## 3 Results and Discussion
### Analyzed Simulation Scenarios  
Table 5 compares the simulated times considering three simulation scenarios, which included the following: one encapsulator of 200 capsules (1E200C), two encapsulators of 200 capsules (2E200C), and one encapsulator of 800 capsules (1E800C). It is clearly observed that the 1E200C encapsulator requires the most time to complete the batch. In scenario 1E200C, the processing time in hours was 57.5 min, with 2E200C it was 37.7 min, and with 1E800C, it was 23.5 min. The production capacity was set at 24,000 capsules due to raw material limitations. As for the reduction in time, it is noteworthy that models 1E200 (35%), 2E200C (24%), and 1E800C (60%) show significant reductions. Furthermore, with the 1E800C model, only 2 working days (16 h) are required, while 4 working days (32 h) are needed with 2E200C, and 7 working days (56 h) are needed with 1E200C.  
The results indicated that the working days of the different scenarios show a reduction in working days based on the model. Thus, it is evident that with the 1E800C model, only 23.5 h (2 days) are required, with 2E200C it is 37.7 (4 days), and with 1E200C it is 57.5 (7 days). This indicates that with this model, the labor cost is high because personnel are required throughout the week. However, with the 1E800C and 2E200C models, it is noticeable that personnel are only partially occupied. Therefore, raw materials would need to be increased, and idle times of 24 and 35 h per week, respectively, would need to be eliminated if these models are implemented.  
On the other hand, in Table 6, the cost comparison of the three scenarios shows that with 1E800C, the production cost per bottle is 58.11. This is because fewer personnel hours are required to meet the quota of 24,000 capsules (266 units of 90 capsules) per week. Currently, with the 1E200C model, the production cost amounts to USD 3.93, as 7 working days per week are required to meet the quota. Finally, with 2E200C, the cost was USD 3.64, with 4 working days required to complete the quota. These results confirm that increasing production capacity reduces production costs, but the alternative of producing more raw materials must be sought to avoid downtime or hiring personnel only for the days worked and thus avoid losses.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{10}{c}{**Parameters of the Models**} \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{\
\begin{tabular}{c} **Simulation** \\ **Scenario** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{2}{*}{**Total Time**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Encapsulation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Decoupled**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Worked**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Differs**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Differs**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Resolution**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Downtime** (**Gours**)} \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{
\begin{tabular}{c} **Minutes** \\ \end{tabular} } & \multirow{3}{*}{**Hours**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Deyss**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Capsules**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Batches**} & \multirow{3}{*}{**Kg**} & & & \\  & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
1E200C & 3455 & 57.5 & 7 & 24,000 & 120 & 12 & 1 & 56 & 7 & 35 & 0 \\ \hline
2E200C & 2263 & 37.7 & 4 & 24,000 & 120 & 12 & 2 & 32 & 4 & 24 & 24 \\ \hline
1E800C & 1415 & 23.5 & 2 & 24,000 & 120 & 12 & 1 & 16 & 2 & 60 & 35 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: Comparison of the 3 simulation scenarios for the encapsulation stage.  
Regarding the waiting lines (Table 6), it is confirmed that the encapsulation process is critical in the production process, as the average waiting times in the queue in the system for the 120 batches to be processed were 57.52 h for 1E200C, 37.7 h for 2E200C, and 23.5 h for 1E800C, indicating that with this last model, the average waiting time is reduced by 60%.