The lid to the jar was secured in place and the jar was shaken by hand for at least one minute to achieve a homogeneous blend.

(4) TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Formulations of Tablet Binding Compositions. Acetate wt. (g) Sequestrant wt. (g) Ratio Example 1-A1 Sodium acetate, 80 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A2 Sodium acetate, 20 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A3 Sodium acetate, 60 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 40 3:2 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A4 Sodium acetate, 40 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 60 2:3 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A5 Sodium acetate, 50 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 50 1:1 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A6 Sodium acetate, 83.33 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 16.67 5:1 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-A7 Sodium acetate, 16.67 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 83.33 1:5 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-B1 Sodium acetate, 80 Glucono-delta-lactone, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B2 Sodium acetate, 20 Glucono-delta-lactone, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B3 Sodium acetate, 60 Glucono-delta-lactone, 40 3:2 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B4 Sodium acetate, 40 Glucono-delta-lactone, 60 2:3 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B5 Sodium acetate, 50 Glucono-delta-lactone, 50 1:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B6 Sodium acetate, 83.33 Glucono-delta-lactone, 16.67 5:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-B7 Sodium acetate, 16.67 Glucono-delta-lactone, 83.33 1:5 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-C1 Sodium acetate, 80 Sodium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C2 Sodium acetate, 20 Sodium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C3 Sodium acetate, 60 Sodium gluconate, 40 3:2 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C4 Sodium acetate, 40 Sodium gluconate, 60 2:3 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C5 Sodium acetate, 28.57 Sodium gluconate, 71.43   1:2.5 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C6 Sodium acetate, 71.43 Sodium gluconate, 28.57 2.5:1   anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C7 Sodium acetate, 50 Sodium gluconate, 50 1:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C8 Sodium acetate, 83.33 Sodium gluconate, 16.67 5:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-C9 Sodium acetate, 16.67 Sodium gluconate, 83.33 1:5 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-D1 Potassium acetate, 80 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.5 Example 1-D2 Potassium acetate, 20 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.5 Example 1-E1 Potassium acetate, 80 Glucono-delta-lactone, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.5 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-E2 Potassium acetate, 20 Glucono-delta-lactone, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.5 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-F1 Potassium acetate, 80 Sodium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.5 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-F2 Potassium acetate, 20 Sodium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.5 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-G1 Calcium acetate, 80 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.6 Example 1-G2 Calcium acetate, 20 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.6 Example 1-H1 Calcium acetate, 80 Glucono-delta-lactone, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.6 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-H2 Calcium acetate, 20 Glucono-delta-lactone, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.6 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-I1 Calcium acetate, 80 Sodium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.6 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-I2 Calcium acetate, 20 Sodium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.6 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-J1 Magnesium acetate, 80 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.7 Example 1-J2 Magnesium acetate, 20 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.7 Example 1-K1 Magnesium acetate, 80 Glucono-delta-lactone, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.7 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-K2 Magnesium acetate, 20 Glucono-delta-lactone, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.7 anhydrous .sup.3 Example 1-L1 Magnesium acetate, 80 Sodium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.7 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-L2 Magnesium acetate, 20 Sodium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.7 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-M1 Sodium acetate, 80 Glucosamine 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 hydrochloride .sup.8 Example 1-M2 Sodium acetate, 20 Glucosamine 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 hydrochloride .sup.8 Example 1-N1 Sodium acetate, 80 d-Mannitol .sup.9 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-N2 Sodium acetate, 20 d-Mannitol .sup.9 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 Example 1-O1 Sodium acetate, 80 Potassium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.10 Example 1-O2 Sodium acetate, 20 Potassium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.1 anhydrous .sup.10 Example 1-P1 Silver acetate, 80 Sodium gluconate, 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.11 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-P2 Silver acetate, 20 Sodium gluconate, 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.11 anhydrous .sup.4 Example 1-P3 Silver acetate, 80 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 20 4:1 anhydrous .sup.11 Example 1-P4 Silver acetate, 20 d-Glucitol, anhydrous .sup.2 80 1:4 anhydrous .sup.11 .sup.1, 7 = available from Niacet Corporation, Niagara Falls, NY, USA. .sup.2 = available from EMD Millipore, a division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. .sup.3, 4 = available from Jungbunzlauer Inc., Newton Centre, MA, USA. .sup.5 = available from Chem One Ltd., Houston, TX, USA. .sup.6 = available from Vasa Pharmachem Pvt. Ltd., Gujarat, India. .sup.8, 9, 11 = available from Sigma-Aldrich Corporation, St. Louis, MO, USA. .sup.10 = available from Jost Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO, USA.

(5) The tablet binding compositions were flowable and easily mixed with other components of a cleaning/disinfectant formulation for tableting.

Example 2

(6) Comparative Examples Using Traditional Tablet Binding Compounds

(7) Tablets containing the traditional binding compounds boric acid or zeolites were prepared for comparison to tablets containing the tablet binding composition containing an acetate salt and C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant as provided herein. The formulations are provided in Tables 2 and 3.

(8) TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Example 2-A - Comparative Borate Detergent Formulation. Component Weight (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 Boric acid .sup.14 15 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Total = 100

(9) TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 Example 2-B - Comparative Zeolite Detergent Formulation. Component Weight (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 Sodium acetate .sup.17 6.4 Zeolite .sup.18 (Valfor ® 100 Zeolite) 6.4 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 3.2 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Total = 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.14 = available from American Borate Company, Virginia Beach, VA, USA. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA. .sup.17 = available from Niacet Corporation, Niagara Falls, NY, USA. .sup.18 = available from PQ Corporation, Valley Forge, PA, USA.

(10) Each example was made in a 225 gram batch. Powders and liquids individually were weighed out using a top load balance. A 500 mL beaker was used as a mixing vessel. The alcohol ethoxylate was mixed with either the boric acid (Example 2-A) or the zeolite (Example 2-B) to prepare a pre-blend. Mixing was performed manually using a metal spatula and the components were mixed for at least 1 minute and visually inspected to ensure homogenous mixing. The remaining ingredients of the formulation were added to the pre-blend and manually mixed using a metal spatula for at least 1 minute and visually inspected to ensure the powder blend was homogenous. If necessary, the mixing was continued until a homogeneous blend was obtained.

(11) The homogeneous blend then was used to prepare tablets. 30 gram aliquots of the homogeneous blend of each formulation separately were weighed to be made into compressed tablets. The weight of each powder sample was recorded as “Original Weight” (see Table 4). Each 30 gram powder sample was compressed into a tablet using a 44.45 mm diameter die. Tablet compression was performed using a CARVER Press (Carver, Inc. (Wabash, Ind.)) with a 7500 PSI gauge. For each formulation, tablets were made at a low pressure of 1750 PSI, and at a high pressure of 5500 PSI.

(12) After tablets compressed to their prescribed PSI were prepared, visual observations were made about tablet appearance and how well the tablets released from the die. These observations were recorded as “Tablet Appearance” (see Table 4). The tablets should eject smoothly from the die without sticking (e.g., there should be no tablet face sticking) and without leaving any material on the die (e.g., there should be no die wall streaking). The tablets should exhibit smooth face surfaces, good edges and good side walls with no or few visually detectable defects. In cases of failing formulations, tablets can become stuck in the die, or the tablets can fail to retain shape, or the tablets can delaminate or have defects on a face or side walls or both, or do not have good edges.

(13) The compressed tablets were weighed and the results were recorded as “Tablet Weight” (see Table 4). Weight loss was determined by the difference between “Tablet Weight” and “Original Weight.” Tablets that lose more than 0.5% of their original weight are indicative of tablets with poor tablet qualities like rough edges, die wall streaking and tablet face sticking.

(14) Next, each tablet was crushed using a force gauge to determine the strength of the tablet. Hardness was measured using a Model DPS digital force gauge from Imada, Inc. (Northbrook, Ill., USA). Measurements were performed at room temperature (about 72° F.) at a relative humidity of about 26%. The force gauge was zeroed to tare the gauge. A tablet was placed in the gauge so that the tablet's face was perpendicular to the crushing platform and underneath the stem of the digital force gauge. Using a controlled, slow motion, the lever of the gauge was pulled down until either the tablet was broken or the digital force gauge reached 40 pounds. The peak measurement was recorded as “Tablet Hardness” (see Table 4).

(15) Finally, a 1 gram sample of each example was dissolved in 100 mL of water using 140 mL glass beakers and observations were made regarding solution clarity. Solutions were subjectively evaluated via visual inspection and identified as either clear or cloudy. If a particulate formed, an indication of “precipitate” was recorded.

(16) TABLE-US-00004 TABLE 4 Results for comparative formulations containing boric acid or zeolite. Example Example Example Example 2-A: 2-A: 2-B: 2-B: Boric Acid Boric Acid Zeolite Zeolite Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 8.15 18.45 7.78 19.01 Hardness (kPa) Original 30.07 30.01 30.18 30.12 Weight (g) Tablet Weight 30.06 29.98 29.97 29.85 (g) Weight Lost 0.03 0.1 0.7 0.9 (%) Tablet smooth face, smooth face, defects on defects on Appearance good edges good edges face and face and side walls side walls Solution clear clear cloudy, cloudy, Clarity precipitate precipitate

(17) The composition examples were flowable and capable of being compressed into tablets using the CARVER Press. The tablet industry has established a lower limit of 9 kPa and an upper limit of 23 kPa as the optimal operating range for tablet hardness. Both formulations were able to attain a tablet hardness value within this range when compressed at 5500 PSI. Neither formulation containing traditional tablet binding compounds (boric acid or zeolite), however, was able to achieve a tablet hardness within the optimal operating range when compressed at the very low compression pressure of 1750 PSI.

(18) A weight loss percentage of more than 0.5% is indicative of poor aesthetic tablet quality because material is lost due to rough tablet edges, die wall streaking and sticking of the punch faces. The tablets produced from the formulation containing boric acid had good weight loss values and the tablets produced had smooth faces and good edges. The tablets produced from the formulation containing zeolite as a tablet binding compound exhibited defects on the face and side walls, and exhibited weight losses of greater than 0.5%. All of these results indicate poor tablet quality when zeolite was the tablet binding compound.

(19) Finally, complete water solubility is a desired characteristic of tablet formulations for preparing cleaning and disinfecting solutions. The comparative formulation containing boric acid as the tablet binding compound was completely soluble in water and yielded a clear solution. The comparative formulation containing zeolite as the tablet binder yielded a cloudy solution with a noticeable precipitate. This is not unexpected, as it is well known that zeolites are not soluble in water. Therefore, boric acid as a tablet binding compound yields good quality tablets, but due to the overall concerns of borates, most companies are opting to remove borates completely from their formulations. While zeolites are often used as binders in tablets, they are not an acceptable replacement for borates, as the resulting tablets are of inferior quality and the solutions resulting from dissolution of the tablets are not clear, and the particulates due to the zeolites can leave a film or residue on a surface that has been cleaned with the solution in which zeolites are present.

Example 3

(20) Detergent Formulations Containing 80:20 Acetate/Sequestrant Binding Composition

(21) Tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein that include an acetate salt and a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant were prepared. A ratio of 4:1 acetate to sequestrant was selected. Tablets were prepared that contained the same acetate salt (sodium acetate anhydrous) and different C6 saccharide derivative sequestrants (d-glucitol, mannitol, glucono-delta-lactone, and sodium gluconate). The formulations are provided in Table 5.

(22) TABLE-US-00005 TABLE 5 Detergent Formulation containing 80:20 Acetate/Sequestrant Example Example Example Example 3-A 3-B 3-C 3-D Weight Weight Weight Weight Component (%) (%) (%) (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 50 50 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 9 9 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 20 20 20 Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding Composition: From Example 1-A1 15 (Na acetate/d-glucitol, 4:1) From Example 1-N1 15 (Na acetate/mannitol, 4:1) From Example 1-B1 15 (Na acetate/glucono- delta-lactone, 4:1) From Example 1-C1 15 (Na acetate/Na gluconate, 4:1) Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 1 1 1 1 (BioSoft ® 25-7) Sodium dodecylbenzene 5 5 5 5 sulfonate .sup.16 Total = 100 100 100 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA.

(23) Each example was made in a 225 gram batch. Powders and liquids individually were weighed out using a top load balance. A 500 mL beaker was used as a mixing vessel. The alcohol ethoxylate was mixed with the binding composition to prepare a pre-blend. Mixing was performed manually using a metal spatula and the components were mixed for at least 1 minute and visually inspected to ensure homogenous mixing, resulting in a pre-blend. The remaining ingredients of the formulation were added to the pre-blend and manually mixed using a metal spatula for at least 1 minute and visually inspected to ensure the powder blend was homogenous. If necessary, the mixing was continued until a homogeneous blend was obtained.

(24) The homogeneous blend then was used to prepare tablets. 30 gram aliquots of the homogeneous blend of each formulation separately were weighed to be made into compressed tablets. The weight of each powder sample was recorded (as “Original Weight,” see Table 6). Each 30 gram powder sample was compressed into a tablet using a 44.45 mm diameter die. Tablet compression was performed using a CARVER Press (Carver, Inc. (Wabash, Ind.)) with a 7500 PSI gauge. For each formulation, tablets were made at a low pressure of 1750 PSI and at a high pressure of 5500 PSI.

(25) After tablets compressed to their prescribed PSI were prepared, visual observations were made about tablet appearance and how well the tablets released from the die. These observations were recorded as “Tablet Appearance” (see Table 6). The compressed tablets were weighed and the results were recorded as “Tablet Weight” (see Table 6). Weight loss was determined by the difference between “Tablet Weight” and “Original Weight.” Tablets that lose more than 0.5% of their original weight are indicative of tablets with poor tablet qualities.

(26) Next, each tablet was crushed using a force gauge to determine the strength of the tablet. The hardness of the tablets was measured using a Model DPS digital force gauge from Imada, Inc. (Northbrook, Ill., USA) under the conditions and using the method described in Example 2. These results were recorded as “Tablet Hardness” (see Table 6).

(27) Finally a 1 gram sample of each example was dissolved in 100 mL of water using 140 mL glass beakers and observations were made regarding solution clarity. Solutions were subjectively evaluated via visual inspection and identified as either clear or cloudy. An indication of ‘precipitate’ was recorded if a particulate formed.

(28) TABLE-US-00006 TABLE 6 Results of Tablets Containing 4:1 Acetate:Sequestrant Binding Composition Example 3-A: glucitol Example 3-B: mannitol Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 13.3 19.86 8.07 17.44 Hardness (kPa) Original Wt. 30 30.07 30.11 30.04 (g) Tablet Weight 29.98 30.03 30.06 30.03 (g) Weight Lost 0.07 0.13 0.17 0.03 (%) Tablet smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, Appearance good edges good edges good edges good edges Solution clear clear clear clear Clarity Example 3-C: glucono- delta-lactone Example 3-D: gluconate Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 12.34 17.62 10.74 18.14 Hardness (kPa) Original Wt. 30 30.15 29.99 30.03 (g) Tablet Weight 30 30.14 29.95 29.97 (g) Weight Lost 0 0.03 0.13 0.2 (%) Tablet smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, Appearance good edges good edges good edges good edges Solution clear clear clear clear Clarity

(29) All tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 4:1, regardless of the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant selected (d-glucitol, mannitol, glucono-delta-lactone or sodium gluconate) exhibited a hardness within the optimal operating range identified by the tablet industry, and had smooth faces and good edges when compressed at 5500 PSI. Formulations containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein containing d-glucitol, glucono-delta-lactone or sodium gluconate compressed at the low compression force of 1750 PSI produced tablets having a hardness within the optimal operating range, unlike formulations containing boric acid or zeolite as a tablet binding compound, which, when compressed at 1750 PSI, exhibited a tablet hardness below the optimal operating range. When dissolved, the tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein produced clear solutions, similar to solutions in which boric acid was used as a binder. When compared to tablets containing zeolite as a binder, the clarity of the solutions produced using the tablet binding compositions provided herein yielded superior solutions, particularly with reference to solution clarity. The tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 4:1 were suitable replacements for boric acid as a tablet binding compound.

Example 4

(30) Detergent Formulations Containing 20:80 Acetate/Sequestrant Binding Composition

(31) Tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein that include an acetate salt and a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant were prepared having a ratio of 1:4 acetate to sequestrant. Tablets were prepared containing the same acetate salt (sodium acetate anhydrous) and different C6 saccharide derivative sequestrants (d-glucitol, glucono-delta-lactone, and sodium gluconate). The formulations are provided in Table 7. The tablets were prepared and tested as set forth above in Example 3.

(32) TABLE-US-00007 TABLE 7 Detergent Formulation containing 20:80 Acetate/Sequestrant Example Example Example Example 4-A 4-B 4-C 4-D Weight Weight Weight Weight Component (%) (%) (%) (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 50 50 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 9 9 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 20 20 20 Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding Composition: From Example 1-A2 15 (Na acetate/d-glucitol, 1:4) From Example 1-N2 15 (Na acetate/mannitol, 1:4) From Example 1-B2 15 (Na acetate/glucono- delta-lactone, 1:4) From Example 1-C2 15 (Na acetate/Na gluconate, 1:4) Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 1 1 1 1 (BioSoft ® 25-7) Sodium dodecylbenzene 5 5 5 5 sulfonate .sup.16 Total = 100 100 100 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15 = Versene ™ 220, available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA. .sup.16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA.

(33) The results for tablet hardness, weight loss and tablet appearance, and the clarity of the resulting solutions are presented in Table 8.

(34) TABLE-US-00008 TABLE 8 Results of Tablets Containing 1:4 Acetate:Sequestrant Binding Composition Example 4-A: glucitol Example 4-B: mannitol Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 11.01 22.42 8.71 19.03 Hardness (kPa) Original Wt. 30.12 29.98 29.99 30.01 (g) Tablet Weight 30.11 29.98 29.97 29.96 (g) Weight Lost 0.03 0 0.1 0.17 (%) Tablet smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, Appearance good edges good edges good edges good edges Solution clear clear clear clear Clarity Example 4-C: glucono- delta-lactone Example 4-D: gluconate Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 12.06 17.62 11.54 18.3 Hardness (kPa) Original Wt. 30.05 30.15 30.1 30.13 (g) Tablet Weight 30.01 30.14 30.02 30.09 (g) Weight Lost 0.13 0.03 0.27 0.13 (%) Tablet smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, smooth face, Appearance good edges good edges good edges good edges Solution clear clear clear clear Clarity

(35) The tablets produced using the tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 1:4 exhibited properties similar to those obtained produced using the tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 4:1. All tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 1:4, regardless of the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant selected (d-glucitol, mannitol, glucono-delta-lactone or sodium gluconate) exhibited a hardness within the optimal operating range identified by the tablet industry and had smooth faces and good edges when compressed at 5500 PSI. Formulations containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein containing d-glucitol, glucono-delta-lactone or sodium gluconate compressed at the low compression force of 1750 PSI produced tablets having a hardness within the optimal operating range, unlike formulations containing boric acid or zeolite as a binder, which, when compressed at 1750 PSI, exhibited a tablet hardness below the optimal operating range. Formulations containing mannitol as the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant and compressed as 1750 PSI yielded tablets similar to or slightly harder than tablets in which boric acid was the binding compound. When dissolved, the tablets containing the tablet binding compositions provided herein produced clear solutions, similar to solutions in which boric acid was used as a tablet binding compound. When compared to tablets containing zeolite as a binder, the clarity of the solutions produced using the tablet binding compositions provided herein yielded superior solutions, particularly with reference to solution clarity. The tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant was 1:4 were suitable replacements for boric acid as a tablet binding compound.

Example 5

(36) Comparative Example Using C6 Saccharide Derivative Sequestrant Alone

(37) Tablets containing only a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant as a tablet binding compound were prepared to demonstrate that that results achieved for the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding compositions provided herein could not be achieved using the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant alone. The C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant selected was d-glucitol. The formulation is shown in Table 9.

(38) TABLE-US-00009 TABLE 9 Detergent Formulation containing Glucitol alone as Binding Compound. Example 5 Component Weight (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 d-Glucitol .sup.2 15 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Total = 100 .sup.2 = available from EMD Millipore, a division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA.
The tablets were prepared and tested as set forth above in Example 3. The results for tablet hardness, weight loss and tablet appearance, and the clarity of the resulting solutions are presented in Table 10.

(39) TABLE-US-00010 TABLE 10 Results of Tablets Containing only d-Glucitol as Binding Compound. Compression 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet Hardness (kPa) 0 25.05 Original Weight (g) 30.01 30 Tablet Weight (g) 24.91 29.52 Weight Lost (%) 16.99 1.6 Tablet Appearance tablet faces stuck in tablet stuck in die; punch; tore in half bad side walls Solution Clarity clear clear

(40) At a compression force of 1750 PSI, the detergent formulation containing only d-glucitol as the binding compound could not be compressed into a tablet. The tablet faces were stuck in the punch and the “tablet” tore in half when attempts were made to remove the material from the die. Even at higher compression forces, the resulting tablet exhibited significant weight loss and was stuck in the die. When removed from the die, the tablet had bad side walls and surface defects. The tablet hardness of the tablet containing only d-glucitol was outside the ideal operating range identified by the tablet industry because it was too hard. Tablets having a hardness greater than 23 kPa tend to exhibit poor dissolution properties. Glucitol alone does not demonstrate the same properties achieved using the tablet binding compositions provided herein, nor is glucitol alone a suitable replacement for boric acid as a tablet binder.

Example 6

(41) Comparative Example Using Acetate Salt Alone as a Binding Compound

(42) Tablets containing only sodium acetate as a binding compound were prepared to demonstrate that that results achieved for the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding compositions provided herein could not be achieved using the acetate salt alone. The exemplary acetate salt selected was sodium acetate. The formulation is provided in Table 11.

(43) TABLE-US-00011 TABLE 11 Detergent Formulation containing Sodium Acetate alone. Component Weight (%) Sodium acetate, anhydrous .sup.1 15 Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Total = 100 .sup.1 = available from Niacet Corporation, Niagara Falls, NY, USA. .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA.

(44) The tablets were prepared and tested as set forth above in Example 3. The results for tablet hardness, weight loss and tablet appearance, and the clarity of the resulting solutions are presented in Table 12.

(45) TABLE-US-00012 TABLE 12 Results of Tablets Containing Sodium Acetate Alone. Compression 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet Hardness (kPa) 7.3 19.07 Original Weight (g) 30.08 29.99 Tablet Weight (g) 27.03 29.34 Weight Lost (%) 10.14 2.17 Tablet Appearance tablet stuck in die; tablet stuck in die; bad side walls bad side walls Solution Clarity clear clear

(46) At a compression force of 1750 PSI, the detergent formulation containing only sodium acetate as the binding compound formed a tablet that was outside the ideal operating range identified by the tablet industry because it was too soft. The tablet was stuck in the die and when removed exhibited bad side walls and surface defects, and exhibited high weight loss values. Even at higher compression forces, the resulting tablet exhibited significant weight loss and was stuck in the die. When removed from the die, the tablet had bad side walls and surface defects. Sodium acetate alone does not demonstrate the same properties achieved using the tablet binding compositions provided herein, nor is sodium acetate alone a suitable replacement for boric acid as a binder.

Example 7

(47) Comparative Example Using EDTA as the Sequestrant

(48) Tablets containing EDTA (ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid) as a sequestrant instead of a C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant were prepared to demonstrate that that results achieved for the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant tablet binding compositions provided herein could not be achieved using an alternate sequestrant, such as EDTA, instead of the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant as described herein in combination with an acetate salt. The formulation is provided in Table 13.

(49) TABLE-US-00013 TABLE 13 Detergent Formulation containing EDTA as binder. Component Weight (%) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 EDTA .sup.19 15 Total = 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA. .sup.19 = available from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA.

(50) The tablets were prepared and tested as set forth above in Example 3. The results for tablet hardness, weight loss and tablet appearance, and the clarity of the resulting solutions are presented in Table 14.

(51) TABLE-US-00014 TABLE 14 Results of Tablets Containing EDTA as Binder. Compression 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet Hardness (kPa) 7.46 14.43 Original Weight (g) 30.09 30.16 Tablet Weight (g) 28.89 29.93 Weight Lost (%) 0.66 0.76 Tablet Appearance tablet had defects on tablet had defects on face and side walls face and side walls Solution Clarity clear clear

(52) At a compression force of 1750 PSI, the detergent formulation containing EDTA as the binder formed a tablet that was outside the ideal operating range identified by the tablet industry because it was too soft. The tablet was stuck in the die and when removed exhibited bad side walls and surface defects and exhibited high weight loss values. Even at higher compression forces, the resulting tablet exhibited significant weight loss and was stuck in the die. When removed from the die, the tablet had bad side walls and surface defects. EDTA does not demonstrate the same properties achieved using the tablet binding compositions provided herein, nor is EDTA a suitable replacement for boric acid as a binder.

Example 8

(53) Comparative Example: Detergent Formulation Containing Binder Outside of the Range of Ratios of 5:1-1:5

(54) Tablets containing a ratio of acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant outside of the range of from about 5:1 to about 1:5 were prepared to demonstrate that that results achieved for the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant tablet binding compositions provided herein in which the ratio of acetate:sequestrant is from about 5:1 to about 1:5 could not be achieved using a ratio above or below this range. The formulations are provided in Table 15.

(55) TABLE-US-00015 TABLE 15 Detergent Formulation containing 9:1 and 1:9 Acetate/Glucitol. Example 8-A Example 8-B (ratio 9:1) (ratio 1:9) Component Weight (%) Weight (%) Sodium acetate, anhydrous .sup.1 13.5 1.5 d-glucitol .sup.2 1.5 13.5 Sodium carbonate .sup.11 50 50 Sodium percarbonate .sup.12 9 9 Citric acid .sup.13 20 20 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 5 Total = 100 100 .sup.1 = available from Niacet Corporation, Niagara Falls, NY, USA. .sup.2 = available from EMD Millipore, a division of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.12 = available from Solvay Chemicals, Bruxelles, Belgium. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA.

(56) The tablets were prepared and tested as set forth above in Example 3. The results for tablet hardness, weight loss and tablet appearance, and the clarity of the resulting solutions are presented in Table 16.

(57) TABLE-US-00016 TABLE 16 Results of Tablets Containing 9:1 and 1:9 Acetate:Sequestrant blends. Example 8-1: Example 8-2: 9:1 acetate:glucitol 1:9 acetate:glucitol Compression: 1750 PSI 5500 PSI 1750 PSI 5500 PSI Tablet 6.89 17.75 0 19.32 Hardness (kPa) Original 30.12 30.02 30.01 30 Weight (g) Tablet Weight 29.99 29.32 27.39 29.64 (g) Weight Lost 0.43 2.33 8.73 1.2 (%) Tablet tablet stuck tablet stuck tablet could tablet stuck Appearance in die; bad in die; bad not retain in die; bad side walls side walls shape side walls Solution clear clear clear clear Clarity

(58) At a compression force of 1750 PSI, the detergent formulation containing a ratio of 9:1 acetate:glucitol as the binder formed a tablet that was outside the ideal operating range identified by the tablet industry because it was too soft, while the formulation containing a ratio of 1:9 acetate:glucitol as the binder was unable to be formed into a tablet. At higher compression forces, all of the resulting tablets exhibit high weight loss values, the tablets were stuck in the die, and when removed from the die, the tablets had bad side walls and surface defects. Thus, using a ratio above or below the 5:1 to 1:5 ratio of acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant does not result in a binder that yields tablets having the properties achieved by the tableting binding compositions provided herein where the ratio of acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant is in the range of about 5:1 to about 1:5.

Example 9

(59) Tablet Formation at Lower Compression Forces

(60) As discussed above, tablets can be formed using the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding formulation as described herein, having a ratio of acetate:sequestrant in the range of from about 5:1 to about 1:5 acetate to sequestrant using relatively low compression forces. The tablet hardness values for the tablets prepared as described in Examples 2 through 8 at a compression force of 1750 PSI are reproduced in Table 17.

(61) TABLE-US-00017 TABLE 17 Hardness Values for Tablets Prepared Using 1750 PSI Compression. Tablet Hardness Industry Standard <9 kPa (9 kPa-23 kPa) Example 2-A = boric acid control 8.15 Example 2-B = zeolite control 7.78 Example 3-1 = 4:1 acetate:glucitol 13.3 Example 3-2 = 4:1 acetate:lactone 12.34 Example 3-3 = 4:1 acetate:gluconate 10.74 Example 4-1 = 1:4 acetate:glucitol 11.01 Example 4-2 = 1:4 acetate:lactone 12.06 Example 4-3 = 1:4 acetate:gluconate 11.54 Example 5 = glucitol only control 0 Example 6 = Na acetate only control 7.3 Example 7 = EDTA control 14.43 Example 8-1 = 9:1 acetate glucitol 6.89 Example 8-2 = 1:9 acetate:glucitol 0

(62) All of the tablets that contained the tablet binding compositions as described herein, which have a range of ratios of acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant of from about 5:1 to about 1:5, had smooth faces and good edges, exhibited weight loss values of less than 0.5%, and had tablet hardness values within the optimal operating range (between 9 kPa and 23 kPa) when the tablets were prepared using the very low compression pressure of 1750 PSI.

(63) This translates very well into the production process by reducing the compression needed to produce tablets that contain this tablet binding composition as well as eliminating the need for over-compression. Lower compression forces required to produce acceptable tablets can have significant impacts on the tableting process. For example, lower compression forces can reduce the wear of the dies and punches, and reduce the stress on the mechanical components and the drive train of the press. The lower compression forces also can reduce the expenses associated with maintenance and service of the press.

(64) Although tablets containing EDTA as a binder exhibit a tablet hardness value within the optimal operating range when compressed at the very low compression pressure of 1750 PSI, the EDTA tablets had defects on their face and side walls and exhibited weight loss well above the acceptable values. This indicates that EDTA does not function well as a binder and indicates that it is not a suitable replacement for any of the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrants of the tablet binding compositions provided herein. The EDTA tablets exhibited a large amount of material lost through rough edges and tablet defects, making the tablets aesthetically unacceptable to consumers.

Example 10

(65) Dishwasher Detergent Tablets

(66) Tablets of a dishwasher detergent formulation were prepared using the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding formulation as described herein, where the acetate was anhydrous sodium acetate and the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was anhydrous sodium gluconate anhydrous. The ratio of acetate to C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was 1:5. The formulation is provided in Table 18.

(67) TABLE-US-00018 TABLE 18 Dishwasher Detergent Tablet Formulation. Component Weight (%) Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding 12 Composition From Example 1-C9 (Na acetate/Na gluconate, 1:5) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 15 Citric acid .sup.13 35 Sodium bisulfate .sup.20 35 Polyethylene glycol .sup.21 3 Total = 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.20 = available from Jones-Hamilton Co., Walbridge, OH, USA. .sup.21 = available from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA.

(68) The components were mixed in a 30 cubic foot V-blender for 15 to 20 minutes. 15 gram aliquots of the resulting homogeneous blend were transferred to a rotary style tablet press equipped with 1.28″ diameter dies and compressed using a compression force of 12,000 PSI. Each of the resulting tablets had a weight of about 15 grams. The tablets had smooth faces and good edges, exhibited weight loss values of less than 0.5%, and had tablet hardness values between 7-15 kPa.

Example 11

(69) General Purpose Cleaner Tablets

(70) Tablets of a general purpose cleaner formulation were prepared using the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding formulation as described herein, where the acetate was anhydrous sodium acetate and the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was anhydrous glucono-delta-lactone. The ratio of acetate to C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was 1:5. The formulation is provided in Table 19.

(71) TABLE-US-00019 TABLE 19 General Purpose Cleaner Tablet Formulation. Component Weight (%) Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding 12 Composition From Example 1-B7 (Na acetate/glucono- delta-lactone, 1:5) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 20 Citric acid .sup.13 10 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 1 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Polyethylene glycol .sup.21 5 Sodium percarbonate .sup.22 47 Total = 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA. .sup.21 = available from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA. .sup.22 = available from Solvay North America LLC, Houston, TX, USA.

(72) The components were mixed in a 30 cubic foot V-blender for 15 to 20 minutes. 20 gram aliquots of the resulting homogeneous blend were transferred to a rotary style tablet press equipped with 1.58″ diameter dies and compressed using a compression force of 5500 PSI. Each of the tablets had a weight of about 20 grams. The tablets had smooth faces and good edges, exhibited weight loss values of less than 0.5%, and had tablet hardness values between 7-15 kPa.

Example 12

(73) Floor Cleaner Tablets

(74) Tablets of a floor cleaner formulation were prepared using the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding formulation as described herein, where the acetate was anhydrous sodium acetate and the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was anhydrous glucono-delta-lactone. The ratio of acetate to C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was 1:5. The formulation is provided in Table 20.

(75) TABLE-US-00020 TABLE 20 Floor Cleaner Tablet Formulation. Component Weight (%) Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding 7.8 Composition From Example 1-B6 (Na acetate/glucono- delta-lactone, 5:1) Sodium carbonate .sup.11 15 Citric acid .sup.13 25 Alcohol ethoxylate .sup.15 (BioSoft ® 25-7) 3 Sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate .sup.16 5 Polyethylene glycol .sup.21 4.2 Sodium percarbonate .sup.22 40 Total = 100 .sup.11 = available from FMC Corporation, Philadelphia, PA, USA. .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.15, 16 = available from Stepan Company, Northfield, IL, USA. .sup.21 = available from Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA. .sup.22 = available from Solvay North America LLC, Houston, TX, USA.

(76) The components were mixed in a 30 cubic foot V-blender for 15 to 20 minutes. 25 gram aliquots of the resulting homogeneous blend were transferred to a rotary style tablet press equipped with 1.58″ diameter dies and compressed using a compression force of 14,000 PSI. Each of the tablets had a weight of about 25 grams. The tablets had smooth faces and good edges, exhibited weight loss values of less than 0.5%, and had tablet hardness values between 7-15 kPa.

Example 13

(77) Garbage Disposal Cleaner Tablets

(78) Tablets of a garbage disposal cleaner formulation were prepared using the acetate:C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant binding formulation as described herein, where the acetate was anhydrous sodium acetate and the C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was anhydrous sodium gluconate. The ratio of acetate to C6 saccharide derivative sequestrant was 1:2.5. The formulation is provided in Table 21.

(79) TABLE-US-00021 TABLE 21 Garbage Disposal Cleaner Tablet Formulation. Component Weight (%) Acetate/C6 Saccharide Sequestrant Binding 7 Composition From Example 1-C5 (Na acetate/Na gluconate, 1:2.5) Citric acid .sup.13 33 Sodium percarbonate .sup.22 2 Fragrance .sup.23 1 Ethoxylate surfactant (Tomadol ® 1-9) .sup.24 1 Sodium lauryl sulfonate .sup.25 7 Sodium bicarbonate .sup.26 48 Magnesium sterate .sup.27 1 Total = 100 .sup.13 = available from Tate & Lyle PLC, London, UK. .sup.22 = available from Solvay North America LLC, Houston, TX, USA. .sup.23 = available from Fragrance Design, LLC, Marietta, GA, USA. .sup.24 = available from Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., Allentown, PA, USA. .sup.25 = available from Huntsman Corp., The Woodlands, TX, USA. .sup.26 = available from Natrium Products, Cortland, NY, USA. .sup.27 = available from Univar USA Inc., Strongsville, OH, USA.

(80) The components were mixed in a 30 cubic foot V-blender for 15 to 20 minutes. 40 gram aliquots of the resulting homogeneous blend were transferred to a rotary style tablet press equipped with 1.5″ diameter dies and compressed using a compression force of 12,000 PSI. Each of tablets had a weight of about 40 grams. The tablets had smooth faces and good edges, exhibited weight loss values of less than 0.5%, and had tablet hardness values between 7-15 kPa.

(81) While various embodiments of the subject matter provided herein have been described, it should be understood that they have been presented by way of example only, and not limitation. Since modifications will be apparent to those of skill in this art, it is intended that this invention be limited only by the scope of the appended claims.