Impact of Natural Variations in Freeze-Drying Parameters on Product Temperature History: Application of Quasi Steady-State Heat and Mass Transfer and Simple Statistics
Inter- and intra-batch variability in heat and mass transfer during the drying phase of lyophilization is well recognized. Heat transfer variability between individual vials in the same batch arise from both different positions in the vial array and from variations in the bottom contour of the vials, both effects contributing roughly equally to variations in the effective heat transfer coefficient of the vials, Kv. Both effects can be measured in the laboratory, and variations in average Kv values as a function of vial position in the array for lab and production can be calculated by use of the simple steady-state heat and mass transfer theory. Typically, in the laboratory dryer, vials on the edge of the array, “edge vials,” run 2–4°C warmer than “center vials,” but differences between laboratory and manufacturing temperatures are modest. The variability in mass transfer can be assigned to major variations in ice nucleation temperature (both intra-batch and inter-batch), including major differences between laboratory and manufacturing. The net effect of all random variations, for each class of vial, can be evaluated by a simple statistical model-propagation of error, which then allows prediction of the distribution in product temperatures and drying times, and therefore prediction of percent of vials dry and percent of vials collapsed and proximity to the edge of failure for a given process. Good agreement between theoretical and experimentally determined maximum temperatures in primary drying and percent collapsed product demonstrates the calculations have useful accuracy.
KEY WORDSfreeze-drying statistics of variability in product temperature heat and mass transfer scale-up
- 1.Pikal MJ. Use of laboratory data in freeze drying process design: heat and mass transfer coefficients and the computer simulation of freeze drying. J Parenteral Sci, and Tech. 1985;39:115–38.Google Scholar
- 3.Roy ML, Pikal MJ. Process control in freeze drying: determination of the end point of sublimation drying by an electronic moisture sensor. J Par Sci and Tech. 1989;43:60–6.Google Scholar
- 7.Tang X, Nail S, Pikal M. Evaluation of manometric temperature measurement (MTM), a process analytical tool for freeze drying: part III. Heat and Mass Transfer Measurement. 2006;7(4):E105–11.Google Scholar
- 9.Rob Sever, Praxair Corporation, private communication.Google Scholar
- 10.Randolph TW, Searles JA. Freezing and annealing phenomena in lyophilization: effects upon primary drying rate, morphology, and heterogeneity. Am Pharma Rev. 2002;5(40):42, 44–6.Google Scholar