A metrological background for investigating out-of-specification (OOS) test results of chemical composition is discussed. When an OOS test result is identified, it is important to determine its root causes and to avoid reoccurrence of such results. An investigation of the causes based on metrological concepts is proposed. It includes assessment of validation data of the measurement process and its metrological traceability chains, evaluation of measurement uncertainty, and related producer’s and consumer’s risks. This approach allows distinguishing between OOS test results that indicate an actual change in chemical composition of an analyzed object, and OOS test results that are metrologically related with a certain confidence probability, i.e., caused by measurement problems, while the analyzed object still meets the specification requirements at the time of testing. Practical examples illustrating applications of the described approach in environ-mental and food analysis, as well in drug analysis and stability study of drug products, are described. Acceptance limits, warning and action lines for the test results, and corresponding producer’s and consumer’s risks are discussed.
Project Year: 2008, Project Code: 2008-030-1-500
References
1 U.S. FDA. Guidance for Industry. Investigating Out-of-Specification (OOS) Test Results for Pharmaceutical Production, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD (2006).Search in Google Scholar
2 S. Kuwahara. BioPharm Int. Nov. 1, 1 (2007).Search in Google Scholar
3 A. M. Hoinowski, S. Motola, R. J. Davis, J. V. McArdle. Pharm. Technol. Jan., 40 (2002).Search in Google Scholar
4 European Medicines Agency. Quality Risk Management (ICH Q9) (2005).Search in Google Scholar
5 European Medicines Agency. Pharmaceutical Quality System (ICH Q10) (2008).Search in Google Scholar
6 European Commission. Report on the Relationship between Analytical Results, Measurement Uncertainty, Recovery Factors and the Provisions of EU Food and Feed Legislation (2004). <http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/chemicalsafety/contaminants/report-sampling_analysis_2004_ en.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar
7 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide. Use of Uncertainty Information in Compliance Assessment (2007).Search in Google Scholar
8 ILAC G8. Guidance on the Reporting of Compliance with Specification, International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation, Sydney (2009).Search in Google Scholar
9 JCGM 106 Guide. Evaluation of Measurement Data – The Role of Measurement Uncertainty in Conformity Assessment (2012). <http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html>.Search in Google Scholar
10 10.1007/s00769-009-0618-4, I. Kuselman, F. Pennecchi, C. Burns, A. Fajgelj, P. de Zorzi. Accred. Qual. Assur.15, 283 (2010).Search in Google Scholar
11 BIPM. International Vocabulary of Metrology – Basic and General Concepts and Associated Terms (VIM), 3rd ed., Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, Geneva (2012). <http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/vim.html>.Search in Google Scholar
12 ISO/IEC 3534. Statistics – Vocabulary and Symbols – Part 1: General Statistical Terms and Terms Used in Probability, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2006).Search in Google Scholar
13 ISO 17000. Conformity Assessment – Vocabulary and General Principles, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2004).Search in Google Scholar
14 U.S. FDA. Guidance for Industry. Process Validation: General Principles and Practices, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD (2011).Search in Google Scholar
15 ICH Q2(R1). Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology, International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (2005).Search in Google Scholar
16 L. Huber. Validation and Quantification in Analytical Laboratories, Interpharm Press, Buffalo Grove, IL (1999).Search in Google Scholar
17 EURACHEM Guide. The Fitness for Purpose of Analytical Methods: A Laboratory Guide to Method Validation and Related Topics (1998).Search in Google Scholar
18 P. De Bièvre, H. Günzler (Eds.). Validation in Chemical Measurement, Springer, Berlin (2005).10.1007/b138530Search in Google Scholar
19 M. M. W. B. Hendriks, J. H. de Boer, A. K. Smilde (Eds.). Robustness of Analytical Chemical Methods and Pharmaceutical Technological Products, Elsevier, Amsterdam (1996).Search in Google Scholar
20 ISO 21748. Guidance for the Use of Repeatability, Reproducibility and Trueness Estimates in Measurement Uncertainty Estimation, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva (2010).Search in Google Scholar
21 B. Magnusson, T. Näykki, H. Hovind, M. Kryssel. Handbook for Calculation of Measurement Uncertainty in Environmental Analysis, NORDTEST Report TR 537, NORDTEST Tekniikantie 12, FIN-02150 Espoo, Finland (2003).Search in Google Scholar
22 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide. Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement, 3rd ed. (2012).Search in Google Scholar
23 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide. Measurement Uncertainty Arising from Sampling. A Guide to Methods and Approaches (2007).Search in Google Scholar
24 EURACHEM/CITAC Guide. Traceability in Chemical Measurement. A Guide to Achieving Comparable Results in Chemical Measurement (2003).Search in Google Scholar
25 10.1351/PAC-REP-07-09-39, P. De Bièvre, R. Dybkaer, A. Fajgelj, D. B. Hibbert. Pure Appl. Chem.83, 1873 (2011).Search in Google Scholar
26 P. De Bièvre, H. Günzler (Eds.). Traceability in Chemical Measurement, Springer, Berlin (2005).10.1007/b138593Search in Google Scholar
27 H. J. Mittag, H. Rinne. Statistical Methods of Quality Assurance, pp. 119–150, Charman & Hall, London (1993).Search in Google Scholar
28 R. B. D’Agostino, M. A. Stephens (Eds.). Goodness-of-Fit Techniques, Marcel Dekker, New York (1986).Search in Google Scholar
29 10.1007/s11869-010-0103-6, I. Kuselman, S. Shpitzer, F. Pennecchi, C. Burns. Air Qual. Athmos. Health (2010).Search in Google Scholar
30 U.S. EPA. EPA Method IO-2.1. Sampling of Ambient Air for Total Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and PM10Using High Volume (HV) Sampler, Cincinnati (1999). <http://www.epa.gov/ ttnamti1/inorg.html>.Search in Google Scholar
31 U.S. EPA. EPA Method IO-2.4. Calculations for Standard Volume, Cincinnati (1999). <http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/inorg.html>.Search in Google Scholar
32 U.S. EPA. EPA Method IO-3.1. Selection, Preparation and Extraction of Filter Material, Cincinnati (1999). <http://www.epa.gov/ttnamti1/inorg.html>.Search in Google Scholar
33 10.1007/s00769-011-0780-3, I. Kuselman, P. Goldshlag, F. Pennecchi, C. Burns. Accred. Qual. Assur.16, 361 (2011).Search in Google Scholar
34 SANCO Document No. 10684/2009. Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residues Analysis in Food and Feed (2009). <http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/qualcontrol_en.pdf>.Search in Google Scholar
35 U.S. EPA. Setting Tolerances for Pesticide Residues in Foods (2009). <http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/stprf.htm#tolerances/>.Search in Google Scholar
36 Codex Alimentarius Commission. Recommended Methods of Sampling for the Determination of Pesticide Residues (1993).Search in Google Scholar
37 10.1007/s00769-011-0813-y, I. Kuselman, I. Schumacher, F. Pennecchi, C. Burns, A. Fajgelj, P. de Zorzi. Accred. Qual. Assur.16, 615 (2011).Search in Google Scholar
38 ICH Q1E. Evaluation for Stability Data (2003).Search in Google Scholar
39 USP 34. Sodium Chloride Injection, Vol. 3, p. 4242 (2011).Search in Google Scholar
40 USP 34. Epinephrine Injection, Vol. 2, p. 2701 (2011).Search in Google Scholar
41 10.1002/jps.20010, D. Stepensky, M. Chorny, Z. Dabour, I. Schumacher. J. Pharm. Sci.93/4, 969 (2004).Search in Google Scholar
42 EP 6. Sodium Chloride, Vol. 2, p. 2897 (2008).Search in Google Scholar
43 EP 6. Cetirizine Dihydrochloride, Vol. 2, p. 3715 (2008).Search in Google Scholar
44 10.1016/S0378-5173(01)00680-9, A. Weisman, I. Kuselman. Int. J. Pharm.221, 159 (2001).Search in Google Scholar
© 2013 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
