Standardization method validation

Abstract Although the validation process necessary to ensure that an analytical method is fit for purpose is universal, the emphasis placed on different aspects of that process will vary according to the end use for which the analytical procedure is designed. It therefore becomes difficult to produce a standard method validation protocol which will be totally applicable to all analytical methods. It is probable that far more than 30% of the methods... 

To determine method bias or laboratory bias of a standard method Validation of new or improved methods by comparison with fully validated method Assessment of national capability in analysis of materials... 

Quantitative Analysis for a Single Analyte The concentration of a single analyte is determined by measuring the absorbance of the sample and applying Beer s law (equation 10.5) using any of the standardization methods described in Chapter 5. The most common methods are the normal calibration curve and the method of standard additions. Single-point standardizations also can be used, provided that the validity of Beer s law has been demonstrated. 

Numerous examples of standard methods have been presented and discussed in the preceding six chapters. What we have yet to consider, however, is what constitutes a standard method. In this chapter we consider how a standard method is developed, including optimizing the experimental procedure, verifying that the method produces acceptable precision and accuracy in the hands of a single analyst, and validating the method for general use. 

The last step in establishing a standard method is to validate its transferability to other laboratories. An important step in the process of validating a method is collaborative testing, in which a common set of samples is analyzed by different laboratories. In a well-designed collaborative test, it is possible to establish limits for the method s precision and accuracy. 

For standardization of validation procedure we suggested normalized coordinate system (NCS) X. = 100-C/C", Y. = 100-A/A", where C is a concentration, A - analytical response (absorbance, peak ai ea etc.), index st indicates reference solution, i - number of solution. In this coordinate system recuperation coefficient (findings in per cent to entry) is found as Z = IQQ-Y/X. As a result, coordinates of all methods ai e in the unified... 

Control All control points starting with the basic raw materials right through to the finished product must be identified. Descriptions of the specifications, test methods, reference standards, and methods validation data should be included. 

As stated above, the most important missing piece in protein folding theory is an accurate all-atom potential. Recently there has been much effort in this direction, and much more is needed [48,55,72-77]. The existence of a potential satisfying minimal criteria such as folding and stability for a single protein was demonstrated in [73]. It is not a realistic potential by any means, but its existence validates the all-atom, implicit solvent, Monte Carlo approach as a serious candidate for theory. The method used to derive this potential was ad hoc, and has recently been compared with other standard methods in a rigorous and illuminating study [77]. 

A pharmacopoeial reference substance is intended for the determination of the main component of a substance or for the active ingredient of a pharmaceutical formulation which is usually present at a high proportion of the total. The reference substance is to be used as a primary standard in a specific method validated as prescribed in the ICH Guideline Validation of Analytical Procedure Methodology" (Technical Guide for the Elaboration of Monographs 1996 ICH Guideline 1997). the reproducibility of which is known. This is taken into account when the limits of acceptance (tolerance) for the substance or product are fixed (Daas and Miller 1997,1998). 

Alternatively, during the course of method validation and sample analysis, control samples fortified at the ELOQ (determined by one of the methods described above) are extracted and analyzed. The standard deviation of these fortified control samples ( LLMv) can also be used to calculate the MDL and the MQL for the method. In the latter case, llmv would replace. eloq in equation (14). 

Method validation guidelines for use in trace analysis have been proposed by various authors, but there is little consistency in the recommended approaches. The general validation guidelines proposed by standards organizations such as ISO (International Organization for Standardization), DIN (Deutsches Institut fUr Normung German Institute for Standardization) and others are often not well defined and consequently... 

Figure 4 Good presentation of chromatograms obtained during method validation. Top chromatograms of standards corresponding to (a) 0.01, (b) 0.04 and (c) 0.3 mg kg. Bottom chromatograms of untreated potato samples, (d) unfortified, (e) fortified with 0.02 mg kg (= LOQ) and (f) fortified with 0.2 mg kg ...

For multi-analyte and/or multi-matrix methods, it is not possible to validate a method for all combinations of analyte, concentration and type of sample matrix that may be encountered in subsequent use of the method. On the other hand, the standards EN1528 andEN 12393 consist of a range of old multi-residue methods. The working principles of these methods are accepted not only in Europe, but all over the world. Most often these methods are based on extractions with acetone, acetonitrile, ethyl acetate or n-hexane. Subsequent cleanup steps are based on solvent partition steps and size exclusion or adsorption chromatography on Florisil, silica gel or alumina. Each solvent and each cleanup step has been successfully applied to hundreds of pesticides and tested in countless method validation studies. The selectivity and sensitivity of GC combined with electron capture, nitrogen-phosphorus, flame photometric or mass spectrometric detectors for a large number of pesticides are acceptable. 

Many experts in Europe have tested the methods of both standards with various pesticide-matrix combinations in their own laboratories. Consequently, the responsible working groups of CEN TC 275 concluded that these are the best methods available. Nevertheless, there is no complete validation of all possible pesticide-matrix combinations. However, for most multi-residue methods within the standards all those pesticides which had been successfully tested in method validation trials and/or proficiency tests are listed. Also, matrices which had been examined in ring tests are listed. 

Different sample materials often need some adjustment of pesticide residue methods. The insufficient consideration of matrices in thcNKML method validation protocol may be a tribute to the wide scope of this standard. 

The analyte stability during storage and processing of samples or in standard solutions and extracts is not part of method validation in Germany. Therefore, insufficient stability will not be routinely detected and even then more or less only by chance. Also, separate tests for analyte homogeneity and extraction efficiency were not performed. 

Any validation and verification work performed must always be documented in such a way that the results can be checked and the scope of a method is clear. International standards, e.g., ISO 17025, contain separate sections regarding documentation, which should be observed. The NMKL procedure on method validation states that It is of particular importance that the report includes all raw data from the experimental work, or references to where such data can be found . In some circumstances this complete documentation is impractical. Even where it is practical, it is usually impossible to publish these results together with the methods. 

The integration of analytical methods in European standards requires their acceptance by several national experts within special working groups and in a final weighted vote of National Standards Bodies. Therefore, there needs to be very high confidence in the performance of methods. Consequently, methods should be tested in inter-laboratory method validation studies, with the exception of those multiresidue methods which are widely used throughout Europe. In the case of CEN methods there is no doubt about residue definition but detailed requirements about the number of matrices and concentration levels in validation experiments do not exist. Eor this reason it may be that CEN methods are validated for important crops only. 

Accepted methods usually represent a consensus view from a number of analytical laboratories working in a particular application area. They may be developed and validated collectively under the auspices of professional or official bodies or trade organizations. Standard methods are similar to accepted methods but are usually developed on a national or international basis by an organization with some official status. These methods are usually published and have detailed procedures. The extent of validation of such methods can be taken for granted but has to be examined carefully. 

Method validation is defined in the international standard, ISO/IEC 17025 as, the confirmation by examination and provision of objective evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled. This means that a validated method, if used correctly, will produce results that will be suitable for the person making decisions based on them. This requires a detailed understanding of why the results are required and the quality of the result needed, i.e. its uncertainty. This is what determines the values that have to be achieved for the performance parameters. Method validation is a planned set of experiments to determine these values. The method performance parameters that are typically studied during method validation are selectivity, precision, bias, linearity working range, limit of detection, limit of quantitation, calibration and ruggedness. The validation process is illustrated in Figure 4.2. 

Many of the technical requirements of the Standard are covered in Chapters 4 to 7. The analytical requirements, including choosing a method and method validation, are covered in Chapter 4. The other measurement requirements, such as calibration, traceability and equipment qualification, are dealt with in Chapter 5. Some of the general issues not covered elsewhere are mentioned in the following sections. It has already been mentioned that staff should be trained and proven to be competent to carry out the testing. This applies to permanent and contracted staff. The laboratory should have a job description for all members of staff. There are more stringent requirements on staff who are also able to provide customers with opinions or interpretation of the results. 

---