Fluidized bed is the name given to a bed of solid particles which is brought into a fluidized state by an upward flow of a fluid.

Posts

Advantages of technological methods compared to a pure API usage.Ingredient Pharm
,

Technologies for enhancing bioavailability of Simvastatin

Abstract

This application note is based on content from Pohlen et al. [1]. Simvastatin (CAS number 79902-63-9) is a cholesterol-lowering agent with a low bioavailability of 5% [2,3]. This API is formulated as a lipid based drug delivery system for oral uptake. Two technologies, which are spray drying and fluidized bed layering technologies were compared with respect to the process and product characteristics of otherwise similar Simvastatin loaded dry emulsion systems. Investigated parameters are the process yield, encapsulation efficiency, relative product stability, particle morphology, drug content, and the relative increase in bioavailability.

Enhancing bioavailability

Some of the recently discovered new chemical entities (NCE) show a low solubility and high permeability (BCS class II), or even low permeability in the case of very high lipophilicity (BCS class IV).

Material Company
Simvastatin Krka, SI
1-oleoyl-rac-glycerol,

Magnesium stearate,

Tween® 20

 Merck, D
Pharmacoat 603 ShinEtsu, JAP
Miglyol® 812 Sasol, D
Pearlitol SD 200 Roquette, F
CELLETS® 200 HARKE Pharma, D
Avicel® PH 101,

Lactose mesh 200

 Lek, d.d., SI

Table 1: Used Material and origin.

This means a major challenge for formulation development in terms of assuring drug bioavailability [4,5]. A strategy for increasing the solubility are lipid based drug delivery systems (LBDDS). As main advantage, they are likely to solubilize the API and make it available for the absorption into the bloodstream [6]. Additionally, converting the liquid or semi-solid LBDDS into solid dosage forms eliminates undesired characteristics such as a lack of chemical stability and product portability, susceptibility for drug recrystallization and costly manufacturing [7]. Furthermore, solid dosage form solutions allow benefits, such as easy powder processing, flow and compression behavior, controlled drug release, improved patient safety. Among others, dry emulsions are a type of solidified LBDDS and allow carrying and releasing the encapsulated lipophilic API. In the following, some solidification process technologies are introduced. The required parameter for Wurster fluidized bed and spray drying are displayed in Table 2 and Table 3, respectively.

Opposite to the spray drying process, the fluidized bed process employs CELLETS® 200 as starter beads for layering. Several formulations are composed by Pohlen et al., the materials are listed in Table 1.

Parameter Value
Setup Glatt Fluidized bed Dryer Model GPCG-1 (Glatt, D)
Two-fluid

Schlick nozzle

 0.8 mm
cap opening diameter 2.50 mm
Inlet airflow rate 130 m3/h
Inlet air temperature 47 °C to 56 °C
outlet air / product temperature 34 °C
spraying rate 5 g/min to 9 g/min
atomizing air pressure 2 bar
Gap to Wurster insert bottom edge 17.5 mm
Drying time 180 s @ 42 °C
Starter pellets 200 g
starting

emulsion

 1000 g

Table 2: Parameters and values for Fluidized bed layering.

Parameter Value
Setup Mini Spray Dryer B-290 (Büchi, CH)
Two-fluid

nozzle

 1.4 mm
cap opening diameter 2.20 mm
Inlet airflow rate 28 m3/h
Inlet air temperature 145°C to 175 °C
outlet air / product temperature 75 °C to 80 °C
spraying rate 6 g/min
Drying time 180 s @ 80 °C
Starter pellets 200 g
starting

emulsion

 1000 g

Table 3: Parameters and values for spray drying.

Process yield

Spray drying results on average in lower process yield than the fluidized bed results. The process yield for spray drying experiments is in average value of 71.5 %, and of 83.3 % for fluidized bed layering experiments. It is assumed, that in spray drying process adhesion of the smallest particles to the cyclone walls or outtake through the air stream occur.

Drug content

An averaged API content at 9.34 mg/g in fluidized bed experiments, and at 22.2 mg/g for spray dried dry emulsions is reached. Although spray drying offers a much higher drug content and more flexible formulations, the content variation between replicates is increased. The use a swirl air generator in the fluidized bed equipment increases process stability and allows an even larger amount of oil to be incorporated. It is possible increase the maximum amount of API to 22 mg/g onto the starter pellets. Anyhow, the fluidized bed technology suffers from sticky effects of oil phases which is not a big deal in spray drying processes.

Encapsulation efficiency

A low encapsulation efficiency shall be avoided as it causes drug losses during processing and increased production costs. The encapsulation efficiency in fluidized bed experiments is at 80.0 %, compared to spray drying experiments being at 68.4 %. A main issue of the spray drying technology might be higher process temperature leading to a higher risk of API degradation. Spray drying also suffers from a larger surface-to-volume area which might induce an increased risk of oxidation during the drying process.

Morphology and particle size

The main advantage of fluidized bed technology is the use of starter pellets, which are perfectly spherical starter beads. Following, API coating results in highly spherical coated particles with a high level of monodispersity and an average particle size around 336 µm (D50 value). Not mentionable, that spray drying technology results in smaller average particle sizes at 56 µm (D50 value), but the morphology shows a coarse, rough and undefined surface. In turn, dry emulsion layered pellets have better flow properties [8].

Redispersibility and oil droplet size

All re-dispersed oil droplets have a size of a few micrometers between less than 1 µm and less than 7 µm. Fluidized bed layering technology generally leads to larger droplets. Considering also the probable bimodal nature of the droplet size distribution, fluidized bed layering provides a narrower size distribution and thus better results. In turn, the fluidized bed technology might provide slightly better bioavailability.

Product stability

Stability is measured by means of the one-month relative drug content stability. The particles produced in the fluidized bed technology show a better one-month relative drug content stability than particles produced by spray drying. This might be caused by the higher monodispersity, larger particles and smoother surfaces. All properties minimize the risk of API gradation, treatment failure, or toxicity.

Dissolution

Both technologies show a superior dissolution behavior compared to the dissolution of pure crystalline API (less than 3 %) or a generic API tablet (less than 10 %). It has to be stated, that both technologies allow dissolution rates of more than 80 % within the first 30 minutes, wherein the Spray drying products show a slightly better and faster dissolution rate.

Bioavailability

Bioavailability of formulations from fluidized bed layered dry emulsion pellets provide the highest increase in relative bioavailability within the examined formulations, confirming that fluidized bed technology is superior to spray drying technology for potent or low dose APIs.

Summary

Fluidized bed layering and spray drying technology have been selected for analyzing the properties of dry emulsions. Simvastatin was selected as API, encapsulated in the dry emulsion.

Fluidized bed layering technology uses starter cores, such as CELLETS® as a dry emulsion carrier system, while spray drying does not.

The main advantage of the fluidized bed technology is the higher process yield, the better encapsulation efficiency and redispersibility, the defined morphology of the product causing better process handling and product stability.

Spray drying technology allows a higher drug content with better chances of formulation variation, and an even faster and more complete dissolution (Figure 1).

Advantages of technological methods compared to a pure API usage.

Figure 1: Advantages of technological methods compared to a pure API usage.

References

[1] M. Pohlen, J. Aguiar Zdovc, J. Trontelj, J. Mravljak, M. G. Matjaž, I. Grabnar, T. Snoj and R. Dreu, Eur J Pharm Biopharm (2021), S0939-6411(21)00353-2, doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2021.12.004

[2] S. Geboers, J. Stappaerts, J. Tack, P. Annaert and P. Augustijns, Int. J. Pharm. 510 (2016) 296-303, doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2016.06.048

[3] T. Taupitz, J.B. Dressman and S. Klein, Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 84 (2013) 208-218, doi:10.1016/j.ejpb.2012.11.027.

[4] T. Das, C.H. Mehta and U.Y. Nayak, Drug Discov. Today 25(7) (2020) 1206-1212,  doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2020.04.016

[5] G.L. Amidon, H. Lennernäs, V.P. Shah and J.R. Crison, Pharm. Res. 12 (1995) 413-420,  doi:10.1023/a:1016212804288.

[6] H. Mu, R. Holm and A. Müllertz, Int. J. Pharm. 453 (2013) 215-224, doi:10.1016/j.ijpharm.2013.03.054.

[7] P. Joyce, T.J. Dening, T.R. Meola, H.B. Schultz, R. Holm, N. Thomas and C.A. Prestidge, Adv. Drug Deliv. (2018), doi:10.1016/j.addr.2018.11.006.

[8] X. Fu, D. Huck, L. Makein, B. Armstrong, U. Willen and T. Freeman, Particuology. 10 (2012) 203-208, doi:10.1016/j.partic.2011.11.003

/by
Close-up SEM images of Cellets® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (bold).

Multidimensional Correlation of Surface Smoothness and Process Conditions

Abstract

Multidimensional Correlation of Surface Smoothness and Process Conditions is a necessary attempt to better understand, optimize and outperform process steps of drug formulations. Particle coating and layering in a fluidized bed process is a main attempt in pharmaceutical industry for drug production for modern oral dosage forms. The precise knowledge of control process parameters leads to high surface control of the drug-loaded particles and therefore is crucial for the quality and yield of production in a more general aspect. This application note presents a multidimensional attempt by Orth et al. [1] to correlate particle surface structure morphology and process conditions in a fluidized bed layering spray granulation. CELLETS® 500 are used as spherical, high-quality starter cores.

About fluidized bed process conditions

Fluidized bed processes are used in pharmaceutical, food and agro industries. Solid particles are transported in a defined gas stream inducing fluidized bed conditions. Solid-containing dispersions or liquids are sprayed onto the fluidized particles. Variable settings of process parameters allow particle layering, coating, coalescence and agglomeration. This point seems to make the fluidized bed becoming a universal process for particle processing, but also requests deeper knowledge about the desired process parameter settings: The goal is a stable, high-quality, high-output process.

Standard process parameters are:

  • liquid spray rate (m­1)
  • fluidization air flow rate (Vair)
  • fluidization air temperature (Tin)
  • spray air temperature (Tat)
  • spray atomization pressure (p­at)

Beside the spraying process, also the drying process plays an important role. By drying, moisture, sticky conditions and flowability are strongly influenced. Hampel [2] analyzed in her doctoral thesis the importance of the drying process using CELLETS® 200 as model particles.

Technology, Materials and Analysis

The coating experiments were carried out in a ProCell® 5 LabSystem with the fluidized bed process chamber GF3 (Glatt GmbH, Germany) as shown in Figure 1. The ProCell® 5 LabSystem is designed for testing of spouted bed and fluidized bed processes in the single kg-scale.

Sketch of the experimental fluidized bed setup (Procell® 5 LabSystem with GF3 chamber).

Fig.1: Sketch of the experimental fluidized bed setup (Procell® 5 LabSystem with GF3 chamber).

As Materials, pellets made of 100% microcrystalline cellulose (CELLETS® 500) are employed as perfect starter cores. These pellets provide smooth and defined surface properties, chemical inertness, robustness and a high degree of sphericity. Specific properties of CELLETS® 500 for this study are shown in Table 1. The roughness is at 1.5 µm and therefore delivers perfect initial conditions for controlled spray granulation.

Property Value
Sauter diameter 639 µm
Sphericity 0.96
Surface roughness 1.5 µm
Solid density 1.445 g/cm3

Table 1: Properties of CELLETS® 500.

As spray liquid, a 30 wt% sodium benzoate solution was injected into the process chamber. The mass ratio of spray liquid to starter cores was 1:2. Different coating conditions have statistically been driven. In turn, the spray-coated particles show different surface structures (Figure 2a-d).

SEM images of Cellets® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (bold).

Fig.2a: SEM images of CELLETS® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (bold).

Close-up SEM images of Cellets® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (bold).

Fig. 2b: Close-up SEM images of CELLETS® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (bold).

SEM images of Cellets® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (italic).

Fig. 2c: SEM images of CELLETS® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (italic).

Close-up SEM images of Cellets® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (italic).

Fig. 2d: Close-up SEM images of CELLETS® 500 particles coated with sodium benzoate at process conditions as printed in Table 2 (italic).

 

Parameter Controlled values
liquid spray rate (m­1) 10 | 15 | 20
fluidization air flow rate (Vair) 80 | 105 | 130
fluidization air temperature (Tin) 50 | 85 | 120
spray air temperature (Tat) 20 | 70 | 120
spray atomization pressure (p­at) 0.5 | 1.75 | 3.0

Table 2: Process parameters and values used in coating experiments.

The coated particles were analyzed regarding their surface roughness via laser scanning microscopy (VK-X160K, Keyence, Japan). Additional images were obtained with a scanning electron microscope (Supra VP55, Zeiss, Germany).

A 3D-profile of the particle surface was created and evaluated in a defined measurement area. Roughness analysis can be performed through several parameters as defined in DIN EN ISO 4287:2010-07 (2010) and DIN EN ISO 25178-2:2012 (2012). In this attempt, the arithmetical mean height was used as roughness quantifier. The roughness was correlated to the process parameters and the resulting linear correlation was rigorously analyzed using a principal component analysis.

Results

A linear regression model is fitted to the roughness data using the ordinary least squares method. This enables to create a linear model connecting the chosen process parameters to the surface roughness of the coated particles. It is mentionable, that in this attempt the fluidization air flow rate and the spray air temperature did not show a significant effect on the surface structure and were therefore removed from the model.

Process conditions: Influence of the liquid spray rate

Figure 3: Surface roughness versus liquid spray rate. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated spray rates; line represents a linear interpolation.

Figure 3: Surface roughness versus liquid spray rate. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated spray rates; line represents a linear interpolation.

The dependence of the surface roughness on the spray rate of the sodium benzoate solution is shown in Figure 3. A slight increase of surface roughness is identified for increasing spray rates. The main effect is considered to be influenced by the crystallization of sodium benzoate. Following, crystallization is higher at higher spray rates caused by lower evaporation due to higher liquid volumes in the process. The dependence of the crystallization of sodium benzoate on the drying conditions during fluidized bed coating was also observed by Rieck et al. [3] and Hoffmann et al. [4].

Process conditions: Influence of the fluidization air inlet temperature

Figure 4: Surface roughness versus fluidization air inlet temperature. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated temperatures; line represents a linear interpolation.

Figure 4: Surface roughness versus fluidization air inlet temperature. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated temperatures; line represents a linear interpolation.

An increase in the fluidization air inlet temperature results in a lower roughness of the coated particles and therefore in a smoother particle surface. The temperature of the fluidization air has a major impact on the drying conditions during the spray granulation process. As an increased temperature causes reduced relative humidity, the heated air can absorb a larger amount of water, which results in a high drying rate. Crystal growth of spray droplets is reduced by fast evaporation times and short drying times.

Process conditions: Influence of the atomization pressure

Figure 5: Surface roughness versus spray atomization pressure. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated pressures; line represents a linear interpolation.

Figure 5: Surface roughness versus spray atomization pressure. The crosses mark the experimentally investigated pressures; line represents a linear interpolation.

With increasing atomization pressure from 0.5 bar to 3.0 bar, the surface roughness is decreasing. The pressure of the spray air strongly influences the droplet size and velocity. With increasing atomization pressure, the droplet size and size distribution decreases while the droplet velocity increases which in causes a more homogeneous spreading and promotes smoother surface coatings.

Summary

CELLETS® 500 are used as model particles for analyzing the surface roughness of coated particles dependent on process conditions in a bottom-spray process. As the results suggest, a high surface roughness is achieved at low fluidization air temperatures, low atomization pressures and high spray rates of the coating solution. Conversely, at high air temperatures, high spray pressures and low liquid spray rates, particles with smooth and compact surfaces are produced.

Acknowledgement

Prof. Stefan Heinrich and his team are gratefully acknowledged for serving content for this note:

Hamburg University of Technology - Institute of Solids Process Engineering and Particle Technology
Hamburg University of Technology
Institute of Solids Process Engineering and Particle Technology
Contact: Prof. Dr. Stefan Heinrich
Denickestrasse 15, 21073 Hamburg, Germany
Tel: +49 40 42878 3750
E-mail: stefan.heinrich@tuhh.de
Website: https://www.tuhh.de/spe/

University Course Fluidization Technology

The authors got funding from the German Research Foundation within the DFG Graduate School GRK 2462 “Processes in natural and technical Particle-Fluid-Systems (PintPFS)” (Project No. 390794421) and funding from BASF SE.

CELLETS® 500 were sponsored by HARKE Pharma.

References

[1] M. Orth, P. Kieckhefen, S. Pietsch and S. Heinrich. KONA Powder and Particle Journal (2021). DOI: 10.14356/kona.2022016

[2] N.A. Hampel, Dissertation, Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, 2015. DOI:10.25673/4340

[3] Rieck C., Hoffmann T., Bück A., Peglow M., Tsotsas E., Powder Technology, 272 (2015) 120–131. DOI:10.1016/j.powtec.2014.11.019

[4] Hoffmann T., Rieck C., Bück A., Peglow M., Tsotsas E., Procedia Engineering, 102 (2015) 458–467. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.01.189

/by