Effect of sampling volume on dry powder inhaler (DPI)-emitted aerosol aerodynamic particle size distributions (APSDs) measured by the next-generation pharmaceutical impactor (NGI) and the andersen eight-stage cascade impactor (ACI)

AAPS PharmSciTech

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 875-882

  Mohammed, Hlack ^a   Roberts, Daryl L ^b   Copley, Mark ^c   Hammond, Mark ^d   Nichols, Steven C ^e   Mitchell, Jolyon P ^f  

^a GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United Kingdom)

^b MSP Corporation   (United States)

^c Copley Scientific Ltd ^*  (United Kingdom)

^d Melbourn Scientific Ltd   (United Kingdom)

^e OINDP Consultancy   (United Kingdom)

^f TRUDELL MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

cascade impactor; compendial method; dry powder inhaler; sample volume

Indexed keywords

AEROSOL; ANDERSEN EIGHT STAGE CASCADE IMPACTOR; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; INSTRUMENT; MEDICAL LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY; NEXT GENERATION PHARMACEUTICAL IMPACTOR; PARTICLE SIZE; POWDER INHALER; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SAMPLING;

DRY POWDER INHALERS; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; PARTICLE SIZE; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL;

EID: 84866125588     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15309932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1208/s12249-012-9797-0     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines and Healthcare (EDQM): European Pharmacopeia 6(8). Chapter 2.9.18. Preparations for inhalations: aerodynamic assessment of fine particles. Strasbourg: Council of Europe; 2010.
2. US Pharmacopeial Convention. United States Pharmacopeia; USP 33-NF 28; chapter 601physical tests and determinations: aerosols. United States Pharmacopeia, Rockville, MD, USA; 2010.
3. Mitchell JP, Nagel MW. Cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers: their uses and limitations. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16(4):341-77.
4. Copley M, Smurthwaite M, Roberts DL, Mitchell JP. Revised internal volumes to those provided by Mitchell JP and Nagel MW in cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers: their uses and limitations. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18(3):364-6.
5. Mitchell JP, Newman S, Chan H-K. In vitro and in vivo aspects of cascade impactor tests and inhaler performance: a review. AAPS PharmSciTechnol. 2007;8(4):237-48.
6. Dunbar C, Mitchell J. Analysis of cascade impactor mass distributions. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18(4):439-51.
7. Marple VA, Olson BA, Santhanakrishnan K, Mitchell JP, Murray S, Hudson-Curtis B. Next generation pharmaceutical impactor. Part II: calibration. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16:301-24.
8. Nichols SC. Calibration and mensuration issues for the standard and modified impactor. Pharmeuropa. 2000;12(4):585.
9. Mitchell JP, Costa PA, Waters S. An assessment of an Andersen mark-II cascade impactor. J Aerosol Sci. 1987;19:213-21.
10. Beron K, Grabek CE, Jung JA, Shelton CM. Flow rate ramp profile effects on the emitted dose from dry powder inhalers. In: Drug delivery to the lungs, 19. Edinburgh: The Aerosol Society; 2008. p. 61-4.
11. Marple VA, Roberts DL, Romay FJ, Miller NC, Truman KG, Van Oort M, et al. Next generation pharmaceutical impactor. Part 1: design. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16:283-99.
12. Bird RB, Stewart WE, Lightfoot EN. Transport phenomena. New York: Wiley; 1960. p. 126.
13. Roberts DL, Chiruta M. Transient impactor behavior during the testing of dry-powder inhalers via compendial methods. In: Drug delivery to the lungs, 18. Edinburgh: The Aerosol Society; 2007. p. 202-5.