Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of aapspharmspringer.comThis journalToc AlertsSubmit OnlineOpen Choice
AAPS PharmSciTech. 2001 March; 2(1): 34–52.
Published online 2001 March 23. doi:  10.1208/pt020104
PMCID: PMC2750258

Evaluation of preseparator performance for the 8-stage nonviable Andersen impactor


The preseparator of an Andersen impactor with different coating treatments for a range of particle-size distributions was evaluated. Limited theoretical simulations constrained by simplifying assumptions of the airflow fields in the preseparator and upper stages of an 8-stage Andersen impactor were used to reveal low-velocity and high-pressure regions for potential deposition. These regions were then sampled in subsequent particle deposition experiments. Disodium fluorescein aerosols were sampled with different coating treatments of the preseparator floor. Particles collected at impactor stages determined particle size distributions. Stage deposition was compared between different preseparator treatments (buffer and silicon oil). Collection efficiency in the preseparator followed the pattern buffer >silicon oil >untreated. Statistical differences (P>0.05) were noted in collection efficiency of large particles (45 μm-75 μm) in the preseparator. The mass median aerodynamic diameters and geometric standard deviations showed some statistical differences when different preseparator treatments for large particles were used; therefore, preseparator coating was shown to influence performance and thereby estimates of particle size by intertial impaction.

Keywords: Inertial impaction, Preseparator, Wall losses, Finite element analysis

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (951K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
1. May KR. The cascade impactor: an instrument for sampling coarse aerosols. J Sci Instr. 1945;22:187–195. doi: 10.1088/0950-7671/22/10/303. [Cross Ref]
2. Vaughan NP. The andersen impactor: calibration, wall losses and numerical simulation. J Aer Sci. 1989;20(1):67–90. doi: 10.1016/0021-8502(89)90032-3. [Cross Ref]
3. Swanson PD, Kushleika J, Checkoway H, et al. Numerical analysis of motion and deposition of particles in cascade impactors. Int J Pharm. 2001;142:33–51. doi: 10.1016/0378-5173(96)04643-1. [Cross Ref]
4. Marple VA. A fundamental study of inertial impactors [dissertation]. University of Minnesota, 1970.
5. Operating manual for Andersen 2000 ambient particle sizing sampler. Atlanta, Ga: Andersen 2000 Inc.; 1977.
6. US Pharmacopoeia. USP 24 Aerosols, Metered-Dose Inhalers, and Dry Powder Inhalers. Rockville, MD: USP; 1999.
7. British Pharmacopoeia. Preparations for Inhalation. Vol. II. London, England: The Stationary Office; 1999.
8. Rader DJ, Marple VA. Effect of ultra-stokesian drag and particle interception on impaction characteristics. Aer Sci Tech. 1984;4:141–156. doi: 10.1080/02786828508959044. [Cross Ref]
9. Welty JR, Wicks CE, Wilson RE. Fundamentals of Momentum, Heat, and Mass Transfer. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1984. pp. 732–733.
10. Greenspan B. A response to the stimuli to the revision process article: verification of operating the andersen cascade impactor at different flow rates. Pharm Forum. 2001;22(6):3288–3292.
11. Hickey AJ, Jackson GV, Fildes FJT. Preparation and characterization of disodium fluorescein powders in association with lauric and capric acids. J Pharm Sci. 1988;77(9):804–809. doi: 10.1002/jps.2600770919. [PubMed] [Cross Ref]
12. American Pharmaceutical Association. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Excipients. Washington, DC: American Pharmaceutical Association; 1986.
13. Thiel CG. Can in vitro particle size measurements be used to predict pulmonary deposition of aerosol from inhalers? J Aer Med. 1998;9(Suppl. 1):S43–S52. [PubMed]

Articles from AAPS PharmSciTech are provided here courtesy of American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists