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)

Current pharmacopeial methods for testing dry powder inhalers (DPIs) require that 4.0 L be drawn through the inhaler to quantify aerodynamic particle size distribution of “inhaled” particles. This volume comfortably exceeds the internal dead volume of the Andersen eight-stage cascade impactor (ACI) and Next Generation pharmaceutical Impactor (NGI) as designated multistage cascade impactors. Two DPIs, the second (DPI-B) having similar resistance than the first (DPI-A) were used to evaluate ACI and NGI performance at 60 L/min following the methodology described in the European and United States Pharmacopeias. At sampling times ≥2 s (equivalent to volumes ≥2.0 L), both impactors provided consistent measures of therapeutically important fine particle mass (FPM) from both DPIs, independent of sample duration. At shorter sample times, FPM decreased substantially with the NGI, indicative of incomplete aerosol bolus transfer through the system whose dead space was 2.025 L. However, the ACI provided consistent measures of both variables across the range of sampled volumes evaluated, even when this volume was less than 50% of its internal dead space of 1.155 L. Such behavior may be indicative of maldistribution of the flow profile from the relatively narrow exit of the induction port to the uppermost stage of the impactor at start-up. An explanation of the ACI anomalous behavior from first principles requires resolution of the rapidly changing unsteady flow and pressure conditions at start up, and is the subject of ongoing research by the European Pharmaceutical Aerosol Group. Meanwhile, these experimental findings are provided to advocate a prudent approach by retaining the current pharmacopeial methodology.

[1]  Jolyon Mitchell,et al.  In vitro and in vivo aspects of cascade impactor tests and inhaler performance: A review , 2007, AAPS PharmSciTech.

[2]  J. Mitchell,et al.  An assessment of an andersen mark-II cascade impactor , 1988 .

[3]  Virgil A Marple,et al.  Next generation pharmaceutical impactor (a new impactor for pharmaceutical inhaler testing). Part II: Archival calibration. , 2003, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[4]  Jolyon P Mitchell,et al.  Cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers: their uses and limitations. , 2003, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[5]  Jolyon Mitchell,et al.  Analysis of cascade impactor mass distributions. , 2005, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[6]  J P Mitchell,et al.  Revised internal volumes of cascade impactors for those provided by mitchell and nagel. , 2005, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[7]  Gerald C. Smaldone,et al.  Drug Delivery to the Lung , 2001 .

[8]  Dieter Hochrainer,et al.  Next generation pharmaceutical impactor (a new impactor for pharmaceutical inhaler testing). Part I: Design. , 2003, Journal of aerosol medicine : the official journal of the International Society for Aerosols in Medicine.

[9]  V. S. Vaidhyanathan,et al.  Transport phenomena , 2005, Experientia.