Investigation and comparison of performance of effervescent and standard pneumatic atomizer intended for soluble...

Effervescent atomizers belong to the group of internal mixing atomizers. The effervescent approach might be a potential alternative to traditional atomization techniques, e.g., for applications where low atomization air consumption is advantageous In this paper, performance of one proposed design of the effervescent atomizer is investigated and compared to that of a standard pneumatic atomizer. The purpose of the comparison is to evaluate the actual potential of the specific effervescent atomizer in pharmaceutical relevant aqueous coating applications. Aqueous solutions of Hypromellose 5 as well as Povidone K-90F were characterized in terms of rheological properties and surface tension. Solutions were atomized by means of a standard Schlick pneumatic atomizer as well as a customized inside-out type effervescent atomizer. Spray droplet size distributions were recorded by a Spraytec instrument. Increased shear viscosity in the range 24-836 mPa.s had a modest effect on spray mean diameters for pneumatic sprays of the Newtonian solutions of Hypromellose 5. In contrast, mean droplet diameters increased by a factor of 3-5 in pneumatic sprays of Povidone K-90F solutions 11-175 mPa.s in viscosity, where non-Newtonian behavior was observed. Further, sprays of all solutions of Povidone K-90F have considerably larger mean droplet size. The effervescent atomizer atomized low viscosity solutions of Povidone K-90F more efficiently than Hypromellose 5 solutions of corresponding shear viscosity. However, atomization of high viscosity Povidone K-90F results in a coarser spray than that of the corresponding Hypromellose 5 solution. Viscosity, visco-elasticity, and surface tension of solutions all seem to affect atomization efficiency. The pneumatic atomizer was not sensitive to changes in airflow above 8.4 kg/h and liquid flow only had a considerable effect at suboptimal air flows. In its current design the effervescent atomizer improved efficiency throughout the investigated range of air flow of 0.18-0.84 kg/h and consistently produced smaller drops at liquid flow of 10 g/min compared to 35 g/min. In spite of the very low level of air consumption, the effervescent atomizer can produce fine sprays. Within its working range, the standard pneumatic atomizer, however, is capable of producing sprays of even smaller mean droplet size. All together this suggests the described effervescent atomizer as an alternative for applications where advantages of reduced atomization air flow outweigh the disadvantages of a less fine spray, e.g., in coating of attrition-prone substrate.