4.5 Article

Quality-By-Design (QbD): An Integrated Approach for Evaluation of Powder Blending Process Kinetics and Determination of Powder Blending End-point

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 98, 期 8, 页码 2784-2798

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.21646

关键词

quality-by-design (QbD); process analytical technology (PAT); design of experiments; multivariate statistical data analysis; powder blending; process monitoring; blending end-point determination; moving block standard deviation; process dynamics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The objective of this study was to develop an integrated process monitoring approach for evaluating powder blending process kinetics and determining blending process end-point. A mixture design was created to include 26 powder formulations consisting of ibuprofen as the model drug and three excipients (HPMC, MCC, and Eudragit L100-55). The mixer was stopped at Various time points to enable near-infrared spectroscopy scan of the powder mixture for obtaining the time course of the blending process. The evaluation of the blending process kinetics and process end-point was studied through three quantitative approaches: (1) Spectra linear superposition method; (2) Characteristic peak method; (3) Moving block standard deviation method. It was found that the powder blending experienced an initial rapid process to reach a quasi-end point within the first few minutes. Afterwards, a demixing occurred. Then, a real blending end-point was reached as characterized by an inflection point. ANOVA shows that the compositions of ibuprofen and MCC are the most statistically significant variables that impact the time required to reach the blending end-point. This highlighted the critical importance of developing quantitative chemometric approaches to extract critical process information and generate essential process knowledge to enable real-time release of the blending process. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 98:2784-2798, 2009

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据