Mark Copley

Although there are no regulatory requirements or established pharmacopoeial techniques for the dissolution testing of inhaled drugs, such testing can potentially open up the opportunity to tailor formulation properties. The authors explain how a new technique using standard dissolution test equipment in combination with US Pharmacopeia methods for the dissolution testing of solid dosage forms can be used to differentiate the solubility of orally inhaled products. 

Dissolution testing of inhaled drugs is of significant interest to the developers of orally inhaled products (OIPs) that deposit solid particles in the lung. As yet, there is no regulatory requirement or established pharmacopoeial technique for such testing, but its relevance is clear; understanding and, in the longer term, learning to control the dissolution rate of an active (particularly one for systemic therapy) opens up the possibility of tailoring formulation properties, as well as dosing levels and frequencies, for improved drug efficacy and patient compliance. 

Against this background, research has been conducted to establish a suitable method for dissolution testing of inhaled products. This paper considers the need for this and describes a technique developed at the University of Texas at Austin (TX, USA). Based on using standard USP dissolution test equipment for solid dosage forms, this new technique differentiates the solubility of OIPs. 

Assessing the need for dissolution testing for inhaled drugs

For solid oral dosage forms, such as tablets and capsules, dissolution testing is standardised and routine. The dissolution profile of a product guides formulation and development, and is a widelyused QC tool. Dissolution data may also be used to support claims of parity in a generic product and/or to demonstrate equivalence following a formulation change since it is sufficiently sensitive to identify outofspecification manufactured batches. 

With orally inhaled products (OIPs), the efficiency of drug delivery is linked with the extent of deposition in the respiratory tract. A particle size of less than 5 µm is usually regarded as optimal for penetration to the deep lung, so the focus is to develop device/formulation combinations that deliver a high proportion of the dose in this size range: a high fine particle dose (FPD).

As with solid dosage forms, the therapeutic effect of an inhaled powder is realised 

 dissolution and subsequent absorption. Powders delivered to the lung are, of necessity, extremely fine, so there may be an assumption that dissolution rates are rapid enough to have little impact on the overall process of drug delivery. Within a recent USP Pharmacopeial Forum review,

  however, it was recognised that dissolution testing may expand our understanding of inhaled drug delivery and support the development of new OIPs. This view is reinforced by industrial interest in the topic, as exemplified by recent work presented by GlaxoSmithKline contrasting the dissolution profile of a longacting beta agonist with that of an inhaled corticosteroid.

  If inhalation technologies follow the same development trajectory as tablets, there is no reason why the modification of particle properties, such as size, shape or crystal habit, to control 

 release rate should not become routine. Formulations based on liposome, micelle and microsphere technologies also provide for more closely tailored delivery profiles.

  The trend towards the pulmonary route for the delivery of systemic drugs strengthens the impetus for refining OIP performance in this way.  

Understanding the requirements for OIP dissolution testing

 dissolution testing for inhalable products should be able to distinguish between samples in a way that replicates trends found 

. This suggests that test conditions should reflect the pulmonary environment. Perfectly designed for absorption, the lungs are not ideal from the point of view of dissolution, with fluid levels in the region of 10 to 20 mL/100 m

  of surface. Such small amounts of liquid are likely to be stagnant, inhibiting dissolution. Also, the exact composition of the aqueous fluids and surfactants lining the respiratory tract is not accurately known,

  which complicates the selection of a test medium. 

Equally importantly, testing must also consider the delivery characteristics of OIPs. Just a portion of the emitted dose, the FPD, enters the lung so dissolution testing of the whole dose is inappropriate. A better aim is to access the dissolution profile of only those particles that will deposit in the lung.  

Developing a dissolution testing technique for inhalable formulations

In 2003, Feddah and Davies introduced a dissolution testing technique for inhalable formulations based on a flow through apparatus.

  This technique involves the use of an Andersen cascade impactor (ACI) to capture the emitted dose from the DPI. A glass fibre filter mounted at the base of a USP induction port, of the type routinely used with multistage cascade impactors, captures the dose during otherwise standard operation of the ACI. Once captured, the dose is held in a dissolution cell through which solvent is pumped at a known flow rate. 

This method was used to differentiate the solubility of glucocorticoids employed in the treatment of pulmonary disease, but it has a number of disadvantages. Firstly, although an ACI was used to capture the dose for testing, the size fractionation capabilities of the impactor were not exploited — the entire emitted dose was captured. Therefore, the recorded dissolution behaviour does not relate to just those particles fine enough to deposit in the lung. An additional problem is the amount of solvent used in flow through testing, which is significant; no attempt is made to simulate the sparing presence of lung surfactant 

. Furthermore, recorded solubility is dependent on the flow rate of solvent selected, making it too easy to achieve noncomparable results for "zero order" drug solubility. 

To address these issues and improve test sensitivity, researchers at the University of Texas have developed a dissolution test for OIP formulations based on the standard "Paddle over Disc" method described in US Pharmacopeia Method 5 and European Pharmacopoeia 2.9.4.

  A modified version of this solution is now commercially available (

). To ensure analysis only of the portion of interest in the emitted dose, the apparatus enables preseparation and sample collection using a Next Generation Impactor (NGI), one of the systems of choice for routine aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) measurement. 

Figure 1: NGI dissolution cup and membrane holder (Copley Scientific, UK). 

Multistage cascade impactors, such as the NGI and ACI, separate the emitted dose from an OIP into fractions on the basis of aerodynamic particle size. Using the NGI, these fractions are captured in collection cups. The NGI dissolution cup (Copley Scientific, UK) is almost identical to a standard NGI cup except that it has a 50 mm removable insert in the impaction area where separated sample collects. It fits directly into positions 2 through 7 in a standard NGI cup tray.  

To collect a dose for dissolution testing the NGI is operated exactly as for routine APSD measurement, but with the dissolution cup installed at the stage of interest to allow capture of only the size fraction of interest rather than the entire emitted dose. Once collection is complete, the insert is simply removed from the cup and covered with a pre-punched 55 mm diameter polycarbonate membrane. Securing this in place with the supplied membrane holder forms a sealed disc or sandwich that can be placed in a vessel of a conventional dissolution tester (

). Dissolution testing can then be conducted in an exactly analogous way as for other solid dosage forms, using appropriate operating conditions. 

Figure 2: NGI membrane holder in position in the vessel of a standard USP Method 2 test apparatus. 

Selection of an appropriate diffusion barrier for testing was crucial to the success of this solution. Although relatively thin (approximately 6 µm), the polycarbonate membrane is robust with properties superior to those of a cellulose acetate alternative used in prototype studies. The chosen membrane neither swells nor creates air bubbles, and has non-tortuous cylindrical pores of well-defined size. These allow free diffusion of both the dissolved drug and dissolution media, enabling dissolution testing under relevant hydrodynamic conditions.  

Optimising a dissolution test method for inhalation formulations

Through a series of experiments, factors associated with each step of the test process — from dose collection through to solution sampling method — were investigated to develop an optimal test procedure for use with this new apparatus.

  The following discussion tracks the experiment path taken and its outcome. 

Tests to establish optimal conditions were carried out using budesonide (BD) and albuterol sulphate (AS), which are routinely used to treat asthma. BD and AS were fired into the NGI with a Pulmicort Flexhale DPI (AstraZeneca) and Ventolin HFA MDI (GlaxoSmithKline), respectively. Multiple actuations ensured the presence of sufficient sample on the collection surface in initial tests; however, the actuation number was one of the variables investigated as part of the experimental programme.  

The test flow rate through the NGI was set at 30 L/min for the Ventolin HFA and 60 L/min for the Pulmicort Flexhaler. These air flow rates were established with reference to pharmacopeial monographs for the testing of MDIs and DPIs.

  The monographs stipulate that the flow rate should be set to 30 L/min when testing an MDI (using the NGI) and at a flow rate to give a pressure drop across the device of 4 kPa when testing a DPI. Calibration data for the NGI allows the accurate determination of stage cutoff diameters at both of these flow rates.

Following size fractionation of the sample in the NGI, the removable impaction surface from the dissolution cup was covered with a polycarbonate membrane (pre-soaked in dissolution fluid) and secured in the membrane holder. This entire assembly was then placed at the bottom of a vessel of a standard USP Method 2 apparatus containing 300 mL of dissolution fluid. 

During dissolution testing, 3 mL samples were periodically withdrawn from the vessel for analysis using a validated HPLC method. A corresponding volume of fresh dissolution medium was added after each extraction. With the BD, sample testing took place over a period of 2 h, while 1 h proved sufficient for AS. At the end of the experiment, the residual material on the membrane was recovered and quantified.  

Selecting an optimal collection surface for dose collection

Using the dissolution cup it is possible to select one fraction with which to compare one drug to another, or to assess the influence of particle size on dissolution rate by testing different fractions of the dose. With the Pulmicort Flexhaler (BD) stage 4 consistently displayed the maximum deposition while for the Ventolin HFA (AS) it was stage 5. These stages were therefore selected for dose collection for subsequent tests. Stage 4 has a cutoff diameter of 1.66 µm at 60 L/min, while stage 5 has a cut-off diameter of 1.36 µm at an air flow rate of 30 L/min. 

For the BD, dissolution profiles were determined as a function of particle size by collecting samples on stage 2 through 5 (

). Eighty percent of the samples collected on stages 2, 3 and 4 dissolved after 15 min, but there were differences in initial dissolution rates. Statistical analysis shows similarity factors* of 52.5 and 59.7 for stages 2 and 3 compared with stage 4 (the reference stage), but the dissolution profile for stage 5 is significantly different (a similarity factor of 40.6). The smaller particles on this stage, which has a cut-off diameter of 0.94 µm, have a large surface area to volume ratio and, therefore, might be expected to exhibit a faster dissolution rate in accordance with the standard NoyesWhitney model. 

Figure 3: Exploring the influence of particle size on dissolution profile for budesonide. 

Optimising the speed of rotation of the paddle

Experiments were carried out at paddle rotation speeds of 50, 75 and 100 rpm. With this dissolution apparatus 50 rpm is the norm; however, the presence of the membrane holder necessitated an increase to 75 rpm because of the 'dead' volume between the membrane holder and the base of the vessel, where stagnation could occur after volumes are withdrawn and replaced during the sampling procedure.  

Varying the number of actuations during testing permits investigation of the impact of drug loading on dissolution behaviour. For BD, increasing drug loading from 30 to 220 µg by increasing the number of actuations of the device during sample collection has a marked influence on dissolution behaviour. On the other hand, AS dissolves rapidly even at high drug loadings (

Figure 4: The impact of drug loading on dissolution profile for (a) budesonide and (b) albuterol sulphate (Dissolution media: simulated lung fluid (SLF); T= number 

Increasing the thickness of the drug layer increases the amount of diffusion/dissolution activity required to release the entire dose from beneath the membrane since the wetting and dissolution processes proceed inwards layer by layer. This has a marked effect with the hydrophobic BD increasing the obstacles to dissolution, but with the hydrophilic AS this is not the case. This suggests that powder wetting within the membrane holder may be an issue in certain circumstances, especially with hydrophobic or poorly soluble formulations.  

A simple solution to this problem is to use just a single actuation to obtain the thinnest possible layer of sample for analysis. The practicality of this approach, however, depends on the limits of detection of the HPLC method for a given solvent/drug formulation. In some cases, it will be necessary to use multiple actuations simply to obtain sufficient drug to enable detection in the extracted samples. An alternative is to consider modification of the dissolution media within the constraint of reflecting the composition of fluids present in the lung. 

In the first instance, dissolution profiles for BD were measured using three solvents: simulated lung fluid (SLF); 0.2M phosphate buffer (pH 7.4); and phosphate buffered saline (PBS) (

). There are currently no pharmacopoeial suggested components for artificial lung fluid and it is not feasible to exactly mimic conditions in the lung; rather, the aim during this phase of the study was to identify an appropriate, practical fluid that would simplify testing within the constraint of maintaining relevance. 

Figure 5: Dissolution profiles for budesonide measured using different dissolution media: phosphate buffer, simulated lung fluid (SLF) and phosphate buffered saline (PBS). 

The concept of SLF was introduced by Moss and the solution is described as being similar to actual lung fluid in terms of ionic composition and pH, the full composition can be found at the original reference.

  Unfortunately SLF has low pH buffering capacity and its pH varies significantly with time (over a 24 h period) unless carbon dioxide is continuously bubbled through. There was a possibility that a flow through system might theoretically help to alleviate the issue of low pH buffering capacity, but at the time of the experiments this speculation was wholly unproven. Therefore, the other dissolution media assessed were considered to be a more practical choice, especially for pH-sensitive or slowly dissolving formulations.  

For the assessment of different dissolution media, the DPI was fired just once during each sample collection. The similarity factors for PBS and phosphate buffer are 63.4 and 56.1, respectively, compared with SLF suggesting that either is a suitable substitute. 

To address the issue of poor wettability with the hydrophobic BD, further trials were carried out, incorporating surfactant into the dissolution media. The results for two modified PBS solutions are shown in 

: mPBS contains dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC), tPBS contains polysorbate 80. DPPC is one of the main components of lung surfactant and lowers surface tension at the air–water interface by forming a monolayer. Here, however, the results suggest that DPPC has little impact on dissolution behaviour, with polysorbate 80 proving much more effective. DPPC forms liposomal aggregates in aqueous media that have a larger particle size distribution than the membrane pore size.

  It is therefore likely that the DPPC has little effect because it cannot penetrate through the membrane to the sample. 

Figure 6: Dissolution profiles for budesonide measured using surfactant-modified dissolution media. (DPPC is dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine). 

Using polysorbate 80 at an appropriate concentration (0.2%), on the other hand, brings the dissolution profile obtained with a sample loading equating to five actuations close to that obtained with no surfactant, and just a single firing of the device. A single actuation produces a very thin drug layer with negligible resistance to wetting and dissolution. These results suggest that the use of tPBS eliminates the issue of wetting for this particular hydrophobic active.   

Articles

Although there are no regulatory requirements or established pharmacopoeial techniques for the dissolution testing of inhaled drugs, such testing can potentially open up the opportunity to tailor formulation properties.

Dissolution Testing For Inhaled Drugs

Cascade impaction is the primary analytical method used to assess the performance of inhalation products. It permits capture and chemical analysis of different size fractions of a dose, and regulatory authorities recommend its use for the testing of all inhalation formulations and devices. Impactor specifications and test methods are included in both the US and European Pharmacopoeias.    

Periodic maintenance and/or calibration, of both the impactor and ancillary equipment, ensures accurate, consistent measurement from the inhaler testing system as a whole. Stage mensuration, which involves measuring the critical dimensions of each nozzle on every stage, is the process used to verify performance, for both new and in-use impactors.  

Cascade impactors exploit differences in inertia to separate particles within a certain size range. Sample-laden air is drawn through the stages of the impactor, each of which is machined with a number of nozzles with closely specified exit diameters. The diameters of the nozzles and, consequently, overall nozzle area decrease with increasing stage number and accelerate the particle/air stream as it passes through the stages. 

Inertia is a function of particle mass/size and velocity. As particles pass through the exit of the nozzle, those with sufficient inertia cross the flow streams and impact directly on a collection surface, while smaller particles remain entrained in the air and pass on to the next stage (Figure 1). As velocity increases from stage to stage, smaller particles acquire sufficient inertia to reach the collection surface. In this way, impactors divide a sample into a number of clearly defined fractions, each of which can be easily analysed to determine chemical composition. 

Nozzle exit diameter is a critical parameter for impactor performance. Well-manufactured impactors have cylindrical nozzles, typically with a tapered or trumpet-shaped inlet to reduce inlet losses, but, critically, a sharp nozzle exit with a tightly specified diameter that controls nozzle area, air velocity and, hence, the inertia acquired by the particles. Stokes Law, which is key to impactor theory, can show that the cut-off diameter of any stage is a function of the number of nozzles, nozzle area and the volumetric flow rate of air passing through the impactor. The latter is tightly controlled during testing primarily using high-precision, calibrated flow meters and, in some cases, critical (sonic) flow control apparatus. Flow control is a complex subject in its own right and a detailed discussion is beyond the scope of this article. Consistent nozzle dimensions are also vital for accurate measurement. 

Cascade impactors are designed to deliver specific stage cut-off diameters, and achieving this performance depends on accurate manufacturing and appropriate maintenance of the instrument. During use, erosion, corrosion and/or occlusion of the nozzles is unavoidable. Effective dissolution of the API often demands the use of corrosive solvents, while the rapid passage of particles through the nozzles inevitably causes wear. The formation of oxidized impurities at the nozzle exit is a commonly encountered cause of occlusion, especially for aluminium impactors, which is why materials such as stainless steel and titanium are now also used.  

If the nozzle exit diameter changes, the cut-off diameters of each stage can drift, compromising data integrity and relevance. Any deterioration is detected by stage mensuration. 

Why not calibrate with standardized particles?

Many analytical instruments are routinely calibrated to verify ongoing performance, but this approach is not adopted for impactors. Although impactor calibration with standardized particles is possible, it is time-consuming and potentially error-prone. It is also significantly more expensive than stage mensuration.  

One common method for impactor particle calibration uses preformed fluorescent or methylene blue-labelled monodisperse polystyrene latex microspheres. The particles are supplied in an aqueous suspension and then aerosolized using a vibrating orifice aerosol generator to enable sampling at a fixed flow rate by the impactor. Each sample fraction is then dissolved, releasing the marker. The amount of marker is quantified using luminescence spectrophotometry to determine collection efficiency and a D

 (the diameter at which 50% of the particles are collected) for each stage. Comparison of these data with design specifications for the impactor allows the detection of any deviation in performance.  

Inaccuracies in particle calibration can result from errors in a large number of variables, including calibration particle characteristics, and the accuracy of flow measurement and marker detection devices. Stage mensuration — checking the mechanical dimensions of the impactor against a calibrated specification — is an easier and more effective approach. 

Development of the next generation pharmaceutical impactor (NGI) demonstrates how stage mensuration can eliminate the need for repetitive particle calibrations.

  As part of the design process for the NGI, nozzle size and number were specified to give logarithmically spaced stage cut-off diameters in the required range to study inhalation products. A newly manufactured NGI, with nozzle diameters close to nominal values, was then selected from a routine production batch to be used as an archival instrument. This was calibrated to a very high degree of accuracy, using polydispersed particles,

  initially at between 30 and 100 L/min, and then at 15 L/min in a separate study.

  The NGI defined by the original design specification, therefore, has calibrated performance characteristics and any NGI manufactured to these precise dimensions will, by definition, also deliver that same aerodynamic performance. Reproducible performance is verified by remeasuring nozzle dimensions periodically during use with stage mensuration. 

Nozzle number and nominal diameter for each stage of the Andersen Cascade Impactor (ACI) and NGI, the two impactors used for the vast majority of inhaler testing applications, are shown in Table 1. Stage mensuration requires systems that can rapidly and accurately measure diameters down to fractions of millimetres. 

Automated vision systems are an optimal choice. With these, a light source illuminates the nozzles with transmitted (and in some cases internally reflected) light providing contrast to differentiate between nozzle exit and the surrounding metal. The diameter is determined using the edge detection or pixel count method, or a combination of the two. Edge detection relies on locating a series of points around the circumference of the nozzle exit from which perimeter and diameter are determined. 

Table 1 Nozzle manufacturing specifications for the ACI and NGI.			

Conversely, pixel count is an area-based approach. Using a thresholding method, pixels are categorized as either being part of the nozzle area (lit) or part of the surrounding metal (unlit). Those that are part of the nozzle area are counted and the diameter is determined from this measurement. 

Accuracy and reproducibility are key if any changes in nozzle diameter are to be attributed to changes in the impactor rather than to variable stage mensuration data. Vision systems with a high degree of automation offer excellent performance in this respect. Illumination of the nozzle is necessary for measurement, but the extent of illumination must be carefully controlled. If the nozzle is over-lit then it will typically be measured as larger than it is, while an under-lit nozzle will be undersized.  

Automatic focus also improves measurement accuracy by ensuring a reproducible sharp edge at the nozzle exit plane. Historically, some poorly manufactured impactor stages have shown evidence of a very slight 'bow' (i.e., the stage is not perfectly flat across its entire surface) in which case focus may need to be fractionally altered to maintain sharpness across the stage. Automatic focus ensures that the sharpest images are consistently measured for all nozzles. 

Reproducibility is further enhanced through careful consideration of every aspect of the mensuration process. Temperature control of the surrounding environment is preferable while the use of a curtain can prevent the entry of stray light. Periodic calibration of the system to traceable standards is also essential and is typically performed by a certified external laboratory. This calibration is normally verified on a daily basis using bespoke reference standards, such as glass reticles, to ensure calibration remains robust during routine system operation. The correct positioning and orientation of stages on the vision inspection bed is extremely important and the best operators use special frames to support the stages. 

Using a defined system validation procedure, the performance of the Mitutoyo QV404 was evaluated. The maximum diameter deviation noted (99% confidence interval) was 0.00071 mm (0.71 μm) and the optical reproducibility of the system is, therefore, quoted as 1 μm for the purpose of diameter measurements.  

Measuring to this level of precision enhances the integrity of the mensuration process. The smallest nozzle diameter measured during mensuration is that of stage 7 of the NGI, which is 0.206 mm with a manufacturing tolerance of ±0.01 mm. A reproducibility of 1 μm is two orders of magnitude smaller than the nozzle size and equates to only 5% of the available manufacturing tolerance, even in the worst case. In contrast, less accurate systems may measure to ±5 μm, a much greater potential measurement error. 

With the best optical systems, and closely defined and validated stage mensuration procedures, accurate and reproducible nozzle exit diameter data can be gathered. However, how should the data be interpreted to assess the state of an impactor? Whether it has 'passed' or 'failed', whether it needs maintenance or is suitable for ongoing use? 

Effective data interpretation is the link between nozzle diameter measurement and cascade impactor performance. Two parameters are particularly useful in this analysis: effective diameter and in-use margin. 

 Theoretical analysis of multinozzle impactor stages has shown that these behave as if all the nozzles are equal in size to an effective diameter.

  The formula used to determine effective diameter is given: 

Area mean diameter is back-calculated from the mean value of measured areas for the nozzles on a stage. Area median diameter is an analogous parameter determined from median area. 

Stokes Law can be used to relate nozzle diameter and number to stage cut-off diameter. Using this correlation it is possible to determine the stage cut-off diameter that a mensurated stage will deliver, and, more importantly, mathematically compare it with, for example, original performance and/or the design specification for an impactor. The equation below shows how the cut-off diameter of a stage with a measured effective diameter (2) relates to that of a baseline (1). 

Measuring effective diameter permits quantification of the impact on stage cut-off diameter of nozzle occlusion. As a result, the performance of the impactor can be mathematically correlated with baseline behaviour. This might be the performance of the impactor at the last mensuration or, when new, or the design specification for an ACI or NGI. 

 In-use margin is determined by comparing effective diameter with the nominal diameters and tolerances quoted in the US and European Pharmacopoeias; for example, if effective diameter is exactly equal to nominal stage diameter, the in-use margin is 100%. An effective diameter of 1.212 mm for stage 4 of an NGI, which has a nominal diameter of 1.207 and a tolerance of ±0.01 mm, would be equivalent to an in-use margin of 50%. A negative in-use margin indicates a stage diameter outside the pharmacopoeia tolerance. 

These parameters are displayed in Figure 2, which shows a summary report for the fourth stage of an ACI. The manufacturing specification for this stage is 0.533 ± 0.0127 mm. The effective diameter calculated from the measurements performed is 0.5332 mm. Using the equation, the drift in effective diameter will produce a change in stage cut-off diameter of <0.1%. The 0.0002 mm drift in diameter has eaten into manufacturing tolerance by only 1.6% and the in-use margin is given as 98%. This impactor is still well within manufacturing specifications. 

Successive mensuration reports allow the tracking and monitoring of any deterioration of in-use margin, a useful way of investigating how an impactor is wearing with time (Figure 3). This approach allows the likelihood of an out-of-specification stage occurring within the next calibration cycle to be predicted, indicating when remedial work will be required. 

If stage mensuration results in an effective diameter in excess of an upper limit, then the stage must be replaced. This is a sign that the nozzles have worn — either as a result of corrosion, erosion or physical damage — and there is no further option available as it is not practical to reapply material to impactor nozzles. However, this situation is rare as the vast majority of impactors tend to drift out of specification because effective diameter decreases below the lower limit for the stage. This can be caused by a build-up of hardened particulates or, more likely, because the corrosion process produces metal salts that occlude the nozzle. If the effective diameter is too small, performance can sometimes be improved or restored. 

Ultrasonics can be used to clean all impactors prior to mensuration, removing any dirt accumulated during packing, transportation and handling. If the effective diameter is too small, rigorous cleaning may further remove deposits and restore performance. Otherwise, stage pinning is a secondary option. Pushing stainless steel 'go' pins with a diameter between the nominal diameter and the lower tolerance limit for the stage through each nozzle, clears away accumulated debris.

  This may produce the required effect, as seen in Figure 3, but nozzle damage is a potential risk, particularly for aluminium impactors. The alternative is stage replacement. 

Cascade impaction data characterizes all inhalation products, making the performance of impactors an important issue for the pharmaceutical sector. Stage mensuration is a cost-effective way of validating performance and regular stage mensuration is the best way to maintain confidence in the integrity of data. State-of-the-art automated vision systems offer unsurpassed reproducibility and accuracy for stage mensuration, producing measurements accurate to within 1 μm. Understanding the correlation between these measurements and impactor performance is key when verifying the performance of a new impactor or assessing whether a used instrument should remain in service.  

Cascade impaction data characterizes all inhalation products, making the performance of impactors an important issue for the pharmaceutical sector.