Powder Blending From Art to Science

This quick, one-time registration gives you access to members-only site benefits. Size is another issue. Given lower volume operations and a greater need for lot control, Knauth says, “The smallest machine we make today is likely larger than what would be necessary for pharmaceutical processing. While the blender design is critical, steady, consistent product metering through feeding mechanisms is equally critical,” he adds. “The blender will homogenize whatever it sees from the feeders, whether it’s introduced in the proper proportions or not.” Feeding mechanisms are being improved to add accuracy. K-Tron (Pitman, N.J.), which supplies feed mechanisms to manufacturers of continuous blenders, uses load cells and a loss-in-weight (LIW) approach to balance ingredient addition. LIW weighs the hopper and weight loss as it feeds the blender. Software control balances addition of other ingredients when fluctuations occur. K-Tron’s feeders also use a pneumatic vacuum receiver to feed the delivery hopper continuously. Additional feedback is provided by process analytics at the output end. Although batch blending will dominate for the foreseeable future, pharmaceutical manufacturers will take “baby steps” toward embracing continuous systems, Chirkot predicts. “If dry powder blending’s easier to do continuously, that may be enough of a driver to convince manufacturers to change over,” he says. A number of vendors are preparing for this change. Patterson-Kelley, which has sold continuous blenders for 35 years, introduced a continuous-process adaptation of a tumble blender at April’s Interphex. The device offers an output of up to 100 kg/h. Munson Machinery is also planning to introduce continuous powder blending to pharmaceutical manufacturers. . This quick, one-time registration gives you access to members-only site benefits. Link to this article from your web site or blog Copyright © 2004 — 2009 Pharma Manufacturing.