Skip to main content
PMC home page
AAPS PharmSci logoLink to AAPS PharmSci
. 2002 Sep 25;4(3):45–60. doi: 10.1208/ps040317

Comparison of the formulation requirements of dosator and dosing disc automatic capsule filling machines

Pavan K Heda 1, Kapiamba Muteba 2, Larry L Augsburger 2,✉
PMCID: PMC2751356  PMID: 12423066

Abstract

The overall objective of this study was to provide ‘semi-quantitative’ or ‘rigorous’ definitions of the fluidity, lubricity and compactibility requirements of formulation for representative dosator and dosing disc capsule filling machines. To that end, model formulations were developed for those properties using Carr's compressibility index, ejection force, and plug breaking force at a specified compression force to gauge fluidity, lubricity, and compactibility, respectively. These formulations were each encapsulated on an Hofliger-Karg GKF-400 dosing disc machine and a Zanasi LZ-64 dosator machine. Each machine was instrumented to measure plug compression and ejection forces. The encapsulation process was evaluated for %CV of fill-weight, ejection force, plug breaking force and the dissolution of marker drugs incorporated in the formulations. The f2 metric was used to compare dissolution profiles. The results suggest: (1) formulations should meet different flow criteria for successful encapsulation on the two machines, (2) a relatively lower level of lubricant may be sufficient for the dosing disc machine, (3) a higher degree of formulation compactibility is needed for the dosator machine, and (4) transferring formulations between these machine types (same class, different subclass per FDA's SUPAC-IR/MR Manufacturing Equipment Addendum) could be challenging. In certain cases dissolution profiles for the same formulation filled on the two machines with equivalent compression force were different based on f2<50. Overall, the results of this study suggest a range of formulation characteristics appropriate for transferring formulations between these two types of machines.

Keywords: Capsules, Formulation, Flow, Compactibility, Lubrication, Filling Machines

References

  • 1.Jolliffe IG, Newton JM. An investigation of the relationship between particle size and compression during capsule filling with an instrumented MG2 simulator. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1982;34:415–419. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1982.tb04747.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cole GC, May G. The instrumentation of a Zanasi LZ/64 capsule filling machine. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1975;27:353–358. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1975.tb09454.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Small LE, Augsburger LL. Aspects of the lubrication requirements for an automatic capsule filling machine. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1978;4:345–372. doi: 10.3109/03639047809060848. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Hogan J, Shue P-I, Podczeck F. Investigations into the relationship between drug properties, filling, and the release of drugs from hard gelatin capsules using multivariate analysis. Pharm Res. 1996;13:944–949. doi: 10.1023/A:1016025817183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Britten JR, Barnett MI, Armstrong NA. Studies on powder plug formation using a simulated capsule filling machine. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1996;48:249–254. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1996.tb05911.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shah KB, Augsburger LL, Marshall K. An investigation of some factors influencing plug formation and fill weight in a dosing disk-type automatic capsule-filling machine. J Pharm Sci. 1986;75:291–296. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600750318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Shah KB, Augsburger LL, Marshall K. Multiple tamping effects on drug dissolution from capsules filled on a dosing?disk type automatic capsule filling machine. J Pharm Sci. 1987;76:639–645. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600760811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Podczeck F. The development of an instrumented tamp-filling capsule machine: I. Instrumentation of a Bosch GKF 400S machine. Europ J Pharm Sci. 2000;10:267–274. doi: 10.1016/S0928-0987(00)00071-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Carr RL. Evaluating flow properties of solids. Chem Eng. 1965;72:163–168. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.United States Pharmacopeia 23. 6th Supplement. Rockville. MD: United States Pharmacopeial Convention; 1997:3768–3769.
  • 11.Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. 2nd ed. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association; 1994:85.
  • 12.Mehta AM, Augsburger LL. A preliminary study of the effect of slug hardness on drug dissolution from hard gelatin capsules filled on an automatic capsule filling machine. Int J Pharm. 1981;7:327–327. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(81)90059-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Davar N, Shah R, Pope DG, Augsburger LL. Rational approach to the selection of a dosing disc on a Hofliger Karg capsule filling machine. Pharm Tech. 1997;21(2):32–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Small LE. Instrumentation of an Automatic Capsule Filling Machine. Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland; 1975. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Botzolakis JE. Studies on the Mechanism of Disintegrant and Surfactant Action in Encapsulated Dosage Forms. Baltimore, MD: University of Maryland; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Guidance for industry: Immediate release oral solid dosage forms. Federal Register. CDER, FDA; 1995(Nov):61638–61643.
  • 17.Moore JW, Flanner HH. Mathematical comparison of dissolution profiles. Pharm Technol. 1996;20(6):64–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Cropp JW, Augsburger LL, Marshall K. Simultaneous monitoring of tamping force and pin displacement (F-D) on an Hofliger Karg capsule filling machine. Int J Pharm. 1991;71:127–136. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(91)90074-X. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Ullah I, Wiley GJ, Agharkar SN. Analysis and simulation of capsule dissolution problem encountered during product scale-up. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1992;18(8):895–910. doi: 10.3109/03639049209069305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Desai DS, Rubitski BA, Varia SA, Newman AW. Physical interactions of magnesium stearate with starch-derived disintegrants and their effects on capsule and tablet dissolution. Int J Pharm. 1993;91:217–226. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(93)90341-C. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Miller TA, York P. Pharmaceutical tablet lubrication. Int J Pharm. 1988;41:1–19. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(88)90130-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shah AC, Mlodozeniec AR. Mechanism of surface lubrication influence of duration of lubricant-excipient mixing on processing characteristics of powders and properties of compressed tablets. J Pharm Sci. 1977;66:1377–1381. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600661006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Bolhuis MR, Lerk CF. Film forming of tablet lubricants during the mixing process of solids. Acta Pharm Technol. 1977;23:13–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Jolliffe IG, Newton JM, Walters JK. Theoretical considerations of the filling of pharmaceutical hard gelatin capsules. Powder Technol. 1980;27:975–977. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Kurihara K, Ichikawa I. Effect of powder flowability on capsule filling weight variation. Chem Pharm Bull. 1978;26:1250–1256. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Patel R, Podczeck F. Investigation of the effect of type and source of microcrystalline cellulose on capsule filling. Int J Pharm. 1996;128:123–127. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(95)04231-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Polli JE, Rekhi GS, Augsburger LL, Shah VP. Methods to compare dissolution profiles and a rationale for wide dissolution specifications for metoprolol tartrate tablets. J Pharm Sci. 1997;86(Jun):690–700. doi: 10.1021/js960473x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Guidance for industry, SUPAG-IR/MR: Manufacturing equipment addendum. FDA, CDER. January 1999.

Articles from AAPS PharmSci are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists

RESOURCES