Drying equipment continuous fluid beds

In conclusion, drug A production was shown to be within established specifications, and there is no reason to believe this will not be the case for future production as long as all practices are continued in their present form. Furthermore, there is no significant difference between batches produced by the tray dryer process and the fluid bed process. A validation report should memorialize these findings. The report should also recommend eliminating the option to use a no. 5 screen for the wet milling step and a no. 12 screen to pulverize the dried granulation. There is no experience or only limited experience with this equipment that supports its continued availability. In the same vein, the final blend time should be standardized at 10 min and automatically controlled by means of a timer. 

To roughly estimate the total direct cost of the drying installation, it is recommended to multiply the equipment FOB cost by a factor of 2.25 if the equipment is made of carbon steel or by 2.75 if stainless-steel equipment is used [29]. These figures include the cost of piping, instrumentation, electrical connections, insulation, building space, and engineering when applied to spray, flash, rotary, or fluid-bed continuous dryers. In specific cases, however, different factors may have to be used. For instance, the costs of instrumentation and piping may be included in the purchase price of a fully equipped dryer [30]. 

---