Shear-induced variability in the United States Pharmacopeia Apparatus 2: Modifications to the existing system

AAPS Journal

Volumn 7, Issue 4, 2006, Pages

  Baxter, Jennifer L ^a   Kukura, Joseph ^a   Muzzio, Fernando J ^a  

^a The State University of New Jersey   (United States)

Author keywords

Bioavailability; Callibrator tablets; Hydrodynamic variability; Tablet dissolution; USP II

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOENGINEERING; COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS; CONTROLLED STUDY; DEVICE; DISSOLUTION; FLUID FLOW; GEOMETRY; HYDRODYNAMICS; MEASUREMENT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; SHEAR RATE; UNITED STATES; CHEMICAL MODEL; CHEMISTRY; EVALUATION; METHODOLOGY; SHEAR STRENGTH; SOLUBILITY; TABLET;

CHEMISTRY, PHARMACEUTICAL; MODELS, CHEMICAL; PHARMACOPOEIAS; SHEAR STRENGTH; SOLUBILITY; TABLETS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33646641003     PISSN: 15221059     EISSN: 15221059     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1208/aapsj070483     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Banakar UV. Pharmaceutical Dissolution Testing. Vol 49. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc; 1992.
2. Cox DC, Furman WB, Systematic error associated with Apparatus 2 of the USP dissolution test 1: effects of physical alignment of the dissolution apparatus. J Pharm Sci. 1982;71:451-452.
3. Moote TW, Hamilton JF, Kemer CM. Dissolution testing: limitations of the USP prednisone and salicylic acid calibrator tablets. Pharmaceutical Forum. 1995;21:1387-1396.
4. Qureshi SA, McGilveray IJ. Typical variability in drug dissolution testing: study with USP and FDA calibrator tablets and a marketed drug (Glibenclamide) product. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1999;7.249-258.
5. Qureshi SA, Shabnam J. Cause of high variability in drug dissolution testing and its impact on setting tolerances. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2001;12:271-276.
6. FDCReports, Recalls prompted by FDA on the increase. The Gold Sheet. 2001;35:1-19.
7. FDCReports, Counterfeits pose special recall challenge. The Gold Sheet. 2002;36:1-26.
8. FDCReports. Spike in potency-related problems contributes to overall rise in 2002 recalls, The Gold Sheet. 2003;37:1-20.
9. Levy G, Leonards JR, Procknal JA. Development of in vitro dissolution tests which correlate quantitatively with dissolution rate-limited drug absorption in man. J Pharm Sci. 1965;54:1719-1722.
10. Hamlin WE, Nelson E. Ballard BE, Wagner JG. Loss of sensitivity in distinguishing real differences in dissolution rates due to increasing intensity of agitation. J Pharm Sci. 1962;51:432-435.
11. Kukura J. Baxter JL, Muzzio FJ. Shear distribution and variability in the USP Apparatus 2 under turbulent conditions. Int J Pharm, 2004;279:9-17.
12. Beckett AH, Quach TT, Kurs GS. Improved hydrodynamics for USP Apparatus 2, Diss Tec. 1996;3:7-18.
13. Collins CC, Nair RR. Comparative evaluation of mixing dynamics in USP Apparatus 2 using standard USP vessels and PEAK vessels, Diss Tech. 1998;5.17-21.
14. Johnson K, Bittorf KJ. Validating the Gaierkin Least-Squares Finite Element Methods in predicting mixing flows in stirred tank reactors. Paper presented at: The 10th Annual Conference of the CFD Society of Canada, Proceedings; June 9-11, 2002; Windsor, Ontario.
15. Zalc JM. Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFP) Tools for Investigating Flow and Mixing in Industrial Systems: The Koch-Glitsch SMX Static Mixer and a Three Rushton Turbine Stirred Tank. New Brunswick, NJ. Department of Chemical & Biochemical Engineering, Rutgers University; 2000.
16. Zalc JM, Alvarez MM, Muzzio FJ. Extensive validation of computed laminar flow in a stirred tank with three Rushton turbines. AlChEJ, 2001;47:2144-2154.
17. Mauger JW, Brockson R, De S, Gray VA, Robinson D. Intrinsic dissolution performance of USP Apparatus 2 using modified salicvlic acid calibrator tablets: proof of principle. Diss Tech. 2003;10:6-15.