Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 19, Issue 7, pp 2828–2842 | Cite as

Impact of Natural Variations in Freeze-Drying Parameters on Product Temperature History: Application of Quasi Steady-State Heat and Mass Transfer and Simple Statistics

  • Michael J. Pikal
  • Paritosh Pande
  • Robin Bogner
  • Pooja Sane
  • Vamsi Mudhivarthi
  • Puneet Sharma
Research Article Theme: Team Science and Education for Pharmaceuticals: the NIPTE Model
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Team Science and Education for Pharmaceuticals: the NIPTE Model

Abstract

Inter- and intra-batch variability in heat and mass transfer during the drying phase of lyophilization is well recognized. Heat transfer variability between individual vials in the same batch arise from both different positions in the vial array and from variations in the bottom contour of the vials, both effects contributing roughly equally to variations in the effective heat transfer coefficient of the vials, Kv. Both effects can be measured in the laboratory, and variations in average Kv values as a function of vial position in the array for lab and production can be calculated by use of the simple steady-state heat and mass transfer theory. Typically, in the laboratory dryer, vials on the edge of the array, “edge vials,” run 2–4°C warmer than “center vials,” but differences between laboratory and manufacturing temperatures are modest. The variability in mass transfer can be assigned to major variations in ice nucleation temperature (both intra-batch and inter-batch), including major differences between laboratory and manufacturing. The net effect of all random variations, for each class of vial, can be evaluated by a simple statistical model-propagation of error, which then allows prediction of the distribution in product temperatures and drying times, and therefore prediction of percent of vials dry and percent of vials collapsed and proximity to the edge of failure for a given process. Good agreement between theoretical and experimentally determined maximum temperatures in primary drying and percent collapsed product demonstrates the calculations have useful accuracy.

KEY WORDS

freeze-drying statistics of variability in product temperature heat and mass transfer scale-up 

Supplementary material

12249_2018_1155_MOESM1_ESM.pptx (44 kb)
ESM 1 (PPTX 43 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Pikal MJ. Use of laboratory data in freeze drying process design: heat and mass transfer coefficients and the computer simulation of freeze drying. J Parenteral Sci, and Tech. 1985;39:115–38.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pikal MJ, Roy ML, Shah S. Mass and heat transfer in vial freeze drying of pharmaceuticals: role of the vial. J Pharm Sci. 1984;73:1224–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Roy ML, Pikal MJ. Process control in freeze drying: determination of the end point of sublimation drying by an electronic moisture sensor. J Par Sci and Tech. 1989;43:60–6.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rambhatla S, Tchessalov S, Pikal MJ. Heat and mass transfer scale-up issues during freeze-drying, III: control and characterization of dryer differences via operational qualification tests. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2006;7(2):E61–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pikal MJ, Bogner RH, Mudhivarthi V, Sharma P, Sane P. Freeze drying process development and scale-up of edge vial versus center vial heat transfer coefficients, Kv. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105(11):3304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rambhatla S, Ramot R, Bhugra C, Pikal MJ. Heat and mass transfer scale-up issues during freeze drying: control and characterization of the degree of supercooling. AAPS Pharm. Sci. Tech. 2004;5(4):54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Tang X, Nail S, Pikal M. Evaluation of manometric temperature measurement (MTM), a process analytical tool for freeze drying: part III. Heat and Mass Transfer Measurement. 2006;7(4):E105–11.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kuu WY, Hardwick LM, Akers MJ. Rapid determination of dry layer mass transfer resistance for various pharmaceutical formulations during primary drying using product temperature profiles. Int J Pharm. 2006;313(1–2):99–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rob Sever, Praxair Corporation, private communication.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Randolph TW, Searles JA. Freezing and annealing phenomena in lyophilization: effects upon primary drying rate, morphology, and heterogeneity. Am Pharma Rev. 2002;5(40):42, 44–6.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Greco K, Mujat M, Galbally-Kinney KL, Hammer DX, Ferguson RD, Iftimia N, Mulhall P, Sharma P, Kessler WJ, Pikal MJ. Accurate Prediction of Collapse Temperature using Optical Coherence Tomography-Based Freeze-Drying Microscopy. J Pharm Sci 2013;102(6):1773–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael J. Pikal
    • 1
  • Paritosh Pande
    • 1
  • Robin Bogner
    • 1
  • Pooja Sane
    • 1
    • 2
  • Vamsi Mudhivarthi
    • 1
    • 3
  • Puneet Sharma
    • 4
  1. 1.School of PharmacyUniversity of Connecticut and Institute of Materials Science, University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA
  2. 2.BioMarin PharmaceuticalsSan RafaelUSA
  3. 3.Pfizer CorporationChesterfieldUSA
  4. 4.Genentech (A Member of the Roche Group)South San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations