Gas flow through micro-capillaries - which flow law is most suitable to predict the flow rate through micro-capillaries?

Q3 Medicine
Christian Proff, Charles E Pierce, Irwann Le Bouquin
{"title":"Gas flow through micro-capillaries - which flow law is most suitable to predict the flow rate through micro-capillaries?","authors":"Christian Proff, Charles E Pierce, Irwann Le Bouquin","doi":"10.5731/pdajpst.2025-000065.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In pharmaceutical quality control, capillaries are the primary positive controls able to cover a wide range of gas flow rates during Container Closure Integrity (CCI) testing. They serve as the physical benchmarks for analytical methods to demonstrate these can reliably detect defects at or below the critical leak thresholds. However, the predictive reliability of standard gas flow models for capillaries can be undermined by the 'transitional' flow regime. Traditional flow laws, like Hagen-Poiseuille and molecular flow, provide accuracy only at the extremes of the investigated flow rate spectrum, failing to deliver precise results in the range most relevant for the sub-micron defects that define current pharmaceutical safety standards. This study investigates helium flow through capillaries with inner diameters from sub-micron to 25 μm corresponding to the range of leak rates from 10-9 to 10-3 mbar l/s, encompassing the 6·10-6 mbar l/s mentioned in USP<1207>. We evaluated the predictive performance of classical, slip-flow, and modified Knudsen models under differential pressure ranging from 250 mbar to 4000 mbar, specifically comparing behavior at a constant 1000 mbar difference against variable pressure dependencies. Our analysis reveals that model strength is highly context-dependent. At a constant 1 bar pressure difference (ambient vs. vacuum), the slip-flow model was the superior predictor, maintaining a 30% tolerance and outperforming the other flow laws including the modified Knudsen law model by Yoshida et al.. However, for characterizing pressure dependence, simpler models failed to capture the transition from linear ~p in ø0.9 μm to quadratic ~p2 in ø 20 μm capillaries. In this aspect the modified Knudsen model excelled, accurately describing the shift in behavior across the entire diameter range. These results provide a robust framework for CCI testing, enabling industry to select models to simulate specific relevant leak limits under varying environmental and pressure-test conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":19986,"journal":{"name":"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2025-000065.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In pharmaceutical quality control, capillaries are the primary positive controls able to cover a wide range of gas flow rates during Container Closure Integrity (CCI) testing. They serve as the physical benchmarks for analytical methods to demonstrate these can reliably detect defects at or below the critical leak thresholds. However, the predictive reliability of standard gas flow models for capillaries can be undermined by the 'transitional' flow regime. Traditional flow laws, like Hagen-Poiseuille and molecular flow, provide accuracy only at the extremes of the investigated flow rate spectrum, failing to deliver precise results in the range most relevant for the sub-micron defects that define current pharmaceutical safety standards. This study investigates helium flow through capillaries with inner diameters from sub-micron to 25 μm corresponding to the range of leak rates from 10-9 to 10-3 mbar l/s, encompassing the 6·10-6 mbar l/s mentioned in USP<1207>. We evaluated the predictive performance of classical, slip-flow, and modified Knudsen models under differential pressure ranging from 250 mbar to 4000 mbar, specifically comparing behavior at a constant 1000 mbar difference against variable pressure dependencies. Our analysis reveals that model strength is highly context-dependent. At a constant 1 bar pressure difference (ambient vs. vacuum), the slip-flow model was the superior predictor, maintaining a 30% tolerance and outperforming the other flow laws including the modified Knudsen law model by Yoshida et al.. However, for characterizing pressure dependence, simpler models failed to capture the transition from linear ~p in ø0.9 μm to quadratic ~p2 in ø 20 μm capillaries. In this aspect the modified Knudsen model excelled, accurately describing the shift in behavior across the entire diameter range. These results provide a robust framework for CCI testing, enabling industry to select models to simulate specific relevant leak limits under varying environmental and pressure-test conditions.

气体通过微细毛细管的流动,哪种流动规律最适合预测rateÂ通过微细毛细管的流动?
在药品质量控制中,毛细管是主要的阳性对照,能够在容器封闭完整性(CCI)测试中覆盖大范围的气体流速。它们作为分析方法的物理基准,以证明这些方法可以可靠地检测临界泄漏阈值或低于临界泄漏阈值的缺陷。然而,毛细管的标准气体流动模型的预测可靠性可能会被“过渡”流动状态所破坏。传统的流动定律,如Hagen-Poiseuille和分子流动,只能在所研究的流速谱的极端情况下提供准确性,而不能在定义当前药物安全标准的亚微米缺陷最相关的范围内提供精确的结果。本研究研究了内径为亚微米至25 μm的毛细管中氦气的流动,对应的泄漏率范围为10-9至10-3 mbar l/s,包括USP中提到的6·10-6 mbar l/s。在250 mbar到4000 mbar的压差范围内,我们评估了经典模型、滑动流模型和改进的Knudsen模型的预测性能,特别比较了恒定1000 mbar压差和可变压力依赖时的行为。我们的分析表明,模型强度高度依赖于上下文。在恒定的1 bar压差(环境压差与真空压差)下,滑移流模型是优越的预测器,保持30%的公差,优于其他流动规律,包括Yoshida等人修改的Knudsen定律模型。然而,为了表征压力依赖性,简单的模型无法捕捉到从ø0.9 μm的线性~p到ø 20 μm的二次~p2的转变。在这方面,改进的Knudsen模型表现出色,准确地描述了整个直径范围内的行为变化。这些结果为CCI测试提供了一个强大的框架,使行业能够选择模型来模拟不同环境和压力测试条件下的特定相关泄漏限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书