Abstract
The purpose of this research was to evaluate a redesigned impactor stage for the TSI Model 3306 Impactor Inlet with nozzles adjusted to obtain a target cut-point of 4.7 μm. It has been determined that the previous cut-point used in the Model 3306 was nominally closer to 4.14 μm, thus potentially impacting the characterization of aerosol mass. The reassessment of the Model 3306 was performed on 4 solution and 2 suspension metered-dose inhaler (MDI) formulations. The redesigned impactor stage resulted in a 5% to 6% increase in aerosol mass when compared with the previous impactor stage for the products Ventolin-HFA, Proventil-HFA, and 2 cyclosporin solution formulations with high ethanol concentrations (15% wt/wt). For the formulations with low ethanol concentrations (3% wt/wt), minimal differences were observed between the 2 cut-points. In addition, this study reevaluated the requirement of a vertical inlet extension length when using the TSI 3306/3321 system with the redesigned cut-point. It was shown that the use of a 20-cm extension provides mass and aerosol size distributions that are comparable to the Andersen 8-stage Cascade Impactor, for both solution and suspension MDIs. This work indicates that the TSI 3306/3321 system is suitable for preformulation studies of both suspension and solution MDI systems.
Keywords: aerosols, metered-dose inhalers, particle sizer, size distribution
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (341.8 KB).
References
- 1.Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Wiersema KJ, Doyle CC. Aerodynamic particle size analysis of aerosols from pressurized metered-dose inhalers: comparison of Andersen 8-stage cascade impactor, next generation pharmaceutical impactor, and model 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer aerosol spectrometer. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2003;4:E54–E54. doi: 10.1208/pt040454. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Mogalian E, Myrdal PB, Application of USP inlet extensions to the TSI impactor system 3306/3320 using HFA 227 based solution metered dose inhalers. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 3.Wachtel H, Zeigler J. Improved assessment of inhaler device performance using laser diffraction. Respiratory Drug Delivery VIII. 2002;2:379–381. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wachtel H, Ziegler J, inventors. Laser diffraction method for particle size distribution measurements in pharmaceutical aerosols. US patent 0142665. June 30, 2005. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 5.Finlay WH, Stapleton KW. Undersizing of droplets from a vented nebulizer caused by aerosol heating during transit through an Andersen impactor. J Aerosol Sci. 1999;30:105–109. doi: 10.1016/S0021-8502(98)00024-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Ding JY, McVeety BD, Busick DR, Miller PR, Zimlich WC, Placke ME. Correlation of particle size distribution measurements between optical and inertial impaction techniques using an ethanolic drug formulation for inhalation. Respiratory Drug Delivery VIII. 2002;2:355–358. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Holmes CE, Kippax PG, Newell HE, Southhall JP, Ward DJ. Simultaneous analysis of respirable aerosols via laser diffraction and cascade impaction. London, UK: The Aerosol Society; 2001. pp. 58–61. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Smyth HDC, Hickey AJ. Comparative particle size analysis of solution propellant driven metered dose inhalers using cascade impaction and laser diffraction. Respiratory Drug Delivery VIII. 2002;2:731–734. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Haynes A, Shaik MS, Krarup H, Singh M. Evaluation of the Malvern Spraytec with inhalation cell for the measurement of particle size distribution from metered dose inhalers. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:349–363. doi: 10.1002/jps.10558. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Corcoran TE, Hitron R, Humphrey W, Chigier N. Optical measurement of nebulized sprays: a quantitative comparison of diffraction, phase Doppler interferometry, and time-of-flight analysis. J Aerosol Sci. 2000;31:35–50. doi: 10.1016/S0021-8502(99)00030-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Stein SW, Gabrio BJ, Oberreit D, Hairston P, Myrdal PB, Beck TJ. An evaluation of mass-weighted size distribution measurements with the model 3320 aerodynamic particle sizer. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16:107–119. doi: 10.1089/089426803321919870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Myrdal PB, Stein SW, Mogalian E, Hoye WL, Gupta A. Comparison of the TSI model 3306 impactor inlet with the Andersen cascade impactor: solution metered dose inhalers. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2004;30:859–868. doi: 10.1081/DDC-200034575. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Marple VA. A Fundamental Study of Inertial Impactors. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Particle Technology Laboratory-Publication; 1970. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Hinds WC. Aerosol Technology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Rader DJ, Marple VA. A study of the effects of anisokinetic sampling. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1988;8:283–299. doi: 10.1080/02786828808959190. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Hickey AJ, Dalby RN, Byron PR. Effects of surfactants on aerosol powders in suspension: implications for airborne particle size. Int J Pharm. 1988;42:267–270. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(88)90186-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Vaughan NP. The Andersen impactor: calibration, wall losses and numerical simulation. J Aerosol Sci. 1989;20:67–90. doi: 10.1016/0021-8502(89)90032-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Stein SW, Olson BA. Variability in size distribution measurements obtained using multiple Andersen mark II cascade impactors. Pharm Res. 1997;14:1718–1725. doi: 10.1023/A:1012175612193. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Stein SW, Myrdal PB. A theoretical and experimental analysis of formulation and device parameters affecting solution MDI size distributions. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93:2158–2175. doi: 10.1002/jps.20116. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Gupta A, Stein SW, Myrdal PB. Balancing ethanol cosolvent concentration with product performance in 134a-based pressurized metered dose inhalers. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16:167–174. doi: 10.1089/089426803321919924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]