sutton.jgxp_.14.3.pdf

8/9/2019 sutton.jgxp_.14.3.pdf

1/9

MI RO IOLOGY T PI S

The nvironmental onitoring Program n aGMP Environment ott utton

Microbiology Topics discusses various topics in microbiology of practical use

in validation and compliance. e intend this column to be a useful resourcefor d ily work applications.

Reader comments, questions, and suggestions are needed to help us fulfillour objective for this column. Please send your comments and suggestionsto column coordinator Scott Sutton at [email protected] or journalcoordinating editor Susan Haigney at [email protected].

K Y PO NTS

The following key points are discussed this article:• The routine environmental monitoring program is a critical aspect

of documenting the state of control of th e facility• Recommendations for the selec tion of sample s ites to be used th e

qualification program are provided These recommendations aredirected at providing data t allow creat ion of a program useful indeterminat ion of the state of cont ro l of th e facility

• The qualification study should provide data to allow determination ofmeaningful alert an d action levels for that facility. t must be notedthat there are significant technical an d scientific issues with th e regulatory gUidelines for the areas of an aseptic core reg ion a suggestion consistent with proposed revisions t United tates harmacopeiachapter Microbiological Control and Monitoring Environ-ments Used for th e Manufacture of Healthcare Products is provided

• Explici t examples are provided from public ally-available sources FDA-483 observations and warning letters) of enforcement activities based on good manufacturing practice failures in th e environ-mental monitoring program

• A discussion is provided on th e relative values of 48 3 observa-tions and warning letters as useful indicators of US Food an d DrugAdministration policy.

Journal XP ompliance


2/9

= ~ - ~ ~ - - - - - ~ - - ~ - ~ ~ - - r ~

Scott Sutton CoordinahH

INTRODUCTION

The qualification, or requalification, of an asepticmanufacturing facility depends in large part on thedemonstration of controlled microbial conditions. Thefollowing are several areas where this is especially true:

• Cleaning studies• Contamination control planning 1• Equipment hold time studies establishment of

clean and dirty hold t i m s ~ p r o s shold timesare process-speCific)

• Selection of sample sites for environmentalmonitoring

• Establishment of facility-relevant alert and actionlevels for controlled environments.

This article examines the environmental monitoring EM program, its sample sites, frequency of testing,and establishment of alert an d action levels. A methodto qualify and justify the selection of the samplesites within a facility used for routine environmentalmonitoring is presented. This discussion is not meantto describe the only possible approach to this selectionbu t rather one that the author has used in the past withsuccess. Due to the limitations of space, this discussiondoes not include sampling of the water system, gasses,

or personnel which have distinct considerations.

WH T IS THE POINT THE EM PROGR M

In trying to determine the appropriate parameters ofa complex program such as environmental monitoring, we first have to agree upon the scope andpurpose of the program. The purpose of the EMprogram is to document the state of control of thefaCility, no t to determine the quali ty of the finishedproduct. The US Food a nd r ug Administration

gUidance document 2 is very clear on this point insection X.A.I and states: In aseptic processing, one of the most important

laboratory controls is the environmental monitoring program. This program provides meaningfulinformation on the quali ty of the aseptic processing environment e.g., when a given batch is beingmanufactured) as well as environmental trends ofancillary clean areas. Environmental monitoringshould promptly identify potential routes of con-

tamination, allowing for implementation of corrections before product contamination occurs 211.42an d 211.113).

Section X.A.2 of the gUidance states, Environmental monitoring data will provide information on thequality of the manufacturing environment.

Recent publications have reinforced the position thatthe EM program looks to document the state ofcontrolof the facility. Hussong and Madsen 3) point out thatthe microbiological assays used have limits of quantification higher than the customary control levels and soare subject to a great deal ofvariability. This consideration, by their argument, reduces the precision andpredictive ability of the data. Therefore, the trend ofthe data is the critical aspect, and this information cannot be used in finished product quality decisions. Inother words, pristine EM data for an aseptic processingfaCility speaks to the state of control of that facility, notto the sterility of products produced there.

Farrington expanded this thesis in a subsequentarticle 4 . He observed that the relationship of EMdata to finished product quality was an unproven,bu t commonly held belief. In the absence of data, wecannot assume it is true, bu t that it is undeniable thatthese data and particulary the trending ofthese data)

show the state of control of the faCility. He arguesthat the regulatory concern over contamination fromenvironment makes sense, but must be applied withjudgment and scientific rigor. The major problem withEM data, of course, is the fundamental imprecisionand variability of these data. This imprecision rendersthe data all but useless as quantitative predictors of thesystem, but valuable as raw data for the determinationof trends in the faCility as a whole. Farrington makesthe interesting observation here that these concerns

about traditional EM methods are also a concern forrapid methods.Farrington is not the only worker to point out the

fundamental problem using rapid methods to generate inherently imprecise and variable data. Sutton 5has more than once pointed out the questionable valueof generating bad data quickly over generating baddata slowly. The data are not inherently better forbeing read off an extremely expensive machine. Thisis not to say that the rapid methods are not needed or

Summer 2 Volume Number 3


3/9

MICROBIOl \ GY T P I C S

desirable, only that they are not a panacea and must beapplied with forethought.

SHOULD THE S MPLE SITES IDENTIFIED

There is a school of thought that believes thatsample sites for the EM program should not bedefined, that sampling from a defined location willencourage the cleaners to pay particular attention tothose sites and skew the data. This is incorrect andcontrary to good manufacturing practice (GMP). Forexample, the FDA aseptic processing gUideline 2,Section X.A.l) states:

It is important that locations posing the mostmicrobiological risk to the product be a key partof the program. t is especially important to monitor the microbiological quality of the critical areato determine whether or not aseptic conditions aremaintained during filling and closing activities. Airand surface samples should be taken at the locationswhere significant activity or product exposure occursduring production. Critical surfaces that come incontact with the sterile product should remain sterilethroughout an operation. When identifying criticalsites to be sampled, consideration should be givento the points of contamination risk in a process,

including factors such as difficulty of setup, length ofprocessing time, and impact of interventions

All environmental monitoring locations should bedescribed in SOPs with sufficient detail to allow forreproducible sampling of a given location surveyed.Written SOPs should also address elements such as1. frequency of sampling, 2. when the samples aretaken i.e., during or at the conclusion of operations),3. duration of sampling, 4. sample size (e.g., surfacearea, air volume), 5. specific sampling equipmentand techniques, 6. alert and action levels, and 7. appropriate response to deviations from alert or actionlevels.

In other words, the sites used in the routine EMprogram must be justified and identified. SectionX.A.2 states, Microbiological monitoring levelsshould be established based on the relationship ofthe sampled location to the operation. The levelsshould be based on the need to maintain adequatemicrobiological control throughout the entire sterile

manufacturing facility. Environmental monitoringdata will proVide information on the quality of themanufacturing environment.

This concern also appears in 483 observationsand warning letters. Warning letters and many 483observations are posted on FDA s website (6). Thefollowing 483 observation dealt with significant issues in justification of the EM sample sites 7):

Regarding the increased non-routine surveillance monitoring performed to further evaluate theBuilding 37 Flu manufacturing facility, there was noplan in place specifying the locations to be tested,method of sampling, and actions to be taken whenmicrobial contamination was noted. Samples containing colony forming units CFU) were evaluatedfor morphological characteristics, and only coloniesexhibiting Gram-negative characteristics were Gramstained and identified

• The [redacted] method used for increased surveillance monitoring of the environment hasnot been qualified.

So, clearly it is important to have a rationale forthe location, frequency and number of sample sites.This can be done by a qualification study that will

utilize many more sample sites th n will be presentin the routine program, but will serve to identifythose sites most useful to routine monitoring.

NUMBER OF SITES FOR QU LIFIC TION STUDIES

International Organization for Standardization ISO) 14644-1 (8) describes a method to determinethe number of sampling sites for site qualification. Annex B states that we should determine theminimum number of sample sites by the followingequation:

N ~L

whereN

Lis the minimum number of sampling

locations rounded up to a whole number)A is the area of the clean room or zonein meters 2 .

This might work well enough for non-viableparticulate measures which is the intent and scope

Journal o XP ompliance

. ~ =


4/9

, Scot t Sutton Coordinatl u

of 14644-1), but we also wish to consider viableair sampling both passive and active) and viablesurface monitoring. Frequently, the sample sitestudy is worked into the facility HVAC performancequalification study for ease of documentation andlogistic considerations. For the initial facility HVACqualification protocol, both viable an d non-viableactive air sampling sites should be done at the samelocations or as close as practical to avoid compromising the other measure or the product integrity).This leaves determination of the number of sites forpassive air sampling and surface sampling.

P SSIVE IR S MPLINGPassive air sampling (i.e., settle plates) is a frequently

used measure of clean room (or controlled zone)monitoring. Settle plates have several advantages inthis regard, chief among them the ability to remainin continuous exposure for up to four hours fourhours is cited in European Union [EU] 2008 gUidance[ ] extended exposure times must be demonstratedvia demonstration of the growth promoting capabilitiesof the aged and exposed media). In addition, passiveviable monitoring settle plates) is not disruptive to theimmediate environment and so may possibly sample

sites very near product exposure points (see reference10 for a discussion of these, and other, advantages).In addition, settle plates are not as prone to variationamong different vendors as are active samplers (11).However, it is not clear whether all the advantages citedfor passive sampling apply in areas of laminar air flowat the rates used for modern clean rooms. In addition,settle plates may be particularly susceptible to handling, transport, and lab contamination. However youview their usefulness, current regulatory expectationfor air monitoring includes their use and the justification ofsampling sites. A prudent measure is to usethe same number ofsampling sites for settle platesas used for the active viable and non-viable samplingprograms. These will not be the same sites but will besimilar in number.

SURF E S MPLINGThis leaves us with determination of the number of surface sampling sites for the qualification

study. There is no regulatory guidance directedto this point for the international pharmaceuti-cal industry. Even the Pharmaceutical InspectionConvention and Pharmaceutical Inspection Cooperation Scheme PIC/S), which generally can becounted on to provide details on almost everythingmicrobiological, is silent on this point (12). Oddlyenough, even the Parenteral Drug Association(PDA) s echnical eport 13 13) offers no helphere. We are left to our own devices. One approachto determination of the number of sites would beto address it in a manner similar to that of ISO14644-I for the walls an d floors as relevant). Eachsurface would then be treated as a separate itemand the minimum number of sites determined for

each. While this might work for walls and floors,the number of surface sampling sites for equipmentremains unanswered an d is not noticeably amenable to this approach. This, quite frankly, may wellbe something that must be left to determination ateach individual s i t e the numbers could be drivenby the nature of the equipment and the associatedmanufacturing process.

SELE TION S MPLE SITES R THE

QU LIFI TION STUDYHaving determined the number of sites for eachroom, we now need to determine their location forthis qualification study. One of the goals of thisstudy is to provide data to assist in the determination of appropriate sample sites. This method ofdetermining sample site number will provide anunreasonably large number of sample sites for routine surface sampling. is from the data collectedthat the determination of the routine surface and airsample sites will be decided.

The selection of sample sites should be designedto provide useful information for eventual selection of routine sample sites. Several technical andguidance documents from PDA, FDA, EU, and theUnited States Pharmacopeia (USP) are relevant.

Parenteral Drug ssociationPDA echnical eport 13 provides the followinggUidance in this regard:

Summer 2 Volume Number 5


5/9

MICROBIO[ ; GY l O ~ I S

Factors to consider in selecting sites for routinesurveillance are:

• At which sites would microbial contamination most likely have an adverse effect on productquality?

• 2. ha t sites would most likely demonstrateheaviest microbial proliferation during actualproduction?

• 3. Should site selection involve a statistical design e.g., following the calculations in Federal Standard 209E or should site selection be made onthe basis of grid profiling? Should some sites forroutine monitoring be rotated? [Note from author:As ge has been withdrawn in favor ofISO 14644, theanswer is No ]

• 4. ha t sites would represent the most inaccessible or difficult areas to clean, sanitize, or disinfect?

• 5. ha t activities in the area contribute to thespread of contamination?

• 6. Would the act of sampling at a given site disturbthe environment sufficiently to cause erroneousdata to be collected or contaminate product? 13).

The U ood and rug dministrationThe FDA aseptic processing guidance document 2)

states in section IVA: Air in the immediate proximity of exposed steril

ized containers/closures an d filling/closing operationswould be of appropriate particle quality when it has aper-cubic-meter particle count of no more than 3520in a size range of 0.5 pm and larger when countedat representative locations normally not more thanone foot away from the work site, within the airflow,and during filling/closing operations. This level of aircleanliness is also known as Class 100 ISO 5). We

recommend that measurements to confirm air cleanliness in critical areas be taken at sites where there ismost potential risk to the exposed sterilized product,containers, and closures. The particle counting probeshould be placed in an orientation demonstrated toobtain a meaningful sample. Regular monitoringshould be performed during each production shift. Werecommend conducting nonviable particle monitoring with a remote counting system. These systems arecapable of collecting more comprehensive data and are

generally less invasive than portable particle counters.See Section X.E. for additional guidance on particlemonitoring.

Some operations ca n generate high levels of product

e.g., powder particles that, by their nature, do notpose a risk of product contamination. may not, inthese cases, be feasible to measure air quality withinthe one-foot distance and still differentiate backgroundlevels of particles from air contaminants. In theseinstances, air ca n be sampled in a manner that, to theextent possible, characterizes the true level of extrinsicparticle contamination to which the product is exposed. Initial qualification of the area under dynamicconditions without the actual filling function providessome baseline information on the non-product particlegeneration of the operation.

Further, Section X.A. states: Sample timing, frequency, an d location should be

carefully selected based upon their relationship to theoperation performed

It is important that locations posing the mostmicrobiological risk to the product be a key part ofthe program. It is especially important to monitor themicrobiological quality of the critical area to determinewhether or not aseptic conditions are maintained

during filling and closing activities. Air and sur-face samples should be taken at the locations wheresignificant activity or product exposure occurs duringproduction. Critical surfaces that come in contact withthe sterile product should remain sterile throughoutan operation. he n identifying critical sites to besampled, consideration should be given to the points ofcontamination risk in a process, including factors suchas difficulty of setup, length of processing time, andimpact of interventions.

European UnionThe ED guidance document Manufacture of SterileMedicinal Products 9) provides some site selection guidance:

18. Where aseptic operations are performed monitoring should be frequent using methods such as settleplates, volumetric air, and surface sampling e.g., swabsand contact plates . Sampling methods used in operation should not interfere with zone protection.


~


6/9

United States PharmacopeiaSimilarly, the following gUidance in the proposed revision to U chapter d > 14) is of general interest:

Microbiological sampling sites are best selectedwhen human activity during manufacturing operations are considered. Careful observation and mapping of a clean room during the qualification phasecan provide information concerning the movementand positioning of personnel within these rooms.Such observation can also yield important information about the most frequently conducted manipulations and interventions.

Other areas of concern relative to introduction ofcontamination into clean rooms are at entry pointswhere equipment and materials move from areas of

lower classification to those of higher classification.Therefore, areas within and around doors and airlocks should be included in the monitoring scheme.

Specific considerations for sample site selectionin the qualification study can be distilled fromthese different sources. After the minimal numberof sites in a room is determined, their most usefullocation must be determined. This determinationshould be documented in a written justification andshould consider the following:

• Contamination vectors e.g., handles, controlpanels, doors, etc.)• High traffic areas• Personnel flow• Material flow• Waste flow• Surfaces that are difficult to disinfect• HVAC returns• Product risk• Extent of product exposure• The type of activity performed near that site• Interventions and manipulations• Surfaces that are difficult to disinfect.

S MPLING FREQUEN Y R THEQU LIFI TION STUOYThe sampling frequency for the qualification of aspeCific controlled environment should, in general,follow that of the regulatory recommendationsfor that level of control. This is a matter of some

S U a l ton C o o r d i n a ~

discussion as the recommendations in Europe EUAnnex 1), ISO, and the US USP) are not in complete agreement. The qualification study may benefit from more frequent sampling and under moreconditions e.g., sampling under both dynamic andat-rest conditions) than are planned for the routinemonitoring program.

The EM qualification protocol should allow forthe sampling frequency to be described in detail andjustified. As this justification will rely on the selectionof sites that show conSistently higher colony formingunit CFU) recovered, there will need to be enoughsampling to allow the sites to be identified. It is recommended that the frequency of sampling be accelerated particularly in lower class-controlled environments)

during the qualification study to allow collection ofsufficient data from each site to all this determinationofmeaningful routine sample sites.

DUR TION QU LIFI TION STUDYThe duration of the qualification study should bedetermined by the need to acquire sufficient dataan d the frequency of testing for that sample site.A site tested on a weekly basis may require threemonths of data at least 12-14 data points) before

enough data are available. The qualification protocol should just ify the durat ion of the study on thisbasis and not what best fits the mandated timelinefor facility qualification).

SELE TION ROUTINESITESThe qualification study should include sufficient replicates under conditions both at rest and dynamicto allow identification ofsites that provide usefulinformation. It should be clarified that the term usefulinformation is not meant to describe those sites thatgive the most desire able counts but rather those sitesthat either give the highest counts i.e., serve as themost sensitive measure of the state of control of theroom) or were shown to be appropriately placed toherald a problem in the room. The number of sites in aroom or zone should similarly be driven by data generated during this study. Both the number and locationofsites or each clean room or zone should be justifiedin the report from this qualification study.

Summer 2 Volume 4 Number


7/9

'

MUlRifIJSfOLEUU ~ m P S

The following section (X.A.l) from the FDA guidance (2) is relevant for consideration:

All environmental monitoring locations should bedescribed in SOPs with sufficient detail to allow forreproducible sampling of a given location surveyed.Written SOPs should also address elements such as1. frequency of sampling, 2. when the samples aretaken (i.e., during or at the conclusion of operations),3. duration of sampling, 4. sample size (e.g., surfacearea, air volume), 5. specific sampling equipment an dtechniques, 6. alert an d action levels, and appropriate response to deviations from alert or action levels.

The generation of relevant data to justify sample sitesis taken seriously by FDA. An example of this ca n befound in a n FDA-issued warning letter (15):

For environmental an d personnel monitoring:• Your active air-sampling unit in one aseptic filling

room is not located in a critical area representativeofexposure of open containers on the aseptic line.The active air sampling unit was observed positioned behind stoppered vials

You have not evaluated the microbiological burdengenerated from the manual aseptic connection fromthe source vessel to the XXX filling vessel.

It is no t sufficient to pick a few sites around the

room an d then apply alert and action levels as recommended by some guidance document. The location,control levels, an d frequency of sampling must be justified by data and a rational analysis.

ESTABLISHMENT ALERT AND ACTION LEVElS

Data from the qualification study should be used toset the initial operating alert an d action levels for theroutine environmental monitoring program. A goodrule of thumb is that the alert level should be at the95th percentile of observed readings for a given periodof time, the action level at the 99th percentile (see thePDA echnical eport 13 for an excellent discussion ofsetting alert an d action levels). While common industry practice is to uncritically accept regulatory recommendations for predefined clean zones, this practiceis discouraged in the US (see reference 2, especiallysection X.A.2 Establishing Levels and a Trending Program ). There is controversy over the regulatory guidance for highly controlled areas as well with concern

that control levels set so far below the level of quantification for plate count assays (generally 25-30 CFU perplate, compared with regulatory guidance setting alertand action levels as low as single digits). This concernled USP to suggest a frequency distribution approachfor these areas (14). An interesting discussion of thisapproach ca n be found in Caputo an d Huffman (16).

Whichever approach is chosen to the determinationof the inital alert an d action levels, they should be oneof the deliverables from the EM qualification program.

Once these are established there must be a mechanism in place to track an d trend them in real t imean d to investigate excursions. The recent upset overvaccine production featured a failure to investigaterepeated excursions that figured prominently in 483

observations (17) a nd i n the associated warning letter(18). A second example of this enforcement stancecan be seen in the warning letter from 2 9 regardingmanufacture control of a parenteral medication (19)Collection of data an d then failure to use the data todetermine the state of control for the facility is clearlyat odds with GMP an d will be cited.

We would be remiss if the role of the historical database was not discussed in the setting of alert and actionlevels. This expectation is described in the FDA aseptic

processing guidance document (section X.A.2) as: Microbiological monitoring levels should be established based on the relationship of the sampled location to the operation. The levels should be based onthe need to maintain adequate microbiological controlthroughout the entire sterile manufacturing faCility.One should also consider environmental monitoringdata from historical databases, media fills, cleanroomqualification, and sanitization studies, in developingmonitor ing levels (2)

That this is a long-standing expectation of FDA isevidenced by an FDA-483 observation from 2001 thatreads (in part), 44. The firm's microbial alert an d action limits established for the XX to XXX manufacturing areas are not based on historical data taken fromthe EM Program (20).

THE MICROORGANISM CATALOG

FDA has clearly recommended establishment of alisting of common microorganisms found in the

Journal XP omplIance

- ~ - ~ ~ ~ -


8/9

Scot t SlIUCUI, f:l O udinator

aseptic manufacturing environment. This expectat ion is laid out in section X.B. 2 , as follows:

Characterization of recovered microorganismsprovides vital information for the environmen-tal monitoring program. Environmental isolatesoften correlate with the contaminants found in amedia fill or product sterility testing failure, an dthe overall environmental picture provides valuable information for an investigation. Monitoringcritical an d immediately surrounding clean areasas well as personnel should include routine identification of microorganisms to the species or,where appropriate, genus) level. In some cases,environmental trending data have revealed migration of microorganisms into the aseptic processing

room from either uncontrolled or lesser controlledareas. Establishing an adequate program for differentiating microorganisms in the lesser-controlledenvironments, such as Class 100,000 (ISO 8 , canoften be instrumental in detecting such trends. Atminimum, the program should require species or,where appropriate, genus) identification of microorganisms in these ancillary environments at frequentintervals to establish a valid, current database ofcontaminants present in the facility during process

ing (and to demonstrate that cleaning an d sanitization procedures continue to be effective).The EM qualification study is an excellent op

portunity to start this catalog, an d to generateinformation on the effectiveness of the cleaningan d sanitization program from a microbiologicalperspective. Make sure that the EM qualificationprogram includes relevant evaluations.

A NOTE O CAUTION O 483SThere is a great deal of interest currently in the topicof objectionable organisms. And in fact you mighteven find 483 observations that relate to objectionable organisms in an aseptic manufacturing arena 21 . A quck check of the current good manufacturing practice CGMP guidance (22) shows the following three references to objectionables :

CFR 211.84(d)(6). Each lot of a component,drug product container, or closure that is liableto microbiological contamination that is objec-

tionable in view ofits intended use shall be subjected to microbiological tests before use.

• CFR 211.113(a). Appropriate written procedures, designed to prevent objectionable microorganisms in drug products not reqUired to besterile, shall be established and followed.

• R 211.165(b). There shall be appropriatelaboratory testing, as necessary, of each batchof drug product reqUired to be free of objectionable microorganisms.

There are two problems with referencing objectionables with aseptic manufacture: the first isthat it begs the question of what permissible microorganisms might be in the aseptic environment,

an d secondly that it misrepresents the requirementsin 21 CFR 211 which relate to non-sterile finisheddosage forms. The point here is tha t we must becareful of over-interpreting 483 observations asteaching tools. While they can be enlightening, inthe en d they are only one inspector s opinion onthat particular day an d faced with a particular setof conditions. Everyone has an off day, an d we maynever know all the background that went into the483 observation.

Having said that, the availability of warningletters provides a window into CGMP that can bevery useful. Warning letters have been reviewed atthe district, frequently have been reviewed at thenational level, and can be considered to representFDA policy.

REFERENCES

1. PMF Newsletter, Volume 13, Number 6, Pharmaceutical

Microbiology Forum, June 2007, http://microbiologyforum.

org/PMFNews/PMFNews.13.06.0706.pdf

2. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Stehle Drug Products Produced by

AseptiC Processing Current Good ManufactUring Practice, 2004

3. Hussong, D an d RE Madsen, Analysis of Environmental

Microbiology Data From Cleanroom Samples, Pharm Tech-

no . Aseptic Proc:10-15, 2004.

4. Farrington, JK., Environmental Monitoring in Pharmaceutical

Manufacturing-A Product Risk Issue, Amer Phar/ ] Rev.

8 4 :26-30,2005.

5. Sut ton, S., Is Real-Time Release Through PAT Compat-

Summer 2 1 Volume 14 Number 3


9/9

ible with the Ideal of 'Science-Based' Regulation? Pharm

Techno . 31(2):97-98, 2007.

6 FDA warning letters are posted at http://www.fda.gov/foi/

warning.htm and some 483 observations may be found at

http://www.fda.gov/ora/frequent/default.htm

7 FDA, Warning Letter to Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., 483 In

spectional Observations, Swiftwater, PA April 18 2006

http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/ORA/ORA

ElectronicReadingRoom/ucm056529.htm

8. ISO, ISO 14644-1 Cleanrooms and Associated Controlled

Environments - Part 1: Classification of Air Cleanliness 1999. EU, EudraLex: The Rules Governing Medicinal Products in the

European Union Volume 4: EU Guidelines to Good Manufactur-

ing Practice Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use:

Annex Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal Products, 2008.

10 Whyte, W., In Support of Settle Plates, PDA] Pharm SciTech. 50(4):201-204, 1996.

II . Yao M an d Mainelis, G Investlgation of Cut-Off Sizes

and Collection Efficiencies of Portable Microbial Samplers,

Aerosol Sci Technol. 40:595 - 606 , 2006.

12. PIC/S, PI 006 2 Recommendations on Validation Master Plan,

Installation and Operational Qualification Non sterile Process

Validation Cleaning Validation 2004.

13. PDA PDA Tech Report 13 Revised), Fundamentals of an

Environmental Monitoring Program, 2001.

14 USP Chapter Microbiological Control and Monitoring Environments Used for the Manufacture of Health

care Products, Pharm Forum. 33(3),2007.

15 FDA, Warning Letter to Pharmalucence, Inc., Sep. 23,

2008, http://www.fda.govIICECIIEnforcementActions/

WarningLetters/2008/ucml048128.htm

16 Caputo, RA and A Huffman, Environmental Monitoring:

Data Trending Using a Frequency Model, PDA] Pharm Sci

Tech. 58(5):254-260, 2004.

17 FDA, FDA-483 Observation for Evans Vaccines, 2004.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/

ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM062048.pdf

18. FDA, Warning Letter to Chiron Corporation December

9, 2004. http://www.fda.govIICECIIEnforcementActions/

WarningLetters12004/ucm146700 .htm

19. FDA, Warning Letter to Dabur Oncology PLC, April 22,

2009. http://www.fda.govIICECIIEnforcementActions/

WarningLetters/ucm164142.htm

20. FDA, FDA-483 Observation to Eli Lilly Company, 2001.

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/

ORA/ORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM064113. pd f

21 FDA, FDA-483 Observation for Genzyme Corporation,

2009, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/Center

sOffices/ORAlORAElectronicReadingRoom/UCM191991.

pd f observations 13 24 25 30 31 34

22. FDA, Code of Federal Regulat ions, 21 CFR 211, CGMP in

Manufacturing Processing, Packaging, or Holding of Drugs and

Finished Pharmaceuticals. X

ARTICLE ACRONYMLISTINGCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCFU Colony Forming UnitCGMP Current Good Manufacturing PracticeUSP United States PharmacopeiaEM Environmental Monitoring European UnionFDA US Food and Drug AdministrationGMP Good Manufacturing Practice

ISO International Organization for StandardizationPDA Parenteral Drug AssociationPIC S Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention

and Pharmaceutical InspectionCo operation Scheme

ABOUT THE AUTHORScott Sutton, Ph.D., is owner and operator of The Microbiology Network (wwwmicrobiol.org), which provides services tomicrobiology-related user's groups. Dr Sutton m ay b e reachedbye-mail at [email protected].


sutton.jgxp_.14.3.pdf

Documents