Validation instrument settings

Different validation data sets should be prepared to investigate every source of expected variation in the response. For example, validation sets might be designed to study short-term or long-term variation in instrument response, variation from instrument to instrument, variation due to small changes in sample temperature, and so on. 

Complex instruments giving advice as the output may never be validated to the extent of a simple analytical method. However, what vahdation will do is to set the bounds of the responses and situations in which the instrument will give fit-for-purpose output. The users of the instrument will then need to estabhsh if their particular uses fall within the scope of the validated instrument. We look forward to a report of a fully validated electronic nose. 

Evaluation of the performance of a method or an instrument represents the largest use of CRMs. Examples are widely reported in the literature. One could even say that the development of a new method or instrument without evaluation of the performances with (a) CRM(s) is an incomplete task. Besides these research tasks, CRMs for calibration or validation are also used to assess the performance of instruments by the manufacturer himself to demonstrate the possibilities of his instrument or by the customer who wishes to evaluate the proposed instrument before purchasing it. CRMs produced by independent official or regulatory bodies to validate instrument performance or calibration sets have been under development for several years. They have in particular allowed the solution of inaccuracy problems in the biomedical sector where calibration test kits of automatic instrument manufacturers were not comparable and even led to different results between countries such arguments supported many BCR projects for... 

All NMR experiments were performed on a Varian XL-200 spectrometer at 50.31 MHZ. Relevant instrument settings include 90 degree pulse angle, 1.0 second acquisition time, 0.5 second pulse delay, 238.5 ppm spectral width, and broad band proton decoupling. About 40,000 transients were collected for each spectrum. Temperature was maintained at 40 C. Spin-lattice relaxation time (Tl) and Nuclear Overhauser Enhancement (NOE) values for all C-13 NMR resonances were carefully measured to determine the optimum NMR experimental conditions. The spectral intensity data thus obtained were assured of having quantitative validity. 

We have said that every time the calibration analyzes a new unknown sample, this amounts to an additional validation test of the calibration. It can be a major mistake to believe that, just because a calibration worked well when it was being developed, it will continue to produce reliable results from that point on. When we discussed the requirements for a training set, we said that collection of samples in the training set must, as a group, be representative in all ways of the unknowns that will be analyzed by the calibration. If this condition is not met, then the calibration is invalid and cannot be expected to produce reliable results. Any change in the process, the instrument, or the measurement procedure which introduces changes into the data measured on an unknown will violate this condition and invalidate the method If this occurs, the concentration values that the calibration predicts for unknown samples are completely unreliable We must therefore have a plan and procedures in place that will insure that we are alerted if such a condition should arise. 

The development of a calibration model is a time consuming process. Not only have the samples to be prepared and measured, but the modelling itself, including data pre-processing, outlier detection, estimation and validation, is not an automated procedure. Once the model is there, changes may occur in the instrumentation or other conditions (temperature, humidity) that require recalibration. Another situation is where a model has been set up for one instrument in a central location and one would like to distribute this model to other instruments within the organization without having to repeat the entire calibration process for all these individual instruments. One wonders whether it is possible to translate the model from one instrument (old or parent or master. A) to the others (new or children or slaves, B). 

This article defines the criteria and processes for computer validation. Computer validation applies to all systems, including electronic capture systems in both the laboratory (scientific instrumentation) and field settings. Any system producing electronic records and documents, which regulators in the evaluation of product registration applications will use, needs to be validated. 

A clear priority remains to expand the panel of intestinal efflux transporters that are expressed individually in modified cell lines. These research tools will be instrumental in identifying and validating selective probe transporter substrates and inhibitors. The availability of such probes will allow for a better understanding of the influence of transporters on in vivo pharmacokinetics. A similar set of probes has been instrumental in increasing our understanding of the role that cytochrome P450 plays in human pharmacokinetics and in avoiding issues associated with these enzymes. 

The computerized systems, both hardware and software, that form part of the GLP study should comply with the requirements of the principles of GLP. This relates to the development, validation, operation and maintenance of the system. Validation means that tests have been carried out to demonstrate that the system is fit for its intended purpose. Like any other validation, this will be the use of objective evidence to confirm that the pre-set requirements for the system have been met. There will be a number of different types of computer system, ranging from personal computers and programmable analytical instruments to a laboratory information management system (LIMS). The extent of validation depends on the impact the system has on product quality, safety and record integrity. A risk-based approach can be used to assess the extent of validation required, focusing effort on critical areas. A computerized analytical system in a QC laboratory requires full validation (equipment qualification) with clear boundaries set on its range of operation because this has a high... 

A dedicated automation specialist or group with necessary skill sets (analytical chemistry, computer literacy, and instrumentation) able to devote sufficient time to automation implementation is critical to take a project to fruition. The success of a robotics program can be enhanced greatly by making it accessible to a large population. Thus, it is essential for automation specialists to work closely with every analytical area to develop and validate automated methods for developmental products. After the technology is well established, the specialists can return to their operating areas. 

The first step in the method development and validation cycle should be to set minimum requirements, which are essentially acceptance specifications for the method. During method development, a complete list of criteria should be agreed on by the end users so that expectations are clear. Once the validation studies are complete, the method developers should be confident in the ability of the method to provide good quantitation in their own laboratories. The remaining studies should provide greater assurance that the method will work well in other laboratories, where different operators, instruments, and reagents are involved and where the method will be used over much longer periods of time. 

The LC control software, either stand-alone or as part of an overall data-handling system, should be tested by means of a separate OQ protocol. This protocol only needs to address the communica-tions/control integrity of the hardware (e.g., setting up a run/sequence with the proper instrument parameters, the ability to start and stop the pump, etc.). It should cover all the required instrument control functions listed as part of the protocol s functional specifications. It does not need to include specific hardware performance testing, such as linearity or flow rate. The latter tests are performed separately, as part of the individual hardware validation described below. 

Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) The system provides a comprehensive feature set to aid customers in meeting GLP requirements. This includes features such as certificate-of-software validation, user-access levels, instrument and sequence logbooks, system-suitability software for aU supported HP instruments, standard GLP reports, and a GLP save option that encrypts and saves data and methods together. 

As the pressure for the validation of analytical results to be validated increases, the computer software and the system have had to be modified so that they can operate in a hands-off fashion to a set protocol design. The Touchstone software provides this with the Program facility. Procedures and instruments can be changed within a single run. 

Level 1 sampling provides a single set of samples acquired to represent the average composition of each stream. This sample set is separated, either in the field or in the laboratory, into solid, liquid, and gas-phase components. Each fraction is evaluated with survey techniques which define its basic physical, chemical, and biological characteristics. The survey methods selected are compatible with a very broad spectrum of materials and have sufficient sensitivity to ensure a high probability of detecting environmental problems. Analytical techniques and instrumentation have been kept as simple as possible in order to provide an effective level of information at minimum cost. Each individual piece of data developed adds a relevant point to the overall evaluation. Conversely, since the information from a given analysis is limited, all the tests must be performed to provide a valid assessment of the sample. 

The analytical procedures for Level 3 are specific to selected components identified by Level 2 analysis and are oriented toward determining the time variation in the concentrations of key indicator materials. In general, the analysis will be optimized to a specific set of stream conditions and will therefore not be as complex or expensive as the Level 2 methods. Both manual and instrumental techniques may be used, provided they can be implemented at the process site. Continuous monitors for selected pollutants should be incorporated in the analysis program as an aid in interpreting the data acquired through manual techniques. The total Level 3 analysis program should also include the use of Level 2 analysis at selected intervals as a check on the validity of the key indicator materials which reflect process variability. 

The in situ spectroscopies and the signal processing have limitations. Therefore, the set of observable species is a proper subset of all liquid phase species S. The validity of Eq. (4), namely, that the number of observable species is less than the number of species, is easily verified. Regardless of the instrument, the sensitivity is finite, and some dilute and most trace species must be lost in the experimental noise. In addition, numerous experimental design shortcomings further contribute to the validity of Eq. (4). 

Validation Validation was defined in Section 3. It is the process of evaluating a method, an instrument or other piece of equipment, a standard material, etc. to determine whether it is appropriate for the work at hand and whether it will meet all expectations and needs for a given analysis. For example, an analyst may propose that a new gas chromatograph, one that has a new design of electron capture detector, be used for a certain pesticide analysis performed in the laboratory. A validation process would involve testing the new instrument (alongside the unit currently used in the procedure) with standards and samples used in the analysis to validate whether the new unit will perform up to the standards that have been set for the work. If it can be documented that the quality of the overall analysis by the new instrument meets expectations, then it can be brought "online."... 

Nevertheless, in many electronic tongue studies, such constraints are ignored and ANNs are used as the default choice. This choice is also made in cases with very poor data sets and without performing a proper validation. This may be due to the fact that the related computational software is easily available and that many people have a propensity to follow the predominant trends and to use the most potent instruments available, without critical considerations. Furthermore, perhaps, there is a fashionable association of ideas coimecting the concepts of artificial tongue and artificial intelligence. 

Ciosek et al. (2005) used potentiometric ion-selective sensors for discriminating different brands of mineral waters and apple juices. PC A and ANN classification were used as pattern recognition tools, with a test set validation (Ciosek et al., 2004b). In a subsequent study, the same research group performed the discrimination of five orange juice brands, with the same instrumental device. A variable selection was performed, by means of strategies based on PCA and PLS-DA scores. The validation was correctly performed with an external test set. 

As already mentioned, any multivariate analysis should include some validation, that is, formal testing, to extrapolate the model to new but similar data. This requires two separate steps in the computation of each model component calibration, which consists of finding the new components, and validation, which checks how well the computed components describe the new data. Each of these two steps needs its own set of samples calibration samples or training samples, and validation samples or test samples. Computation of spectroscopic data PCs is based solely on optic data. There is no explicit or formal relationship between PCs and the composition of the samples in the sets from which the spectra were measured. In addition, PCs are considered superior to the original spectral data produced directly by the NIR instrument. Since the first few PCs are stripped of noise, they represent the real variation of the spectra, presumably caused by physical or chemical phenomena. For these reasons PCs are considered as latent variables as opposed to the direct variables actually measured. 

---