Faced with challenging timelines for crystallization process development, practitioners typically find themselves running a DOE (statistical design of experiments) and measuring end-point results to see what factors most affect the outcome (often PSD, D10, D50, D90, span). Thermodynamic, scale-independent effects (like solubility) may be muddled with scale-dependent kinetic effects (like seed temperature and cooling rate or time) in these studies, making results harder to generalize and scale.
First-principles models of crystallization may never be quantitatively perfect - the phenomena are complex and measurement data are limited - but even a semi-quantitative first-principles kinetic model can inform and guide experimentation in a way that DOE or trial and error experimentation can not, leading to a reduction in overall effort and a gain in process understanding, as long as the model is easy to build.
Scale-up predictions for crystallization are often based on maintaining similar agitation and power per unit mass (or volume) is a typical check, even if the geometry on scale is very different to the lab. A first principles approach considers additional factors such as whether the solids are fully suspended or over-agitated, how well the heat transfer surface can remove heat and the mixing time associated with the incoming antisolvent feed.
The DynoChem crystallization library and the associated online training exercises and utilities show how to integrate all of these factors by designing focused experiments and making quick calculations to obtain separately thermodynamic, kinetic and vessel performance data before integrating these to both optimize and scale process performance.
Users can easily perform an automated in-silico version of the typical lab DOE in minutes, with 'virtual experiments' reflecting performance of the scaled-up process. Even if the results are not fully quantitative, users learn about the sensitivities and robustness of their process as well as its scale-dependence. This heightened awareness alone may be sufficient to resolve problems that arise later in development and scale-up, in a calm and rational manner. Some sample results of a virtual DOE are given below by way of example.
Click here to learn how to apply these tools.
First-principles models of crystallization may never be quantitatively perfect - the phenomena are complex and measurement data are limited - but even a semi-quantitative first-principles kinetic model can inform and guide experimentation in a way that DOE or trial and error experimentation can not, leading to a reduction in overall effort and a gain in process understanding, as long as the model is easy to build.
Scale-up predictions for crystallization are often based on maintaining similar agitation and power per unit mass (or volume) is a typical check, even if the geometry on scale is very different to the lab. A first principles approach considers additional factors such as whether the solids are fully suspended or over-agitated, how well the heat transfer surface can remove heat and the mixing time associated with the incoming antisolvent feed.
The DynoChem crystallization library and the associated online training exercises and utilities show how to integrate all of these factors by designing focused experiments and making quick calculations to obtain separately thermodynamic, kinetic and vessel performance data before integrating these to both optimize and scale process performance.
Users can easily perform an automated in-silico version of the typical lab DOE in minutes, with 'virtual experiments' reflecting performance of the scaled-up process. Even if the results are not fully quantitative, users learn about the sensitivities and robustness of their process as well as its scale-dependence. This heightened awareness alone may be sufficient to resolve problems that arise later in development and scale-up, in a calm and rational manner. Some sample results of a virtual DOE are given below by way of example.
 |
| Heat-map of in-silico DOE at plant scale agitation conditions, showing the effects of four typical factors on D50. The largest D50 is obtained in this case with the highest seeding temperature, lowest seed loading and longest addition (phase 1) time. Cooling time (phase 2) has a weak effect over the range considered. |