The Product Quality Research Institute elemental impurity interlaboratory study: Results and implications for industry

James M. Harrington , Donna S. Seibert , Glenn Williams , Thanh Nguyen , Denise McClenathan , Stephen W. Erickson
{"title":"The Product Quality Research Institute elemental impurity interlaboratory study: Results and implications for industry","authors":"James M. Harrington ,&nbsp;Donna S. Seibert ,&nbsp;Glenn Williams ,&nbsp;Thanh Nguyen ,&nbsp;Denise McClenathan ,&nbsp;Stephen W. Erickson","doi":"10.1016/j.jtemin.2025.100227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Pharmaceutical laboratories experienced a paradigm shift in drug product elemental impurity (EI) expectations in International Council on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline Q3D and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) General Chapters &lt;232&gt;/&lt;233&gt;. These guidelines describe a risk-based approach to EI analysis. Few systematic evaluations of interlaboratory performance on EI analysis in pharmaceutics have been conducted following these guidelines. Our goal is to address key technical challenges faced by laboratories during the implementation of these regulations.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>We organized an interlaboratory study using standardized samples and methodology to assess sample preparation and analysis variability. Participants performed microwave-assisted acid preparation of simulated pharmaceutical products and analyzed Class 1 and 2A EI's by inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Several laboratories performed X-ray Fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) for comparison.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>ICP-MS reproducibility was high both within and between laboratories, except for Hg and V. Exhaustive extraction and total digestion were generally comparable, between 87 and 111 % for As, Cd, Co, and Pb. Total digestion exhibited lower variability than exhaustive extraction. Two types of microwave systems produced comparable results for most elements except Hg and Pb. The summation approach was comparable to direct analysis of tablets except for Hg and Cd, but summation demonstrated greater variability. XRF showed good agreement with ICP-MS and low replicate variability within labs.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion and Conclusions</h3><div>While the results were generally favorable, they demonstrate that some technical challenges remain to be addressed related to standardizing laboratory practices including interference correction strategies and selection of preparation methods. We discuss implications for method transfer between laboratories.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of trace elements and minerals","volume":"12 ","pages":"Article 100227"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of trace elements and minerals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773050625000187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction

Pharmaceutical laboratories experienced a paradigm shift in drug product elemental impurity (EI) expectations in International Council on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) Guideline Q3D and United States Pharmacopeia (USP) General Chapters <232>/<233>. These guidelines describe a risk-based approach to EI analysis. Few systematic evaluations of interlaboratory performance on EI analysis in pharmaceutics have been conducted following these guidelines. Our goal is to address key technical challenges faced by laboratories during the implementation of these regulations.

Materials and Methods

We organized an interlaboratory study using standardized samples and methodology to assess sample preparation and analysis variability. Participants performed microwave-assisted acid preparation of simulated pharmaceutical products and analyzed Class 1 and 2A EI's by inductively-coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Several laboratories performed X-ray Fluorescence spectroscopy (XRF) for comparison.

Results

ICP-MS reproducibility was high both within and between laboratories, except for Hg and V. Exhaustive extraction and total digestion were generally comparable, between 87 and 111 % for As, Cd, Co, and Pb. Total digestion exhibited lower variability than exhaustive extraction. Two types of microwave systems produced comparable results for most elements except Hg and Pb. The summation approach was comparable to direct analysis of tablets except for Hg and Cd, but summation demonstrated greater variability. XRF showed good agreement with ICP-MS and low replicate variability within labs.

Discussion and Conclusions

While the results were generally favorable, they demonstrate that some technical challenges remain to be addressed related to standardizing laboratory practices including interference correction strategies and selection of preparation methods. We discuss implications for method transfer between laboratories.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of trace elements and minerals
Journal of trace elements and minerals Medicine and Dentistry (General), Analytical Chemistry, Environmental Science (General), Toxicology, Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (General), Nutrition, Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine (General)
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
65 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信