4.7 Article

Wall collision and drug-carrier detachment in dry powder inhalers: Using DEM to devise a sub-scale model for CFD calculations

期刊

POWDER TECHNOLOGY
卷 334, 期 -, 页码 65-75

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.powtec.2018.04.051

关键词

Discrete element method; Dry powder inhaler; Carrier with drug; Velocity; Rotation; Drug dispersion

资金

  1. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) [MP1404 SimInhale]
  2. COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology)
  3. STSM (Short Term Scientific Mission) at the MPS laboratory, Institute of Process Engineering, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Halle (Saale), Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this work, the Discrete Element Method (DEM) is used to simulate the dispersion process of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients (API) after a wall collision in dry powders inhaler used for lung delivery. Any fluid dynamic effects are neglected in this analysis at the moment A three-dimensional model is implemented with one carrier particle (diameter 100 mu m) and 882 drug particles (diameter 5 mu m). The effect of the impact velocity (varied between 1 and 20 m s(-1)), angle of impact (between 5 degrees and 90 degrees) and the carrier rotation (+/- 100,000 rad s(-1)) are investigated for both elastic and sticky walls. The dispersion process shows a preferential area of drug detachment located in the southern hemisphere of the carrier. The angle of impact with the highest dispersion is 90 degrees for the velocities over 9 m s(-1) and between 30 degrees and 45 degrees for lower velocities. The rotation of the carrier before the impact, on the other hand, for velocities higher than 7 m s(-1), plays a little role on the dispersion performance. The DEM results are finally distilled into a simplified analytic model that could be introduced as a sub-scale model in Euler/Lagrange CFD calculations linking fluid dynamics with the detachment probability of APIs in the inhaler. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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

4.7
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