Evaluation of the influence of open and closed-ampoule technologies on particulate matter in small-volume parenterals.

M Bernuzzi, P Raggi, L Montanari, F Pregnolato, F Pavanetto
{"title":"Evaluation of the influence of open and closed-ampoule technologies on particulate matter in small-volume parenterals.","authors":"M Bernuzzi,&nbsp;P Raggi,&nbsp;L Montanari,&nbsp;F Pregnolato,&nbsp;F Pavanetto","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>SVP in glass ampoules are manufactured using two main different technological production processes: the open-ampoule process (O) and the closed-ampoule process (C). In principle, the open-ampoule production technology should lead to better controlled production process. To test this hypothesis and quantify the possible qualitative differences in the manufactured ampoules, a suitable experimental design was set up. The two ampoule production processes have been compared on the basis of the visible particulate burden. Two batches of ampoules filled with water for injections were produced for each type of process, following conventional industrial procedures. Two samples of 20,000 units were taken from each batch and inspected with different automatic inspection systems: two Brevetti CEA machines (S1, S2--light scattering) and two EISAI machines (S3, S4--light absorbtion). The comparison between the processes was based on the rejection percentage. On both inspection machines the open-ampoule production samples present rejection percentages (ranging from 0.154% to 1.248% rejection percentages) which, on average, are lower than those detected in closed-ampoule production (ranging from 1.434% to 3.86% rejection percentages). The difference between the two processes is even more marked if we also consider the data obtained using inspection machines S3 and S4. The substantial differences in performance of the four inspection machines stress the need to provide for adequate validation procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":16667,"journal":{"name":"Journal of parenteral science and technology : a publication of the Parenteral Drug Association","volume":"47 5","pages":"265-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1993-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of parenteral science and technology : a publication of the Parenteral Drug Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

SVP in glass ampoules are manufactured using two main different technological production processes: the open-ampoule process (O) and the closed-ampoule process (C). In principle, the open-ampoule production technology should lead to better controlled production process. To test this hypothesis and quantify the possible qualitative differences in the manufactured ampoules, a suitable experimental design was set up. The two ampoule production processes have been compared on the basis of the visible particulate burden. Two batches of ampoules filled with water for injections were produced for each type of process, following conventional industrial procedures. Two samples of 20,000 units were taken from each batch and inspected with different automatic inspection systems: two Brevetti CEA machines (S1, S2--light scattering) and two EISAI machines (S3, S4--light absorbtion). The comparison between the processes was based on the rejection percentage. On both inspection machines the open-ampoule production samples present rejection percentages (ranging from 0.154% to 1.248% rejection percentages) which, on average, are lower than those detected in closed-ampoule production (ranging from 1.434% to 3.86% rejection percentages). The difference between the two processes is even more marked if we also consider the data obtained using inspection machines S3 and S4. The substantial differences in performance of the four inspection machines stress the need to provide for adequate validation procedures.

评价开放和封闭安瓿技术对小体积注射剂中颗粒物质的影响。
玻璃安瓿中的SVP主要采用两种不同的技术生产工艺:开瓶工艺(O)和闭瓶工艺(C)。原则上,开瓶生产技术应能更好地控制生产过程。为了验证这一假设,并量化制造的安瓿可能存在的质量差异,建立了一个合适的实验设计。在可见颗粒负荷的基础上,对两种安瓿生产工艺进行了比较。按照常规工业程序,为每种工艺生产了两批装有注射用水的安瓿瓶。从每批样品中抽取2万个样品,使用不同的自动检测系统进行检测:两台Brevetti CEA机器(S1、S2—光散射)和两台EISAI机器(S3、S4—光吸收)。工艺之间的比较是基于拒绝率。在两台检测机上,开式安瓿生产样品的拒收率(范围从0.154%到1.248%)平均低于闭式安瓿生产样品的拒收率(范围从1.434%到3.86%)。如果我们还考虑使用检测机S3和S4获得的数据,两个过程之间的差异就更加明显了。这四种检验机器在性能上的巨大差异强调需要提供适当的验证程序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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