ANNA UNIVERSITY, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI

ASSIGNMENT ON
INSTALLATION
QUALIFICATION AND
OPERATIONAL
QUALIFICATION OF
MEMBRANE FILTER
Submitted by:-
VENKATA KUMAR SAHU
3/24/2009
 Contents

1.Introduction

2.Validation of membrane filter

a.Introduction to filtration

b.Installation qualification for

membrane filter

c.Operational qualification for

membrane filter

3.Reference
INTRODUCTION

• Sterile products have several unique dosage form properties,

such as freedom from micro-organisms, freedom from pyrogens,
freedom from particulates, and extremely high standards of
purity and quality; however, the ultimate goal in the manufacture
of a sterile product is absolute absence of microbial
contamination.
• Unlike many dosage form specifications, the sterility specification
is an absolute value. A product is either sterile or no sterile.
Historically, judgment of sterility has relied on an official
compendial sterility test; however, end product sterility testing
suffers from a myriad of limitations.
The most obvious limitation is the nature of the sterility test. It is
a destructive test; thus, it depends on the statistical selection of
a random sample of the whole lot.
• Even if the contaminated unit were one of the 20samples
selected for the sterility test, the possibility still exists that the
sterility test would fail to detect the contamination. The microbial
contaminant might be at too low a concentration to be
detectable during the incubation period or might not grow rapidly
enough or at all because of media and incubation insufficiencies.
• If microbial growth is detected in a sterility test, this may reflect
a false positive reading because of the problem of accidental
contamination of the culture media while performing the sterility
test. The problem of accidental contamination is a serious yet
unavoidable limitation of the sterility test.
• The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published guidelines
pertaining to general principles of process validation. General
concepts and key elements of process validation considered
acceptable by the FDA were outlined. A major point stressed in
the guidelines was the insufficiency of relying solely on end-
product sterility testing alone in ascertaining the sterility of a
parenteral of a sterile product lot. Greater significance should be
placed on process validation of all systems involved in producing
the final product. These major limitations demonstrate that
reliance on end-product sterility testing alone in ascertaining the
sterility of a parenteral product may lead to erroneous results.
One purpose of validation in the manufacture of sterile products
is to minimize this reliance on end-product testing. Three
principles involved are
1. To build sterility into a product.
2. To demonstrate to a certain maximum level of probability
that the processing and sterilization methods have
established sterility to all units of a product batch
 3. To provide greater assurance and support of the results of
the end product sterility test
Validation of sterile products will refer to the confirmation that a
product has been exposed to the appropriate manufacturing processes
and especially to the appropriate sterilization method yielding a batch
of product having a known degree of nonsterility.
VALIDATION OF MEBMRANE FILTER
A. Introduction to Filtration
The following definitions will be helpful in using this section.
When filter is used as a verb (“to filter”) it means to pass a
solid–liquid mixture through a permeable medium to cause a
separation of the two. Filter when used as a noun refers to a
device for carrying out filtration, and it consists of the filter
medium and a suitable holder for constraining and supporting
it in the fluid path. The permeable material that separates
solid particles from the liquid being filtered is called the filter
medium. The unit operation of filtration, then, is the
separation of solids from a liquid by passage through a filter
medium. In many instances, the filter, including the
permeable medium, the means for passing liquid through the
medium, and the process piping, are all referred to by the
term filter system. In general, filtration objectives can be
separated into four basic categories:
• To save solids and reject liquids,
• To save liquids and reject solids,
• To save both liquids and solids,
• To reject both liquids and solids.
As a filtration process proceeds, generally under an applied driving
force of pressure, solids are removed by and begin to accumulate on
the filter medium The liquid portion continues to move through the
filter medium and out of the filter system. The separated liquid is
referred to as the filtrate. The amount of pressure applied to
accomplish the filtration depends on the filtration resistance. Filtration
resistance is a result of the frictional drag on the filtrate as it passes
through the filter medium and the accumulated solids.
In equation form,
Filtration rate = pressure/resistance

Permeability is often referred to as a measure of liquid flow through a

filter system and is the reciprocal of the filtration resistance. During
filtration, as the particulate buildup continues on the filtration medium,
the filtration resistance increases, or in other words, the filtration
permeability decreases. The capacity of a system, expressed in time,
volume of liquid fed, or amount of solids fed, depends on the ability of
the system to maintain acceptable permeability.
When operating a filtration system, it is important to note the following
general relationship:
Retention χ permeability = constant

Therefore, in attempting to have a certain degree of filtration efficiency

or retention, a high rate of filtration, and the lowest possible cost, it is
necessary to make a compromise with one or more of the above
factors. A high permeability or low resistance for large filtration flow
rates requires a filter medium of low retention efficiency. A highly
efficient retention will have low permeability, low flow rates, and higher
filtration costs.

B. Installation qualification for membrane Filter

Production of parenteral drugs requires that the product be sterile.

In many cases, terminal sterilization by heat, ethylene oxide gas, or
ionizing radiation is used to render a product sterile; however, certain
products are not stable when exposed to heat, gas, or radiation, and
they must be sterilized by other means. Filtrate sterilization is suitable
in such cases. Indeed, the practice of sterile filtration is not limited to
labile preparations. Unlike the other forms of sterilization, filtration
sterilizes by the removal of the bacteria from the product rather than
by inducing lethality to the micro-organism. Filtration is straightforward
and reliable; it removes particulate matter other than microbiological;
it avoids possible pyrogenicity owing to the presence of dead bacteria
in the dosage form; it is cost effective and energy efficient; and it
allows convenient and flexible manufacturing systems and schedules
with low capital investment.
Sterile filtration processes are employed to sterile-filter a product
prior to filling it aseptically into its final containers. Bulk drug solutions
are sterile filtered prior to aseptic crystallization, thus eliminating the
possibility of having organisms within the bulk drug crystals. The bulk
drug can then be processed into a dosage form aseptically or further
processed to be terminally sterilized. Other filtrative operations reduce
the organism content of a final product prior to terminal sterilizations.
As noted earlier, a highly efficient retentive media will have low
permeability, low flow rates, and higher filtration costs than other less
retentive filter media. The highly retentive filter media used for
sterilization have a short useful life because they clog very easily.
Consequently, most filtration processes cannot be efficiently or
economically carried out without the use of prefiltration.Prefiltration
filter media are used to protect and thus lengthen the useful life of the
final membrane filter media by collecting the bulk of the particulate
material so that the membrane filter media must filter out only a small
portion of the particulate. Prefiltration media are normally depth-filter
media having a relatively wide pore and size distribution. A properly
selected prefilter must meet the following conditions: (1) it must be
retentive enough to protect the final membrane filter medium; (2) the
prefilter assembly must not allow fluid bypass under any condition; (3)
the prefilter system must be designed to make use of the prefilter
medium; (4) it must have the best retention efficiency (with depth-filter
media low pressure differentials and low fluid flux, accomplished by a
multielement parallel design, are best); and (5) the prefilter medium
must be compatible with the solution and not leach components into
the solution or absorb components from the solution. One note of
caution needs to be mentioned in reference to lengthening membrane
filter media life. Organism grow through can become a problem if
filtration takes place over an extended period of time. During filtration,
bacteria continuously reproduce by cell division and eventually find
their way through the filter medium to contaminate the filtrate. For this
reason, prolonged filtration must be avoided. The proposed CGMPs for
large-volume parenteral state that final filtration of solutions shall not
exceed 8 hr.

Sterilization by filtration is a major unit operation used in aseptic

processes. Aseptic processes require the presterilization of all
components of the drug product and its container. Then all of the
components are brought together in a controlled aseptic environment
to create the finished sterile product sealed within its container/closure
system. The level of sterility attained by an aseptic procedure is a
cumulative function of all the process steps involved in making the
product. Therefore, the final level of sterility assurance for such a
product cannot be greater than the step providing the lowest
probability of sterility. Each step in the aseptic process must be
validated to known levels of sterility assurance.

This section will concentrate on that portion of the aseptic

process wherein the drug product is sterilized by filtration. From the
earlier discussion, sterile filtration is perhaps a misnomer, since the
“sterile” filtrate is almost always processed further under aseptic
conditions, which involves a risk of contamination. Therefore, to speak
of drug product sterilization by filtration as being as final a processing
step as the steam sterilization of a product could possibly lead to
erroneous assurances or assumptions. Since a sterile filtrate can be
produced by filtration, however, we will continue to refer to the process
as product sterilization by filtration.

The primary objective of a sterilizing filter is to remove

microorganisms. The filter medium used to accomplish such an
efficient retention may be classified as one of two types—the reusable
type or the disposable type.
 The reusable filter media are made of sintered glass, unglazed
porcelain, or diatomaceous earth (Table-1). Because these filter media
may be used repeatedly without being destroyed, they are less costly;
however, the use of reusable filter media demands that the media be
cleaned perfectly and sterilized prior to use to prevent microbial
contamination and chemical cross-contamination. Even after exacting
and painstaking cleaning processes have been used on reusable filter
media, most companies using sterile filtration have decided that the
risk of contamination is still great and prefer the use of the disposable
media that are used once and then discarded. The remainder of our
discussion will concern the disposable media, often referred to as
membrane filter media.

Membrane filter media are available from several different

manufacturers and are made from many different materials. (See Table
2.) Filter media consist of a matrix of pores held in a fixed spatial
relationship by a solid continuum.

The pores allow the product solution to pass through the medium
while retaining the unwanted solid particles and micro-organisms. The
size of filter medium pores to retain micro-organisms must be quite
small. The 0.20- or 0.22-m pore size filter media are considered to be
capable of producing sterile filtrates.

The characteristics of a given membrane filter medium depend

on its method of manufacture: whether by phase separation of casting
solutions, by adhesion into an organic union of matted fibers, or by
track etching of solid films. The retention of micro-organisms by the
various membrane media, while not fully understood, has been
investigated by numerous researchers who have indicated that several
mechanisms are responsible. The dominant mechanism of retention is
sieve retention. Particles larger than the pore size of the filter medium
are retained on the medium, and as large particles are retained, pore
openings can become bridged and thereby effectively reduce the filter
medium’s pore size. Other possible mechanisms of retention are
adsorption of the particles into the medium itself, entrapment in a
tortuous path, impaction, and electrostatic capture. The importance of
these latter retention mechanisms has not been fully determined and
on the whole filtration sterilization is treated as depending on the steric
influences of the sieve retention mechanism. The problem with
assuming a sieve retention mechanism is that a sieve or screen has
uniform openings, whereas a membrane filter medium does not. The
filter medium has a distribution of pores, albeit narrow, rather than
pores of a single size. In addition, thinking in terms of a sieve or screen
conjures up a vision of precisely measured and numbered openings.
Precise methods for computing both numbers and the actual sizes of
pores in a filter membrane medium are not available.

Many approaches have been taken in an attempt to measure the

size of membrane filter media pores. Flow measurements, both of air
and of water, have been made. Mercury intrusion under high pressure
has been employed, and pore sizing using either molecular templates
or particles, including bacteria of known size, has been tried. The
numerical values for pore sizes from these methods are based on a
derivation from a particular model selected. Each of the various models
has difficulties and shortcomings, and a pore size designation based on
one method does not necessarily mean that a filter medium with the
same designated size but from a different method really is the identical
size. More important, relating such a designated pore size to the
membrane’s ability to retain certain size particles may be anywhere
from merely uncertainty misleading. Therefore, a given membrane
filter medium with a designated pore size of 0.2 micron should not be
thought of as “absolutely retaining all particles greater than 0.2
micron” without challenging the medium with a known size particulate.
In fact, filter media should not be thought of as “absolute retentive”
devices at all. It has been demonstrated that under certain operational
conditions or with certain bacterial challenges, 0.2 micron–rated
membrane filter media can be penetrated by bacteria. Filter media
companies do challenge their products to ensure retention efficiency to
sterility.

In addition to the pore size–particle size retention relationship

problems mentioned above, other factors can influence a filter
medium’s retention characteristics. Absorptive retention can be
influenced by the organism size, organism population, pore size of the
medium, pH of the filtrate, ionic strength, surface tension, and organic
content. Operational parameters can also influence retention such as
flow rate, salt concentration, viscosity, temperature, filtration duration,
filtration pressure, membrane thickness, organism type, and filter
medium area.

The complexity of the sterile filtration operation and the CGMP

regulations require the validation of sterilizing filter systems. The
validation of a sterile filtration operation can be complex, with many
operational parameters and their interactions needing to be identified,
controlled, and predicted for each end product to demonstrate that
sterility is adequately achieved by the filtration process.
In the commonly used steam sterilization process the heat
parameters are identified and in-process controls specified such that a
level of sterility assurance can be reproducibly obtained. In steam
sterilization, the important parameter of heat, measured by
temperature, can be accurately measured and continuously monitored
to ensure the operational integrity of the autoclave; however, unlike
steam sterilization, filtration sterilization cannot be monitored on a
continuous basis throughout the process.
The important aspect of filtration sterilization, the membrane
filter medium—its pore size, pore size distribution, integrity, and
capacity—cannot be monitored during use. Therefore, the prediction
that a filter membrane, given ascertain set of operational parameters,
will produce a sterile filter is critical. The only way to test a membrane
filter medium’s ability to retain bacteria is to challenge the medium
with bacteria. Unfortunately, after a challenge with bacteria the filter
membrane cannot be used again. Therefore, nondestructive tests need
to be developed by which a filter can be tested as to its suitability for
bacterial retention. Consequently, the approach in filter system
validation has been to establish are producible relationship between a
membrane’s pore size and its bacterial retention efficiency. The
thinking is that once such a relation is established, a nondestructive
physical test can be developed by which each filter membrane medium
can be tested and its bacterial retention efficiency assured.
Testing of the membrane can then be performed both before and after
use, and if the test results are satisfactory, the filtration process can be
deemedto have been carried out successfully.

Nondestructive Physical Tests for Pore Size

Characterization

The theoretical basis for characterizing a membrane filter

medium pore size and pore size distribution is based on the fact that a
wet medium is impermeable to the bulk flow of a test gas until a
certain pressure is attained that is sufficiently high to force the wetting
liquid from the medium’s pores. The pressure at which the transition
from a non flow to a bulk-flow situation occurs can be estimated in the
following manner. First, the assumption must be made that the pores in
the medium can be characterized as parallel cylindrical capillaries of
circular cross section perpendicular to the membrane surface. Even
though membrane pores are not normally found to be cylindrical, the
assumption is made that they can be treated as cylindrical equivalents.
The transition pressure, P, can be estimated by equating the forces
holding liquid in the cylindrical pores and the pressure forcing the
liquid out of the pores.
In a given capillary of diameter D filled with a liquid that wets the
capillary surface at any point along the circumference, the force
component resisting the removal of the liquid is given by
fr = γ cosθ
Where
fr = point resistance force component
γ= surface tension of the liquid
θ = contact angle of the liquid and the capillary wall

The total resisting force Fr is found by multiplying the point force fr by

the circumference.
Fr = πD fr
Fr = π D γ cos θ
The resisting force Fr and the opposing transition pressure P can be
equated, resulting in
P = Fr

πD²
— = π D γ cos θ
4
P = 4γ cos θ
 —
D
For almost all practical purposes, the liquid wets the capillary wall so
that the cosθ is taken as unity and the equation simplifies to
4γ
P= —
D
The cylindrical capillary model predicts that the size of the
largest pore presenting a membrane filter medium is inversely
proportional to the pressure at which bulk flow of a test gas is not
present.
The bubble point test is a popular single-point physical integrity test for
disc filter membranes based on the above equation. A filter medium is
wetted with a liquid, and test gas pressure is slowly raised until a
steady stream of bubbles appears from a tube or hose attached to the
downstream side of the filter and immersed in water(fig-1). The
pressure at which the bubbles first appear is recorded as the bubble
point and is related to the largest pores in the filter medium. A pore
size can be calculated from Equation; however, it must be realized that
the bubble point test does not measure the actual pore size,

Figure-1 Basic bubble point test setup

But only allows correlation of the measured capillary equivalent with

some dimensional characteristic of the pore structure of the membrane
medium.

The bubble point test, while popular, has some deficiencies that
must be realized. First, there is variation in the operator detection of
the test end point; that is, the first appearance of gas bubbles rising in
the liquid. Some operators are able to see smaller bubbles than others.
In a recent study, a panel of seven observers recorded the initial
detection of a steady stream of air bubbles rising from a capillary held
under water as the air pressure was gradually increased.
The observers, who had received different degrees of training,
identified the simulated bubble point as occurring at air flows of 5 to
50 mL/min corresponding to air pressures of 34 and 38psi,
respectively, for a 90-mm disc filter membrane

In the given Eq., the surface tension of the liquid (γ) is an

important parameter in determining bubble point pressures, and it
predicts that liquids of different γvalues will have different pressures for
the bubble point. In addition, it is a common assumption in the Eq. that
the contact angle (θ) is 0, indicating a complete wetting of the filter
medium by the test liquid. Tests have shown that this might not be a
valid assumption in all instances. Different medium materials show
different bubble point values using the same test liquid. The change in
wet ability can affect testing before and after autoclaving. Autoclaving
has been shown to wash away filter medium surfactants and thereby
decrease the wet ability, thus decreasing the bubble point pressure.
Autoclaving has also been shown to decrease the hydrophobic of a
medium; thereby increasing the wet ability of a membrane resulting in
a higher posttest bubble point pressure.

As pressure is increased above the bubble point pressure, pores

of decreasing size have the liquid forced out, and this allows additional
bulk flow of the test gas. By measuring and comparing the bulk gas
flow rates of both a wetted and a dry filter medium at the same
pressure, the percentage of the bulk gas flow through the medium
pores that are larger than or equal to the size tested determining the
flow contribution of the corresponding pore size increments, it is
possible to determine a pore size distribution for the filter medium.
Another integrity test referred to as the pressure hold test makes use
of the fact that below the transition pressure no bulk flow of the test
gas takes place. Therefore, in a pressure hold test, once a filter system
is in place and the filter medium wetted, pressure is applied to the
system and then shut off and sealed. If there are no leaks in the
system or holes in the membrane larger than the corresponding test
pressure used, the pressure should remain constant. If the pressure
drops, there is a leak somewhere in the system that should be
corrected. The pressure hold test is popular in testing filter assemblies
and systems introduction situations before and after filtration as a
quick integrity check of the system.
Figure 03 - Pore size distribution determination example.

Another problem with the use of the bubble point test develops
as one begins to test large volume disk-type membranes (293 mm)
and the pleated cartridge-type filter media that have large surface
areas available for filtration. Bubble point measurements are
inaccurate with these high-surface-area filters because of several
problems. With the larger systems, enough test gas can go into
solution under the test pressure to form visible gas bubbles when the
solution reaches the downstream side of the filter and the test pressure
is released.
Observers, seeing the pressure release bubbles, would record the
pressure at that point in the experiment as the bubble point and hence
mark the filter mediums a failure because the bubble point pressure
was low, indicative of large pore sizes in the membrane medium. With
the cartridge systems, initial bubble point gas bubbles tend to rise
within the core of the filter rather than leave In this case, the first
appearance of the bubbles is viewed at a pressure level higher than
the real transition pressure, and defective cartridges could be
approved for use when really unsuitable.
With large-surface-area membrane filter media, the interpretation of
the true bubble point can be further complicated because of the
diffusion of the test gas through the media. Because the filter media
are more than 70% void space, a liquid-wetted membrane is virtually a
thin film of liquid across which a test gas will diffuse, governed by
Fick’s law.

Figure 04 shows the wet-flow properties of three hypothetical

membrane filter media. Each filter medium is made of the same
material and has the same thickness and total void fraction. Media A
and B have the same oversized poresize, but A has a broader pore size
distribution. Medium C has a pore sizesmaller than A and B with a
narrow pore size distribution. The diffusion flow test is not without its
difficulties or potential problems, however; if the filter traps liquid and
essentially forms a secondary liquid layer in addition to the medium,
the diffusional flow will, of course, be decreased. A test pressure that is
too low will not be able to differentiate between good media and media
that will pass bacteria because the test pressure will be below even the
largest pore bubble point; the only flow reading obtained will be
diffusional flow through the support media, and they will be almost
identical for each size medium. The recommended single-point
diffusion test pressure is 80% of the bubble point. To run such a
diffusion test, the medium to be tested is placed in its filter assembly
and the medium is thoroughly wetted with a liquid and the filter
assembly drained. Pressure from a test gas, generally air or nitrogen, is
then slowly increased up to approximately 80% of the estimated
bubble point pressure for the given medium and liquid used. The
resulting flow of test gas is then quantitatively measured. In the past
few years, the sophistication of equipment to run this test has steadily
increased to such a point that some firms now offer automatic
instruments for running diffusion tests

Figure 04 Diffusional wet-flow characteristics of three hypothetical

membranes.

Diffusion tests have been complicated by the diffusion

coefficient’s being changed for the gas–liquid system after the
membrane has been autoclaved.With the introduction of additional
layers of media material to large cartridge filters, additional problems
have also arisen. The additional media can possibly affect the drainage
of liquid from the filter prior to flow testing. If all of the liquid is not
removed, the possibility exists for additional liquid layers to reduce the
diffusion effectively or for thicker liquid layers in the medium to retard
diffusion. The additional medium material itself adds thickness and
therefore decreases diffusional flow. The reduced diffusion readings, in
turn, could mask larger pores and flaws if this is not dealt with in
designing the tests. Additional nonlinearity with the pressure–gas flow
relationship has been reported as attributable to a process known as
liquid thinning. As the test gas pressure is increased to near the true
bubble point of the medium but not below it, the average thickness of
liquid held in the medium decreases. The amount of gas diffusion per
unit pressure therefore increases, and the relationship becomes
nonlinear. The search for the ideal nondestructive test of a sterilizing
filter system is still proceeding. One new suggestion has been
proposed to use test gas pressures above the bubble point. In the
meantime, the wise user of filter systems for sterilization will test in as
many ways as possible and correlate for physical tests with bacterial
challenge tests.
There are additional characteristics of filter media that need to
be addressed in a total validation scheme for filter systems. While a
thorough discussion of them is beyond the scope of this discussion of
sterilization, they are mentioned below. Particles and soluble materials
can be rinsed from various process filter media and must be
considered as contaminating any parenterals preparation, therefore
steps should be taken to isolate, identify, and eliminate these
contaminating substances prior to use. Solid extractable have been
shown to be pieces of the filter medium itself (media migration) or
“cutting” debris.
Soluble contaminants in parenterals have been isolated from filter aids,
from upstream prefilters, and from the sterilizing filter medium itself. In
general, extractable from a membrane filter medium can be
categorized into either plasticizers or surfactants. The surfactants
found have been nonionic ethylene oxide adducts,
polyvinylpyrrolidone, long-chain fatty acid–substituted polyethylene
glycol, and alkylated cellulose. The plasticizers have been found to be
glycerol or polyethylene glycol. The filter media should also be tested
for compatibility with each parenteral drug product, presence of
induced nonpyrogenicity, and biological toxic.

C. Operational Qualification for membrane filter

Technical report no. 26 from the Parenteral Drug Association identifies

the following factors that should be part of selecting and qualifying a
filter for use as a product sterilizing filter:
1. Particle-shedding characteristics
2. Extractables
3. Chemical compatibility
4. Adsorption
5. Thermal stress resistance
6. Hydraulic stress resistance
7. Toxicity testing
8. Bacterial challenge testing
9. Physical integrity testing
Physical integrity testing has already been discussed. Subsequent
discussion will focus on extractables and bacterial challenge testing.

1. Bacterial Challenge Test

Microbiological challenging of a filter is the only true means of

determining the bacterial retention properties of the system. Such a
test is sensitive because of the large number of organisms used and
because the organism self-replicate and allow even low numbers of
bacteria that might pass through a filter system to make themselves
known.
Filter media are not repetitive-use items, and although used for more
than one lot in production, the media are usually discarded after some
predetermined number of uses or time. Therefore, it is impossible to
test every filter medium individually, since the challenge test is a
destructive test. The nondestructive tests, therefore, require a high
degree of correlation with a retention test. When such correlated tests
are established and controls maintained, filtration users can depend on
filtration to produce a sterile parenteral product.
The level of sensitivity of the challenged test is dependent on the
challenge organism, culture environment of the organism, challenge
level of the organism, test volume filtered, challenge rate or the
duration of the challenge test, and pressure used during the challenge
test.
In 1987, FDA published its guideline on validation of aseptic processing
specifying requirements for challenging filters with 107 cells of
Pseudomonas (now Brevundimonas) diminuta per cm2 of filter surface
and for validating aseptic processes using sterile media fills.
The challenge organism utilized in filter testing is Brevundimonas
diminuta (ATCC 19146). The rationale for using B. diminuta follows the
same logic as used in choosing B. stearothermophilus for steam
sterilization testing. Bacil- lus stearothermophilus is resistant to heat
and therefore severely challenges the lethality given by an autoclave.
Because filtration is a removal process, the most resistant organism to
filtration would be the smallest known bacterium.
Brevundimonas diminuta has been adopted for several reasons. First,
the organism is quite small. The gram-negative rod-shaped cell has a
mean diameter of 0.3 m. The bacteria were first isolated when found
to consistently pass through 0.45-m filter membranes to contaminate
filtered protein solutions. The organism can be grown to high cell
densities in a short period of time, and with proper culturing the cells
are small and arranged singly. In addition, B. diminuta shows only
limited biochemical activity. A growth curve for B. diminuta in saline-
lactose broth (SLB) at 30°C is shown in Figure 05. The initial lag time
lasts about 3 hr. In the exponential growth phase, the organism has a
population doubling time (generation time) of 2.6 hr and an
instantaneous growth rate constant
(µ) of 0.27 hr
1. The growth curve levels off in the stationary phase at approximately
107 cells/mL.
For reproducible challenge tests, care must be taken in culturing
and handling the bacteria to maintain bacterial cells of equal
morphology. Studies have shown that differences in cell morphology
can be produced by using different growth media or by the use or
nonuse of agitation during culturing. Brevundimonas diminuta grown in
trypticase-soy broth (TSB) without agitation produces a cell that is
distinctly rod-shaped, having a length-to-diameter ratio of 2 to 5.
Grown in the same TSB medium but with 200 rpm agitation, B.
diminuta was moredense and had longer cells with a length-to-
diameter ratio of about 4. In addition, the cells tended to form clusters
of from 3 to 8 cells each. Brevundimonas diminuta grown in SLB
without agitation are found to have a length-todiameter ratio of 1 to
2.5 and are arranged singly.

Figure 05 Growth curve of P. diminutia (ATCC 19146) in saline-lactose

broth incubated without agitation at 30°C.

The growth state of a B. diminuta culture is also important in

obtaining the smallest cell size on a reproducible basis.
Brevundimonas diminuta cells are observed to increase in cell size
during the lag phase and become smaller during the declining growth
period. Therefore, challenge cells for retention testing are most
appropriate when in the early stationary phase of growth. Early
stationary phase rather than late stationary phase is taken to reduce
the chance of the challenge culture containing nonviable cells and
cellular debris, which could prematurely clog the test filter medium.
Maintenance of a pure culture of B. diminuta must be done in such a
manner as to keep the probability of mutational changes that might
alter cellular characteristics to a minimum. The microbial challenge
test can be performed on a particular filtration medium, whether disk
or cartridge type, by following these general steps:
1. Sterilize the filter system. Figure 06 shows a hypothetical test
system for a disk filter medium.
2. Integrity test the filter medium using a sterile 0.1% peptone
solutionor saline solution to wet the medium. The wetting solution also
serves as a negative control sterility check. The entire wetting solution
is forced through a sterility control filter, incubated, and checked for
sterility.

Figure 06 Hypothetical disk-filter bacterial challenge test appartus.

3. The bacterial challenge suspension is placed in the appropriate

container and the test filter medium is challenged. The challenge
suspension should have a microbial concentration of 107 B. diminuta
per square cm of effective filter area (EFA). Many challenge levels have
appeared in the literature: 107 per 100 ml for 1400 liters, 105–107 per
ml, 2–4 . 105 per liter per min, 1.2 . 1012–1.9 . 1013 per liter, and 108
per cm2 EFA. Much discussion has also appeared in the literature
concerning the challenge level and the potential adverse effects of
excessive levels of challenge bacteria. The rationale for the 107 B.
diminuta per cm2 EFA challenge is that while this level of bacteria
might not challenge every membrane pore (approximately 108 pores
per membrane medium), it is enough to challenge any oversized pore.
Since the flow through pores varies as the fourth power of the radius of
the pore, a larger fraction of the total flow is carried by the larger
pores. Therefore, it is felt that at the 107 challenge level enough
increased flow will pass through any oversized pores that challenge
bacteria will inevitably encounter an oversized pore, pass through, and
indicate a negative test. The 107 level is also under the filter-clogging
concentration.
The challenge suspension should be forced through the test medium at
a pressure differential greater than 2 kg/cm2 (approximately 30 psi) for
disk filters and at fluxes of greater than 2 liters per 0.1 m2 up to
around 3.86 liters per 0.1 m2 for cartridge-type filters. A pressure relief
valve on the downstream side of the filter should be provided to allow
maximum pressure differentials. The suggestion has also been made
that the pressure be applied full strength immediately rather than a
gradual buildup in order to stress the filter system further.
4. The entire volume of the challenge filtrate is subsequently forced
through a sterility test filter system and incubated in the same manner
as the negative control filtrate.
5. A post challenge integrity test is performed.
6. The challenge test results are then observed. The challenge tests
are considered invalid if the negative control contains any organisms.
The filter system is considered to have failed the test if the filtrate
contains any test organisms.

2. Retention Efficiency

In the past, several terms have been coined to describe the

retention efficiency of the filter system: beta value, microbiological
safety index, reduction ratio, and titer reduction ratio. The log
reduction value (LRV) is a filter retention efficiency term that is the
logarithm to the base of 10 of the ratio of the number of organisms in
the challenge suspension to the number of organisms in the filtrate.
 4. Aseptic Processing

Aseptic fill processes are validated by simulating production

conditions and using a bacterial culture medium as the product. This
process simulation test is commonly referred to as a “media
fill.”Production facilities must be checked to ensure that all installed
equipment both satisfies the engineering and quality design criteria
(installation qualification) and functions properly (operational
qualification). In the performance of a media fill, it is important that
everything be conducted just as a normal production run. All
equipment normally used should be used. All equipment should be
cleaned, sanitized, sterilized, handled, and assembled in a normal
manner. All personnel normally involved in an aseptic process must
participate in the media fill. Such personnel must have sufficient
training in such areas as basic microbiology, personal hygiene,
gowning techniques, manipulative techniques, safety, and cleaning
procedures.

Table 03 provides a list of considerations for ensuring that every

aseptic process is appropriately simulated during a media fill validation
exercise.
Media fills are conducted to initially qualify a new filling line, a new
product, and/or a change in product container configuration.
Subsequent to ini- tial qualification, media fills are required on a
semiannual basis to provide minimal assurance that good aseptic
conditions and practices have been maintained. Initial media fill
qualification typically involves a minimum of three consecutive,
separate, and successful media fills. The definition of successful has
evolved from allowing one contaminated unit out of 1000 containers to
having zero contaminated units.
Periodic requalification of aseptic processes with media fills every
6 months applies to every filling line, every product container
configuration, and every aseptic process operator. Sometimes a
requalification media fill will need to be conducted in intervals of less
than 6 months if environmental monitoring data start failing
acceptance limits, if there is personnel change, if a major
manufacturing deviation occurred, or if equipment changes or
modifications take place. A valid change control procedure needs to be
in place to ascertain when changes in the manufacturing environment
require a new media fill qualification. Ideally, the maximum batch size
should be simulated in the media fill. Practically, the number of units
filled with media must be sufficient to reflect the effects of worst-case
filling rates, including operator fatigue and the maximum number of
interventions and stoppages. While 3000 vials are needed to detect
with 95% confidence a contamination rate of one in 1000, using 3000
vials as a minimum number of units to be filled is no longer considered
to be sufficient. The current regulatory position is to fill a minimum of
4750 units three consecutive times with zero positives. One positive in
each of three consecutive runs is viewed as a serious process control
problem. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has
developed acceptance criteria (the maximum acceptable contaminated
units in a media fill run) as a function of the number of media fill units.
Following a periodic requalification media fill, production may resume
while media fill units are incubating. No product can be released until
media fill data are analyzed and acceptance criteria are met, however.
Each lot of media must pass a growth promotion test (10 to 100 CFUs
per container) following the media fill run and again after the end of
the incubation period. Typically incubation of media involves a period
of 7 days at 30– 35°C to detect bacterial growth, followed by 7 days at
20–25°C for molds. Incubation conditions must be justified based on
favored growth conditions for common environmental isolates. Prior to
incubation, each unit must be inspected, with any leaking or damaged
units removed. Each unit also must be rolled or inverted prior to
incubation for media to contact all interior surfaces of the container.
Media fill failures can and do occur. Standard operating procedures
must be in place to provide action steps in case of a media fill failure.
Typically, if one of three runs fail, the entire sequence of three
separate, consecutive media fill runs is repeated unless a clear
assignable cause can be given to the failed media run. If a
requalification media fill fails (one run), there should be criteria in the
procedure to determine whether a single repeat run or a repeat of the
initial qualification (three runs) should be done. All documentation
involved in a production process (e.g., environmental monitoring data
and trends, personnel monitoring data and trends, sterilization charts,
HEPA filter certification, filter integrity test data, handling and storage
of all equipment) must be reviewed after a media fill failure. For an
aseptic filling process the level of sterility assurance is a cumulative
function of all the unit operations involved in the entire manufacturing
system. The final level of sterility cannot be greater than the unit
operation providing the lowest probability of sterility. Adherence to a
program that will enable the validation of all steps in the aseptic
process from the solution preparation step to the final container
closing/sealing step will provide the highest assurance possible that all
steps of the process are collectively functioning and controlled to yield a
product that is microbiologically safe.
References:
1. Nash Robert A., Wachter Alferd H., Pharmaceutical Process Validation, 3rd
edition, published by Marcel Dekker, Inc.
2. http//www.Honeyman.co.uk