A Comparison of Three Extrusion Systems

Multiparticulate oral dosage forms experience gained extensive popularity since their market introduction because of the numerous pharmaceutical and technical advantages and their suitability for pediatric apply (1-3). From a pharmaceutical point of view, pellets can decrease the variations in gastric drug amounts, reduce inter- and intraindividual variants, minimize side effects and high localized concentrations, and allow modified-release kinetics. They also enable incompatible substances to be combined in a single dosage form otherwise. In pediatrics, pellets offer the benefits of administration with foodstuff and the chance of adjusting doses in line with the child's body mass. The major technological advantage of pellets is definitely their capacity to get adapted to good coating operations (e.g., for a sustainedrelease diltiazem formulation). Furthermore, pellets enhance flow houses during capsule filling, give a narrow size distribution of contaminants, and provide low friability.

Among the different methods to produce pellets, the procedure of extrusion-spheronization is of particular benefit (1, 3). Extrusion-spheronization is normally a semicontinuous method organized in five device operations: blending, wet granulation, extrusion, spheronization, and drying (4). This process, fast and robust, restrictions the use of organic solvent and enables drug loading as increased as 90%, according to the active properties, in the mixture. When used to create finished products, extrusion-spheronization generates well-densified pellets, has a narrow particle-size distribution, yields low friability, ensures regular sphericity, and maintains good flow properties.

The properties of the ultimate product depend on the physicochemical properties of the raw materials and the quantity of each component in the formulation (5). Various method variables also affect the grade of the pellets. These variables include the quantity and kind of solvent added to the powder mixture; mixing time and speed; type of extruder, style of the display screen, and fee of extrusion; spheronization rate, time, load, and plate style; and drying price and time (2-4).

Because various extruder models are available to get ready extrudates from the wet mass, several authors have studied the result of different extruders about process pellet and attributes properties. Extruders can be divided into three main types, according with their feed mechanism: screwfeed (i.e., solo- or twin-screw), gravity-feed (i.e., sieve, equipment, cylinder, and basket), and ram extruders (3, 4).

Few studies compared any kind of extruders with the ram extruder to supply rheological information and to validate the latter extruder's prediction power. Some authors drew parallels between a ram extruder and a gear extruder or a cylinder extruder, regarding extrusion attributes and pellet homes (6-8). Others compared a twin-screw extruder with a gear extruder or with a rotaring-die press by examining the extrusion method and pellet quality (9, 10). A roll-press cylinder likewise was weighed against a basket and a single-screw extruder with regard to pellet characteristics (11). Distinctions in pellet and procedure homes between a cylinder, an axial single-screw, a radial basket display screen, and a ram extruder were studied (12, 13). The authors underlined great differences between your feeding systems, therefore demonstrating that it was not always feasible to transfer a formulation directly in one type of extruder to another.

Few authors have compared numerous extrusion systems with the same extrusion-feed mechanism. This process seems to be eye-catching for screw-feed extruders especially, which can be classified in three categories in line with the style of the display screen (i.e., axial, dome, and radial) (3). The comparative effect of radial and axial single-screw extruders on the extrusion procedure features and on the standard of final product was studied using many formulations (14-16). Different authors compared two twin-screw axial extruders for continuous granulation on pellet top quality (17). Nevertheless, no writer features compared dome technology to both other screw-feeding technologies. Few authors possess studied the dome extruder as a simple tool for extrusion (18-21).

Numerous authors showed the influence of water quantity attached to extrudate or pellet properties when working with a ram extruder, a gravity-feed extruder, a single-screw extruder, or a twin-screw extruder (5, 9, 11, 22-33). Other authors revealed that extrusion velocity influenced pellet or extrudate top quality in ram extruders, gravity-feed extruders, single-screw extruders, and twin-screw extruders (27, 31, 33-37). Several authors showed extrusion systems' different sensitivities to normal water content also to extrusion speed (10-14, 17).

In this context, learning the influence of water quantity and extrusion velocity is an interesting way to highlight differences between extrusion systems. The authors aimed to compare the three devices of single-screw extrusion-radial, dome, and axial-in terms of productivity and the homes of pellets designed by extrusion-spheronization. To highlight dissimilarities between your three extrusion systems, many levels of water content material and extrusion speeds were tested. A majority of previous studies plastic pellet extruder indicated that these two parameters have wonderful influence. The authors setup a response surface design of experiments to reveal the variables' influence and to identify the kind of extruder that yielded the best productivity and pellet quality.

Write a comment

Comments: 0