Sunteți pe pagina 1din 2

A Comparison of Three Extrusion Systems

Multiparticulate oral dosage forms experience gained significant popularity since their marketplace
introduction because of their numerous pharmaceutical and technological advantages and their
suitability for pediatric apply (1-3). From a pharmaceutical perspective, pellets can reduce the
variations in gastric drug amounts, reduce inter- and intraindividual variants, minimize side effects
and high local concentrations, and invite modified-release kinetics. They also enable incompatible
active ingredients to be combined in a single dosage form otherwise. In pediatrics, pellets offer the
advantages of administration with meals and the possibility of adjusting doses according to the
child's human body mass. The major technological advantage of pellets is definitely their capacity to
become adapted to successful coating operations (e.g., for a sustainedrelease diltiazem formulation).
Furthermore, pellets enhance flow homes during capsule filling, give a narrow size distribution of
particles, and offer low friability.
Among the different solutions to produce pellets, the procedure of extrusion-spheronization is of
particular appeal to (1, 3). Extrusion-spheronization is normally a semicontinuous process organized
in five device functions: blending, wet granulation, extrusion, spheronization, and drying (4). This
process, fast and robust, limitations the use of organic solvent and enables medication loading as
great as 90%, based on the active real estate, in the mixture. When used to make finished products,
extrusion-spheronization makes well-densified pellets, offers you a narrow particle-size distribution,
yields low friability, ensures standard sphericity, and maintains very good flow properties.
The properties of the ultimate product depend on the physicochemical properties of the raw
materials and the quantity of each component in the formulation (5). Various method variables also
affect the quality of the pellets. These variables include the quantity and type of solvent added to the
powder mixture; mixing speed and time; type of extruder, style of the display, and cost of extrusion;
spheronization rate, period, load, and plate design; and drying cost and time (2-4).
Because various extruder patterns are available to prepare extrudates from the wet mass, various
authors have studied the effect of different extruders in process pellet and characteristics
properties. Extruders can be split into three main types, according with their feed device: screwfeed
(i.e., single- or twin-screw), gravity-feed (i.e., sieve, gear, cylinder, and basket), and ram extruders
(3, 4).
Few studies compared any extruders with the ram extruder to supply rheological information also to
validate the latter extruder's prediction power. Some authors drew parallels between a ram extruder
and a equipment extruder or a cylinder extruder, in terms of extrusion features and pellet houses (68). Others compared a twin-screw extruder with a gear extruder or with a rotaring-die press by
examining the extrusion process and pellet quality (9, 10). A roll-press cylinder also was compared
with a basket and a single-screw extruder regarding pellet characteristics (11). Dissimilarities in
pellet and procedure homes between a cylinder, an axial single-screw, a radial basket display
screen, and a ram extruder were studied (12, 13). The authors underlined wonderful differences
between your feeding systems, consequently demonstrating that it was not always practical to
transfer a formulation straight in one type of extruder to some other.
Few authors have compared many extrusion systems with the same extrusion-feed single screw
extruder mechanism. This approach seems to be attractive for screw-feed extruders specifically,
which can be classified in three categories in line with the style of the display (i.e., axial, dome, and
radial) (3). The comparative impact of radial and axial single-screw extruders on the extrusion

procedure features and on the standard of final product was studied using various formulations (1416). Different authors compared two twin-screw axial extruders for constant granulation on pellet
top quality (17). Nevertheless, no writer provides compared dome technology to the two other
screw-feeding technology. Few authors possess studied the dome extruder as a simple tool for
extrusion (18-21).
Several authors showed the influence of water quantity about pellet or extrudate properties when
using a ram extruder, a gravity-feed extruder, a single-screw extruder, or a twin-screw extruder (5,
9, 11, 22-33). Other authors showed that extrusion swiftness influenced extrudate or pellet quality in
ram extruders, gravity-feed extruders, single-screw extruders, and twin-screw extruders (27, 31, 3337). Different authors showed extrusion devices' different sensitivities to normal water content also
to extrusion speed (10-14, 17).
In this context, studying the influence of water extrusion and quantity rate is an interesting
approach to highlight differences between extrusion systems. The authors aimed to compare the
three systems of single-screw extrusion-radial, dome, and axial-in conditions of productivity and the
houses of pellets developed by extrusion-spheronization. To highlight differences between your three
extrusion systems, many levels of water content material and extrusion speeds were tested. A
majority of previous studies indicated that these two parameters possess superb influence. The
authors set up a response surface design of experiments to reveal the variables' influence also to
identify the kind of extruder that yielded the best productivity and pellet quality.