Christian Proff, Ken Victor, Allison Alix Caudill, Jirakan Nunkaew, Gemma AlmatÓ Bellavista, Holger RÖhl, James Veale
{"title":"容器封闭完整性测试方法比较 - 使用阳性对照进行顶空二氧化碳分析与氦气泄漏的性能比较。","authors":"Christian Proff, Ken Victor, Allison Alix Caudill, Jirakan Nunkaew, Gemma AlmatÓ Bellavista, Holger RÖhl, James Veale","doi":"10.5731/pdajpst.2023.012881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>As described in USP <1207>, the deterministic leak test methods using laser-based gas headspace analysis and helium leakage are those with the highest sensitivities. As stated in the chapter, \"no single package leak test or package seal quality test method is applicable to all product-package systems\"; therefore, knowing the advantages and disadvantages of both of these techniques, and the extent to which they can be substituted for each other, is valuable. In an effort to begin addressing this issue, a systematic study using these two techniques has been performed. This study used the same well-defined positive controls prepared with microcapillaries for both measurement techniques. For the headspace gas analysis technique, the headspace carbon dioxide content was measured at multiple time points during three separate conditioning cycles using either a 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 bar CO<sub>2</sub> overpressure; the observed change in headspace carbon dioxide was then used to determine an ingress rate for each positive control. For the helium leakage technique, the positive controls were measured with a standard helium leak detector with 100% helium atmosphere on the atmospheric pressure side of the artificial defects. The resulting leakage rates from both techniques were compared for ingress into both ISO 2 R and ISO 10 R vials. The obtained correlation between helium and carbon dioxide leakage rates resulted in a minimum R<sup>2</sup> coefficient of 0.98 across all 12 runs. Additionally, both setups met the acceptance criteria for accuracy with their respective calibrated standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":19986,"journal":{"name":"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology","volume":" ","pages":"681-698"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparing Container Closure Integrity Test Methods-Performance of Headspace Carbon Dioxide Analysis versus Helium Leakage Using Positive Controls.\",\"authors\":\"Christian Proff, Ken Victor, Allison Alix Caudill, Jirakan Nunkaew, Gemma AlmatÓ Bellavista, Holger RÖhl, James Veale\",\"doi\":\"10.5731/pdajpst.2023.012881\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>As described in USP <1207>, the deterministic leak test methods using laser-based gas headspace analysis and helium leakage are those with the highest sensitivities. As stated in the chapter, \\\"no single package leak test or package seal quality test method is applicable to all product-package systems\\\"; therefore, knowing the advantages and disadvantages of both of these techniques, and the extent to which they can be substituted for each other, is valuable. In an effort to begin addressing this issue, a systematic study using these two techniques has been performed. This study used the same well-defined positive controls prepared with microcapillaries for both measurement techniques. For the headspace gas analysis technique, the headspace carbon dioxide content was measured at multiple time points during three separate conditioning cycles using either a 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 bar CO<sub>2</sub> overpressure; the observed change in headspace carbon dioxide was then used to determine an ingress rate for each positive control. For the helium leakage technique, the positive controls were measured with a standard helium leak detector with 100% helium atmosphere on the atmospheric pressure side of the artificial defects. The resulting leakage rates from both techniques were compared for ingress into both ISO 2 R and ISO 10 R vials. The obtained correlation between helium and carbon dioxide leakage rates resulted in a minimum R<sup>2</sup> coefficient of 0.98 across all 12 runs. Additionally, both setups met the acceptance criteria for accuracy with their respective calibrated standards.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19986,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"681-698\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2023.012881\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5731/pdajpst.2023.012881","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
如 USP 章节所述,使用激光气体顶空分析和氦气泄漏的确定性泄漏测试方法具有最高的灵敏度。正如该章所述,"没有一种单一的包装泄漏测试或包装密封质量测试方法适用于所有产品-包装系统";因此,了解这两种技术的优缺点,以及它们在多大程度上可以相互替代,是非常有价值的。为了着手解决这一问题,我们使用这两种技术进行了一项系统研究。这项研究在两种测量技术中都使用了用微型毛细管制备的定义明确的阳性对照物。对于顶空气体分析技术,在三个独立的调节周期中,使用 0.5、1.0 或 2.0 巴的二氧化碳超压,在多个时间点测量顶空气体中的二氧化碳含量;然后使用观察到的顶空气体中二氧化碳的变化来确定每个阳性对照组的进入率。对于氦气泄漏技术,在人工缺陷的大气压侧使用标准氦气检漏仪测量阳性对照。比较了两种技术得出的进入 ISO 2R 和 ISO 10R 玻璃瓶的泄漏率。在所有 12 次运行中,氦气和二氧化碳泄漏率之间的相关性最小 R2 系数为 0.98。此外,两种设置都符合各自校准标准的准确度验收标准。
Comparing Container Closure Integrity Test Methods-Performance of Headspace Carbon Dioxide Analysis versus Helium Leakage Using Positive Controls.
As described in USP <1207>, the deterministic leak test methods using laser-based gas headspace analysis and helium leakage are those with the highest sensitivities. As stated in the chapter, "no single package leak test or package seal quality test method is applicable to all product-package systems"; therefore, knowing the advantages and disadvantages of both of these techniques, and the extent to which they can be substituted for each other, is valuable. In an effort to begin addressing this issue, a systematic study using these two techniques has been performed. This study used the same well-defined positive controls prepared with microcapillaries for both measurement techniques. For the headspace gas analysis technique, the headspace carbon dioxide content was measured at multiple time points during three separate conditioning cycles using either a 0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 bar CO2 overpressure; the observed change in headspace carbon dioxide was then used to determine an ingress rate for each positive control. For the helium leakage technique, the positive controls were measured with a standard helium leak detector with 100% helium atmosphere on the atmospheric pressure side of the artificial defects. The resulting leakage rates from both techniques were compared for ingress into both ISO 2 R and ISO 10 R vials. The obtained correlation between helium and carbon dioxide leakage rates resulted in a minimum R2 coefficient of 0.98 across all 12 runs. Additionally, both setups met the acceptance criteria for accuracy with their respective calibrated standards.