The hydroxypropyl β-cyclodextrin (HPBCD) powder was bought from Tokyo Chemical Industry Co. Ltd, Japan, and the remaining chemicals used in the experiment were of analytical grade procured from India.

The test sample HPBCD was divided into two parts. One part of the HPBCD sample was treated with the Trivedi Effect^®-Consciousness Energy Healing Treatment remotely under standard laboratory conditions for 3 minutes and known as a Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample. The Biofield Energy Healing Treatment was provided by the renowned Biofield Energy Healer, Dahryn Trivedi, USA, to the test sample. However, the other part of the HPBCD sample did not treat with the Biofield Energy Treatment and considered as control or untreated sample. This Biofield Energy Treatment was provided through the healer’s unique energy transmission process. But, the control sample was treated with a “sham” healer for the better comparison with the results of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample. The sham healer totally ignorant about the Biofield Energy Treatment. After the treatment, the Biofield Energy Treated and untreated samples were kept in sealed conditions and characterized using spectroscopic and calorimetric analytical techniques.

The PSA, PXRD, DSC, and TGA analysis of HPBCD were performed. The PSA was performed using Malvern Mastersizer 2000, from the UK with a detection range between 0.01 µm to 3000 µm using the wet method 3031. The PXRD analysis of HPBCD powder sample was performed with the help of Rigaku MiniFlex-II Desktop X-ray diffractometer (Japan) 3233. The average size of crystallites was calculated from PXRD data using the Scherrer’s formula (1)

G = kλ/βcosθ(1)

Where G is the crystallite size in nm, k is the equipment constant (0.94), λ is the radiation wavelength (0.154056 nm for Kα1 emission), β is the full-width at half maximum, and θ is the Bragg angle 34.

Similarly, the DSC analysis of HPBCD was performed with the help of DSC Q200, TA instruments. The TGA/DTG thermograms of HPBCD were obtained with the help of TGA Q50 TA instruments and performed under the atmospheric air condition 3031.

The % change in particle size, specific surface area (SSA), peak intensity, crystallite size, melting point, latent heat, weight loss and the maximum thermal degradation temperature (T_max) of the Biofield Energy Treated sample was calculated compared with the control sample using the following equation 2:

(2)

The powder XRD diffractograms of the control and Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD powder samples did not show sharp and intense peaks in the respective diffractograms (Figure 1). Therefore, it was decided that both the samples were amorphous in nature. The Biofield Energy Treatment might not have any effect on the crystallinity pattern of the HPBCD.

The PSA analysis results of both the control and Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD powder sample are presented in Table 1. The particle size values of the control HPBCD sample at d₁₀, d₅₀, d₉₀, and D(4,3) were 22.485 µm, 77.681 µm, 163.367 µm, and 86.427 µm, respectively. Likewise, the particle sizes of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD powder sample at d₁₀, d₅₀, d₉₀, and D(4,3) were 21.748 µm, 76.621 µm, 162.632 µm, and 85.526 µm, respectively. The particle size values in the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD powder sample was decreased by 3.28%, 1.36%, 0.45%, and 1.04% at d₁₀,d₅₀, d₉₀,and D(4,3), respectively compared to the control sample (Table 1). The specific surface area of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD powder sample (0.161 m²/g) was increased by 1.9% compared with the control sample (0.158 m²/g). Therefore, it was assumed that the Trivedi Effect^®-Consciousness Energy Healing Treatment might be acting like an external force to break down the larger HPBCD particles to the smaller one, so the surface area was increased. The size, shape, and surface area of a particle have a significant impact on the solubility, dissolution rate, absorption, bioavailability, and also the therapeutic efficacy of a pharmaceutical substance 353637. As per the literature data, the solubility profile of HPBCD is 50% (w/v) in water 2. The particle sizes were reduced and surface area also increased in the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD compared to the control sample. Therefore, the surface-active properties of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample would be very high. The Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD would be more useful to improve the solubility of the lipophilic drug, stabilize volatile and unstable compounds, weight loss supplements, preparation of cholesterol free food products, and other anti-obesity medication 14567 and for the other industry using it as a raw material.

The thermal analysis of both control and Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD samples showed two endothermic peaks in the thermograms. The control HPBCD sample showed the endothermic peaks at 118.11°C and 323.89°C (Figure 2). Similarly, the Biofield Energy Treated sample showed the endothermic peaks at 94.62°C and 325.58°C (Figure 2). The 1st endothermic peak in the thermograms was due to the evaporation of water molecule from the sample, whereas the 2nd endothermic pick was due to the melting of HPBCD sample. The experimental results were well correlated with the literature data 38. The evaporation temperature of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample was decreased by 19.89% compared with the control sample (Table 2). However, the melting temperature of the Biofield Energy Treated sample slightly increased by 0.52% compared with the control sample (Table 2). The latent heat of evaporation (∆Hevaporation) and latent heat of fusion (∆Hfusion) of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample were significantly increased by 56.27% and 47.41%, respectively compared with the control sample (Table 2). Overall, the thermal stability of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample was increased significantly compared to the control sample. Any change in the molecular chains and the crystal structure influence the latent heat of fusion 3940. Hence, it was assumed that Dahryn’s Biofield Energy Treatment could have improved the molecular chains strength of HPBCD which lead to the elevation of the thermal stability of the Biofield Energy Treated sample compared to the control sample.

The TGA/DTG thermograms of the control and Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD samples are presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4. Both the samples showed two steps of the degradation process in the thermograms. The total weight loss in the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample (93.35%) was decreased by 5.11% compared to the control sample (98.38%). Therefore, the residue amount was 309.67% more in the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample compared to the control sample (Table 3).

The DTG thermograms of the control and Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample exhibited one maximum thermal degradation temperature (T_max) peak (Figure 4). The T_max of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD was almost close compared with the control sample. Overall, TGA/DTG thermal analysis revealed that the thermal stability of the Biofield Energy Treated HPBCD sample was increased compared with the control sample.