Pharmaceutical Residual Solvent Analysis: A Comparison of GC-FID and SIFT-MS Performance

M. Perkins, Colin Hastie, Sophia E. Whitlock, V. Langford
{"title":"Pharmaceutical Residual Solvent Analysis: A Comparison of GC-FID and SIFT-MS Performance","authors":"M. Perkins, Colin Hastie, Sophia E. Whitlock, V. Langford","doi":"10.3390/appliedchem3020018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Residual solvents in pharmaceutical excipients, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and finished products are usually analyzed using gas chromatography (GC)-based techniques according to a pharmacopeial monograph, such as the United States Pharmacopeia’s (USP) chapter <467>. GC analyses are often slow, which limits sample throughput. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) removes the rate-limiting chromatographic separation step, potentially offering faster sample analyses. This approach was demonstrated recently with the publication of an alternative SIFT-MS procedure which was successfully validated against the performance criteria in USP chapter <1467>. The present study expands upon the previous work by conducting a head-to-head comparison of GC-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and SIFT-MS procedures. The results obtained in this cross-platform study demonstrated similar performance for the GC-FID and SIFT-MS procedures for linearity (R2 > 0.94 and 0.97, respectively) and repeatability (<17%RSD and <10%RSD). For accuracy and recovery, acceptance criteria (within 20%) were achieved for most compounds across the two drug products (SIFT-MS suffered fewer failures, possibly due to shorter wait times prior to analysis). Additionally, SIFT-MS analyzed samples over 11-fold faster than GC-FID, increasing daily sample throughput and reducing the time taken to determine the result. This study therefore suggests that residual solvent analysis using SIFT-MS may support workflow improvements for pharmaceutical manufacturers.","PeriodicalId":8123,"journal":{"name":"AppliedChem","volume":"69 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AppliedChem","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/appliedchem3020018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Residual solvents in pharmaceutical excipients, active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and finished products are usually analyzed using gas chromatography (GC)-based techniques according to a pharmacopeial monograph, such as the United States Pharmacopeia’s (USP) chapter <467>. GC analyses are often slow, which limits sample throughput. Selected ion flow tube mass spectrometry (SIFT-MS) removes the rate-limiting chromatographic separation step, potentially offering faster sample analyses. This approach was demonstrated recently with the publication of an alternative SIFT-MS procedure which was successfully validated against the performance criteria in USP chapter <1467>. The present study expands upon the previous work by conducting a head-to-head comparison of GC-flame ionization detection (GC-FID) and SIFT-MS procedures. The results obtained in this cross-platform study demonstrated similar performance for the GC-FID and SIFT-MS procedures for linearity (R2 > 0.94 and 0.97, respectively) and repeatability (<17%RSD and <10%RSD). For accuracy and recovery, acceptance criteria (within 20%) were achieved for most compounds across the two drug products (SIFT-MS suffered fewer failures, possibly due to shorter wait times prior to analysis). Additionally, SIFT-MS analyzed samples over 11-fold faster than GC-FID, increasing daily sample throughput and reducing the time taken to determine the result. This study therefore suggests that residual solvent analysis using SIFT-MS may support workflow improvements for pharmaceutical manufacturers.
药物残留溶剂分析:GC-FID和SIFT-MS性能的比较
药用辅料、活性药物成分(api)和成品中的残留溶剂通常根据药典专著(如美国药典(USP)章节)使用基于气相色谱(GC)的技术进行分析。GC分析通常很慢,这限制了样品吞吐量。选择离子流管质谱法(SIFT-MS)消除了限速色谱分离步骤,可能提供更快的样品分析。最近,一种替代SIFT-MS程序的出版证明了这种方法,该程序成功地根据USP章节的性能标准进行了验证。本研究通过对气相色谱-火焰电离检测(GC-FID)和SIFT-MS程序进行头对头比较,扩展了以前的工作。该跨平台研究结果表明,GC-FID和SIFT-MS方法在线性度(R2分别> 0.94和0.97)和重复性(<17%RSD和<10%RSD)方面具有相似的性能。对于准确性和回收率,两种药物的大多数化合物都达到了可接受标准(在20%以内)(SIFT-MS的失败较少,可能是由于分析前的等待时间较短)。此外,SIFT-MS分析样品的速度比GC-FID快11倍以上,增加了每日样品吞吐量并减少了确定结果所需的时间。因此,本研究表明,使用SIFT-MS进行残留溶剂分析可能有助于改善制药企业的工作流程。
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