Journal of Pharmaceutical Innovation

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 119–137 | Cite as

Design Space of Pharmaceutical Processes Using Data-Driven-Based Methods

  • Fani Boukouvala
  • Fernando J. Muzzio
  • Marianthi G. IerapetritouEmail author
Research Article



The identification and graphical representation of process design space are critical in locating not only feasible but also optimum operating variable ranges and design configurations. In this work, the mapping of the design space of pharmaceutical processes is achieved using the ideas of process operability and flexibility under uncertainty.


For this purpose, three approaches are proposed which are based on different data-driven modeling techniques: response surface methodology, high-dimensional model representation, and kriging methodology. Using these approaches, models that describe the behavior of the process at different design configurations are generated using solely experimental data. The models are utilized in mixed integer non-linear programming formulations, where the optimum designs are identified for different combinations of input parameters within the operating parameter and material property ranges.


Based on this idea, by defining a desirable output range, the corresponding range of input variables that result to acceptable performance can be accurately calculated and graphically represented.


The main advantages of the methodologies used in this work are, firstly, that there is no restriction by the lack of first-principle models that describe the investigated process and, secondly, that the models developed are computationally inexpensive. This work can also be used for the comparative analysis of the use of different surrogate-based methodologies for the identification of pharmaceutical process Design Space.


Design space mapping Data-driven models Kriging High-dimensional model representations Response surface Pharmaceutical processes 



This work was supported by the ERC-SOPS (NSF-0504497, NSF-ECC 0540855). Also special thanks to Bill Englisch and Aditya Vanarase for providing the experimental data.


  1. 1.
    Lepore J, Spavins J. PQLI design space. J Pharmaceut Innovation. 2008;3(2):79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garcia T, Cook G, Nosal R. PQLI key topics - criticality, design space, and control strategy. J Pharmaceut Innovation. 2008;3(2):60–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis B, Lundsberg L, Cook G. PQLI control strategy model and concepts. J Pharmaceut Innovation. 2008;3(2):95–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nosal R, Schultz T. PQLI definition of criticality. J Pharmaceut Innovation. 2008;3(2):69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lipsanen T, Antikainen O, Räikkönen H, Airaksinen S, Yliruusi J. Novel description of a design space for fluidised bed granulation. Int J Pharm. 2007;345(1–2):101–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lebrun P, Govaerts B, Debrus B, Ceccato A, Caliaro G, Hubert P, et al. Development of a new predictive modelling technique to find with confidence equivalence zone and design space of chromatographic analytical methods. Chemom Intell Lab Syst. 2008;91(1):4–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Halemane KP and Grossmann IE. Optimal process design under uncertainty. 1987 cited. Available from:
  8. 8.
    Swaney RE, Grossmann IE. An index for operational flexibility in chemical process design. Part I: Formulation and theory. AIChe J. 1985;31:621–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floudas CA, Gumus ZH. Global optimization in design under uncertainty: feasibility test and flexibility index problems. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2001;40(20):4267–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Grossman IE, Floudas CA. Active constraint strategy for flexibility analysis in chemical processes. Comput Chem. 1987;11:675–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vishal G, Marianthi GI. Determination of operability limits using simplicial approximation. AIChE J. 2002;48:2902–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vishal G, Marianthi GI. Framework for evaluating the feasibility/operability of nonconvex processes. AIChe J. 2003;49:1233–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Georgakis C, Uztürk D, Subramanian S, Vinson DR. On the operability of continuous processes. Control Eng Pract. 2003;11(8):859–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vinson DR, Georgakis C. A new measure of process output controllability. J Process Control. 2000;10(2–3):185–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Subramanian S, Georgakis C. Steady-state operability characteristics of reactors. Comput Chem Eng. 2000;24(2–7):1563–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Subramanian S, Georgakis C. Steady-state operability characteristics of idealized reactors. Chem Eng Sci. 2001;56(17):5111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Subramanian S, Uzturk D, Georgakis C. An optimization-based approach for the operability analysis of continuously stirred tank reactors. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2001;40(20):4238–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lima F, Jia Z, Ierapetritou M, Georgakis C. Similarities and differences between the concepts of operability and flexibility: The steady-state case. AIChe J. 2010;56:702–16.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banerjee I, Ierapetritou MG. Design optimization under parameter uncertainty for general black-box models. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2002;41(26):6687–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Banerjee I, Ierapetritou MG. Parametric process synthesis for general nonlinear models. Comput Chem Eng. 2003;27(10):1499–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Floudas CA. Nonlinear and mixed-integer optimization: fundamentals and applications. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jia Z, Davis E, Muzzio FJ, Ierapetritou MG. Predictive modeling for pharmaceutical processes using kriging and response surface. JPI, 2009;4:174.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boukouvala F, Muzzio F, Ierapetritou M. Predictive modeling of pharmaceutical processes with missing and noisy data. AIChe J, 2010 cited; Available from:
  24. 24.
    Chowdhury R, Rao BN. Assessment of high dimensional model representation techniques for reliability analysis. Probab Eng Mech. 2009;24(1):100–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Genyuan Li S-WW, Herschel Rabitz. High dimensional model representations (HDMR): concepts and applications. cited. Available from:
  26. 26.
    Pistek M. High dimensional model representation. cited. Available from: Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rabitz H, Aliş Ö. General foundations of high–dimensional model representations. J Math Chem. 1999;25(2):197–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rabitz H, Alis ÖF, Shorter J, Shim K. Efficient input–output model representations. Comput Phys Commun. 1999;117(1–2):11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sobol IM. Theorems and examples on high dimensional model representation. Reliab Eng Syst Saf. 2003;79(2):187–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Li G, Rosenthal C, Rabitz H. High dimensional model representations. J Phys Chem A. 2001;105(33):7765–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li G, Wang S-W, Rabitz H. Practical approaches to construct RS-HDMR component functions. J Phys Chem A. 2002;106(37):8721–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Box GEP, Wilson KB. On the experimental attainment of optimum conditions. J R Stat Soc B Methodol. 1951;13(1):1–45.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Raymond HM, Douglas CM. Response surface methodology: process and product in optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley; 1995. p. 728.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cressie N. Statistics for spatial data (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). New York: Wiley; 1993. p. 1993.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Isaaks E. SR, Applied Geostatistics. New York: Oxford University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Grossmann IE. Mixed-integer nonlinear programming techniques for the synthesis of engineering systems. Res Eng Des. 1990;1(3):205–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Myers RH, Classical and modern regression with applications (second edn). The Duxbury advanced series in statistics and decision sciences, ed. D. Press. PWS-KENT, Boston, MA, 1990Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Myers RH, Montgomery DC. Response surface methodology: process and product in optimization using designed experiments. New York: Wiley; 1995. p. 728.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ferris MC. MATLAB and GAMS: interfacing optimization and visualization software. 2005 cited; Available from:
  40. 40.
    Vanarase AU, Muzzio F. Effect of operating conditions and design parameters in a continuous powder mixer. Adv Powder Tech, 2010; (in press).Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Faqih A, Chaudhuri B, Alexander AW, Davies C, Muzzio FJ, Silvina Tomassone M. An experimental/computational approach for examining unconfined cohesive powder flow. Int J Pharm. 2006;324(2):116–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Jones DR, Schonlau M, Welch WJ. Efficient global optimization of expensive black-box functions. J Glob Optim. 1998;13(4):455–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fani Boukouvala
    • 1
  • Fernando J. Muzzio
    • 1
  • Marianthi G. Ierapetritou
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Chemical and Biochemical EngineeringRutgers UniversityPiscatawayUSA

Personalised recommendations