Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Main Article Content

Zachary Brooks
Tushar Goswami
Amy Neidhard-Doll
Tarun Goswami corresponding author


The most critical component of the TDDS is the adhesive, which is responsible for the safety, efficacy and quality of the patch. For drug delivery to successfully occur, the patch must adhere to the surface of the contact area. If a patch has inadequate adhesion, it is likely to fall off before the entire delivery period has been satisfied, leading to risks for the patient and others who may encounter the patch. Despite the critical concerns associated with the adhesive properties of the patches, the adhesion quality and failure mechanisms have not been fully studied. If certain molecules encounter the adhesive, it may cause irreversible altering of its chemical composition, which could render it unsuitable for transdermal applications. In many cases of TDDS failure, sweat is believed to be a culprit responsible for causing adhesive failure. The goal of this project is to investigate the chemical composition of the adhesive layer of a transdermal patch. The patch sample is a Sandoz Estradiol Transdermal System manufactured by Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc., designed to deliver 0.1mg per day and contains 1.56mg of Estradiol USP, the active ingredient. By analyzing the chemical composition of a patch that has not been worn, versus a patch that has been worn, it may be possible to determine the chemical interaction that causes adhesive failure. Fourier Transform Infra-Red (FTIR) Spectroscopy (OPUS FTIR Spectrometer) was performed on an unused estradiol TDDS patch immediately after opening, and again after 24 hours in ambient air to investigate the potential for oxidation. The IR Spectrum was then analyzed, and the peaks were reviewed. The IR Spectra for the sample left out for 24 hours indicated lengthened peaks corresponding to C=O, C-O, and O-H, a decreased transmittance, and a wider bandwidth in those regions. Based on these results, it can be determined that oxidation does occur on a patch sample that is exposed to ambient air. In future works, additional patch samples will be collected and used for an extensive IR and UV analysis. By comparing the IR and UV Spectrum graphs of “used” patches that did not fail, with “failed” patches, it may be possible to identify a cause for premature patch failure related to sweat interactions.

TDDS, Estradiol, IR spectroscopy, FTIR, adhesion, Transdermal, drug delivery

Article Details

How to Cite
Brooks, Z., Goswami, T., Neidhard-Doll, A., & Goswami, T. (2022). Transdermal drug delivery systems: Analysis of adhesion failure. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biopharmaceutical Research, 4(1), 256-270.


  1. Wokovich A, Prodduturi S, Doub W, et al. Transdermal drug delivery system (TDDS) adhesion as a critical safety, efficacy and quality attribute. European Journal of Pharmaceutics and Biopharmaceutics, 2006, 64(1): 1-8.
  2. Cilurzo F, Gennari G and Minghetti P. Adhesive properties: A critical issue in transdermal patch development. Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery, 2012, 1: 33-45.
  3. Urquhart J, Chandraskarane SK and Shaw JE. U.S. Patent No. US4031894A. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  4. Higgins JJ, Jagisch FC and Stucker NE. Butyl rubber and poly-isobutylene. In: Satas D, editor. Handbook of Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Technology II. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1989: 374-95.
  5. Auchter G, Aydin O, Zettl A, et al. Acrylic adhesives. In: Satas D, editor. Handbook of Pressure Sensitive Adhesive Technology III. Satas & Associates; Warwick, 1999, 396-456.
  6. Minghetti P, Cilurzo F, Pagani S, et al. Formulation Study of Oxybutynin Patches. Pharmaceutical Development and Technology, 2007, 12(3): 239-246.
  7. Ulman K and Chilong L. Drug permeability of modified silicone polymers. III. Hydrophilic pressuresensitive adhesives for transdermal controlled drug release applications. Journal of Controlled Release, 1989, 10(3): 273-281.
  8. Cilurzo F and Tosi L. U.S. Patent No. US20060015077A1. Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, 2003.
  9. Ginn M, Noyes C and Jungermann E. The contact angle of water on viable human skin. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 1968, 26(2): 146-151.
  10. Maillard-Salin D. Physical evaluation of a new patch made of a progestomimetic in a silicone matrix. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2000, 199(1): 29-38.
  11. Minghetti P, Cilurzo F and Montanari L. Evaluation of Adhesive Properties of Patches Based on Acrylic Matrices. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 1999, 25(1): 1-6.
  12. Maillard-Salin D, B´ecourt P and Couarraze G. A study of the adhesive–skin interface: Correlation between adhesion and passage of a drug. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2000, 200(1): 121-126.
  13. Wokovich AM, Shen M, Doub WH, et al. Evaluating elevated release liner adhesion of a transdermal drug delivery system (TDDS): A study of Daytrana™ methylphenidate transdermal system. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2011, 37(10): 1217-1224.
  14. Suksaeree J, Prasomkij J, Panrat K, et al. Comparison of Pectin Layers for Nicotine Transdermal Patch Preparation. Advanced Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 2018, 8(3): 401-410.
  15. Rao S, Song Y, Peddie F, et al. A novel tri-layered buccal mucoadhesive patch for drug delivery: Assessment of nicotine delivery. Journal of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, 2011, 63(6): 794-799.
  16. Pongjanyakul T, Prakongpan S and Priprem A. Acrylic Matrix Type Nicotine Transdermal Patches: In Vitro Evaluations and Batch-to-Batch Uniformity. Drug Development and Industrial Pharmacy, 2003, 29(8): 843-853.
  17. Cilurzo F, Minghetti P, Pagani S, et al. Design and Characterization of an Adhesive Based on a Poly(Ethyl Acrylate, Methyl Methacrylate). AAPS PharmSciTech, 2008, 9(3): 748-754.
  18. Ganti SS, Bhattaccharjee SA, Murnane KS, et al. Formulation and evaluation of 4-benzylpiperidine drug-in-adhesive matrix type transdermal patch. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2018, 550(1- 2): 71-78.
  19. Abu-Huwaij R, Obaidat RM, Sweidan K, et al. Formulation and In Vitro Evaluation of Xanthan Gum or Carbopol 934-Based Mucoadhesive Patches, Loaded with Nicotine. AAPS PharmSciTech, 2010, 12(1): 21-27.
  20. Li Q,Wan X, Liu C, et al. Investigating the role of ion-pair strategy in regulating nicotine release from patch: Mechanistic insights based on intermolecular interaction and mobility of pressure sensitive adhesive. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2018, 119: 102-111.
  21. Pichayakorn W, Suksaeree J, Boonme P, et al. Nicotine transdermal patches using polymeric natural rubber as the matrix controlling system: Effect of polymer and plasticizer blends. Journal of Membrane Science, 2012, 411-412: 81-90.
  22. Rasmussen S, Horkan KH and Kotler M. Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Two Nicotine Patches in Smokers. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development, 2018, 7(5): 506-512.
  23. Minghetti P, Cilurzo F and Casiraghi A. Measuring Adhesive Performance in Transdermal Delivery Systems. American Journal of Drug Delivery, 2004, 2(3): 193-206.
  24. Banerjee S, Chattopadhyay P, Ghosh A, et al. Aspect of adhesives in transdermal drug delivery systems. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 2014, 50: 70-84.
  25. Güngör S and Özsoy Y. Systemic delivery of antihypertensive drugs via skin. Therapeutic Delivery, 2012, 3(9): 1101-1116.
  26. Akram R, Ahmad M, Abrar A, et al. Formulation design and development of matrix diffusion controlled transdermal drug delivery of glimepiride. Drug Design, Development and Therapy, 2018, 12: 349-364.
  27. NDC 0781-7167 Estradiol Estradiol. (n.d.).
  28. DailyMed - ESTRADIOL - estradiol patch, extended release. (n.d.).
  29. Markarian J. Manufacturing Considerations for Transdermal Delivery Systems. Pharmaceutical Technology, 2018, 42(12): 40-42.
  30. Markarian J. Developing and Manufacturing Transdermal Patches. Pharmaceutical Technology, 2018, 42(12): 41.
  31. Markarian J. Critical Parameters in Transdermal Patch Manufacturing. Pharmaceutical Technology 2017, 41(12): 40.
  32. Platinum Partners & Gold Partners. (n.d.).
  33. 3M Dow: A winning combination.
  34. Global transdermal drug delivery system tdds markets to 2023. (n.d.)
  35. On-the-Go Patch Therapy.
  36. Party Patch Hangover Defense Transdermal Patch, Pack of 10. (n.d.).
  37. Tapemark. (n.d.).
  38. Drug Delivery Systems. (n.d.).
  39. Zosano. (n.d.).
  40. Clonidine Transdermal. (n.d.).
  41. Farahmand S and Maibach HI. Transdermal drug pharmacokinetics in man: Interindividual variability and partial prediction. International Journal of Pharmaceutics, 2019, 367(1-2): 1-15.
  42. Buskirk GA, Arsulowicz D, Basu P, et al. Passive Transdermal Systems Whitepaper Incorporating Current Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (CMC) Development Principles. AAPS Pharm- SciTech, 2012, 13(1): 218-230.
  43. Thermo Fisher Scientific. (2019, March 18). Confocal Raman Analysis of a Transdermal Nicotine Patch.
  44. Nicotine replacement therapy. (n.d.).
  45. How to use transdermal patch. (n.d.).
  46. Drug Absorption, Drug Absorption, Distribution And Elimination: Pharmacokinetics. (n.d.).
  47. Lin L and Wong H. Predicting Oral Drug Absorption: Mini Review on Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models. Pharmaceutics, 2017, 9(4): 41.
  48. Nicotine patch market report, 2017.
  49. IR Spectrum Table & Chart. (n.d.).
  50. Ethene, homopolymer. (n.d.).
  51. 1-vinyl-2-pyrrolidinone. (n.d.).
  52. 9-Octadecen-1-ol, (Z). (n.d.).
  53. 2-Propanol, 1,1’-oxybis. (n.d.).
  54. Estradiol. (n.d.).
  55. Veeraiah, VAK. Synthesis and Characterisation of Poly (Vinylpyrrolidone) – Nickel (II) Complexes. IOSR Journal of Applied Chemistry, 2014, 7(8): 61-66.
  56. Elmer P. Polymer Analysis Solutions Compendium, 2016.
  57. Takamura A,Watanabe K, Akutsu T, et al. Soft and Robust Identification of Body Fluid Using Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy and Chemometric Strategies for Forensic Analysis. Scientific Reports, 2018, 8(1): 8459.
  58. Lactate. (n.d.).
  59. Munje RD, Muthukumar S, Jagannath B, et al. A new paradigm in sweat based wearable diagnostics biosensors using Room Temperature Ionic Liquids (RTILs). Scientific Reports, 2017, 7(1); 1950.
  60. Peel Adhesion of Pressure Sensitive Tape, 2019. httpS://
  61. Shear Adhesion of Pressure Sensitive Tape, 2019. httpS://
  62. Relative Performance of Release Coatings, 2019.
  63. Tack Rolling Ball, 2019.
  64. Loop Tack, 2019.
  65. Steckl AJ and Ray P. Stress Biomarkers in Biological Fluids and Their Point-of-Use Detection. ACS Sensors, 2018, 3(10): 2025-2044.
  66. Ray P and Steckl AJ. Label-Free Optical Detection of Multiple Biomarkers in Sweat, Plasma, Urine, and Saliva. ACS Sensors, 2019, 4(5): 1346-1357.