AAPS PharmSciTech

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 477–484 | Cite as

Dry Powder Inhalers: Study of the Parameters Influencing Adhesion and Dispersion of Fluticasone Propionate

  • V. N. P. Le
  • T. H. Hoang Thi
  • E. Robins
  • M. P. Flament
Research Article


Interactions between particles are dependent on the physicochemical characteristics of the interacting particles but it is also important to consider the manufacturing process. Blending active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) with carrier is a critical stage that determines the blend homogeneity and is the first step towards obtaining the final quality of the powder blend. The aim of this work was to study parameters that influence the interactions between API and carrier in adhesive mixtures used in DPI and their effect on API dispersion. The study was done with fluticasone propionate blended with lactose ‘Lactohale 200’. The study was based on the influence of the operating conditions (speed, mixing time, resting steps during mixing), the size of the carrier and the storage conditions on the blend properties and on the API dispersion. The quality of the blends was examined by analysing the API content uniformity. Adhesion characteristics were evaluated by submitting mixtures to a sieving action by air depression with the Alpine air-jet sieve. Aerodynamic evaluation of fine particle fraction (FPF) was obtained using a Twin Stage Impinger; the FPF being defined as the mass percentage of API below 6.4 μm. For good dispersion and therefore good homogeneity of the API in the carrier particles, speed and powder blending time have to be sufficient, but not too long to prevent the appearance of static electricity, which is not favourable to homogeneity and stability. The FPF increases with the decrease in the carrier size. The storage conditions have also to be taken into consideration. Higher humidity favours the adhesion of API on the carrier and decreases the FPF.


adhesion DPI performance fluticasone propionate operating parameters 


  1. 1.
    Young PM, Roberts D, Chiou H, et al. Composite carriers improve the aerosolisation efficiency of drugs for respiratory delivery. J Aerosol Sci. 2008;39(1):82–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Flament M-P, Leterme P, Gayot A. The influence of carrier roughness on adhesion, content uniformity and the in vitro deposition of terbutaline sulphate from dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm. 2004;275(1–2):201–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kassem NM, Ganderton D. Dry Powder Inhalers. In: Advances in Pharmaceutical Sciences. Vol 6. London: Academic; 1992:165–191.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Islam N, Stewart P, Larson I, Hartley P. Effect of carrier size on the dispersion of salmeterol xinafoate from interactive mixtures. J Pharm Sci. 2004;93(4):1030–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vanbever R, Mintzes JD, Wang J, et al. Formulation and physical characterization of large porous particles for inhalation. Pharm Res. 1999;16(11):1735–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hassan MS, Lau R. Inhalation performance of pollen-shape carrier in dry powder formulation with different drug mixing ratios: comparison with lactose carrier. Int J Pharm. 2010;386(1–2):6–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zeng XM, Martin GP, Marriott C, Pritchard J. The influence of carrier morphology on drug delivery by dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm. 2000;200(1):93–106.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steckel H, Bolzen N. Alternative sugars as potential carriers for dry powder inhalations. Int J Pharm. 2004;270(1–2):297–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saint-Lorant G, Leterme P, Gayot A, Flament MP. Influence of carrier on the performance of dry powder inhalers. Int J Pharm. 2007;334(1–2):85–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jashnani RN, Byron PR. Dry powder aerosol generation in different environments: performance comparisons of albuterol, albuterol sulfate, albuterol adipate and albuterol stearate. Int J Pharm. 1996;130(1):13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jashnani RN, Byron PR, Dalby RN. Testing of dry powder aerosol formulations in different environmental conditions. Int J Pharm. 1995;113(1):123–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones MD, Price R. The influence of fine excipient particles on the performance of carrier-based dry powder inhalation formulations. Pharm Res. 2006;23(8):1665–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zeng XM, Martin GP, Tee S-K, Marriott C. The role of fine particle lactose on the dispersion and deaggregation of salbutamol sulphate in an air stream in vitro. Int J Pharm. 1998;176(1):99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Food & Drug Administration. “Guidance for industry metered dose inhaler (MDI) and dry powder inhaler (DPI) drug products”. 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bridson RH, Robbins PT, Chen Y, Westerman D, Gillham CR, Roche TC, et al. The effects of high shear blending on alpha-lactose monohydrate. Int J Pharm. 2007;339:84–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Price R. Low and high shear blending. In: Lactose as a carrier for inhalation products. Parma, Italy; 2010.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Harnby N. The mixing of cohesive powders. In: Mixing in the process industries. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann; 1997. p. 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kale K, Hapgood K, Stewart P. Drug agglomeration and dissolution—what is the influence of powder mixing? Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2009;72(1):156–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    British Pharmacopoeia. Appendix I D “Buffer solutions”: Phosphate buffer solution pH 5. 2005. A 145.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    de Villiers MM. Description of the kinetics of the deagglomeration of drug particle agglomerates during powder mixing. Int J Pharm. 1997;151(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kulvanich P, Stewart PJ. The effect of blending time on particle adhesion in a model interactive system. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1987;39(9):732–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Zeng XM, Martin GP, Tee S-K, Ghoush AA, Marriott C. Effects of particle size and adding sequence of fine lactose on the deposition of salbutamol sulphate from a dry powder formulation. Int J Pharm. 1999;182(2):133–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Zeng XM, Pandhal KH, Martin GP. The influence of lactose carrier on the content homogeneity and dispersibility of beclomethasone dipropionate from dry powder aerosols. Int J Pharm. 2000;197(1–2):41–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bennett FS, Carter PA, Rowley G, Dandiker Y. Modification of electrostatic charge on inhaled carrier lactose particles by addition of fine particles. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1999;25(1):99–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Staniforth JN. Performance-modifying influences in dry powder inhalation systems. Aerosol Sci Tech. 1995;22:346–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staniforth JN. Advances in powder mixing and segregation in relation to pharmaceutical processing. Int J Pharm Tech Prod Mafr. 1987;3(Supplement):1–12.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carter PA, Rowley G, Fletcher EJ, Stylianopoulos V. Measurement of electrostatic charge decay in pharmaceutical powders and polymer materials used in dry powder inhaler devices. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 1998;24(11):1083–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Das S, Larson I, Young P, Stewart P. Agglomerate properties and dispersibility changes of salmeterol xinafoate from powders for inhalation after storage at high relative humidity. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2009;37(3–4):442–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Elajnaf A, Carter P, Rowley G. Electrostatic characterisation of inhaled powders: effect of contact surface and relative humidity. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2006;29(5):375–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    European Pharmacopoeia. “2.9.36. Powder flow”. 2010. p. 5107.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    European Pharmacopoeia. “2.9.18. Preparations for inhalation- aerodynamic evaluation of fine particles”. 2009. p. 306.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sebti T, Vanderbist F, Amighi K. Evaluation of the content homogeneity and dispersion properties of fluticasone DPI compositions. J Drug del Sci Tech. 2007;17(3):223–9.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pu Y, Mazumder M, Cooney C. Effects of electrostatic charging on pharmaceutical powder blending homogeneity. J Pharm Sci. 2009;98(7):2412–21.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Larhrib H, Zeng XM, Martin GP, Marriott C, Pritchard J. The use of different grades of lactose as a carrier for aerosolised salbutamol. Int J Pharm. 1999;191:1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Adi H, Larson I, Chiou H, Young P, Traini D, Stewart P. Agglomerate strength and dispersion of salmeterol xinafoate from powder mixtures for inhalation. Pharm Res. 2006;23(11):2556–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lucas P, Clarke MJ, Anderson K, Tobyn MJ, Staniforth JN. The role of fine particle excipients in pharmaceutical dry powder aerosols. In: Dalby RN, Byron PR, Farr SJ, editors. Proceedings of respiratory drug delivery VI. Buffalo Grove: Interpharm; 1998. p. 243–50.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Steckel H, Muller BW. In vitro evaluation of dry powder inhalers II: influence of carrier particle size and concentration on in vitro deposition. Int J Pharm. 1997;154:31–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Berard V, Lesniewska E, Andrès C, Pertuy D, Laroche C, Pourcelot Y. Dry powder inhaler: influence of humidity on topology and adhesion studied by AFM. Int J Pharm. 2002;232:213–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zeng XM, Martin GP, Marriott C. Particulate interactions in dry powder aerosols. In: Particulate interactions in dry powder formulations for inhalation. London: Taylor & Francis; 2001. p. 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. N. P. Le
    • 1
  • T. H. Hoang Thi
    • 1
  • E. Robins
    • 2
  • M. P. Flament
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Pharmacy, U 1008Univ. Lille Nord de FranceLilleFrance
  2. 2.APTAR PHARMALe VaudreuilFrance

Personalised recommendations