Pharmaceutical Development and Technology, 1:47–58, 2005
Copyright D 2005 Taylor & Francis Inc.
ISSN: 1083-7450 print / 1097-9867 online
DOI: 10.1081/PDT-200035915
A Thermodynamic Model for Organic and Aqueous Tablet Film Coating
Mary Tanya am Ende and Alfred Berchielli
Pfizer Global Research and Development, Groton, Connecticut, USA
A tablet film-coating model for aqueous- and/or organic-
based systems is shown to predict exhaust stream conditions
thereby facilitating process optimization and scale-up. This
coating model uses the First Law of Thermodynamics and
conservation of mass principles to complete a material-energy
balance on the coating unit operation for a closed, non-isolated
system. Heat loss from the coating pan is incorporated into the
model through a parameter called a heat loss factor (HLF) that is
directly related to the heat transfer coefficient and pan surface
area. For a mixed organic-aqueous coating formulation, the
outlet air temperature and humidity are most notably affected by
the coating composition and the inlet drying air temperature,
which controls the evaporative cooling rate. The coating solution
temperature and inlet air relative humidity do not significantly
influence the exhaust air temperature, Tair,out. The HLF was
determined to be 24 to 62 cal/min°C for the LDCS-20 to HCT-
30, 360 cal/min°C for the HCT-60, 0 cal/min°C for the HC-130L
and 945 to 1322 cal/min°C for the Accela-Cota-48 to Compulab-
36 coating pans. This model successfully predicts Tair,out within
3°C for a given coating pan, and within 6°C scaling up from one
to 220 kg pans for both organic- and aqueous-based coatings.
The model is also useful for probing process and formulation
variable sensitivity critical to establishing process robustness.
Keywords coating process, pharmaceutical dosage forms,
thermodynamic model, material and energy
balance
INTRODUCTION
Tablet film coating is a very important unit operation
in the pharmaceutical industry. Film coatings are used for
both aesthetic and functional reasons. While aqueous film
coatings have supplanted solvent-based coatings for many
applications, solvent-based coatings are still used to apply
Received 3 November 2003, Accepted 6 March 2004.
Address correspondence to Mary Tanya am Ende, Pfizer
Global Research and Development, Eastern Point Rd., Groton,
CT 06340, USA; E-mail: Mary_T_am_Ende@groton.pfizer.com
47
Order reprints of this article at www.copyright.rightslink.com
functional coatings (e.g., semipermeable membranes,
delayed- and sustained-release membranes) onto tablet
cores for controlled drug delivery.
Thermodynamic models using material and energy
balance principles have been used in the past to model
aqueous film coating processes (Table 1).[1 – 6] These
models are used to predict key process parameters that
impact the quality of the film coating (e.g., outlet air
temperature and outlet air dew point). Most of the previous
models were restricted to aqueous film coatings, one
coating pan type and scale, making them limited in their
scope and applicability. The most widely used model[3] is
the basis for the thermodynamic analysis of aqueous
coating, or TAAC, computer model provided by Thomas
Engineering, manufacturer of Accela-Cota1 pans.
Film-coating models are particularly important in
pharmaceutical development where process conditions
vary greatly for the purposes of design of experiments,
scale-up, and coating formulation changes that may require
new process conditions. Previous models allowed predic-
tions for aqueous-based coatings only. However, organic-
based coatings are still widely used by the pharmaceutical
industry and, in many cases, require a high level of control
over the process conditions to produce films that provide
the required functionality. For example, droplet size is
important to the formation of asymmetric membranes onto
osmotic core tablets.[7] Therefore, careful control of the
process conditions during optimization or scale-up is
critical. The purpose of this work was to develop a universal
thermodynamic model for both aqueous and organic film
coatings to aid in process optimization and scale-up.
MODEL DEVELOPMENT
Assumptions and Limitations
A tablet film-coating process is depicted in Figure 1
for a perforated coating pan. The rotating tablet bed
defines the control volume over which the material and
48 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli

Table 1
Overview of published film coating models

Reference Mass balance Energy balance Heat transfer Aqueous Organic Coating pan
p p
Reiland, Seitz, Accela-Cota 24
Yeager,
Brusenback 1983[1]
p p
Stetsko, Banker, Accela-Cota 48
Peck 1983[2]a
p p p p
Ebey 1987[3]b Accela-Cota
p p p
Liu, Litster 1993[4] Fluid bed coating
p p p
Rodriguez et al. 1996[5] Pelligrini
p p p p
am Ende, Berchielli, Vector LDCS-20,
Chidlaw 2001[6] HCT-30,HCT-60
and HC-130L;
Compulab 36;
Accela-Cota 48
a
Ph.D. research funded by Thomas Engineering.
b
Thermodynamic Analysis of Aqueous Coating, or TAAC, computer model by Thomas Engineering.

energy balances are performed. The inlet streams consist are depicted in Figure 1 to distinguish between the flow
of the drying air, the film-coating solution sprayed from through the perforated pan for the Thomas Engineering
the nozzle, and the compressed air stream used to atomize coaters (Compulab-36 and Accela-Cota-48) and the flow
the coating solution. Two different inlet air stream options from the front or back region across the spray nozzle for

Figure 1. Schematic representation of the film-coating process flow diagram for side-vented coating pans.
 A Thermodynamic Model for Tablet Film Coating
Table 2
Nomenclature and definition of terms for the model
presented in this article
A = surface area of coating pan
Cp = heat capacity
Cp,air = heat capacity of air = 0.238 cal/g°C
Cp,ace = heat capacity of acetone = 0.51 cal/g°C
Cp,org = heat capacity of organic component
Cp,w = heat capacity of water = 1.0 cal/g°C
HLF = heat loss factor [cal/min°C]; subscripted EP for empty
pan/no spray study
hloss = heat transfer coefficient
DH = enthalpy change across the control volume
DHair = enthalpy change of air across control volume
DHcoat = enthalpy change of coating across control volume
DHloss = enthalpy lost to surroundings across control volume
DĤU = latent heat of vaporization
DĤU,org = latent heat of vaporization for organic component
DĤU,ace = latent heat of vaporization for acetone = 134 cal/g
DĤU,w = latent heat of vaporization for water = 540 cal/g
DĤs = sensible enthalpy change due to temperature changes
DĤs,air = sensible enthalpy change of air stream due to
temperature changes
DĤs,w = sensible enthalpy change of water due to
temperature changes
DĤs,org = sensible enthalpy change of organic components due
to temperature changes
K = lumped parameter of Grashof and Prandtl numbers used in
the simplified dimensional form of the free convection
equation (see Ref. [9])
mair,in = mass of air in inlet stream
mair,out = mass of air in outlet stream
morg,coat = mass of organic in coating stream
morg,out = mass of organic in outlet stream
mw,coat = mass of water in coating stream
mw,in = mass of water in inlet air stream
mw,out = mass of water in outlet air stream
mcoat = mass of coating components
min = mass of inlet components
mout = mass of outlet components
mair,in = mass of air in inlet stream
mair,out = mass of air in outlet stream
Ppartial,w = partial pressure of water vapor in outlet air stream
Pvapor,Tout = vapor pressure of water at the outlet
air temperature
%RHair,out = percent relative humidity of outlet air stream
Tair,in = temperature of inlet air
Tair,out = temperature of outlet air
Tcoat = temperature of coating solution
TRT = temperature of ambient conditions
Ttablet = temperature of tablet surface
xw = mass fraction of water in coating
xorg = mass fraction of organic in coating
Vair,in = volumetric flow rate of inlet air stream at Tair,in
49
the Vector coaters (LDCS-20, HCT-30, HCT-60, and
HC-130L). The outlet stream is designated as the exhaust
air in the flow diagram. The air in contact with the tablet
surface is assumed to be below saturation, which is
reasonable since side-vented coating pans are overde-
signed with regard to their drying capacity.
This thermodynamic model was developed for a side-
vented coating pan, which is a closed but not isolated
system since exchange of energy occurs as heat loss
during operation and sampling. The model nomenclature
definitions are listed in Table 2 for easy reference.
In this model HLF was used to account for heat losses
due to thermal gradients from the coating pan to the
surroundings. The model applies to steady state con-
ditions where the heat, temperature, and mass do not
change with time (i.e., dq dT dm
dt ¼ 0; dt ¼ 0; dt ¼ 0). The tablet
bed temperature, Ttablet, is assumed to be the same as the
exhaust air temperature. Therefore, the energy balance on
the coating solution is defined by a sensible heat term (the
energy to heat the coating solution from the inlet coating
temperature to the exhaust air temperature, DĤ = CpDT)
and a latent heat term (the energy to evaporate the volatile
coating components, DĤu). This model neglects the
humidity and airflow from the spray nozzle and the
sensible heat for the polymer and plasticizer system.
This film-coating model is a macroscopic analysis of
the process and, therefore, neglects the spray nozzle-to-
bed distance, pan speed, spray zone coverage, and pattern
air from the nozzle. These parameters are also known to
influence coating uniformity, quality, and droplet particle
size.[7] The impact of the aforementioned parameters
should be considered during the coating process optimi-
zation phase of a program.
Distinguishing Features of this Model
This model differs from previous aqueous film-
coating thermodynamic models in two main ways. Firstly,
this model is designed not only for aqueous film coatings,
but it is also expanded to include solvent-based coatings.
The main purpose for developing a model for solvent
coatings is that many coatings applied to control drug
release remain solvent based. For example, osmotic
marketed products such as Glucotrol XL, Procardia XL,
and Tegretol XR use solvent-based coatings.
Secondly, this model explicitly accounts for heat loss
from the coating pan to the surroundings, as represented
by the following equation:
DHloss ¼ hloss AðTair;out  TRT Þ
¼ HLF  ðTair;out  TRT Þ ½1
50 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli

In order to make this model generally applicable to
different side-vented coating pan designs, a HLF was
experimentally determined and included in the model
calculations. The HLF is defined as the heat transfer
coefficient (hloss) for the coating pan multiplied by the pan
surface area (A). The HLF was determined empirically
for six different coating pans including 1 kg (HCT-30,
LDCS-20), 12 kg (HCT-60), 60 kg (Compulab-36), 120 kg
(Accela-Cota-48), and 220 kg (HC-130L) scales.
and incorporates the adjustment in molar volume of air due
to the elevated temperature of Tair,in at the inlet flow meter.
Energy Balance
The total energy balance for this system can be
expressed by the First Law of Thermodynamics as
follows:[8]

DH ¼ DHair þ DHcoat þ DHloss ¼ 0 ½6

Material Balance
Each enthalpy term is expressed by both a sensible
The material balance for the tablet bed control heat and latent heat term. For air, there is no latent heat
volume can be expressed for each of three components term, so the energy balance becomes:
(e.g., water, organic solvent, and air) in terms of the
difference between the outlet and inlet sources assuming ^
DHair ¼ mair;in DH s;air ¼ mair;in Cp;air ðTair;out
no reaction or accumulation:[8]
 Tair;in Þ ½7
Smout  Sðmin þ mcoat Þ ¼ 0 ½2
^ ^
DHcoat ¼ mw;coat DH s;w þ mw;coat DH v;w
The water material balance takes into account the ^ ^
humidity from the inlet drying air stream and the water in þ morg;coat DH s;org þ morg;coat DH v;org ½8
the coating solution as follows:
mw;coat ¼ xw mcoat ½9
mw;out ¼ mw;in þ mw;coat ½3
morg;coat ¼ xorg mcoat ½10
The moisture contribution from spray nozzles was
Substituting Eqs. 9 and 10 into Eq. 8, the coating
measured and found to contribute less than 2% of the
energy balance becomes:
overall water mass balance and therefore was neglected.
For mixed solvent and aqueous coatings, the organic
DHcoat ¼ xw mcoat Cp;w ðTair;out  Tcoat Þ
component material balance can be expressed as:
^
þ xw mcoat DH v;w þ xorg mcoat Cp;org ðTair;out
morg;out ¼ morg;coat ½4
^
 Tcoat Þ þ xorg mcoat DH v;org ½11
The air from the compressed air line in the spray
nozzle is neglected since it is minor compared to the And finally, the overall energy balance equation is
drying air, accounting for less than 7% of the overall air obtained by substituting Eqs. 7, 11, and 1 into Eq. 6,
mass balance. For highly moisture-sensitive coatings, the as follows:
spray nozzle inlet stream may need to be included in the
model. Therefore the material balance for air can be DH ¼ mair;in Cp;air ðTair;out  Tair;in Þ
expressed as follows:
þ xw mcoat Cp;w ðTair;out  Tcoat Þ
mair;out ¼ mair;in ^

 þ xw mcoat DH v;w þ xorg mcoat Cp;org ðTair;out
273 K
¼ Vair;in ft3 = min  ^
 Tcoat Þ þ xorg mcoat DH v;org þ HLF  ðTair;out
273 K þ Tair;in
!
28:3 l=ft3  29 g=mol  TRT Þ
 ½5
22:4 L=mol ¼0 ½12

This equation converts the volumetric flow rate of the The energy balance equation is rearranged to
inlet air stream at the inlet temperature to a mass flow rate solve for the unknown outlet temperature, Tair,out: (see
 A Thermodynamic Model for Tablet Film Coating
fmair;in Cp;air Tair;in þ xw mcoat Cp;w Tcoat  xw mcoat DH v;w þ xorg mcoat Cp;org Tcoat  xorg mcoat DH v;org þ HLF  TRT g
Tair;out ¼
½mair;in Cp;air þ xw mcoat Cp;w þ xorg mcoat Cp;org þ HLF
Eq. 13 above). The thermodynamic model detailed above
provides a direct relationship between the temperature,
humidity and flow rate of the inlet air stream and the
coating solution spray rate to the temperature and
humidity of the exhaust air stream. Once the HLF is
determined for a coating pan, this model can be used to
predict the effect of changing spray rate, or other inlet
conditions on the exhaust temperature.
Percent RH Determination
The percent relative humidity (RH) of the exhaust air
stream can be calculated from a ratio of the partial
pressure of water vapor in the exhaust air (calculated from
the measured dew point of the exhaust air) to the vapor
pressure of water at the outlet temperature, Tair,out, as
shown in Eq. 14.
Ppartial;w
%RHair;out ¼  100%
Pvapor;Tout
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Materials
Both organic solvent- and aqueous-based coatings
were used to develop this model. All organic solvent-
based coatings utilized formulations composed of cellu-
lose acetate 398-10 (Eastman Chemical Co, Kingsport,
Tennessee), polyethylene glycol 3350 (DOW Chemical
Co., Midland, Michigan), acetone, and water. Aqueous-
based coatings consisted of Opadry1 Clear (Colorcon,
West Point, Pennsylvania). Coatings were applied to a
variety of tablet sizes.
Methods
An infrared gun (Raynger ST-2, Raytek, Santa Cruz,
California) was used to monitor the tablet bed temperature.
The film-coating equipment used to develop this
model includes the LDCS-20, HCT-30, HCT-60, and HC-
130L manufactured by Vector Inc. (Marion, Iowa) and the
Compulab 36 (CL36) and Accela-Cota 48 (AC48)
51
^ ^
½13
manufactured by Thomas Engineering (Hoffman Estates,
Illinois). This equipment covers a range from laboratory
(1 kg) to production scale (120 – 220 kg). Laboratory scale
units that are designed to be explosion proof were used for
both aqueous- and organic solvent-based processes.
Larger production-scale equipment was dedicated for
either aqueous or solvent use. Tablet-coating experiments
were performed using both Vector and Thomas Engi-
neering coating pans. Figure 1 shows a simplified diagram
of a coating pan. Typically, the inlet air enters the pan in
the front or back for the Vector design and from the side
in the Thomas Engineering design. Both manufacturers’
pans are side vented with different perforation designs.
All Vector coating pans used in this work were partially
perforated (contain a solid nonperforated area between
exhaust manifolds), and all Thomas Engineering pans
were fully perforated.
DETERMINATION OF HEAT LOSS
½14
FACTOR—EXPERIMENTAL
AND THEORETICAL
A series of coating runs were performed for the
purpose of determining the HLF (n = 10), in which the
actual Tair,out was measured. The overall energy balance
represented in Eq. 13 has two unknowns, the HLF and
Tair,out. This equation can be solved iteratively for a given
coating pan by varying the HLF until the actual and
predicted outlet air temperatures match over several
different trials (n =10), ideally within 0.1°C. Once the
HLF is determined for a given coating pan, it can be used
for process optimization and scale-up predictions.
The HLF for the LDCS-20 and HCT-30 coating pans
were also measured under empty, dry heating conditions
(no tablets in pan and no coating spray). The heating
profiles were monitored to steady state once the inlet air
temperature was set to 50°C (representing organic
conditions) or 70°C (representing aqueous conditions).
In addition, the inlet air temperature set point, inlet air
temperature, and outlet air temperature were monitored
throughout the run. For the HCT-30 coating pan used in
these studies, two inlet air temperature values were
recorded, one from the gauge (oil bulb type) and one from
the in-process controller (resistance temperature detector,
or RTD). The LDCS-20 coating pan is designed with one
RTD temperature probe.
52 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli
The theoretical HLF was calculated based on the heat
transfer coefficient for the pan materials and the pan
surface area, as depicted in Eq. 1. The heat transfer
coefficient for the material of construction used in these
pans was determined according to Kern (1950) as
hloss =KDT0.25.[9] In this equation, K was estimated to be
0.32 based on assuming the dryer surface was four vertical
plates and one horizontal plate. The temperature differ-
ence, is DT between the coating pan surface in °F
(assumed equal to Tair,out) and ambient temperature.
The heat transfer coefficient units of BTU/hr ft2 °F
were converted to cal/min m2 K for data reported in
this article.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
measure the tablet bed temperature during a typical
coating run in the HCT-60. As depicted in Figure 2, the
temperature of the tablets approximately equaled the
exhaust air temperature after 10 minutes of coating (i.e.,
during the steady state coating phase). The inlet air
temperature was adjusted throughout the run to maintain a
constant exhaust temperature.
Film-Coating Pan Heat Loss Factors
HLF Determination from the Thermodynamic Model
As an example of the HLF calculation, as described
previously for an HCT-60 coating pan, 10 film-coating
trials were performed using aqueous or mixed organic
formulations. The aqueous film coatings were comprised of
Check of Assumption T air,out  T tablet
This thermodynamic film-coating model was devel-
oped from a model originally developed for tablet coating
in a fluid bed. In that model, the sensible heat temperature
gradients are calculated assuming the inlet drying air
temperature equals the tablet bed temperature (i.e.,
94% (w/w) water and 6% solids with process variables
ranging from 40 to 60 g/min for spray rate, 64 to 80°C for
inlet air temperature, and  20 to 5°C for inlet dew point,
while the inlet volumetric flow rate and ambient temper-
ature were maintained constant at 300 cfm and 22°C, re-
spectively. The mixed aqueous/organic film-coating trials
consisted of 69% acetone, 19% water, and 12% solids. As
Tair,in Ttablet). For a fluid-bed coating system, this
assumption is reasonable since the distance between the
spray nozzle and tablets is less than an inch. However, for
the more commonly used side-vented pan, the spray
nozzle is several inches from the cascading tablet bed. As
a consequence, we assume in our model that the tablet bed
temperature equals the outlet air temperature (i.e.,
with the previous aqueous coating process conditions, the
inlet volumetric flow rate and ambient temperature were
maintained constant at 300 cfm and 22°C, respectively. The
process conditions were varied from 185 to 205 g/min
for spray rate, and 50 to 60°C for inlet air temperature.
Using the experimental results for the actual Tair,out
from the 10 HCT-60 studies listed earlier, the HLF value
Ttablet Tair,out).
To verify this tablet bed temperature assumption, an
infrared gun was used in one experiment to periodically
Figure 2. Comparison of tablet bed temperature, Ttablet (^), to
the inlet drying air temperature, Tair,in (.), and the exhaust air
temperature, Tair,out (&), during a coating run in the HCT-60.
was solved iteratively and then fine tuned from 350, 360,
and 370 (Table 3). The resulting difference between the
predicted and actual Tair,out was summed into a group
average number of 0.19,  0.01, and  0.21, respectively.
Therefore, the HLF in this case was chosen to be the
minimum value of 360.
A summary of calculated HLF values for six different
types and scales of coating pans is listed in Table 4. The
HLF generally increases with coating pan scale from 1 to
120 kg, covering those pans with once-through drying
airflow patterns. This trend is expected based on the
increased heat transfer surface area, as indicated by Eq. 1
where HLF = hloss*A.
A possible explanation for the lowest HLF being the
HC-130L coater in spite of its large size is that this
particular system operates at faster organic coating spray
rates relative to the inlet drying airflow rates. This rapid
spray results in more evaporative cooling, which lowers
Tair, out to below ambient conditions, thus eliminating the
thermal driving force for heat loss. In addition, this coater
is designed as a more efficient process because the unit
contains a recirculation loop for solvent recovery. This
 A Thermodynamic Model for Tablet Film Coating 53

Table 3
The heat loss factor, HLF, for each coating pan was determined from an initial series of experiments in which the second unknown
variable in Eq. 13 was modified iteratively until the predicted Tair,out matched the actual Tair,out

HLF = 350 HLF = 360 HLF = 370

Actual Predicted Difference Actual Predicted Difference Actual Predicted Difference

Tair,out Tair,out (predicted- Tair,out Tair,out (predicted- Tair,out Tair,out (predicted-
Trial (°C) (°C) actual) (°C) (°C) actual) (°C) (°C) actual)

1 50.0 50.6 0.6 50.0 50.4 0.4 50.0 50.2 0.2

2 46.0 47.0 1.0 46.0 46.8 0.8 46.0 46.6 0.6
3 54.0 54.0 0.0 54.0 53.7  0.3 54.0 53.5  0.5
4 50.0 50.6 0.6 50.0 50.4 0.4 50.0 50.2 0.2
5 58.0 59.2 1.2 58.0 59.0 1.0 58.0 58.7 0.7
6 41.0 42.2 1.2 41.0 42.0 1.0 41.0 41.8 0.8
7 35.6 34.9  0.7 35.6 34.7  0.9 35.6 34.5  1.1
8 31.4 30.3  1.1 31.4 30.1  1.3 31.4 30.0  1.4
9 30.8 30.4  0.4 30.8 30.3  0.5 30.8 30.1  0.7
10 34.2 33.6  0.6 34.2 33.5  0.7 34.2 33.3  0.9
Group average 0.19 Group average  0.01 Group average  0.21
Group STDEV 0.86 Group STDEV 0.82 Group STDEV 0.79

recovery process lowers the moisture remaining in the
inlet air stream that is recirculated back into the pan and,
therefore, has a greater capacity to pick up water. The inlet
air stream dew points for the HC-130L and the HCT-60
were measured as minus 30°C and 10°C, respectively.
These data provide supporting evidence that the larger
coating pan has less heat loss due to the high organic spray
rate and recirculation loop compared to the other pans,
which are all once-through systems.
Theoretical HLF
The pan surface areas for the Hi-Coater series
provided by Vector Corporation were 0.25 m2 for the
LDCS-20 and HCT-30, 1.12 m2 for the HCT-60, and
6.67 m2 for the HC-130L. The theoretical HLF deter-
mined for the Vector Hi-Coater pans ranged from 0 to
3000 cal/min°C over the inlet air temperature ranges
investigated (Table 4). The HC-130L operates with an
outlet temperature below the room conditions due to the
solvent recovery on the recirculation loop of the drying air
stream, and therefore, no heat loss is expected for this
system. The experimentally determined HLF based on the
model is 0, as is the theoretical value. The explanation for
this may reside in the fact that the volumetric flow meter
location is not at Tair,in, and therefore, the model is
underpredicting Tair,out. The minimum theoretical HLF
value of 64 is consistent with the experimentally
determined HLF of 62 for the HCT-30. However, the
theoretical HLF values for the LDCS-20 and HCT-60 are
twice the experimental findings at 47 and 520 vs. 24 and

Table 4
Effect of coating pan scale on the experimental HLF and comparison to calculated HLF for Vector Hi-Coater pans

Surface HLF HLFEP (empty pan,

Equipment Scale (kg) areaa (m2) hloss (calculated) HLF = hloss A (experimental) no spraying)

LDCS-20 1 0.256 184 – 612 (DT = 4  12) 47 – 157 24 65

HCT-30 1 0.251 257 – 1925 (DT = 6  27) 64 – 483 62.2 104
HCT-60 12 1.12 464  2665 (DT = 9  36) 519  2974 360 ndb
Compulab 36 60 ndb ndb ndb 1322 ndb
Accela-Cota 48 120 ndb ndb ndb 945 ndb
HC-130L 220 6.67 0 0 0 ndb
a
Data courtesy of Vector Corp. (Marion, Iowa).
b
nd means not determined.
54 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli
360, respectively. All of these experimentally determined
HLF were of the same magnitude as the theoretical values
and support the physical interpretation of the heat loss
factor used in this model.
HLF Comparison to Empty Pan with No Spray
The HLF determined from the empty pan/no spray
studies for the laboratory scale coaters are compared to
the results obtained during tablet film-coating trials in
Table 4. The inlet and outlet temperature profiles for the
LDCS-20 and HCT-30 empty pan/no spray coating
studies are shown in Figure 3. These data show that the
LCDS-20 pan reaches its set point more rapidly than does
the HCT-30. In addition, the temperature drop across the
pan at steady state was 13°C for the LDCS-20
(HLFEP =65) vs. 20°C for the HCT-30 (HLFEP = 104).
This corroborates the HLF determinations from the model
that indicate more heat is lost in the HCT-30 pan
(HLF =62.2) compared to the LDCS-20 (HLF = 24).
The discrepancy between the HLF determined by
empty pan/no spray conditions and film-coating studies
amounted to 41 cal/min°C for both pans. The two major
causes for the higher HLF values for the empty pan/no
spray results are 1) lack of an evaporative cooling effect
from the coating process and 2) lack of tablets in the pan
to absorb heat.
The Tair,out determined from the actual film-coating
trials with 7 g/min aqueous spray rate or 21 g/min organic
Figure 3. Heating profiles for the LDCS-20 (Tair,in = .;
Tair,out = 6) and HCT-30 (Tair,in = &; Tair,out = 5) coating pans
used to determine the HLFs for empty pans with no spray
coating when the inlet air temperature controller was set at 70°C.
spray rate were 8°C below the outlet temperature
measured from the empty pan/no spray studies. When
the empty pan/no spray data were modified to include
these coating conditions, then the original HLF value
from the model predicts the correct Tair,out within 1°C for
both HCT-30 and LDCS-20 pans. These findings suggest
that the evaporative cooling of the coating is the major
draw on the inlet air enthalpy that lowers Tair,out, and that
the sensible heating of tablets to the outlet temperature is
not a significant factor. These results support the
assumption made in developing this model to neglect
the sensible heat changes in the tablets and coatings.
Comparison of Model Predictions to Actual
Results in the Same Pan
As a check of the versatility of the model represent-
ed by Eq. 13, 20 experiments were carried out to vary
a number of conditions while keeping the HLF constant.
In these experiments, coating compositions ranged from
100% aqueous to 78% organic/22% aqueous, inlet temper-
atures from 50 to 80°C, and spray rates of 40 to 200 g/min.
From this wide range of inlet variables, the model
predicts Tair,out for the HCT-60 to within 3.0°C (see
Table 5).
Scale-Up Predictions Vs. Experimental Results
The additional experimental studies that were not
used to calculate the pan HLF can also be used to assess
the predictive capabilities of this model for scaling-up the
coating process. For aqueous film coatings, the predicted
Tair,out was within 3°C of the actual reading (Table 6).
One approach to scaling-up coating systems is to maintain
the same inlet and outlet temperatures and target new
conditions for the drying airflow rate and coating spray
rate. For this approach, the data in Table 6 indicate that
Vair,in and aqueous coating spray rates should be scaled by
10-fold and 20-fold to scale from the HCT-30 (1 kg) to
the HCT-60 and CL 36 (60 kg) coaters, respectively.
Alternatively, the model can be used to predict the target
Tair,out even when the main input variables of Tair,in and
spray rate are changed. This case is demonstrated by the
results of predicting Tair,out from the HCT-30 (1 kg) using
Tair,in of 65°C to 80°C in the HCT-60 (12 kg) and AC 48
(120 kg) within 1.2°C of the target 59°C.
For organic film coatings, the predicted Tair,out was
within 5.7°C of the actual reading (Table 7). The best
prediction is obtained when scaling from the LDCS-20
to the HCT-60. Scaling from the HCT-30 to HC-130L,
the Vair,in was increased 40-fold while the spray rate
 A Thermodynamic Model for Tablet Film Coating 55

Table 5
Comparison of model prediction versus the actual Tair,out for 20 additional coating trials in the HCT-60 using a HLF of 360

Acetone Water Inlet temp Spray Actual Predicted Difference

Trial (%) (%) (°C) rate (g/min) Tair,out (°C) Tair,out (°C) (predicted-actual)

1 0 94 64 60 41.0 42.0 1.0

2 0 94 76 40 54.0 56.0 2.0
3 0 94 80 40 56.0 59.0 3.0
4 0 94 80 40 59.0 59.0 0.0
5 0 94 80 60 54.0 53.7  0.3
6 0 94 64 40 46.0 46.8 0.8
7 0 94 80 60 54.0 53.7  0.3
8 0 94 64 60 42.0 42.0 0.0
9 0 94 64 40 46.0 46.8 0.8
10 0 94 64 60 42.0 42.0 0.0
11 0 94 80 40 59.0 59.0 0.0
12 0 94 80 60 53.0 53.7 0.7
13 0 94 64 40 46.0 46.8 0.8
14 0 94 72 50 49.0 50.4 1.4
15 0 94 80 40 59.0 59.0 0.0
16 0 94 64 60 41.0 42.0 1.0
17 0 94 64 60 41.0 42.0 1.0
18 85 5 46 182 31.0 30.4  0.6
19 85 5 45 180 30.5 29.7  0.8
20 85 5 45 178 30.5 29.5  1.0
Group average 0.0
Group STDEV 1.4

Table 6
Scale-up predictions of Tair,out from HCT-30 to HCT-60 and AC48 for aqueous film-coatings (94% water and 6% solids) compared
to actual results

Tair,in Vair,in Spray Predicted Actual Difference

Coating pan (°C) (cfm) rate (g/min) Tair,out (°C) Tair,out (°C) [predicted-actual] (°C)

HCT-30 66 36 6.5 42.0 45.0  3.0

HCT-60 64 300 60 42.0 41.0 1.0
HCT-60 80 300 40 59.0 59.0 0
CL36 65 750 130 41.9 44.0  2.1
AC48 77 1500 240 59.2 58.0 1.2

Table 7
Scale-up predictions of Tair,out from HCT-30 to HCT-60 and HC-130L for organic film-coatings

Predicted Difference
% % % Tair,in Vair,in Spray rate Tair,out Actual [predicted-actual]
Coating pan Acetone Water Solids (°C) (cfm) (g/min) (°C) Tair,out (°C) (°C)

HCT-30 69 19 12 43 32 20 21.5 25.3  3.8

LDCS-20 85 5 10 40 35 25 24.9 25.0  0.1
HCT-60 85 5 10 45 300 180 29.7 30.5  0.8
HC-130L 67 23 10 50 1200 1600 12.3** 18.0  5.7
56 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli

enthalpy term contributions of air, coating, and losses

Figure 4. Comparison of model predictions and experimental
results for Tair,out using aqueous and organic coatings in pans
ranging from 1 to 220 kg (LDCS-20 and HCT-30 are 1 kg, HCT-
60 is 12 kg, HC-130L is 220 kg, CL 36 is 60 kg, and AC 48 is
120 kg).
was increased 80-fold for the same formulation. These
conditions produced more evaporative cooling, and
lowered the exhaust temperature significantly. The
main cause of the underprediction for the HC-130L is
attributed to the particular design of the system. In
this system, the inlet air temperature readings are mea-
sured at multiple points and averaged. However, the
volumetric flow rate adjustment for density changes
was made at the highest inlet air temperature. Ideally,
the inlet temperature and volumetric flow rate are mea-
sured at the same point in the system to allow ac-
curate adjustment.
To further demonstrate the predictive capabilities of
this model, a comparison between the predicted and
actual Tair,out for six different coating pans and two sites is
shown in Figure 4. This plot indicates the correlation is
linear over a broad range of scales (1 to 220 kg) and
coating compositions (aqueous to organic).
(% DHair, % DHcoat, and % DHloss, respectively) are
listed in Table 8 for the various coating pans and
coating solvents.
For the air and heat loss enthalpy terms, DHair and
DHloss, respectively, there is no latent heat contribution.
From Eq. 6 it is obvious that the sensible heat loss in the
air enthalpy term accounts for 50% of the overall energy
transfer during coating, independent of coating pan or
solvent. For the coating enthalpy, the latent heat term DĤu
accounts for 92% to 96% of the total for organic to
aqueous film coatings. These findings support the
decision to neglect the inlet air humidity and film coating
material heat capacities.
For aqueous coatings, the enthalpy distribution is
essentially the same for all scales tested from 12 to
120 kg (Table 7). For organic coatings, the distribution
of enthalpy terms is most similar between the LDCS-20
and HCT-60. The latent heat of vaporization increases
from 134 to 540 cal/g for acetone to water, respective-
ly.[10] In addition, the heat capacity in the sensible heat
term increases from 0.51 to 1.0 cal/g°C from acetone to
water.[10] From these physical data, it is obvious that
much more energy is required to heat and volatilize
water compared to acetone since water can hold twice as
much heat and requires four times the energy per gram
to evaporate. It may seem somewhat surprising then that
the coating enthalpy contribution for the organic coat-
ings in our experiments is higher than is the aqueous
coatings are, in spite of the greater heat of vaporization
for the latter. This can be rationalized due to the fact
that the spray rate used for the organic film coating
processes was higher (200 vs. 60 g/min in the HCT-60).
Therefore, for our studies the overall latent heat required
to evaporate the organic solvent is more than 30%
greater than our aqueous coating process (at 40,000
compared to 30,000 cal/min) because of the difference in
spray rates.
Table 8
Relative contribution of enthalpy terms in energy balance Eq. 6
for the various coating pans and coating solvents
Coating % % %
Coating pan solvent DHair DHcoat DHloss

LDCS-20 Acetone 50 43 7
Comparison of Enthalpy Terms for Aqueous HCT-30 Acetone 50 29 21
Vs. Organic Coatings HCT-60 Acetone 49 39 12
HC-130L Acetone 47 53 0
The individual enthalpy terms in the energy balance HCT-60 Water 50 30 20
CL-36 Water 47 31 22
equation, Eq. 6, were analyzed in terms of their relative
AC-48 Water 50 37 13
contribution to the overall balance. The results of the
 A Thermodynamic Model for Tablet Film Coating 57

Simulations for Aqueous Coating in the HCT-60

An important feature of the thermodynamic model

presented here is in its predictive capabilities, which can
be used to assess process sensitivity to changes in the
input variables. This information is useful in defining the
critical variables, described in this section. To demon-
strate the potential utility of this model, the inlet air dew
point was held constant at 0°C, the coating temperature
was kept constant at 22°C, and the HLF for the HCT-60
was maintained at 360 cal/min°C. The inlet parameters
varied in these simulations included the coating formu-
lations from 0% – 90% acetone and 0% –90% water with
the remaining 10% composed of the polymer and
plasticizer. Process variable ranges studied included 30 –
70°C for inlet air temperature, 250– 350 cfm inlet airflow
rate, and 60 – 200 g/min spray rate.
For the first simulation, the effect of Tair,in on Tair,out
Figure 6. Simulated effect of coating composition on Tair,out in
was investigated when inlet variables were held constant the HCT-60 when inlet variables are held constant for Tair,in at
for drying airflow rate at 280 cfm, coating spray rate at 65°C and coating spray rate at 120 g/min.
120 g/min, and an organic coating formulation composi-
tion at 82.3% acetone and 7.7% water (Figure 5). As In another simulation, the effects of coating com-
indicated by the presence of Tair,in only in the numerator position and drying airflow rate on Tair,out were eval-
of Eq. 13, increased drying air inlet temperature was uated when inlet variables were held constant for Tair,in
predicted to result in a corresponding increase in the at 65°C and coating spray rate at 120 g/min (Figure 6).
outlet air temperature. Since the formulation, and As the level of acetone in the coating increases, the
therefore water content, was held constant in these exhaust air temperature increases because less heat is
comparative simulations, the increased outlet temperature consumed to evaporate acetone vs. water (DĤu,ace is
translates to a lower percent relative humidity in the same 134 cal/g and DĤu,w is 540 cal/g). For a constant coating
stream due to the higher vapor pressure in the denomi- spray rate, an increased airflow rate lowers the cooling
nator of Eq. 14.

Figure 7. Simulated effect of coating spray rate on Tair,out in

Figure 5. Simulated effect of Tair,in on Tair,out in the HCT-60 the HCT-60 for aqueous and organic coatings when inlet
when inlet variables are held constant for drying air flow rate at variables are held constant for Tair,in at 65°C and air flowrate of
280 cfm and coating spray rate at 120 g/min. 280 cfm.
58 M. T. am Ende and A. Berchielli
rate during evaporation, and, therefore, results in higher
exhaust temperatures.
For the final simulation, the effect of coating spray
rate on Tair,out was evaluated when inlet variables were
held constant for Tair,in at 65°C and drying airflow rate at
280 cfm (Figure 7). An increase in spray rate results in a
higher energy demand to evaporate the solvent. This
enthalpy consumed for latent heat of vaporization leaves
less heat in the air exhaust stream, and, therefore, Tair,out
decreases. The rate of decline in Tair,out with increased
spray rate is greater for the aqueous coating since water
requires four times more energy to evaporate per gram
than acetone.
Summary of Key Variable Effects on Outlet
Temperature and Humidity
For the simulation conditions performed in the
‘‘Comparison of Enthalpy Terms for Aqueous Vs.
Organic Coatings’’ section, the variables that most
impacted the exhaust temperature and/or humidity were
identified. These variables, termed critical variables,
include the drying airflow rate, mair,in, the inlet air
temperature, Tair,in, the coating composition, and the
spray rate, mcoat,in. Inlet variables that resulted in minor
changes in the exhaust conditions include the inlet air
humidity, %RHair,in, and the coating solution tempera-
ture, Tcoat,in.
This model can be a resource-conserving approach to
identifying critical variable sensitivities to changes in inlet
conditions, and as a means to predict target conditions on
scale-up. This may be most important for products where
the coating processes are humidity sensitive.
CONCLUSIONS
A general thermodynamic film-coating model for
side-vented pan coating was developed to provide for-
mulators with a means of predicting target operating con-
ditions for optimization, scale-up, and robustness studies.
This model provides a precise relationship between
the inlet drying air (temperature, humidity, and flow rate),
coating solution (composition, spray rate, and tempera-
ture) and exhaust air stream (temperature, humidity, and
flow rate) for both aqueous- and organic-based coatings.
This model is broadly applicable to a wide range of
coating pan sizes, equipment types, and coating compo-
sitions. The model prediction of Tair,out closely matched
the actual Tair,out. In fact, the model shows that there is a
linear correlation between the predicted and actual Tair,out
for the six pans, two sites, and scale ranging from 1 to
220 kg. These results indicate that equivalent environ-
ments (temperature and humidity) can be established from
small scale (1 to 12 kg) to large scale (60 to 220 kg) for
both aqueous and organic coatings.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank P.D. Daugherity,
M.B. Fergione, and L.A. Miller for sharing process data
for inclusion in this paper. We would also like to thank
D.J. am Ende, K. Waterman, A. Thombre, and S. Herbig
for their technical advice. We would also like to thank M.
Chidlaw, D. Millard, and D. Newbold for their work on
the early stages of this model.
REFERENCES
1. Reiland, T.L.; Seitz, J.A.; Yeager, J.L.; Brusenback,
R.A. Aqueous film-coating vaporization efficiency.
Drug Dev. Ind. Pharm. 1983, 9 (6), 945 – 958.
2. Stetsko, G.; Banker, G.S.; Peck, G.E. Mathematical
modeling of an aqueous film coating process.
Pharm. Technol. 1983, 7 (11), 50 – 62.
3. Ebey, G.C. A thermodynamic model for aqueous
film-coating. Pharm. Technol. 1987, 11 (4), 40 –50.
4. Liu, L.X.; Litster, J.D. Coating mass distribution
from a spouted bed seed coater: experimental and
modeling studies. Powder Technol. 1993, 74, 259 –
270.
5. Rodriguez, L.; Grecchi, R.; Cini, M.; Passerini, N.;
Caputo, O.; Vecchio, C. Variation of operational
parameters and process optimization in aqueous film
coating. Pharm. Technol. 1996, 10, 76– 86.
6. am Ende, M.T.; Berchielli, A.; Chidlaw, M.D. A
Thermodynamic Model for Organic and Aqueous
Tablet Film-Coating, AIChE National Meeting,
Reno, NV, November 9, 2001.
7. am Ende, M.T.; Herbig, S.M.; Korsmeyer, R.W.
Osmotic drug delivery from asymmetric membrane
film-coated dosage forms. In Handbook of Pharma-
ceutical Controlled Release Technology; Wise, D.L.,
Ed.; Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York, 2000; 751 –
785.
8. Felder, R.M.; Rousseau, R.W. Elementary Princi-
ples of Chemical Processes; John Wiley & Sons:
New York, 1978.
9. Kern, D.Q. Process Heat Transfer; McGraw-Hill:
New York, 1950; 214– 215.
10. Perry, R.H.; Green, D. Perry’s Chemical Engi-
neers’ Handbook, 6th Ed.; McGraw-Hill: New
York, 1984.