1. Know – How of an Effective Cleaning Program
Neeraj Shrivastava,
Quality Assurance
CLEANING VALIDATION
2. CLEANING VALIDATION…………………... AT A GLANCE
After completing this session we’ll come to know :
Definition
Purpose
Cleaning mechanisms
Cleaning agents
Cleaning Methods
Cleaning parameters
Cleaning continuum
Grouping strategies
Worst Case considerations
1
Quality Assurance
Acceptance criteria
Sampling Methods
Analytical Methods
Hold time studies
USFDA 483 Citations
3. CLEANING VALIDATION……………… THE DEFINITION
The process of removing contaminants from process
equipment and monitoring the condition of equipment
such that the equipment can be safely used for
subsequent product manufacturing.
Dustin A. Leblanc.
2
Quality Assurance
6. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Solubility :
Solubility involves the dissolution of one chemical (the
contaminant) in a liquid solvent.
For example, salts may be soluble in water, and certain organic
actives may be soluble in acetone or methanol.
One of the primary cleaning mechanisms to be considered
during design phase.
Rate of solubility, Insoluble form, Soluble – Insoluble species
5
Quality Assurance
7. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Wetting :
Wetting involves the displacement of one fluid from a solid
surface by another fluid. Wetting can be improved by the
addition of surfactants.
It improve penetration of the cleaning solution into cracks
and crevices, which are usually difficult-to clean locations.
6Courtesy: Validated Cleaning Technologies for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, D. A. LeBlanc
Quality Assurance
8. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Emulsification :
Breaking up an insoluble liquid residue into smaller droplets and
then suspending those droplets throughout the water.
Emulsion = Mechanical energy + Surfactants / Polymers.
Emulsions are thermodynamically unstable (say, 5 to 10 mins.).
Re-deposition of the cleaned residue back onto the equipment
surfaces.
Agitation should be continued till the time to discharge the
cleaning solution to the drain.
7
Quality Assurance
9. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Dispersion :
Dispersion is similar to emulsification, except that it involves the
wetting and de-aggregation of solid particles and then the
subsequent suspension of those particles in water.
More important in dry product manufacturing.
Hydrolysis :
This involves the cleavage of certain bonds in an organic molecule.
The resultant hydrolyzed residues must either be water
soluble or solubilized at the pH of the cleaning solution.
8
Quality Assurance
10. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Oxidation :
This involves the cleavage of various organic bonds, such as
carbon-carbon bonds, by the action of a strong oxidizing agent.
Large Non-polar Mol. Smaller more polar Mol.
Antimicrobial Action :
Mechanisms that may kill organisms but leave behind nonviable
microbial residues.
Special type of mechanism, sterilization, disinfection.
9
Quality Assurance
11. CLEANING VALIDATION…………CLEANING MECHANISMS
Physical Removal:
Cleaning by some mechanical force. the objective is to physically
displace the residue.
Pressurized water + Scrubbing
10
In real life situation, more than
one cleaning mechanisms are
being used.
Quality Assurance
14. CLEANING VALIDATION…………….CLEANING METHODS
Automated Cleaning:
o Fixed CIP
o Portable CIP
o Parts Washer
o Ultrasonic
13
Manual Cleaning:
Soak
Brush
Wipe
Spray
Extent of automation……………..Extent of disassembly
Quality Assurance
18. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……CLEANING PARAMETERS
Time
Action
Cleaning chemistry
Concentration
Temperature
Mixing / flow / turbulence
Water quality
Rinsing
17
Quality Assurance
19. Parameter interactions :
18
CLEANING VALIDATION…….……CLEANING PARAMETERS
Time vs Concentration :
Temp. vs Concentration :
Courtesy: Validated Cleaning Technologies for
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, D. A. LeBlanc
Quality Assurance
20. Parameter interactions :
19
CLEANING VALIDATION…….……CLEANING PARAMETERS
Time vs Temperature :
Time (min)
Courtesy: Validated Cleaning Technologies for
Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, D. A. LeBlanc
Quality Assurance
21. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……CLEANING CONTINUUM
20
Continuum represent the extremes in the range of operating
differences found within the industry.
The continuum should be used during the initial phases of
defining a cleaning validation program or during new
product development.
Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Automated Cleaning
COP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..CIP
Dedicated Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Non-Dedicated Equipment
Product Contact Surfaces . . . . . . . Non-Product Contact Surfaces
Non-Critical Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Critical Site
Minor Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Major Equipment
Quality Assurance
23. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……GROUPING STRATEGIES
22
"Grouping" is the concept of demonstrating that certain elements
of cleaning are of a similar type, and selecting one (or more)
representative object(s) on which to conduct the Cleaning
Validation (Cleaning Process Qualification).
Product grouping :
Same manufacturing equipments being used.
Same cleaning SOPs being followed.
Similar formulations.
Similar risk / therapeutic group.
Equipment grouping, Cleaning method grouping, Cleaning
agent grouping, …………….., etc.
Quality Assurance
24. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……GROUPING STRATEGIES
23
Sr. No. Name of product Formulation
Cleaning
methods
Equipment
train
Risk /
Therap. class
1 Product A Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A General
2 Product B Tablet Method 1 Train B General
3 Product C Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
4 Product D Tablet Method 3 Train B General
5 Product E Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
6 Product F Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
7 Product G Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A Cytotoxic
8 Product H Tablet Method 3 Train B General
9 Product I Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
10 Product J Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
All products in a facility (hypothetical):
Quality Assurance
25. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……GROUPING STRATEGIES
24
Sr. No. Name of product Formulation
Cleaning
methods
Equipment
train
Risk /
Therap. class
1 Product A Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A General
2 Product B Tablet Method 1 Train B General
3 Product C Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
4 Product D Tablet Method 3 Train B General
5 Product E Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
6 Product F Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
7 Product G Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A Cytotoxic
8 Product H Tablet Method 3 Train B General
9 Product I Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
10 Product J Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
Before Grouping :
Quality Assurance
26. CLEANING VALIDATION…….……GROUPING STRATEGIES
25
Sr. No. Name of product Formulation
Cleaning
methods
Equipment
train
Risk /
Therap. class
1 Product A Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A General
2 Product B Tablet Method 1 Train B General
3 Product G Tablet (FC) Method 1 Train A Cytotoxic
4 Product C Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
5 Product F Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
6 Product J Parenteral Method 2 Train C Cytotoxic
7 Product D Tablet Method 3 Train B General
8 Product H Tablet Method 3 Train B General
9 Product E Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
10 Product I Tablet (EC) Method 4 Train A General
After Grouping :
Quality Assurance
27. CLEANING VALIDATION…..WORST CASE CONSIDERATIONS
Once the product groups have been established, the next step is to
determine the so-called “worst case” representative of each group.
It is that member(s) who shows the highest challenge on
cleaning program.
Worst case product : Toxicity / solubility / highly characterized
/ difficult to clean ingredients.
Worst case eq. train : Longest train.
Worst case equipment : Larger size equipment (identical design).
Worst case acc. criteria: Stringent acceptance criteria.
Hold time studies : Longest possible duration.
Campaign Mfg. : Highest possible nos. of batches.
26
Quality Assurance
28. CLEANING VALIDATION…..WORST CASE CONSIDERATIONS
There is no ‘hard & fast’ rule on worst case selection.
A good logic and science should always be used.
Grouping and worst case selection help to demonstrate
cleaning method robustness.
It smartly reduces the load from cleaning validation
program.
These philosophies should always be verified against the
actual capability of cleaning program.
The ultimate ‘cost – benefit’ ratio should be evaluated.
27
Quality Assurance
29. CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
28
How clean is clean ?
What are the bases of defining limits ?
What are the impacts of after cleaned residue ?
Human Drug CGMP Notes, 9:2, 2Q 2001 :
“Should equipment be as clean as the best possible method
of residue detection or quantification?”
Answer: “No,……absolute cleanliness is neither valuable
nor feasible…. It should be as clean as can be reasonably be
achieved, to a residue limit that is medically safe and that
causes no product quality concerns…………….”
Quality Assurance
30. Three criteria :
It should be scientifically justifiable.
Pacifically achievable.
Methodically verifiable.
29
Possible types of limits :
Visual
Chemical
Microbiological
Endotoxin
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Quality Assurance
31. Visual clean criteria :
GMPs require inspection for visual cleanness before manufacture.
Key items to consider :
o Angle of view
o Distance from equipment surface
o Lighting conditions
o Viewer’s knowledge
o Surface usually must be dry
Visual aids :
Additional lighting / Magnifying glass / Mirror / Fiber-optic
scope / UV light
30
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Quality Assurance
32. Application for visual limits :
A typical visual limit is NLT 4 μg / cm2.
“Visually clean” may not be enough by itself
Potent drugs
Microbial contamination
Endotoxin
More suitable method for non-potent drug products and APIs.
PIC/S advocates spiked coupon study for determination of
visual inspection limits (and for training of inspectors).
31
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Quality Assurance
33. Chemical residue limits (Therapeutically or Toxicologically
safe criteria) :
Therapeutic dose based criteria
Most suitable for drug product (finished product)
manufacturing facility.
Toxicological criteria
Most suitable for active drug (API) manufacturing facility.
Where cleaning agents are used (other than water).
10 PPM criteria
CGMP requirement widely applicable.
32
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Quality Assurance
34. Therapeutic dose based criteria :
Based on the assumption that 1/1000 part of therapeutic dose
does not have any clinical impact on human (animal) body.
Determination of MAC (Maximum Allowable Carryover) of
Product A (Previous) to Product B (Next)
SRDD (A) × BS (B) × SF
MAC = (unit of mass)
LRDD (B)
Where, SRDD = Smallest Recommended Daily Dose (Product A – ACTIVE CONTENT),
BS = batch size (Product B), SF = safety factor and LDD and LRDD = Largest
Recommended Daily Dose (Product B – DRUG PRODUCT)
33
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1
Quality Assurance
35. Therapeutic dose based criteria :
Determination of Surface contamination (Shared Equipment)
MAC
L1 = (mass / surface area)
SESA
Where, SESA = Shared Equipment Surface Area (for both products)
34
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 2
Quality Assurance
36. 35
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 3
Therapeutic dose based criteria :
Determination of Sampled residue (for swab sample)
L2 = L1 × Swab Area (mass / swab)
SRDD value represents the ACTIVE drug content only.
e.g. 5 mg or 10 mg, the dose strength.
LRDD value represents the mass or volume of entire dose.
e.g. 250 mg or 20 mL (drug + excipients).
Convert similar items into similar convenient unit of measure.
Quality Assurance
37. Safety Factors :
36
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Approach Approach Typically Applicable To
0.1 to 0.01 Topical products
0.01 to 0.001 Oral products
0.001 to 0.0001 Parenterals, opthalmic products
0.0001 to 0.00001 Research, investigational products
Quality Assurance
38. 37
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1
Therapeutic dose based criteria (an example) :
Determination of Maximum Allowable Carryover
10 mg × 150 kg × 0.001 × 1000000
(250 mg × 3)
= 2000 mg (MAC value)
Quality Assurance
41. Toxicological criteria :
Based on the toxicological information available in Material Safety
Data Sheets.
Determination of NOEL (No Observed Effect Level)
NOEL = LD50 × Emperical Factor
(unit of mass/kg of body weight)
Where, LD50 = lethal dose for 50% of animal population in study (mg/kg/day),
Emperical Factor = derived from animal model developed by Layton, et.al : 0.001*
* Used by expert panel of WHO (10-3).
40
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1A
Quality Assurance
42. Toxicological criteria :
Determination of ADI (Acceptable Daily Intake)
ADI = NOEL × AAW × SF
(unit of mass)
Where, AAW = average adult weight : 70 kg,
SF = safety factor (0.01)
41
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1B
Consider average body weight of child where there is any
pediatric dose available.
Use LD50 value of mice.
Quality Assurance
43. Toxicological criteria :
Determination of MAC (Maximum Allowable Carryover)
ADI × BS
MAC =
LRDD (any next product) (unit of mass)
Then use and to derive final swab residue
limit.
42
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1C
Step 2 Step 3
Quality Assurance
45. 44
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1C
Toxicological criteria (an example) :
Determination of MAC
1.225 mg × 150 kg × 1000000
(250 mg × 3)
= 245000 mg
The final Swab residue (L2) :
245000 mg × 25 cm2
3170 cm2
= 1932 mg/swab
Quality Assurance
46. 10 PPM criteria :
Based on the hypothesis that 10 parts of previous product is
therapeutically ineffective if presents in million parts of next
product.
Determination of MAC
10 × BS
MAC = (unit of mass)
1000000
Where, BS = batch size (smallest available batch size)
Then use and to derive final swab residue
limit. 45
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1
Step 3Step 2
Quality Assurance
47. 46
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Step 1
10 PPM criteria (an example) :
Determination of MAC
10 × 150 kg × 1000000
MAC = = 1500 mg
1000000
The final Swab residue (L2) :
1500 mg × 25 cm2
3170 cm2
= 11.83 mg/swab
Quality Assurance
48. 47
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
The most stringent acceptance criteria shall be chosen for
cleaning validation study (The worst case approach).
11.8315.75 1932
mg / swab
In real life cases, therapeutic or 10 PPM criteria become final
acceptance criterion for cleaning validation.
Quality Assurance
49. Microbiological criteria :
Internal specifications
Official specifications: e.g. USP <1111>, “Microbial
Examination of nonsterile Products: Acceptance criteria for
Pharmaceutical Preparations and Substances for Pharmaceutical
Use”
48
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Adminstration
route
Total aerobic count
(cfu/g or cfu/mL)
Total combined
yeasts/molds count
(cfu/g or cfu/mL)
Nonaqueous oral 103 102
Aqueous oral 102 10
Most topicals 102 10
Quality Assurance
50. Microbiological criteria :
Environmental specifications: EU GMP, Annex – 1,
“Recommended limits for microbiological monitoring of clean
areas during operation”
49
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Grade Contact plates (diam. 55 mm), cfu/plate
A < 1
B 5
C 25
D 50
i.e. recommended limit for microbial contamination in grade D
area is : 50/{π × (5.5/2)2}= 2.10 cfu/cm2
Quality Assurance
51. Microbiological criteria from internal specifications:
Driven by SOP.
Must be backed up by justifiable scientific rationale.
Microbiological criteria from official specifications:
Spec. limit × factor × Wt. product
SESA
An example:
1000 cfu/g × 0.1 × 5 kg × 103
3170 cm2
50
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
× swab area
× 25 cm2 = 3943 cfu/swab
Quality Assurance
52. Microbiological criteria from environmental specifications:
50/{π × (5.5/2)2} × swab area
An example:
2.10 cfu/cm2 × 25 cm2 = 52 cfu/swab
51
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Quality Assurance
53. Determining acceptance criteria with more than one next
products (The Matrix approach):
CLEANING VALIDATION…………...ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
NEXT PRODUCT Prod. A Prod. B Prod. C Prod. D Prod. E
(kg) B. Size 200.0 75.0 100.0 150.0 355.5
(cm2) S. Area 4525 3960 4015 3770 4008
(mg) SRDD LRDD GENERAL SOLID FACILITY
Product A 10.0 450.0 10.5 13.8 22.1 49.3
Product B 1.0 320.0 3.4 1.9 3.1 6.9
Product C 25.0 600.0 46.0 19.7 41.4 92.4
Product D 5.0 300.0 18.4 7.9 10.4 36.9
Product E 125.0 800.0 172.6 74.0 97.3 155.4
52
PREVIOUS
PRODUCT
Quality Assurance
54. The sampling procedure refers to the method of collecting the
residues from the surface so that they can be measured.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
Types Advantages Limitations
Swabs & Wipes
Dissolves & physically removes
sample, adaptable to wide variety
of area
May introduce fibers,
technique dependent, hard-to-
reach areas
Rinse
Easy, quick, non-intrusive, large
surface area
Limited information about
actual surface cleanliness
Coupon
Non-technique dependent, reduces
variability in recovery
Invasive, might interfere with
cleaning process
Placebo
Placebo contacts the same surfaces
as the product
Difficult to determine
recovery
Direct Surface Rapid, non-invasive, economical
Some techniques not widely
developed
53
Quality Assurance
55. Swab sampling techniques:
(1) One of the most widely used technique for chemical and
microbial sampling.
(2) Swabs are being wet with solvent aiding solubilization and
physical removal of surface residues.
(3) Results are technique dependent.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
54
Microbial swab (sterile) Chemical swabs (Texwipe) Cotton wipes
Quality Assurance
56. Swab sampling techniques:
(5) Generally 1 swab sample per location is adequate.
(6) Multiple swabs can be taken to improve surface recovery.
(7) Typical swabbed per site varies from 25 cm2 to 100 cm2. There
is no “magic” number.
(8) PTFE (chemically inert) templates may be used for accurate
swabbing area.
(9) “Difficult to clean” equipment surfaces
shall be identified and sampled.
(10) Representative surfaces of different
materials (MOCs) should be sampled.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
55
5 cm
5 cm
2.5
cm
10
cm
Swab area
templates
Quality Assurance
57. Swab sampling techniques:
(11)Wiping should be unidirectional at a time. Parallel strokes
should be employed to cover entire swab area.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
56
Courtesy: Validated Cleaning Technologies for Pharmaceutical Manufacturing, D. A. LeBlanc
Quality Assurance
58. Swab sampling techniques:
Example of “Difficult to clean” locations of an RMG:
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
57
Courtesy: Rapid mixer granulator, Kevin.
The design aspect of the equipment should be considered to
identify “difficult to clean” locations.
Quality Assurance
59. Rinse sampling techniques:
Rinse sampling involves using a liquid to cover the surfaces to be
sampled.
(1) One of the easy and widely used sampling method.
(2) Most preferable liquid for rinsing is water.
(3) The rinse volume is an important factor that has to be
determined.
Rinse volume α (1/Residue conc. in rinse sample)
(4) Forced rinsing is advisable for collection of less soluble
residues.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
58
Quality Assurance
60. Determination rinse volume:
(1) Variability in magnitudes of surface areas gives rise of variable
residue concentrations in rinse samples (fixed rinse volume).
(2) Variable acceptance criteria for a single product creates
confusion.
(3) It is a good idea to chose variable rinse volumes to keep
constant residue concentration in rinse samples (fixed
acceptance criteria).
Formula :
L1 × ESA
Rinse vol. for Equipment A =
Anticipated rinse conc.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
59
Quality Assurance
61. Determination rinse volume:
Example :
0.63 mg / cm2 × 1760 cm2
Rinse vol. for Equipment A =
10 μg / mL
= 110.9 L (considering mg/L = PPM)
0.63 mg / cm2 × 810 cm2
Rinse vol. for Equipment B =
10 μg / mL
= 51.0 L
CLEANING VALIDATION…………......SAMPLING METHODS
60
Quality Assurance
62. Specific vs non-specific methods:
(1) A non-specific assay may detect a variety of residues.
(2) A specific assay may quantify any anticipated residue.
(3) It is essential to correlate the results from a specific method to
the results from other non-specific methods that might be
used for routine monitoring of cleaning effectiveness.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
61
HPLC pH meter
Quality Assurance
63. CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
62
Specific Test Methods Non-Specific Test Methods
UV/Visible Spectrophotometry
Near Infrared Spectrophotometry
(NIR)
High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC)
Mid Infrared Spectrophotometry (MIR)
Atomic Absorption
Capillary Zone Electrophoresis
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbant Assay
(ELISA)
Total Organic Carbon (TOC)
pH
Titration
Conductivity
Gravimetric
Quality Assurance
64. The analytical methods used for testing cleaning samples
must be validated for [ICH Q2 (R1)]:
Limit of Detection (LOD)
Limit of Quantification (LOQ)
Specificity
Accuracy
Repeatability
Precision
Range
Linearity
Recovery
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
63
Quality Assurance
65. The analytical method used for evaluation of cleaning sample is
different that used for product assay.
If the target limit in the analytical sample were 5.2 μg / mL,
and a method was only able to detect down to 7.0 μg / mL,
that method would not be useful for cleaning validation
purposes.
The target value should be within the linearity range of the
specific method.
What if the calculated acceptance value is
less than the detectable level of an
analytical method?
There may be two options available……….
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
64
Quality Assurance
66. Choose more efficient analytical method !
Example:
Derived acceptance limit = NMT 4.0 μg / mL
Analytical LOQ = 5.5 μg / mL
Analytical Method = UV/Visible Spectrophotometry
New method adopted = Ion mobility spectrometry
New LOQ = 2.0 μg / mL
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
65
Quality Assurance
67. Increase the sampling area to achieve at least LOQ
value!
Example:
Derived acceptance limit = NMT 4.0 μg / mL
Analytical LOQ = 5.5 μg / mL
Swab area = 25 cm2
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
66
Revised swab area =
25 cm2
4.0 μg / mL
× 5.5 μg / mL
= 35 cm2 (7 cm × 5 cm)
Quality Assurance
68. Recovery studies :
Procedure :
o Spike coupon with known amount
o Allow to dry
o Remove in swab or simulated rinse procedure
o For swab, desorb
o Analyze sample
o Compare to expected 100% value
This is done at surface acceptance (or below) limit.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
67
Quality Assurance
69. Swab recovery schematic :
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
68
1. Spike control diluent directly
Control
B μg/mL
Control
C μg/mL
Standard
solution
A μg/mL 2a. Spike
coupon
2b. Swab
coupon
2c. Extract swab
Quality Assurance
70. Recovery calculation 1 (Spiked against Standard):
(C μg/mL) × (mL)
% Recovery = × 100
(A μg/mL) × (mL)
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
69
Recovery depends on spiked standard of known concentration.
Disorbing solvent may be of any volume (mL).
Recovery depends on material surface, sampling method and
some what on analytical method.
Quality Assurance
71. Recovery calculation 2 (Spiked against Positive control) :
(C μg/mL) × (mL)
% Recovery = × 100
(B μg/mL) × (mL)
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
70
More useful if defined standard is not readily available.
Swab recover study with multiple analysts :
Usually 3 replicates by one sampler.
Use lowest value of any one run.
Quality Assurance
72. Rinse recovery schematic :
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
71
Pipette with
rinse solution
(known volume)
Spiked
coupon
Collection beaker
Spike bottom
of SS beaker
Lab sheker
Case 1 Case 2
Quality Assurance
73. Minimum acceptable recovery:
Specify in cleaning validation master plan or master protocol.
Minimum swab recovery of 70 % - 80 %.
Minimum rinse recovery of 50 %.
Carry out recovery study for different material surfaces
(Material Of Constructions).
Chose right wetting solvent (soluble) and absorbent swab
material to improve recovery.
May allow <50 % recovery with written justification.
CLEANING VALIDATION…………ANALYTICAL METHODS
72
Quality Assurance
74. o DEHT = Max. allowed time, between end of usage and
employing cleaning
o CEHT = Max. allowed time, between end of cleaning and
further usage
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
73
Cleaning Hold Time studies
Cleaned Equipment
Hold Time (CEHT)
Dirty Equipment
Hold Time (DEHT)
Quality Assurance
75. Dirty equipment hold time study (DEHT) :
Soils may become more difficult to clean over time.
Maximum DEHT should be in SOPs.
Maximum time shall be set in conjunction with production.
Representative / worst case product can be selected for study.
Equipments support wet processing can be selected.
If extra cleaning is desirable, then it should be in SOP.
May be expressed in days but preferably by hours.
Three runs at maximum time……..safe harbor.
74
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
Quality Assurance
76. Dirty equipment hold time study (DEHT) :
Method
Carry out microbiological sampling at 24 hr., 48 hr., 36 hr., …...
from the dirty equipments.
Clean the equipments as per SOPs.
Carry out chemical sampling after cleaning.
Compile all results (chemical and microbial).
Successful results shall standardize the maximum DEHT.
Failure of any results shall reduce the max. DEHT followed by
another 3 verification runs.
75
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
Quality Assurance
77. Cleaned equipment hold time study (CEHT) :
Microbiological evaluation is the key focus area.
Maximum CEHT should be in SOPs.
Representative / worst case product can be selected for study.
Vitamins, nutritional supplements, product containing Starch or
Gelatin may represent worst cases.
Avoid conducting study on antibiotic or antimicrobial products.
Three runs at maximum time……..safe harbor.
Protection during storage of cleaned equipments should be as
per SOPs.
76
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
Quality Assurance
78. 77
Cleaned equipment hold time study (CEHT) :
Method
Clean the equipments as per SOPs.
Store under protection (as per routine procedure).
Carry out microbiological sampling at 24 hr., 48 hr., 36 hr., …...
Verify the results against limit (less than validation limit).
Successful results shall standardize the maximum CEHT.
Failure of any results shall reduce the max. CEHT followed by
another 3 verification runs.
Do not set max. CEHT on “until failure” basis.
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
Quality Assurance
79. 78
Campaign hold study (CHS) :
Cleaning after production of definite number consecutive
batches.
Negotiate with production related to number of batches.
Simulate max. anticipated hours of campaign production.
Cumulative deposition of residues may accelerate product
degredation.
Perform cleaning and sampling at the end of campaign.
Max. CHS (no. of batches + time) should be in SOPs.
Batch to batch or lot to lot cleaning is advisable.
More suitable for dedicated product equipments.
CLEANING VALIDATION………………………HOLD TIMES
Quality Assurance
82. CLEANING VALIDATION……...SOURCES OF INFORMATION
“Guide to Inspections Validation of Cleaning Processes”,
Inspection note by FDA (US).
“Recommendation on VMP, IQ and OQ, non-sterile process
validation and cleaning validation”, (PIC/S).
“GMP guide for API”, (ICH, Q7).
“Guidance on Cleaning Validation”, Health Canada.
Technical sources :
Points to Consider for Cleaning Validation, PDA 29.
Points to Consider for Biotechnology Cleaning Validation,
PDA 49
Quality Assurance
81
