This document provides information on cleaning validation and analytical method validation. It discusses key aspects of cleaning validation including protocols, sampling methods, acceptance criteria, and reports. It emphasizes that cleaning validation is important to prevent contamination between products manufactured using the same equipment. It also covers parameters that are important to validate analytical methods such as selectivity, precision, accuracy, linearity, and calibration curves. The document is a reference for professionals on best practices for cleaning validation and analytical method validation.

1. CLEANING VALIDATION &
ANALYTICA METHOD VALIDATION.
GUIDED BY presented by RENUKA
Dr. K. KISHORE KUMAR 256213886008

3. Cleaning Validation
Principle
• The objectives of GMP include prevention of possible
contamination and cross-contamination
• Contamination by a variety of substances
– contaminants (e.g. microbes, previous
products (both API and excipient residues),
residues of cleaning agents, airborne
materials (e.g. dust and particulate matter),
lubricants and ancillary material, such as
disinfectants
• Also decomposition residues from product or detergents
Reference :- [1 ]

4. Scope
• Guidelines: General aspects of cleaning validation
• Excluding specialized cleaning or inactivation
– e.g. for removal of viral or mycoplasmal
contaminants in the biological manufacturing
industry.
• Normally cleaning validation needed for critical cleaning, e.g.
– between manufacturing of one product and
another
– contact surfaces (products, drug products and
API).
Reference :- [1 ]

5. Cleaning validation protocols (1)
• Approved by QC or QA and to cover, e.g.
– disassembly of system;
– pre-cleaning;
– cleaning agent, concentration, solution volume,
water quality;
– time and temperature;
– flow rate, pressure and rinsing;
– complexity and design of the equipment;
– training of operators; and
– size of the system.
Reference :- [2 ]

6. Cleaning validation protocols (2)
• The cleaning validation protocol should include:
– objectives, responsible people;
– description of the equipment including the make,
model, serial number or other unique code;
– time intervals; bioburden; cleaning procedures;
– equipment used for routine monitoring (e.g.
conductivity meters, pH meters and total organic
carbon analysers);
– number of cleaning cycles; sampling procedures (e.g.
direct sampling, rinse sampling, in process
monitoring and sampling locations) and the rationale
for their use .
Reference :- [3]

7. Cleaning validation protocols (3)
• The cleaning validation protocol should include (2):
– data on recovery studies (efficiency of the recovery
of the sampling technique should be established);
– analytical methods;
– acceptance criteria (with rationale for setting the
specific limits) including a margin for error and for
sampling efficiency;
– cleaning agent to be used;
– revalidation requirements.
Reference :- [3]

8. Cleaning validation protocols (4)
• Cleaning agent used, scientifically justified and based on:
– the solubility of the materials to be removed;
– the design and construction of the equipment
and surface materials to be cleaned;
– the safety of the cleaning agent;
– the ease of removal and detection;
– the product attributes;
– the minimum temperature and volume of
cleaning agent and rinse solution; and
– the manufacturer's recommendations
Reference :- [3]

9. Cleaning validation protocols (5)
Bracketing:
• Very similar cleaning procedures for products and
processes - no need for individual validation. “Worst case”
may be acceptable and should be justified.
• Consider type of products and equipment; allowed only
where products are similar in nature or property and
processed on the same equipment; and identical cleaning
procedures used.
Reference :- [3 ]

10. Cleaning validation protocols (6)
Bracketing:
• Representative product - most difficult to clean.
• Equipment - only when it is similar or the same equipment in
different sizes (e.g. 300 l, 500 l and 1000 l tanks).
– Alternative approach may be to validate the
smallest and the largest sizes separately.
Reference :- [3]

11. Cleaning validation reports
• The relevant cleaning records – (signed by the operator,
checked by production and reviewed by quality assurance)
– and source data (original results) should be kept.
• The results of the cleaning validation should be presented
in cleaning validation reports stating the outcome and
conclusion.
Reference :- [4 ]

12. Equipment
• If one SOP for cleaning a piece of equipment, review:
– products being produced,
– cleaning in a large campaign,
– cleaning between batches of different
products.
• The design of equipment may influence the effectiveness of the
cleaning process.
• Consider design, e.g. V-blenders, transfer pumps or filling lines.
Reference :- [5 ]

13. Detergents
• Released by quality control and meet food standards or
regulations
• Composition known
• Easily removed with rinsing - demonstrated - with
acceptable limits defined
• If persistent residues (e.g. cationic detergents) - avoided
• Consider also detergent breakdown
Reference :- [3 ]

14. Microbiology
• Prevent microbial growth and remove contamination
• Documented evidence
– routine cleaning
– storage of equipment
• The period and conditions
– storage of unclean equipment before cleaning
– between cleaning and equipment reuse
• Equipment stored in a dry condition after cleaning (no stagnant
water)
• Control of bioburden important
Reference :- [5 ]

15. Sampling
• Clean as soon as possible after use
– especially topical products, suspensions and
bulk drug or
– where the drying of residues will directly
affect the efficiency of a cleaning procedure
• Two methods of sampling:
– direct surface sampling and
– rinse samples
• Combination of the two - most desirable
Reference :- [4 ]

16. Sampling
• Re-sampling:
– not to be done before or during cleaning
• Constant re-testing and re-sampling:
– can show that the cleaning process is not
validated
– may indicate presence of unacceptable
residue and contaminants resulting from an
ineffective cleaning process.
Reference :- [4 ]

17. Direct surface sampling (direct method)
• Most commonly used method
• Use “swabs” (inert material) - type of sampling material should not
interfere with the test
• Factors to be considered include:
– supplier of the swab,
– area swabbed, number of swabs used,
whether they are wet or dry swabs,
– swab handling and swabbing technique
Reference :- [4 ]

18. Direct surface sampling (direct method) (2)
• Other factors include:
– location from which the sample is taken
(including worst case locations, identified in
the protocol)
– composition of the equipment (e.g. glass or
steel)
• Critical areas (hardest to clean)
– e.g. in semi-automatic/fully automatic clean-in-
place systems
• Use appropriate sampling medium and solvent
Reference :- [4 ]

19. Rinse samples (indirect method)
• Allows sampling of:
– a large surface
– areas that are inaccessible or that cannot be
routinely disassembled
• Provides an "overall picture"
• Useful for checking for residues of cleaning agents
• In combination with other sampling methods such as surface
sampling
Reference :- [4 ]

20. Rinse samples (indirect method) (2)
 The manufacturer has to provide evidence that samples are
accurately recovered
 What is considered acceptable in terms of recovery?
Reference :- [4 ]

21. Levels of cleaning
• LEVEL USED WHEN CLEANING VALIDATION REQUIRED
• LEVEL 2
 • Product changeover of equipment used in final step
 • Intermediates of one batch to final step of another
• LEVEL 1
 • Intermediates or final Step of one product to intermediate of another
 • Early Step to intermediates in a product sequence
• progression between level 0 and 2 depending on process and nature of
contaminant based on scientific rational
• LEVEL 0- in-campaign, batch to batch changeover
• no validation required
• NB: ALL PROCESSES MUST BE EVALUATED INDIVIDUALLY
Reference :- [5 ]

22. Cleaning validation process
step-1
DETERMINE THE MOST APPROPRIATE CLEANING PROCEDURE
FOR THE EQUIPMENT -
• 1. Generate acceptance criteria data for the contaminant. 2.
The cleaning method will be determined by the process, the
equipment the cleaning agents and the cleaning techniques
available. 3. All aspects of the cleaning procedure should be
clearly defined in SOPs be they manual / CIP or COP
Reference :- [5 ]

23. DEVELOP AND VALIDATE THE SAMPLING AND CHOSEN
ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR THE COMPOUND(S) BEING
CLEANED
• 1. Swab 2. Rinse
• (determine % recovery, limit of detection, limit of
quantitation, accuracy of method, reproducibility, stability
over time ...etc.)
Reference :- [5 ]

24. EVALUATE EQUIPMENT SURFACES AND DETERMINE
• 1. Worst case locations to sample (swab sampling)
• 1. Volume and type of rinse solvent to be employed (rinse
sampling)
• 1. Equipment surface area (necessary to calculate carryover
into subsequent batches)
Reference :- [5 ]

25. Step-2
DEVELOP A CLEANING VALIDATION PROTOCOL FOR THE
PRODUCT AND THE EQUIPMENT BEING CLEANED
• That should encompass for example: 1. Introduction 2. Scope
3. Equipment 4. Cleaning procedure 5. Sampling procedures 6.
Analytical testing procedure 7. Acceptance/Cleaning limits. 8.
Acceptance criteria for the validation.
Reference :- [5 ]

26. Step-3
INTERIM REPORT: GENERATE INTERIM CLEANING VALIDATION
REPORTS ON A CLEAN BY CLEAN BASIS DETAILING THE
ACCEPTABILITY OF THE CLEANING PROCEDURE FOR THE
EQUIPMENT AND THE PRODUCT.
• This is only required where there is a long period of time
between manufacture of the validation runs (see stage 4 for
reporting requirements).
Reference :- [5 ]

27. Step-4
FOR THE PRODUCT AND THE EQUIPMENT BEING CLEANED
• That should encompass for example: 1. Introduction 2. Scope 3.
Equipment 4. Cleaning procedure 5. Sampling procedures 6. Analytical
testing procedure 7. Acceptance/Cleaning limits. 8. Acceptance criteria for
the validation.
• GENERATE A CLEANING VALIDATION REPORT DETAILING THE
ACCEPTABILITY OF THE CLEANING PROCEDURE FOR THE EQUIPMENT AND
THE PRODUCT
• The report should give a full detailed background and introduction to the
cleaning Validation study and should evaluate all data generated with
respect to the acceptance criteria employed for the study. The report
should also indicate the requirement if any for revalidation (period of time
/change control etc.)
Reference :- [5 ]

28. Validation
> 80% is considered
Recovery
good
Reference :- [6 ]

29. Validation
> 80% is considered
Recovery
good
> 50% is considered
reasonable
Reference :- [6 ]

30. Validation
Recovery
< 50% is considered
questionable
> 80% is considered
good
> 50% is considered
reasonable
Reference :- [6 ]

31. Establishing acceptable limits
• Limits: Practical, achievable and verifiable
• Rationale: Logical, based on knowledge of materials
• Each situation assessed individually
• Principal reactant and other chemical variations
• Screening (thin-layer chromatography) in addition to
chemical analyses where necessary
Reference :- [6 ]

32. Establishing acceptable limits (2)
There should be no residue from:
• Previous product
• Reaction by-products and degradants
• Cleaning process itself (e.g. detergents or solvents)
Reference :- [6 ]

33. Establishing acceptable limits (3)
 The limit-setting approach can:
– be product-specific
– group products into families and choose a
worst case product
– group products into groups according to risk,
e.g. very soluble products, products with
similar potency, highly toxic, or difficult to
detect products
– use different safety factors for different
dosage forms based on physiological
response (this method is essential for potent
materials)
Reference :- [6 ]

34. Establishing acceptable limits (4)
 The three most commonly used criteria are:
– Visually clean No residue visible on equipment
after cleaning. Spiking studies to determine the
concentration at which most active ingredients
are visible. (May not be suitable5 for high
potency, low-dosage drugs.)
– No more than 10 ppm of one product will appear
in another product (basis for heavy metals in
starting materials).
– No more than 0.1% of the normal therapeutic
dose of one product will appear in the maximum
daily dose of a subsequent product.
Reference :- [6 ]

36. Introduction
• Method validation is the process used to confirm that the
analytical procedure employed for a specific test is suitable
for its intended use. Results from method validation can be
used to judge the quality, reliability and consistency of
analytical results; it is an integral part of any good analytical
practice.
• Analytical methods need to be validated or revalidated
Reference :- [7 ]

37. Once the method has been developed and validated, a validation
report should be prepared that includes the following:
• Objective and scope of the method (applicability, type).
• Summary of methodology.
• Type of compounds and matrix.
• All chemicals, reagents, reference standards, QC samples with purity,
grade, their source or detailed instructions on their preparation.
• Procedures for quality checks of standards and chemicals used.
• Safety precautions.
• A plan and procedure for method implementation from the method
development lab to routine analysis.
• Method parameters.
• Critical parameters taken from robustness testing.
• Listing of equipment and its functional and performance requirements,
e.g., cell dimensions, baseline noise and column temperature range.
For complex equipment, a picture or schematic diagram may be useful.
Reference :- [7 ]

38. • Detailed conditions on how the experiments were conducted, including
sample preparation. The report must be detailed enough to ensure that it
can be reproduced by a competent technician with comparable equipment.
• Statistical procedures and representative calculations.
• Procedures for QC in routine analyses, e.g., system suitability tests.
• Representative plots, e.g., chromatograms, spectra and calibration
curves.
• Method acceptance limit performance data.
•The expected uncertainty of measurement results.
•Criteria for revalidation.
•The person(s) who developed and validated the method.
•References (if any).
•Summary and conclusions.
•Approval with names, titles, date and signature of those responsible for
the review and approval of the analytical test procedure.
Reference :- [8]

39. Parameters for analytical methid
validation
Reference :- [8 ]

40. Selectivity $ specificity
• It is a method that produces a response for a single analyte
only, while the term selective refers to a method that provides
responses for a number of chemical entities that may or may
not be distinguished from each other. If the response is
distinguished from all other responses, the method is said to
be selective
• Selectivity studies should also assess interferences
that may be caused by the matrix, e.g., urine, blood,
soil, water or food. Optimized sample preparation can
eliminate most of the matrix components. The absence
of matrix interferences for a quantitative method should
be demonstrated by the analysis of at least five
independent sources of control matrix.
Reference :- [8 ]

41. Precision and Reproducibility
• The precision of a method (Table 4) is the extent to which
the individual test results of multiple injections of a
series of standards agree. The measured standard
deviation can be subdivided into 3 categories:
repeatability, intermediate precision and reproducibility
(4, 5). Repeatability is obtained when the analysis is
carried out in a laboratory by an operator using a piece
of equipment over a relatively short time span. At least 6
determinations of 3 different matrices at 2 or 3 different
concentrations should be performed, and the RSD
calculated.
Reference :- [9 ]

42. Accuracy and Recovery
• The accuracy of an analytical method is the extent to which
test results generated by the method and the true value
agree. Accuracy can also be described as the closeness of
agreement between the value that is adopted, either as a
conventional, true or accepted reference value, and the value
found.
Reference :- [10 ]

43. Linearity and Calibration Curve
• The linearity of an analytical method is its ability to elicit test results that
are directly proportional to the concentration of analytes in samples
within a given range or proportional by means of well-defined
mathematical transformations. Linearity may be demonstrated directly on
the test substance (by dilution of a standard stock solution) and/or by
using separate weighings of synthetic mixtures of the test product
components, using the proposed procedure.
• Linearity is determined by a series of 3 to 6 injections of 5 or more
standards whose concentrations span 80–120 percent of the expected
concentration range. The response should be directly proportional to the
concentrations of the analytes or proportional by means of a well-defined
mathematical calculation. A linear regression equation applied to the
results should have an intercept not significantly different from 0. If a
significant nonzero intercept is obtained, it should be demonstrated that
this has no effect on the accuracy of the method.
Reference :- [10 ]

44. Range
• The range of an analytical method is the interval between the
upper and lower levels (including these levels) that have been
demonstrated to be determined with precision, accuracy and
linearity using the method as written. The range is normally
expressed in the same units as the test results (e.g., percentage,
parts per million) obtained by the analytical method.
• For assay tests, the ICH (5) requires the minimum specified range to
be 80 to 120 percent of the test concentration, and for the
determination of an impurity, the range to extend from the limit of
quantitation, or from 50 percent of the specification of each
impurity, whichever is greater, to 120 percent of the specification.
Reference :- [10 ]

45. Limit of Detection
• The limit of detection is the point at which a measured value
is larger than the uncertainty associated with it. It is the
lowest concentration of analyte in a sample that can be
detected but not necessarily quantified. The limit of detection
is frequently confused with the sensitivity of the method. The
sensitivity of an analytical method is the capability of the
method to discriminate small differences in concentration or
mass of the test analyte. In practical terms, sensitivity is the
slope of the calibration curve that is obtained by plotting the
response against the analyte concentration or mass.
• In chromatography, the detection limit is the injected amount
that results in a peak with a height at least two or three times
as high as the baseline noise level. Besides this signal/noise
method, the ICH (4) describes three more methods:
• Visual inspection: The detection limit is determined by the
analysis of samples with known concentrations of analyte and
by establishing the minimum level at which the analyte can be
reliably detected.
Reference :- [10 ]

46. •Standard deviation of the response based on the standard
deviation of the blank: Measurement of the magnitude of
analytical background response is performed by analyzing
an appropriate number of blank samples and calculating the
standard deviation of these responses.
•Standard deviation of the response based on the slope of the
calibration curve: A specific calibration curve is studied using
samples containing an analyte in the range of the limit of
detection. The residual standard deviation of a regression line,
or the standard deviation of y-intercepts of regression lines, may
be used as the standard deviation.
Reference :- [10 ]

47. Ruggedness
• Ruggedness is a measure of reproducibility of test results
under normal, expected operational conditions from
laboratory to laboratory and from analyst to analyst.
Ruggedness is determined by the analysis of aliquots from
homogeneous lots in different laboratories.
Reference :- [10 ]

48. Robustness
• Robustness tests examine the effect that operational
parameters have on the analysis results. For the
determination of a method’s robustness, a number of
method parameters, for example, pH, flow rate, column
temperature, injection volume, detection wavelength or
mobile phase composition, are varied within a realistic
range, and the quantitative influence of the variables is
determined. If the influence of the parameter is within a
previously specified tolerance, the parameter is said to
be within the method’s robustness range.
Reference :- [8 ]

49. References
1. ICH Good Manufacturing Practice Guideline for Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredients. (July 23 1999).
2. Principles of Qualification and Validation in Pharmaceutical
Manufacture - Recommendations on Cleaning Validation. (ref.
Document PR 1/ 99 March 1999.
3. Zeller, ’Cleaning Validation and residue limits: a contribution
to current discussions’, pharmaceutical technology Europe.
(November 1993).
4. S.W. Harder, ‘The validation of cleaning processes’,
pharmaceutical technology. (1984)
5. Mc Arthur, Vasilevsky, ‘Cleaning validation for biological
products: case study’, pharmaceutical engineering.
(November / December 1995).

50. 6. James Agalloco, ‘Points to consider in the validation of
equipment cleaning procedures’, Journal of parenteral
science and technology. (October 1992).
7. ISO/IEC 17025.international standad. Eurachem. guidance
document no.1/WELAC guidance document no.WGD 2.
8. ICH of technical requirements for the regestration of
pharmaceuticals for human use.
9. Green, J.M.A practical guide to analytical method
validation.
10. Eurachem. guidance document no.1/WELAC guidance
document no.WGD 2:accreditation for chemical lads &
ISO/IEC guide 25 (1993).