Fluidized Bed Systems and Methods Including Micro-Jet Flow

Fluidized Bed Systems and Methods Including Micro-Jet Flow is an invention that significantly improved the process of fluidization. Fluidization is a process where you take a mass of particles—like a pile of sand—and make it act like a fluid by shooting air into the pile. Robert Pfeffer, Jose A. Quevedo, and Juergen Flesch at NJIT invented this improvement to the fluidization process. Their patent was filed on November 9th, 2007 and granted on February 21st, 2012 as patent US8118243B2. Fluidization is an important process used in the production of many everyday objects including foods, automobile parts, energy, and pharmaceuticals.

Examining the previous work of the inventors provides context for their decision to pursue improvements to the fluidization process. Jose Quevedo, who received his PhD in Chemical Engineering from NJIT in 2008, worked with his advisor, Robert Pfeffer (now Professor Emeritus at NJIT), on most of his patent applications and grants, so the two seem to come as a package deal. They have patents in means of the creation, fluidization, and usage of nanoparticles, which tend to be smaller than a common flu virus (see: US7645327B2, US7658340B2, US7905433B2, US8550698B2, and US8632623B2). They collaborated on this and other patents with German-based chemical engineer, Juergen Flesch, who holds additional patents in the fields of powder metallurgy. His patents involve  applications of nano-agglomerates (agglomerates meaning “a mass of objects or a group”) in forms such as zirconium-hafnium oxide and silicon dioxide powders, which can be used in the creation of scientific tools, electronics or other metallic parts that require high precision (see: US7785560B2 and US8197791B2).

The patent consists of an augmentation to the existing fluidization systems and chambers in use at the time. The system of the patent consisted of: 1) a fluidization chamber, the fluidization chamber configured to house a volume of nanoparticles, the nanoparticles having a particle size of less than about 100 nm; 2) a source of a fluidizing medium communicating with the fluidization chamber, the fluidizing medium being directed in a first direction relative to the fluidization chamber and 3) at least one micro-jet nozzle for delivering gas in a direction opposite relative to the first direction defined by the fluidizing medium. Although it is important to note that this configuration was specifically for use with particles smaller than 100 nanometers, the patent summary states that the method is suitable for particles up to 30 microns in size.

These opposite flow gas jets are the primary improvement to the fluidization process introduced by this patent. A ring with small nozzles is placed inches above the powder within the chamber. When air is forced upward through the particles and fluidizes them, the other nozzles fire downward in an exact opposite direction into the now fluid particles. The opposite direction flow creates vortexes, and this enhances fluidization and makes the mixture more uniform. Previously powders could clump together in “dead spots” around the chamber reducing the efficacy of the process.

Robert Pfeffer, Jose A. Quevedo, Juergen Flesch, US8118243B2

The fluidization technology already has been used in several fields, all of which can be enhanced by such an improvement. The fluidization model was first applied in 1922, when inventor Fritz Winkler created a carbon reactor with a process he called coal gasification. In this process fine grained coal is injected into a chamber where it is fluidized, then burned to heat a water chamber, producing steam, which then spins a turbine and creates electricity. This is far more efficient than simply burning the coal. With an improvement from the NJIT patent, it can reach very high efficiency, leaving nearly no residue in the process.[i]

As an example of application in the food industry, Nabisco foods has utilized a similar method wherein they use a chamber for powdered food storage (powdered sugar, cereal meals, flour, etc.), which then gets mashed down by a turning screw and then forced through a small hole to make cereal (see: US3729176A). A problem with this process is that larger particles liked to clump together and jam the screw. To fix this, they implemented a large, helical apparatus to lift the oats and other particles up, aerate them, and keep them from sticking together. A similar effect comes from our NJIT apparatus, which is much smaller—and likely far cheaper—to deploy.

Another method was invented as a means of reducing contaminants such as complex bound cyanide or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (see: US4648332A). The values prescribed by safety commissions and in particular the Netherlands’ Chemical Waste Act are that of 5 parts per million and 0.1 ppm, respectively. Some regions can see close to 4000ppm and 3500 ppm for these contaminants, meaning the soil must be thoroughly cleansed. To do this, contaminated soil is introduced to a fluidized bed combustion chamber, like that of the Winkler process, and the large particles sink past the flames and are collected to be broken down and reintroduced. The lighter particles along with the contaminants rise and are burned away, leaving a product of clean soil and scrub-able, mostly harmless gases. If the soil could be more efficiently fluidized, then it would require fewer passes for all of the soil to be burned through.

The final process I will discuss is powder coating, which is used by the materials processing and manufacturing industries. In this process, a fluidized bed of a material, typically plastic, is formed with the intention of dipping heated metal into the mixture, melting the plastic on contact and uniformly coating your part, be it a basket, a hammer grip, or an entire car frame. Smaller parts require smaller beds. Fewer particles clump together, but the size of the bed and problem of clumped material scale together with larger parts such as car frames. These larger beds could apply a technology similar to the one described in order to keep the mixture fluidized and uniform throughout, which is important, as any clumping can cause this step of manufacture to be flawed and waste the material.

The already-versatile invention of fluidization bed technology holds increasing importance in the fields of energy production, food production, automobile manufacture, and environmental disaster maintenance. Pharmaceuticals use the technology to coat pills, and even I have used the processes involved for the powder coating of my robots to leave them with a clean, sleek appearance and finalized design. With the increasing usage of the technique, a seemingly small change—simply adding another approach of air—leads to huge increases in performance, huge increases in profits, and further demand for more improvements in the field.

Written by Andre Ribeiro


[i] Andrea Sella, “Winkler’s Bed,” Chemistry World, October 31, 2017, https://www.chemistryworld.com/opinion/winklers-bed/3008164.article

Solventless mixing process for coating pharmaceutical ingredients

Have you ever pondered why most pharmaceutical drugs have no taste? Or, if you do not swallow the tablet in a timely manner, an unpleasant taste forms in your mouth?

Pharmaceutical drugs have had plenty of problems. One notable conflict is the aversion toward the taste of the tablets. The pharmaceutical industry has tried to develop mechanisms to alleviate this problem such as increasing the speed of the tablets to dissolve, using liquids and syrups, the usage of patches and gums, and lastly dissolving the tablets in liquid. Most of these methods ended in failure and disapproval from customers. Professor Rajesh N. Davé (of the New Jersey Institute of Technology Otto H. York Department of Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering) and two of his former graduate students, Daniel To and Maxx Capece, presented a solution with their 2015 patent “Solventless Mixing Process for Coating Pharmaceutical Ingredients.” This patent thoroughly explains the different techniques in coating a taste-masking tablet. The thought process for this patent is that children and adults refuse to take medicine and remedies due to the taste. It will be easier for patients to swallow or chew tablets when there isn’t any taste.

What ingredient does the unpleasant taste come from and what is the process of coating?

The undesirable taste of the tablet comes from an active pharmaceutical ingredient (API). To mask the taste, the mixing must occur in water soluble materials or swellable coating materials and water insoluble polymer particles. The six methods of coating are:

  1. Coating with fine wax particles using fluid energy milling
  2. Dry-coating core particles with distribution
  3. Mechanical dry coating of wax onto copper powder
  4. Coating process when ascorbic acid particles are pulverized and coated with wax
  5. Dry coating using polymer powders
  6. Dry coating solid dosage

What are some realizations of the Patent US9107851B2?

This invention is the use of mechanical dry process. The first step in the taste-masking process is mixing the API fine particles first with the soluble coating materials, then with water insoluble polymer particles. After the mixing and the coating is formed, the tablet must go through a mechanical stress of high temperature in which it develops a film. After that film is complete, the API is masked for approximately one minute before the coating dissolves in its entirety. The tablet size must be between 30μm and 2mm. The amount of coating depends on the size of the pill; larger tablets will need more soluble and insoluble materials than a smaller pill would.

A water swellable version contains characteristics in which the material absorbs the water and swells. The materials in the tablet include croscarmellose, crospovidone, and sodium starch glycolate. The median size must be in the range of 0.5μm to 20μm. The water soluble material must have a solubility of at the very least 50 mg/mL at 20 degrees Celsius with a neutral pH. Some examples of soluble materials are lactose, poly-ethylene oxide, and hydrophilic polymers. For the water- insoluble polymer, the median size for the particle size can range from 1μm to 20μm. For the material to deform in this polymer, the temperature must be elevated, it has to go under a great deal of mechanical stress, or a combination of both. Castor wax, polypropylene, and polyamide wax are insoluble materials.

What is the mixing process?

The mixing process is applied with mechanical stress for about 1 minute to 4 hours. The amount of mixing time depends on the coating process used and the machine in use for the mixing. One method of mixing can be carried out by high energy vibrations with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. The intensity number must not be lower than 10 or exceed 100 and the API size cannot exceed 100μm. The particles in the soluble and polymer must collide at high velocity, causing the coating surface to deform the API, which will lead to continuous coating. Another mixing process is executed by acoustic mixing at a high-intensity, low frequency acoustic energy being transferred to a mixing chamber.

What is the last processing method?

The insoluble polymer must be distributed over the API via vibrating, impacting, and tumbling in a mill. The mixing must be at high energy but not too excessive for the polymers to break the host particle. The average size of the particles is no less than 95% of the original particle size. A reduction of the expected size can be a sign that the process was not conducted correctly and that the coating is not thoroughly spread. A well-coated tablet will feature the desired dissolution characteristics along with the API being restricted for at least 30 minutes.

The presence of media particles enhances the formations of the continuous polymer coating, which could possibly better mask the taste. The API size to the media particles size ratio has to be between 3:1 to 10:1.

How long does it take for the coating to dissolve entirely and the unpleasant taste to be revealed?

The dissolution tests have shown that after 1 minute of the tablet in one’s mouth, about 95% of the API ingredient is concealed, and there is still no taste. The drug coating is less than 0.01% of taste-release. For most methods of coating, a little less than 0.5% of the API element is released after 2 minutes of the tablet in one’s mouth. After 30 minutes with the tablet in mouth, 90% of the API element is released, the same as if the tablet had not been coated. If the methods stated above are not thoroughly conducted such as running out of coating or inadequate taste-masking, the water soluble coating will dissolve quickly which will lead to the API being revealed before expected. Another factor in which the API will be released before expected is when the particles for the water soluble and insoluble polymers are not close enough to react.

Outcome

In 2016, the inventors of this patent were awarded a Thomas Alva Edison Patent Award from the Research & Development Council of New Jersey.[i] The patent was licensed to a global health care company, which is attempting to bring this technology to market.

By Hakilah Hudson, Glenn Monroe, John Saviano


[i] Tracey Regan. “NJIT Engineers Win an Edison Patent Award for Technology that Masks the Taste of Bitter Drugs,” Innovations at NJIT. Nov. 4, 2016, http://www6.njit.edu/features/innovations/dave-edison-awards2.php

 

Apparatus and Method for in Situ Removal of Contaminants Using Sonic Energy

We have all seen images of bodies of water contaminated with an oil spill. Cleaning these spills is of the utmost importance as this contamination harms the welfare of the general public. Many different types of harmful contaminants can be leaked into the ground water, the bay, or even farming soil, and this can in turn affect public health. Removing the contaminants from the impacted body can be a very tricky process that raises many secondary questions – such as the proper method of removing the containments and who should be responsible for the cleanup. Thanks to the patented technology of Deran Hanesian, Angelo Perna, John Schuring, and Hugo Fernandez from the New Jersey Institute of Technology, there is a method of removing contamination from a polluted body without hard physical labor.

“Apparatus and method for in situ removal of contaminants using sonic energy”—granted to Deran Hanesian and Angelo Perna, professors out of the Chemical, Biological and Pharmaceutical Engineering department, to John Schuring, professor out of the Civil Engineering department, and to Hugo Fernandez, a graduate of the Chemical and Environmental Science department—tackles the environmental concern raised by contaminated substances leaking into the environment. This technology uses sound wave vibrational energy to remove pollution from the targeted body by separating the contamination from the specific material of the sample.

A sense of environmental awareness arose during the late 20th century due to many reasons. The growth of environmental science, the rise of consumer consciousness, and the willingness of individuals to stand up for their surroundings all created an atmosphere and a sense of “preserving the environment.”[i] Hanesian, et al were no different in that they sought a way to contribute to the environmental consciousness cause. Prior to this patented technology, removing contamination from a body of water or soil was not a process that was environmentally efficient nor did it have the environment at the center of its focus. Rather than focusing on the environment, clean-up efforts were predominantly an economic concern. These researchers decided to collectively use their skills to create an environmentally centered patented technology to deal with contamination.

Filed in 1997, this process went on to aid in the removal of contamination from bodies of water or even sedimentary soil that were left contaminated by various oil spills and various chemical plants closing down. As seen in Fig. 11, the compressed gas supply flows through a pressure regulation system. This system is responsible for distributing the pressured gas down a tunnel to a distributer. This distributer then pushes the gas into the surrounding contaminated ground creating a separated bubble, as illustrated in the circled portion labeled Fig. 13 in Fig. 11. The creation of the bubble allows for the extraction of the contamination from that part of the soil. This process can be replicated over several different parts of a contaminated field until the entire contaminated field is cleaned.

By Michael Tadros


[i] Adam Rome, The Genius of Earth Day: How a 1970 Teach-In Unexpectedly Made the First Green Generation (New York: Hill and Wang, 2013).