Rationale for Selection of Worst-Case Container Configuration in Depyrogenation Tunnel Validation
Palash Chandra Das
SME In - Sterility Assurance Engineering | investigation | Risk Management | Regulatory inspection & Compliance (USFDA, EU) | Manufacturing science and technology | R&D | Quality | Validation | CAPA |
1. Objective
The objective of this rationale statement is to provide a scientific justification for the selection of worst-case container configurations for requalification of a depyrogenation tunnel. The Loaded Chamber Heat Penetration Study with Endotoxin-Spiked Containers requires the identification of container configurations that present the greatest challenge to achieving effective endotoxin destruction. This document follows regulatory guidance from USP <1228.1> Dry Heat Depyrogenation, PDA Technical Report 3, ISO 14644, and relevant cGMP standards.
2. Background: Regulatory and Guidance Requirements
2.1. Regulatory Framework
Depyrogenation tunnels are validated to ensure they can reliably reduce endotoxin levels by at least 3 logs (1000-fold reduction). According to USP <1228.1> and PDA TR 3, validation must:
2.2. Key Guidance Documents
3. Technical Considerations for Assessment
3.1 Heat Load Calculation
3.2. Heat Penetration and Thermal Mass
3.3. Conveyor Speed and Residence Time
3.4. Endotoxin Challenge and F_H Calculation
To be update soon >>>>>>>>
CQV, Validation, Qualification in Biotech and pharmaceuticals industry
4 天前Hi sir, pls share at [email protected]
Pharmaceutical Industry Professional - Knowledgeable in Calibrations, Qualifications and Validations
6 天前Hi Palash, please share at [email protected]
Senior General Manager at Recipharm, possessing expertise in quality assurance, sterile injectables, liquids, oncology, hormonal, low-potency dosage form products, ointments, and QC digitalization, and solid tablets.
1 周Nicely articulated ! ??
Manager I Formulation Development l Fresenius Kabi
1 周Hi Palash, Please share the article on [email protected]
Business Owner of "10AR - Sterile Engineering Solutions"
2 周I appreciate Palash Chandra Das for the detailed analysis and valuable insights shared. As Naresh Jasti rightly pointed out, I also found it unclear why the conveyor speed for the 2 mL vial is significantly slower compared to the 30 mL vial. From my perspective, when operating at the same temperature set-point and without the FH values available, the primary factors to consider are the vial mass and the conveyor speed. I would argue that the higher the product of the vial mass and the conveyor speed, the lower the FH value will be. When historical FH values are available, the lowest FH value typically represents the worst-case scenario.