Roller Compaction of Anhydrous Lactose and Blends of Anydrous Lactose with MCC - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

Roller Compaction of Anhydrous Lactose and Blends of Anydrous Lactose with MCC
The authors studied the behavior of anhydrous lactose and the combination of anhydrous lactose and the combination of anhydrous lactose with microcrystalline cellulose on a pilot-scale roller compactor.


Pharmaceutical Technology


Results and discussion


Figure 3: Ribbon temperature versus roll pressure. MCC is microcrystalline cellulose; MgSt is magnesium stearate.
Roller compaction. Three placebo blends were roller compacted: 99.25% SuperTab 21AN with 0.75% magnesium stearate; 65% SuperTab 21AN with 35% Pharmacel 102; and 55% SuperTab 21AN with 45% Pharmacel 102. The ribbons did not stick to the roll surface throughout the 20-kg runs. When anhydrous lactose was used as the sole excipient, it was necessary to add some lubricant to prevent the ribbon from sticking to the rolls. The addition of 0.75% magnesium stearate was sufficient. Roller compaction of blends consisting of anhydrous lactose with 35% or 45% MCC required no lubricant to prevent sticking on the knurled roll surface.


Figure 4: Particle-size distribution of the SuperTab 21AN 65%, microcrystalline cellulose 35% blend after roller compaction at different pressures and after milling.
The temperature of the ribbons was measured during roller compaction. Rolls were cooled with flowing water at a temperature of 14.6 °C. The temperature of the ribbons rose as the process started but stabilized within 5 min for all three blends. Figure 3 shows the stabilized temperature for the three blends at the five roll pressures. The temperature increased with increasing pressure and was slightly higher for blends containing MCC. Increases in temperature are primarily caused by the densification process of the powder but also by work exerted by the vertical precompression screw. The MCC flows less well than SuperTab 21AN and deforms plastically upon compaction compared with the brittle fracture of SuperTab 21AN. These two differences could be the cause of the temperature elevation.


Table I: d50 data of the granules.
A further assessment of the powder blends was made by measuring the throughput. Upon addition of MCC, throughput decreased from 46.0 (0% MCC) to 39.4 (35% MCC) and 41.0 kg/h (45% MCC), which is a reduction of as much as 14%. This decrease was a result of the lower bulk density of the MCC, which shows that at a given roll speed, throughput can be increased by increasing the anhydrous lactose content in the formulation.


Figure 5: Particle-size distribution (PSD) of the three placebo blends at a roller compactor pressure of 6.3 kN/cm.
Granule testing. Ribbons formed by roller compaction were milled into granules. For the purpose of this study, mill settings were kept constant for all formulations and roll pressures. Particle-size analysis showed that as roll pressure was increased, the particle size decreased (see Table I and Figure 4). As the ribbons hardened, the milling intensity of the precompacted material increased, resulting in the production of more fines. Optimizing the mill speed and screen size opening may prevent this effect, but this option was not researched further during this project.


Figure 6: Poured bulk and tapped densities of the granules and powder blends (0 kN/cm is the powder blend; AL is anhydrous lactose).
Only small differences were observed among the blends. Figure 5 shows that the particle-size distributions of the various blends are similar after compaction and milling under the same circumstances. Figure 6 shows the resulting poured and tapped bulk densities of the granules made from three different blends. Both poured and tapped densities decreased as MCC was added to the blend. As roller pressures increased, the bulk density of the anhydrous lactose granules decreased slightly. and the tapped density remained constant.


ADVERTISEMENT

blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
|Monthly
| Weekly

Survey
How does your company apply quality-by-design (QbD) principles to manufacturing processes?
To all processes for both new and legacy products
To all process for new products only
To select process for new products only
To select processes for both new and legacy products
Do not use QbD
To all processes for both new and legacy products
20%
To all process for new products only
13%
To select process for new products only
24%
To select processes for both new and legacy products
20%
Do not use QbD
22%
View Results
UPCOMING CONFERENCES

Programs for Investigational and Pre-Launch Drugs
Philadelphia, PA
July 17-18, 2013
Request Brochure

Strategic Pipeline Planning & Portfolio Valuation
Philadelphia, PA
August 13-14, 2013
Request Brochure

MES 2013 - Forum on Manufacturing Execution Systems
Philadelphia, PA
August 14-15, 2013
Request Brochure

Mobile Innovation for the Life Sciences Industry
Philadelphia, PA
August 20-21, 2013
Request Brochure

See All Conferences >>

Eric Langer Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy
Patricia Van Arnum Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry
Nathan Jessop Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues
Lynn Torbeck Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality
 More
Inadequate Access to Medicines Puts EU at Risk
FDA Offers Insight on QbD for Modified-Release Products
Global Biosimilars Market to Reach $2.445 Billion in 2013
Adapting to Change
AstraZeneca and Exco InTouch Collaborate to Augment Current COPD Pathways
FindPharma Custom Search
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here