Advertisement

Machine Learning Modeling of Wet Granulation Scale-up Using Particle Size Distribution Characterization Parameters

  • Nada MillenEmail author
  • Aleksandar Kovačević
  • Jelena Djuriš
  • Svetlana Ibrić
Original Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Optimal particle size distribution (PSD) is an important factor in wet granulation in order to achieve appropriate powder flow, compactibility, and content uniformity. Parameters like D50 and surface area (SA) are used to define PSD but both are only able to compare separate fractions of a granulate. In this work, we made an attempt to characterize PSD of a final dry granulate blend and suggest novel parameters (determination coefficient R2 and trend line slope of a PSD model) to quantitatively describe PSD.

Method

The significance of these parameters was tested using machine learning. Laboratory-scale samples were used for training and commercial-scale samples for testing a model. Several machine learning techniques were used to further examine the importance of these input variables using a large data set from wet granulation scale-up study.

Results

The Gradient Boosted Regression Trees (GBRT) algorithm had the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) values for the several responses studied (tablet tensile strength, tablet diameter and thickness, compaction work, decompaction work, and net work). The GBRT model for tablet tensile strength had an R2 model value of 0.87 and was not overfitted. The importance of input variables R2 and a was proven by the stepwise regression model’s p value (0.0003) and GBRT importance score (0.37 and 0.44, respectively). The GBRT model was the most successful in predicting decompaction work (R2 model = 0.97) with the least regularization effect.

Conclusion

The proposed parameters can be used in PSD characterization and applied in critical quality attributes (CQA) prediction and wet granulation scale-up.

Keywords

Particle size distribution Machine learning modeling Wet granulation Scale-up 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Wesley Stringer, Con Psalios, Lalit Khera, Snehal Malani, Danijel Canji, and Emanuel Millen for their support. We thank operators from Probiotec Ltd., Ursula Basilio, and Charlie Cutajar, for their assistance in commercial scale runs.

Funding

Aleksandar Kovačević was partially supported by the Grant No. III-47003 provided by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12247_2019_9398_MOESM1_ESM.docx (59 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 58 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Mackaplow MB, Rosen LA, Michaels JN. Effect of primary particle size on granule growth and endpoint determination in high-shear wet granulation. Powder Technol. 2000;108(1):32–45.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0032-5910(99)00203-X.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Leuenberger H, Betz G. Scale-up in the field of granulation and drying. In: Levin M, editor. Pharmaceutical process scale-up. 2nd ed. New York: Informa Healthcare; 2005. p. 199–236.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heng JY, Thielmann F, Williams DR. The effects of milling on the surface properties of form I paracetamol crystals. Pharm Res. 2006;23(8):1918–27.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mullarney MP, Leyva N. Modeling pharmaceutical powder-flow performance using particle-size distribution data. Pharm Technol. 2009;33(3):126–34.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Virtanen S, Antikainen O, Räikkönen H, Yliruusi J. Granule size distribution of tablets. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(4):2061–9.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sun CC, Himmelspach MW. Reduced tabletability of roller compacted granules as a result of granule size enlargement. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95(1):200–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sandler N, Wilson D. Prediction of granule packing and flow behavior based on particle size and shape analysis. J Pharm Sci. 2010;99(2):958–68.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anand C. Optimization of granule size and disintegrants on formulation of rapid dispersible tablets of tolfenamic acid. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2013;3(2):31–4.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Prescott JK, Hoosfeld R. Maintaining product uniformity and uninterrupted flow to direct-compression tableting presses. Pharm Technol. 1994;18(6):98.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shipar MAH, Wadhwa A, Varughese C, Kaur N, Niranjani T. Effect of particle size on tablet weight and hardness variation. Toronto: Toronto Institute of Phamaceutical Technology; 2014.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rohrs BR, Amidon GE, Meury RH, Secreast PJ, King HM, Skoug CJ. Particle size limits to meet USP content uniformity criteria for tablets and capsules. J Pharm Sci. 2006;95(5):1049–59.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Otsuka M, Yamane I. Prediction of tablet properties based on near infrared spectra of raw mixed powders by chemometrics: scale-up factor of blending and tableting processes. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(11):4296–305.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sun C, Grant DJ. Influence of crystal structure on the tableting properties of sulfamerazine polymorphs. Pharm Res. 2001;18(3):274–80.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011038526805.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shipar MAH, Wadhwa A, Varughese C. Affect of granule sizes, types and concentrations of lubricants and compression forces on tablet properties. Int J Pharm Sci Res. 2014;5(11):4893–901.  https://doi.org/10.13040/IJPSR.0975-8232.5(11.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun C, Grant DJ. Effects of initial particle size on the tableting properties of L-lysine monohydrochloride dihydrate powder. Int J Pharm. 2001;215(1):221–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Eichie F, Kudehinbu A. Effect of particle size of granules on some mechanical properties of paracetamol tablets. Afr J Biotechnol. 2009;8(21):5913–6.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zuurman K, Riepma K, Bolhuis G, Vromans H, Lerk C. The relationship between bulk density and compactibility of lactose granulations. Int J Pharm. 1994;102(1–3):1–9.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riepma K, Vromans H, Zuurman K, Lerk C. The effect of dry granulation on the consolidation and compaction of crystalline lactose. Int J Pharm. 1993;97(1–3):29–38.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sweat ML, Parker AS, Beaudoin SP. Compressive behavior of high viscosity granular systems: effect of particle size distribution. Powder Technol. 2017;311:506–13.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wikberg M, Alderborn G. Compression characteristics of granulated materials II. Evaluation of granule fragmentation during compression by tablet permeability and porosity measurements. Int J Pharm. 1990;62(2–3):229–41.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Johansson B, Nicklasson F, Alderborn G. Effect of pellet size on degree of deformation and densification during compression and on compactability of microcrystalline cellulose pellets. Int J Pharm. 1998;163(1):35–48.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alderborn G, Nyström C. Studies on direct compression of tablets. IV. The effect of particle size on the mechanical strength of tablets. Acta Pharm Suec. 1982;19(5):381–90.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Alderborn G, Borjesson E, Glazer M, Nystrom C. Studies on direct compression of tablets. XIX: the effect of particle size and shape on the mechanical strength of sodium bicarbonate tablets. Acta Pharm Suec. 1988;25(1):31–40.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vromans H, De Boer A, Bolhuis G, Lerk C, Kussendrager K. Studies on tabletting properties of lactose, part I. the effect of initial particle size on binding properties and dehydration characteristics of lactose. Acta Pharm Suec. 1984;22(3):163–72.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Šantl M, Ilić I, Vrečer F, Baumgartner S. A compressibility and compactibility study of real tableting mixtures: the effect of granule particle size. Acta Pharma. 2012;62(3):325–40.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Johansson B, Alderborn G. The effect of shape and porosity on the compression behaviour and tablet forming ability of granular materials formed from microcrystalline cellulose. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2001;52(3):347–57.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gao JZ, Jain A, Motheram R, Gray D, Hussain M. Fluid bed granulation of a poorly water soluble, low density, micronized drug: comparison with high shear granulation. Int J Pharm. 2002;237(1):1–14.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Herting MG, Kleinebudde P. Roll compaction/dry granulation: effect of raw material particle size on granule and tablet properties. Int J Pharm. 2007;338(1):110–8.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Badawy SIF, Hussain MA. Effect of starting material particle size on its agglomeration behavior in high shear wet granulation. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2004;5(3):16–22.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Badawy SIF, Lee TJ, Menning MM. Effect of drug substance particle size on the characteristics of granulation manufactured in a high-shear mixer. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2000;1(4):55–61.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fichtner F, Rasmuson Å, Alderborn G. Particle size distribution and evolution in tablet structure during and after compaction. Int J Pharm. 2005;292(1):211–25.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hilden J, Schrad M, Kuehne-Willmore J, Sloan J. A first-principles model for prediction of product dose uniformity based on drug substance particle size distribution. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101(7):2364–71.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aksu B, Paradkar A, de Matas M, Özer Ö, Güneri T, York P. A quality by design approach using artificial intelligence techniques to control the critical quality attributes of ramipril tablets manufactured by wet granulation. Pharm Dev Technol. 2013;18(1):236–45.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hand DJ. Principles of data mining. Drug Saf. 2007;30(7):621–2.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Petrović J, Chansanroj K, Meier B, Ibrić S, Betz G. Analysis of fluidized bed granulation process using conventional and novel modeling techniques. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2011;44(3):227–34.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ibrić S, Djuriš J, Parojčić J, Djurić Z. Artificial neural networks in evaluation and optimization of modified release solid dosage forms. Pharmaceutics. 2012;4(4):531–50.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Huang C-Y. Ku MS. prediction of drug particle size and content uniformity in low-dose solid dosage forms. Int J Pharm. 2010;383(1):70–80.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    MathWorks. Linear Regression. 1994-2019 The MathWorks, Inc., www.mathworks.com; 2019. https://au.mathworks.com/help/matlab/data_analysis/linear-regression.html#bswinlz. Accessed 04 Feb 2019.
  39. 39.
    Chen S, Ai X, Dong T, Li B, Luo R, Ai Y, et al. The physico-chemical properties and structural characteristics of artificial soil for cut slope restoration in southwestern China. Sci Rep. 2016;6:20565.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    MathWorks. Stepwise Regression. 1994–2019 The MathWorks, Inc., www.mathworks.com. 2019. https://au.mathworks.com/help/stats/stepwise-regression.html. Accessed 21 Mar 2019.
  41. 41.
    Hoerl AE, Kennard RW. Ridge regression: biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics. 1970;12(1):55–67.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ogutu JO, Schulz-Streeck T, Piepho H-P. Genomic selection using regularized linear regression models: ridge regression, lasso, elastic net and their extensions. BMC Proc. 2012: BioMed Central;6.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    James G, Witten D, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. An introduction to statistical learning. New York: Springer; 2013.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Vestal B. Re-analysis of mortality rates using linear regression models; 2012.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B Methodol. 1996:267–88.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Friedman J, Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Regularization paths for generalized linear models via coordinate descent. J Stat Softw. 2010;33:1–22.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zou H. The adaptive lasso and its oracle properties. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006;101(476):1418–29.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Zou H, Hastie T. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 2005;67(2):301–20.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Trevor H, Robert T, JH F. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer; 2009.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Quinlan JR. Simplifying decision trees. Int J Man Mach Stud. 1987;27(3):221–34.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Friedman J. Greedy Function Approximation: A Gradient Boosting Machine http://www.salford-systems.com/doc/GreedyFuncApproxSS.pdf; 1999. Accessed 25 Mar 2019.
  52. 52.
    Carty DM. An analysis of boosted regression trees to predict the strength properties of wood composites; 2011.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Fernández-Delgado M, Cernadas E, Barro S, Amorim D. Do we need hundreds of classifiers to solve real world classification problems? J Mach Learn Res. 2014;15:3133–81.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Jacobs MC. Regression trees versus stepwise regression. UNF Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 145.: University of North Florida. 1992.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    MathWorks. PredictorImportance. MathWorks; 2018. https://au.mathworks.com/help/stats/compactregressionensemble.predictorimportance.html. Accessed 25 Mar 2019.
  56. 56.
    Caruana R, Niculescu-Mizil A. An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning. New York City: ACM; 2006.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Bardin M, Knight P, Seville J. On control of particle size distribution in granulation using high-shear mixers. Powder Technol. 2004;140(3):169–75.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Breneman B. Effect of size reduction parameters in pharmaceutical manufacturing process. San Luis, Obispo: California Polytechnic State University; 2011.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Schenck LR, Plank RV. Impact milling of pharmaceutical agglomerates in the wet and dry states. Int J Pharm. 2008;348(1):18–26.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Rojas JJ, Aristizabal J, Henao M. Screening of several excipients for direct compression of tablets: a new perspective based on functional properties. Rev Ciênc Farm Básica Apl 2013;34(1):17–23. https://portal.issn.org/resource/issn/2179-443X
  61. 61.
    Garr J, Rubinstein M. The effect of rate of force application on the properties of microcrystalline cellulose and dibasic calcium phosphate mixtures. Int J Pharm. 1991;73(1):75–80.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Zhang Y, Wrzesinski A, Moses M, Bertrand H. Comparison of Superdisintegrants in orally disintegrating tablets. Pharm Technol. 2010;34(7):54–65.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Thompson B. Stepwise regression and stepwise discriminant analysis need not apply here: a guidelines editorial. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1995.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Trevor Hastie JQ. Glmnet Vignette. 2014. https://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/glmnet/glmnet_alpha.html. Accessed 21 Jan 2019.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Technology and Cosmetology, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of BelgradeBeogradSerbia
  2. 2.Faculty of Technical SciencesUniversity of Novi SadNovi SadSerbia

Personalised recommendations