Monitoring methods validation

Equipment Maintenance/Calibration/Monitoring Method Validation Standard/Reference Material Storage of Labile Components Laboratory SOPs Testing Quality Identity... 

Equipment Maintenance/Calibration/Monitoring Method Validation... 

This chapter will discuss briefly the principles and applications of the various methods of monitoring and validating sterilization processes. 

In this article, an analytical method is defined as series of procedures from receipt of a sample to final determination of the residue. Validation is the process of verifying that a method is fit for purpose. Typically, validation follows completion of the development of a method. Validated analytical data are essential for monitoring of pesticide residues and control of legal residue limits. Analysts must provide information to demonstrate that a method intended for these purposes is capable of providing adequate specificity, accuracy and precision, at relevant analyte concentrations and in all matrices analyzed. 

Finally, to avoid the parallel use of similar but not identical method validation studies to fulfil the registration requirements, e.g., of the EU, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Japanese authorities, an adaptation of different data requirements for residue analytical methods for post-registration control and monitoring purposes would help to save resources. 

Once method validation has been completed, the treated samples may be analyzed. The method should be under control so that no additional changes will be necessary. Analysis of laboratory-fortified samples and control samples will be used to monitor the quality of the study. The purpose of laboratory-fortified samples is confirmation of the recovery efficiency of residues from the sample matrix. A minimum of two laboratory recovery samples need to run with each set. Recoveries should average 70-120%. 

Borders RA, Gluck SJ, Sowle WF, et al. 1986. Development and validation of personal monitoring methods for low levels of acrylonitrile in workplace atmosphere II. Thermal desorption and field validation. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 47 158-163. 

This chapter deals with handling the data generated by analytical methods. The first section describes the key statistical parameters used to summarize and describe data sets. These parameters are important, as they are essential for many of the quality assurance activities described in this book. It is impossible to carry out effective method validation, evaluate measurement uncertainty, construct and interpret control charts or evaluate the data from proficiency testing schemes without some knowledge of basic statistics. This chapter also describes the use of control charts in monitoring the performance of measurements over a period of time. Finally, the concept of measurement uncertainty is introduced. The importance of evaluating uncertainty is explained and a systematic approach to evaluating uncertainty is described. 

A PDA detector provides UV spectra of eluting peaks in addition to monitoring the absorbance of the HPLC eluent like the UVA is absorbance detector. It is the preferred detector for testing impurities and for method development. PDA facilitates peak identification during methods development and peak purity evaluation during method validation. Detector sensitivity was an issue in earlier models but has improved significantly (more than ten-fold) in recent years. ... 

Method Validation. Reproducibility of the method was determined by analyzing one beer sample 10 times. Table 1 shows that the method provides very good reproducibility, with coefficients of variations for monitored aldehydes below 5.5%, except for (E)-2-nonenal. The higher coefficient of variation for (E)-2-nonenal may be due to extremely low levels of this aldehyde in the analyzed beer. 

Issue The mineral processing industry and the end-users of their products need to agree on (1) realistic exposure scenario(s) (2) valid emission models (3) field monitoring methods for the application, use and disposal of biocidal products. 

Finally, we would like to point out that the statistical protocol for validation deals mainly with the last step in determining the validity of a monitoring method. The statistical protocol is not appropriate for application to a method that has not been completely developed. Tests for such items as sample collection efficiency, stability, and recovery sampler capacity and analytical range and calibration all should be evaluated prior to application of the statistical protocol in connection with laboratory validation testing. 

Fit the purpose calibration. It is common sense to check instrument performance each day, and GLP requirements simply formalize the performance and documentation of these checks. On the other hand, it is also important to use the right test (full calibration, verification, system suitability test, or instrument and method validation) to verify the performance and to avoid needlessly lengthy procedures. As already discussed (see Sections 13.2.3 and 13.3.1), it is not always necessary to perform a MS full calibration every day. For example, if a particular MS is used only to record complete full-scan mass spectra, a daily calibration or verification of the calibration of the m/z ratio scale is required. However, in the case where a MS is coupled with an LC and utilized primarily for the analysis of one or more analytes in the selected ion monitoring (SIM) mode, it does not always require a daily verification of the calibration. In this specific case it is quite common in LC-MS and LC-MS/MS applications to test only the following performance parameters (a) sensitivity, (b) system precision,... 

Providing reliable data with which to validate air quality models and new monitoring methods... 

While a substitute matrix can be used to prepare standard cahbrators for a drug compound that exists endogenously, VS/QCs should be prepared in the authentic matrix, regardless. VS data are used during method validation to characterize the intra- and inter-mn accuracy/precision and stability. QC data are used for assay performance monitoring and to accept or reject a run during in-study validation. 

Regulatory authorities strictly scrutinize the leachables (e.g., plasticizers, impurities) that may come from medical devices and drugs. It is the responsibility of the drug or medical device company to identify the leachables and to provide adequate testing of their toxicity. Monitoring methods must be developed and validated to effectively control toxic leachables during the manufacture of high quality pharmaceuticals. 

It is important to first note that many classical clinical assays have traditionally measured one metabolite to detect one disease. Consequently, many of the rules of method validation were designed around this premise. MS/MS, as originally designed, detected two classes of compounds, amino acids and acylcamitines, in four to five different MS methods (known as scan modes such as neutral loss, precursor ion, or selected reaction monitoring), for approximately 500 distinct masses, more than 70 known compounds, and 20-30 stable isotope internal standards. How then did one approach such a complicated validation to gain acceptance as a reliable, useful method The answer is quite simple - start simply and compare to what was already established. 

Quality management and accreditation have become matters of increasing relevance in analytical toxicology in recent years. Forensic laboratory accreditation is based upon international standards (ISO/IEC 17025 2005 [68]) which include requirements for method validation and allows to control and monitor overtime the laboratory performance and its analysts by proficiency tests [69],... 

---