Nanoaggregates preparation
Identifying significant spray drying parameters
The 22 experimental runs of the half-factorial design and their responses are presented in
Table 1. The results in
Table 1 are the average of the two independent replicates. Preliminary runs are first conducted to establish the feasible range for each formulation parameter. The preliminary runs indicate that the feed rate and the gas atomizing flow rate must be selected to prevent excessive wetting of the glass chamber by the spray droplets.
| Run | Block | Factor 1
| Factor 2
| Factor 3
| Factor 4
| Factor 5
| Response
|
|---|
| A:Concentration(w/w%) | B:pH | C:T°C | D:FeedmL/min | E:Air flowm3/h | dAµm |
|---|
| 1 | Week 1 | 4 | 9 | 110 | 1 | 0.378 | 6.2 |
| 2 | Week 1 | 2 | 9 | 110 | 2 | 0.343 | 2.2 |
| 3 | Week 1 | 4 | 9 | 90 | 1 | 0.343 | 5.8 |
| 4 | Week 1 | 2 | 9 | 90 | 2 | 0.378 | 2.1 |
| 5 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.4 |
| 6 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.8 |
| 7 | Week 1 | 4 | 5 | 110 | 2 | 0.343 | 2.3 |
| 8 | Week 1 | 2 | 5 | 90 | 1 | 0.343 | 3.1 |
| 9 | Week 1 | 2 | 5 | 110 | 1 | 0.378 | 2.6 |
| 10 | Week 1 | 4 | 5 | 90 | 2 | 0.378 | 2.8 |
| 11 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.9 |
| 12 | Week 2 | 4 | 9 | 90 | 2 | 0.343 | 4.3 |
| 13 | Week 2 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.7 |
| 14 | Week 2 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.6 |
| 15 | Week 2 | 4 | 9 | 110 | 2 | 0.378 | 6.5 |
| 16 | Week 2 | 4 | 5 | 110 | 1 | 0.343 | 3.5 |
| 17 | Week 2 | 4 | 5 | 90 | 1 | 0.378 | 1.5 |
| 18 | Week 2 | 2 | 9 | 110 | 1 | 0.343 | 1.9 |
| 19 | Week 2 | 2 | 5 | 90 | 2 | 0.343 | 4.1 |
| 20 | Week 2 | 2 | 9 | 90 | 1 | 0.378 | 1.2 |
| 21 | Week 2 | 3 | 7 | 100 | 1.5 | 0.361 | 2.9 |
| 22 | Week 2 | 2 | 5 | 110 | 2 | 0.378 | 3.9 |
The Pareto chart of the main and interaction effects is shown in
Figure 1. The Pareto chart is used to identify experimental parameters that have a statistically significant influence on a particular response. The Pareto chart displays the magnitude of the effects and draws a reference line at a 95% confidence level. Effects with a magnitude that extends beyond the reference line are statistically significant(
43). The Pareto chart for dA reveals that the significant spray drying formulation parameters are the feed concentration, the feed pH, and the interaction between the feed rate and the gas atomizing flow rate. The inlet temperature, which is known to significantly influence dA of spray dried particles, is found to have a reduced impact on the nanoaggregate production. The effect of the inlet temperature selection on dA is insignificant provided that the selected value can adequately provide a drying rate to produce the nanoaggregates.
Pareto chart of dA at 95% confidence interval. A, B, C, D and E are concentration, pH, temperature, feed rate and gas atomizing flow rate respectively.
The Pareto chart also indicates that strong interactions exist between the feed concentration and the pH and between the feed rate and the gas atomizing flow rate. The strong interaction between the feed concentration and the pH indicates that the effect of varying the feed concentration on dA is dependent on the pH value and vice versa. Significant effect of concentration, pH and interaction between them, may be occurred because of the high pH dependent stability of colloidal silica (
34,
44). The strong interaction between the feed rate and the gas atomizing flow rate is attributed to the fact that spray drying at a higher feed rate (F) must likely be accompanied by an increase in the gas atomizing flow rate (A) to prevent an excessive wetting of the drying chamber, which can lead to a lower production yield and higher particle moisture content. A higher A/F ratio indicates a stronger atomization force resulting in smaller size droplets that generally lead to smaller size of the spray-dried particles.
In summary, the screening design has taught us that the feed concentration, the feed pH, and the ratio of the gas atomizing flow rate to the feed rate (i.e. A/F ratio) are the three spray-drying formulation parameters that govern dA of the nanoaggregates. The next step is to optimize those parameters to produce nanoaggregate with particle size in range of 2-4 µm by employing a response surface method.
Optimization of spray drying process
In order to achieve nanoaggregates with dA between 2-4 µm, a response surface method was used. Box-Behnken design is an experimental design for achieving a quadratic model, which explain the relation between independent variables and response (
45) and by solving the obtained quadratic equation, magnitudes of independent variable which result to desirable response, will be obtained.
The Box-Behnken method was applied on the independent variables which had a significant effect on the dA. Concentration of the feed, pH of the feed and the ratio of gas atomizing flow rate to the feed rate (A/F) were the significant factors based on the screening test. The levels of these factors chose broader to cover more conditions. Temperature was kept on the 100 °C (center point of screening test). In
Table 2 these factors and their levels are shown.
| Factor | Name | Units | Type | Low actual | High actual | Low coded | High coded |
|---|
| A | Concentration | (w/w%) | Numeric | 2 | 4 | -1 | 1 |
| B | pH | | Numeric | 5 | 9 | -1 | 1 |
| C | T | °C | Numeric | 90 | 110 | -1 | 1 |
| D | Feed | mL/min | Numeric | 1 | 2 | -1 | 1 |
| E | Air flow | m3/h | Numeric | 0.34 | 0.38 | -1 | 1 |
The 22 experimental runs of the half-factorial design and their responses are presented
Table 3. The results in
Table 3 are the average of the two independent replicates.
| Run | Block | Factor 1
| Factor 2
| Factor 3
| Response
|
|---|
| A:Concentration(w/w%) | B:pH | C:A/F ratio | dAµm |
|---|
| 1 | Week 1 | 4.6 | 10.4 | 0.26 | 5.6 |
| 2 | Week 1 | 3 | 10.4 | 0.18 | 3.5 |
| 3 | Week 1 | 1.4 | 7 | 0.34 | 4.5 |
| 4 | Week 1 | 3 | 10.4 | 0.34 | 3.9 |
| 5 | Week 1 | 1.4 | 3.6 | 0.26 | 3.7 |
| 6 | Week 1 | 4.6 | 3.6 | 0.26 | 4.1 |
| 7 | Week 1 | 4.6 | 7 | 0.18 | 4.9 |
| 8 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 0.26 | 3.4 |
| 9 | Week 1 | 1.4 | 10.4 | 0.26 | 4.1 |
| 10 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 0.26 | 3.6 |
| 11 | Week 1 | 4.6 | 7 | 0.34 | 4.8 |
| 12 | Week 1 | 3 | 7 | 0.26 | 3.8 |
| 13 | Week 1 | 1.4 | 7 | 0.18 | 3.5 |
| 14 | Week 1 | 3 | 3.6 | 0.34 | 3.4 |
| 15 | Week 1 | 3 | 3.6 | 0.18 | 3.5 |
The Sequential model sum of squares and the Lack of fit tests showed that the quadratic model is the best model for fitting the response in the range of independent variables. The results of these tests are shown in
Table 4 and in
Table 5 respectively.
| Sum ofsource | Meansquares | df | Square | f-value | p-valueProb > F |
|---|
| Mean vs total | 242.41 | 1 | 242.41 | | |
| Linear vs mean | 2.52 | 3 | 0.84 | 2.62 | 0.1031 |
| 2FI vs linear | 0.67 | 3 | 0.22 | 0.62 | 0.6197 |
| Quadratic vs 2FI | 2.48 | 3 | 0.83 | 11.03 | 0.0121 |
| Cubic vs quadratic | 0.29 | 3 | 0.098 | 2.46 | 0.3023 |
| Source | Sum ofsquares | df | Meansquare | f-value | p-valueProb > F |
|---|
| Linear | 3.44 | 9 | 0.38 | 9.57 | 0.0982 |
| 2FI | 2.78 | 6 | 0.46 | 11.57 | 0.0817 |
| Quadratic | 0.29 | 3 | 0.098 | 2.46 | 0.3023 |
In
Figure 2 effects of feed pH and feed concentration on the dA are shown in a 3D graph. As it can be seen there is optimum point for dA magnitude.
Effect of pH feed and concentration feed on the dA.
The final equation in terms of coded factors is shown in
Table 6.
| Response | Constant | A | B | C | AB | AC | BC | A2 | B2 | C2 |
|---|
| dA | +4.0702 | -1.418 | -0.137 | +4.0878 | +0.051 | -2.148 | +0.460 | +0.317 | -3.243 | +1.953 |
The software offers several solutions for the quadratic equation in order to obtain a dA in range 3.4 to 4 µm, one of them was selected, and nanoaggregates were prepared under that condition in laboratory with spray dryer. The average of dA of the five independent replicates was compared to the calculated dA from the equation and the result showed 95% of accuracy in particle size.
The in-vitro evaluations were performed on these batches of nanoaggregates.
In-vitro evaluation of rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregates
SEM
Figure 3 displays scanning electron microscopy observations of Rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregates. Nanoaggregates were observed as spherical particles with a size of about 5 µm.
SEM of Rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregates
Particle size measurements
As mentioned, the particle size was determined with Mastersizer 2000. The results obtained are shown in
Figure 4.
Size distribution of Rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregates.
As it can be seen, the logarithmic particle size distribution is normal and geometric mean diameter is 4.64 ± 0.9 µm (n=3, mean±SD). D10 and D90 are 2.97 and 9.76 µm respectively. The size and sharpness of the peak indicate that the Rifampin-loaded nanoaggregates are suitable for pulmonary drug delivery.
The densitometry analysis of Rifampin-loaded nanoaggregates showed that the tapped density of them is 0.48 ± 0.05 g/cm
3 (n=3, mean±SD). for calculation of effective density, the tapped density should be correct by a factor of 0.79
-1 for taking into account the imperfect packing after tapping (
40). The magnitude of effective density (ρ
eff) was equal to 0.6 g/cm
3. By using the Equation (1) the magnitude of dA was equal to 3.59 ± 0.7 µm which is in suitable range for pulmonary drug delivery.
In-vitro drug release
Release profile of Rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregate, Rifampin and physical mixture of Rifampin and silica nanoparticles were investigated in phosphate buffer as the test medium. Accurately weighed amounts of the prepared sample was used under sink conditions (C < 0.2Cs). The obtained results are shown in
Figure 5.
Release profile of Rifampin, physical mixture of Rifampin and nanoparticles and Rifampin-loaded silica nanoaggregates in pH 7.4 phosphate buffer medium at 37 °C (n=3, mean±SD).
As it can be seen Rifampin and physicals mixture of Rifampin and silica nanoparticle achieved a 100% of release in about 1 hour, but interestingly Rifampin-loaded nanoaggregates showed a triphasic release pattern and released 90% of drug after 24 hours.
First phase of release was in first hour of test in which the rate of release is slower than other 2 phase, this phenomena may be caused by the time that nanoaggregates need to re-disperse. The lower rate of release could be explained by the greater surface area of nanoaggregates.
Second phase of release which happened from 1 to 8 hours has the most rate of release. Fitting the data of this phase with equation of release pattern of spherical particles (
46) showed an adjusted R square of 0.994. By considering that the initial silica nanoparticles were spherical (
27), may be the second phase of release caused by diffusion of rifampin molecules from the spherical nanoparticles.
Third phase of release which happened from 8 to 24 hours showed a zero order of release.
Aqueous re-dispersibility characterizations
The nanoaggregates must readily re-disperse into the primary nanoparticles in an aqueous medium for the nanoparticles to perform their intended therapeutic functions. The result of this test showed that the diameter of nanoaggregates decreased up to 80% after the gentle stirring. The particle size distribution of the re-dispersed nanoaggregates is shown in
Figure 6, as it can be seen all of nanoaggregates dispersed in the medium after 30 minute of gentle stirring. This results indicate that re-dispersibility of the nanoaggregates happen in a reasonable time and the initial nanoparticles could release the loaded-drug in order to perform the therapeutic function (
42).
particle size distribution of re-dispersed nanoaggregates.
Aerosol performance of Rifampin-loaded nanoparticles
The results of this test showed that the fine particle fraction (FPF) and the emitted dose are 46.12 ± 0.6 and 82.7 ± 4.5 % respectively. The FPF is the most important parameter to evaluate
in-vitro performance of the aerosols and its magnitude varies in wide range because many factors affect the aerosolization of the powders. But in most cases a FPF of about 50 % is a good magnitude for an acceptable deposition in the lung (
47).