AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 375–390 | Cite as

Good Cascade Impactor Practice (GCIP) and Considerations for “In-Use” Specifications

  • S. C. Nichols
  • J. P. Mitchell
  • C. M. Shelton
  • D. L. Roberts
Research Article

Abstract

The multi-stage cascade impactor (CI) is widely used to determine aerodynamic particle size distributions (APSDs) of orally inhaled products. Its size-fractionating capability depends primarily on the size of nozzles of each stage. Good Cascade Impactor Practice (GCIP) requires that these critical dimensions are linked to the accuracy of the APSD measurement based on the aerodynamic diameter size scale. Effective diameter (Deff) is the critical dimension describing any nozzle array, as it is directly related to stage cut-point size (d50). d50 can in turn be determined by calibration using particles of known aerodynamic diameter, providing traceability to the international length standard. Movements in Deff within manufacturer tolerances for compendial CIs result in the worst case in shifts in d50 of <±10%. Stage mensuration therefore provides satisfactory control of measurement accuracy. The accurate relationship of Deff to d50 requires the CI system to be leak-free, which can be checked by sealing the apparatus at the entry to the induction port and isolating it from the vacuum source and measuring the rate of pressure rise before each use. Mensuration takes place on an infrequent basis compared with the typical interval between individual APSD determinations. Measurement of stage flow resistance (pressure drop; ΔPstage) could enable the user to know that the CI stages are fit for use before every APSD measurement, by yielding an accurate measure of Deff. However, more data are needed to assess the effects of wear and blockage before this approach can be advocated as part of GCIP.

KEY WORDS

cascade impactor flow resistance inhaler testing mensuration pressure drop 

References

  1. 1.
    Christopher D, Curry P, Doub B, Furnkranz K, Lavery M, Lin K, et al. Considerations for the development and practice of cascade impaction testing including a mass balance failure investigation tree. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16(3):235–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mitchell J, Newman S, Chan H-K. In vitro and in vivo aspects of cascade impactor tests and inhaler performance: a review. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2007;8(4). doi:10.1208/pt0804110. Article 110.
  3. 3.
    Newman SP, Chan H-K. In vitro/in vivo comparisons in pulmonary drug delivery. J Aerosol Med. 2008;21(1):1–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Directorate for Quality in Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM). Monograph 2.9.18: European Pharmacopeia, Preparations for inhalation: aerodynamic assessment of fine particles, Council of Europe, 67075 Strasbourg, France, 2012; Ph.Eur.7.5 [USB 7th ed. (7.52012)].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Chapter 601: Aerosols, Nasal Sprays, Metered-Dose Inhalers and Dry Powder Inhalers. Rockville, MD, USA, 2012; USP 35-NF 30.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on the Pharmaceutical Quality of Inhalation and Nasal Products London, UK, 2006; EMEA/CHMP/QWP/49313/2005 Corr. 2006. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003568.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.
  7. 7.
    Health Canada (HC): Guidance for Industry: Pharmaceutical Quality of Inhalation and Nasal Products, Ottawa, Canada, 2006; Document 06-106624-547. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/applic-demande/guide-ld/chem/inhalationnas-eng.php. Accessed 4 Oct 2012
  8. 8.
    United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Draft Guidance: Metered Dose Inhaler (MDI) and Dry Powder Inhaler (DPI) Drug Products Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls Documentation. United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. 1998; Docket 98D-0997. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/…/Guidances/ucm070573.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mitchell JP. Particle standards: their development and application. Kona Powder Part J. 2000;18:41–59.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Doyle C, Ali RS, Avvakoumova V, Christopher D, Quiroz J, Strickland H, Tougas T, Lyapustina S. Relative precision of inhaler aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) metrics by full resolution and abbreviated Andersen Cascade Impactors (ACIs): part 1. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(2):843–51.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mitchell JP, Nagel MW, Doyle C, Ali RS, Avvakoumova V, Christopher D, Quiroz J, Strickland H, Tougas T, Lyapustina S. Relative precision of inhaler aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) metrics by full resolution and abbreviated Andersen Cascade Impactors (ACIs): part 2—investigation of bias in extra-fine mass fraction with AIM-HRT impactor. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(3):1115–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell JP, Tougas T, Christopher JD, Lyapustina S, Glaab V. The Abbreviated Impactor Measurement and Efficient Data Analysis concepts: why use them and when. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, Young PM, editors. Respiratory drug delivery—2012. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2012. p. 731–5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    European Directorate for Quality in Medicines and HealthCare (EDQM). Monograph 2.9.44: European Pharmacopeia, Preparations for nebulisation: characterisation. Council of Europe, 67075 Strasbourg, France, 2012; Ph.Eur.7.5 [USB 7th ed. (7.52012)].Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    United States Pharmacopeial Convention. Chapter 1601: Products for Nebulization—Characterization Tests. Rockville, MD, USA, 2012; USP 35-NF 30.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dolovich M, Rhem R. Impact of oropharyngeal deposition on inhaled dose. J Aerosol Med. 1998;11(Supple 1):112–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mitchell JP, Copley M, Sizer Y, Russell T, Solomon D. Adapting the Abbreviated Impactor Measurement (AIM) concept to make appropriate inhaler aerosol measurements to compare with clinical data: a scoping study with the “Alberta” Idealized Throat (AIT) inlet. J Aerosol Med Pulmon Deliv. 2012;25(4):188–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhang Y, Gilbertson K, Finlay WH. In vivo–in vitro comparison of deposition in three mouth–throat models with Qvar® and Turbuhaler® inhalers. J Aerosol Med. 2007;20(3):227–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stein SW, Gabrio BJ. Understanding throat deposition during cascade impactor testing. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Farr SJ, Peart J, editors. Respiratory drug delivery VII. Raleigh: Serentec; 2000. p. 573–6.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Marple VA, Olson BA, Santhanakrishnan K, Roberts DL, Mitchell JP, Hudson-Curtis BL. Next generation pharmaceutical impactor. Part II. Calibration. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16(3):301–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tong Z, Yang R, Yu A, Adi S, Chan H-K. Unravelling the mechanics of deagglomeration through experiments based upon complex modelling theory. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, Young PM, editors. Respiratory drug delivery—2012. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2012. p. 355–65.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tong ZB, Yang RY, Yu AB, Chan H-K. Numerical study of aerosolization of carrier based dry powder inhalation systems. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, Young PM, editors. Respiratory drug delivery—2012. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2012. p. 821–6.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dunbar C, Kataya A, Tiangbe T. Reducing bounce effects in the Andersen cascade impactor. Int J Pharm. 2005;301:25–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Copley M, Mitchell J, Solomon D. Evaluating the Alberta throat: an innovation to support the acquisition of more clinically applicable aerosol aerodynamic particle size distribution (APSD) data in oral inhaled product (OIP) development. Inhal. 2011;5(4):12–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang Y, Finlay WH. Experimental measurements of particle deposition in three proximal lung bifurcation models with an idealized mouth–throat. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18(4):460–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roberts DL, Marple VA. Induction port assembly for impactors and method for assembly. US Pat. Appl. Pub. 2002/0070548, June 13, 2002.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moody LF. Friction factors for pipe flows. Trans ASME. 1944;66(8):671–84.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marple VA, Roberts DL, Romay FJ, Miller NC, Truman KG, Van Oort M, Olsson B, Holroyd MJ, Mitchell JP, Hochrainer D. Next generation pharmaceutical impactor. Part 1: design. J Aerosol Med. 2003;16(3):283–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sethuraman VV, Hickey AJ. Evaluation of pre-separator performance for the 8-stage nonviable Andersen impactor. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2001;2(1):E4. doi:10.1208/pt020104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Copley Scientific Ltd. Quality solutions for inhaler testing—brochure. Nottingham, UK: Copley Scientific Limited; 2012, p.35. Available at: http://www.copleyscientific.com/editorials.asp?c=42&d=13, Accessed 10 Aug 2012.
  31. 31.
    Marple VA, Liu BYH. Characteristics of laminar jet impactors. Environ Sci Technol. 1974;8(7):648–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andersen A. A sampler for respiratory health assessment. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1966;27(2):160–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Boundy MG, Leith D, Knowles MR. Dispersion and size distribution of amiloride by metered dose and dry powder inhalers. J Aerosol Med. 1990;3(4):233–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smurthwaite M. Westech Instrument Services, UK. Personal communication. 2011.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roberts DL. Theory of multi-nozzle impactor stages and the interpretation of stage mensuration data. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2009;43(11):1119–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stein S, Olson BA. Variability in size distribution measurements obtained using multiple Andersen mark II cascade impactors. Pharm Res. 1997;14(12):1718–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nichols SC. Calibration and mensuration issues for the standard and modified impactor. Pharmeuropa. 2000;12(4):585.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Nichols SC. Particle size distribution parameters using the Next Generation pharmaceutical impactor. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, editors. Respiratory drug delivery—IX. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2004. p. 485–7.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Asking L, Olsson B. Calibration at different flow rates of a multistage liquid impinger. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1997;27(1):39–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Marple VA, Olson BA, Santhanakrishnan K, Roberts DL, Mitchell JP, Hudson-Curtis BL. Next generation pharmaceutical impactor. Part III. Extension of archival calibration to 15 L/min. J Aerosol Med. 2004;17(4):335–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Roberts DL. MSP Corporation. Personal communication. 2012.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Olsson B, Asking L. Methods of setting and measuring flow rates in pharmaceutical impactor experiments. Pharm Forum. 2003;29(3):879–84.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roberts DL, Romay FJ. Relationship of stage mensuration data to the performance of new and used cascade impactors. J Aerosol Med. 2005;18(4):396–413.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chambers F, Ali A, Mitchell J, Shelton C, Nichols S. Cascade impactor (CI) mensuration: an assessment of the accuracy and precision of commercially available optical measurement systems. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11(1):472–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Svensson M, Pettersson G, Asking L. Stage mensuration of the Andersen impactor—pitfalls and recommendations. In: Drug delivery to the lungs—13. London: The Aerosol Society; 2002. p. 188–91.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Marple VA, Olson BA, Miller NC. A low-loss cascade impactor with stage collection cups: calibration and pharmaceutical inhaler applications. Aerosol Sci Technol. 1995;22(1):124–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sarker DK. Quality control, analytical validation and pharmacopoeial testing. Business Briefing—Future Drug Discovery. 2004:38–41. http://www.touchbriefings.com/2A6AD410-D886-4189-8A78-6C7B2AD54803/FinalDownload/DownloadId-20339FC03D11ADFFAA11CB63631C51CD/2A6AD410-D886-4189-8A78-6C7B2AD54803/pdf/890/PT04_sarker.pdf. Accessed 4 Oct 2012.
  48. 48.
    Roberts DL, Lavarreda C. Controlling flow resistance as a means of reducing inter-impactor variability. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, editors. Respiratory drug delivery. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2008. p. 661–4.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Milhomme K, Dunbar C, Lavarreda C, Roberts D, Romay F. Measuring changes in the effective jet diameter of cascade impactor stages with the flow resistance monitor. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Peart J, Suman JD, Farr SJ, editors. Respiratory drug delivery. River Grove: Davis Healthcare; 2006. p. 405–7.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Roberts DL, Lavarreda C, Milhomme K, Shelton C. Managing impactor quality with measurements of flow resistance and effective diameter. Drug delivery to the lungs—17. Edinburgh: The Aerosol Society; 2006. p. 243–6.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Shelton C, Roberts DL. Application of flow resistance measurements to cascade impactor quality control. Drug delivery to the lungs—16. Edinburgh: The Aerosol Society; 2005. p. 221–4.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lavarreda C, Roberts D, Romay F. Cascade impactor qualification: evaluating the correlation between the area-mean jet diameter and the flow resistance of cascade impactor stages. Proc. 7th Int. Aerosol Conf. St. Paul, MN, USA, 2006:840.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. C. Nichols
    • 1
  • J. P. Mitchell
    • 2
  • C. M. Shelton
    • 3
  • D. L. Roberts
    • 4
  1. 1.OINDP ConsultancyRugbyUK
  2. 2.Trudell Medical InternationalLondonCanada
  3. 3.PPD Inc.MiddletonUSA
  4. 4.MSP CorporationSt PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations