A Comparison of Three Extrusion Systems - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue
PharmTech

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

 Pharmaceutical Technology All results
A Comparison of Three Extrusion Systems
The authors conducted an experiment to determine the type of extrusion that provides the best productivity and pellet quality. This article contains online bonus material.
 Jan 2, 2011 Pharmaceutical Technology Volume 35, Issue 1

Results and discussion

Design of experiments interpretation. The mathematical model generated for each response Y was a quadratic model with first-order interactions, designed according to the following equation:

where X i and X j represent the levels of the factors; a 0 is the intercept representing the mean of the measured response data; a i and a j , a ii and a jj, and a ij correspond to the coefficients of first-order terms, the coefficients of second-order quadratic terms, and the coefficient of second-order interaction terms, respectively. The coefficient corresponding to a factor or interaction shows its importance to the studied response. The symbol e represents pure error.

To simplify the design-of-experiments interpretation, the coefficients of second-order quadratic terms are not presented. Results are expressed according to the following equation:

 Table I: Significant effects for the main factors and interactions for various responses Yx.
For the multilevel categoric factor C presenting three levels, the software calculated two coefficients, C(1) and C(2), corresponding to the difference between the high level and the average, and the difference between the low level and the average, respectively. The coefficient values were expressed in coded units to compare each one's relative effects to those of the others. Analysis of variance was performed to determine the significance of the model. A term that had a probability value lower than 0.05 was considered a significant effect. A probability value greater than 0.10 was regarded as insignificant. Table I summarizes the p values for the coefficients of factors for the different responses tested. Graphical analyses of responses were performed to determine the most important factors for a response by comparison with the other factors. Figure 4 shows the effects of factors and interactions on the responses. The red bars correspond to the factors that influenced the response. When an interaction between water quantity and extrusion system is underlined, the mean response value according to the extrusion system is shown according to three water-quantity values (i.e., minimum, medium, and maximum).

Pellet characteristics. The pellet-morphology study showed great differences between the three extrusion systems. At the lowest water quantity (i.e., 22.5%), pellets created after radial extrusion presented a wide size distribution with many small particles, compared with pellets created after axial extrusion, which presented a majority of rods. Only dome extrusion provided pellets of the correct specifications. The pellets' morphology is linked to extrudate characteristics and the spheronization step. At low water quantities, radial extrudates were not densified enough and broke during the spheronization step, in contrast with axial extrudates, which were well densified but did not have enough plasticity to deform during the spheronization step. An increase in the water quantity improved the morphology of all pellets excepted those produced by the dome system.

The following equations obtained for pellet size, pellet dispersion, and usable yield, in which significant terms are shown in bold type, are represented in Figure 4:

| 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 19%
To all process for new products only 14%
To select process for new products only 24%
To select processes for both new and legacy products 19%
Do not use QbD 24%
Most Viewed Articles
 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 >>
 Columnists sponsored by Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerOutsourcing's Modest Role as a Cost-Containment Strategy sponsored by Ingredients Insider Patricia Van ArnumIntellectual Property Battles in Solid-State Chemistry sponsored by Industry Insider Nathan Jessop Campaign Against Counterfeit Drugs Continues Statistical Solutions Lynn D. TorbeckCompositing Samples and the Risk to Product Quality