4.7 Article

Investigation of an 11 mm diameter twin screw granulator: Screw element performance and in-line monitoring via image analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICS
卷 496, 期 1, 页码 24-32

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpharm.2015.09.024

关键词

Twin screw granulation; In-line image analysis; Shewhart control charts; Continuous pharmaceutical manufacturing; Process analytical technology

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. Doctoral Training Centre in Continuous Manufacturing and Crystallisation
  3. EPSRC [EP/I033459/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Cancer Research UK [11526, 20740] Funding Source: researchfish
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/I033459/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As twin screw granulation (TSG) provides one with many screw element options, characterization of each screw element is crucial in optimizing the screw configuration in order to obtain desired granule attributes. In this study, the performance of two different screw elements - distributive feed screws and kneading elements - was studied in an 11 mm TSG at different liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratios. The kneading element configuration was found to break large granules more efficiently, leading to narrower granule size distributions. While pharmaceutical industry shifts toward continuous manufacturing, inline monitoring and process control are gaining importance. Granules from an 11 mm TSG were analysed using the Eyecon (TM), a real-time high speed direct imaging system, which has been used to capture accurate particle size distribution and particle count. The size parameters and particle count were then assessed in terms of their ability to be a suitable control measure using the Shewhart control charts. d(10) and particle count were found to be good indicators of the change in L/S ratio. However, d(50) and d(90) did not reflect the change, due to their inherent variability even when the process is at steady state. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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