Accuracy method validation elements

The interpretation and implementation of published methods invariably differ at different laboratories due to diversity of utilized instruments, their incidental elements and supplies, and the differences in method interpretation. Each analytical method must be validated at the laboratory before it is used for sample analysis in order to demonstrate the laboratory s ability to consistently produce data of known accuracy and precision. Method validation includes the construction of a calibration curve that meets the acceptance criteria the determination of the method s accuracy and precision and the MDL study. A method SOPs must be prepared and approved for use. Method validation documentation is kept on file and should be always available to the client upon request. 

Parallel method comparisons are used to establish the validity of a new method developed for five organic pharmaceutical compovmds, food colors, and color additives. The standard methods such as the Japanese Standard Food Additives and Japanese Standard of Cosmetic Ingredients method, based on volumetric and gravimetric titration, have been used to establish new methods developed for the determination of I, Cl, Br, and SO4 in food colors. The results obtained indicate good agreement in both accuracy and precision for procedures based on the oxygen flask method as compared with the standard methods. In addition to anion elemental analysis, method validation has also been carried out for metal analysis such as that of Ce(III), Th(IV), and U(VI), with the results showing acceptable limits of variation. 

The next section deals with method validation of quantitative TLC methods. Two questions should, however, be answered prior to discussing the validation experiments namely, whether the statistical evaluation of data elements, such as precision, accuracy, and reproducibility should be calculated on the basis of measured peak heights or peak areas, and whether the internal or external standard methods, or area normalization should be used to yield quantitative results for the assay. Without going into detail, the most important advantages and limitations of peak height and peak area measurements, and those of the different methods of quantification are summarized in Table 4. 

In our own validation sets, experimental heats of formation are preferentially taken from recognized standard compilations [38-40]. If there are enough experimental data for a given element, we normally only use reference values that are accurate to 2 kcal/mol. If there is a lack of reliable data, we may accept experimental heats of formation with a quoted experimental error of up to 5 kcal/mol. This choice is motivated by the target accuracy of the established semiempirical methods. If experimental data are missing for a small molecule of interest, we consider it legitimate [18] to employ computed heats of formation from high-level ab initio methods as substitutes. 

The key elements of an inspection are to ensure that the facility is capable of fulfilling the application commitments to manufacture, process, control, package, and label a drug product following GMP the adequacy and accuracy of analytical methods submitted, to ensure that these methods are proper for the testing proposed correlation between the manufacturing process for clinical trial material, bioavailability study material, and stability studies and submitted process that the scientific data support full-scale production procedures and controls that only factual data have been submitted and that the protocols are in place to validate the manufacturing process. 

Regardless of the mathematics used to interpret NIR spectra, the method must still undergo a validation process. The principal elements of ensuring linearity, accuracy, selectivity, and reproducibility of a quantitative method are required. 

---