Abstract
Approximately 97% of filter validation tests result in the demonstration of absolute retention of the test bacteria, and thus sterile filter validation failure is rare. However, while Brevundimonas diminuta (B. diminuta) penetration of sterilizing-grade filters is rarely detected, the observation that some fluids (such as vaccines and liposomal fluids) may lead to an increased incidence of bacterial penetration of sterilizing-grade filters by B. diminuta has been reported. The goal of the following analysis was to identify important drivers of filter validation failure in these rare cases. The identification of these drivers will hopefully serve the purpose of assisting in the design of commercial sterile filtration processes with a low risk of filter validation failure for vaccine, liposomal, and related fluids.
Filter validation data for low-surface-tension fluids was collected and evaluated with regard to the effect of bacterial load (CFU/cm2), bacterial load rate (CFU/min/cm2), volume throughput (mL/cm2), and maximum filter flux (mL/min/cm2) on bacterial penetration. The data set (∼1162 individual filtrations) included all instances of process-specific filter validation failures performed at Pall Corporation, including those using other filter media, but did not include all successful retentive filter validation bacterial challenges. It was neither practical nor necessary to include all filter validation successes worldwide (Pall Corporation) to achieve the goals of this analysis. The percentage of failed filtration events for the selected total master data set was 27% (310/1162). Because it is heavily weighted with penetration events, this percentage is considerably higher than the actual rate of failed filter validations, but, as such, facilitated a close examination of the conditions that lead to filter validation failure.
In agreement with our previous reports, two of the significant drivers of bacterial penetration identified were the total bacterial load and the bacterial load rate. In addition to these parameters, another three possible drivers of failure were also identified: volume throughput, maximum filter flux, and pressure. Of the data for which volume throughput information was available, 24% (249/1038) of the filtrations resulted in penetration. However, for the volume throughput range of 680–2260 mL/cm2, only 9 out of 205 bacterial challenges (∼4%) resulted in penetration. Of the data for which flux information was available, 22% (212/946) resulted in bacterial penetration. However, in the maximum filter flux range from 7 to 18 mL/min/cm2, only one out of 121 filtrations (0.6%) resulted in penetration. A slight increase in filter failure was observed in filter bacterial challenges with a differential pressure greater than 30 psid.
When designing a commercial process for the sterile filtration of a low-surface-tension fluid (or any other potentially high-risk fluid), targeting the volume throughput range of 680–2260 mL/cm2 or flux range of 7–18 mL/min/cm2, and maintaining the differential pressure below 30 psid, could significantly decrease the risk of validation filter failure. However, it is important to keep in mind that these are general trends described in this study and some test fluids may not conform to the general trends described here. Ultimately, it is important to evaluate both filterability and bacterial retention of the test fluid under proposed process conditions prior to finalizing the manufacturing process to ensure successful process-specific filter validation of low-surface-tension fluids.
LAY ABSTRACT: An overwhelming majority of process-specific filter validation (qualification) tests result in the demonstration of absolute retention of test bacteria by sterilizing-grade membrane filters. As such, process-specific filter validation failure is rare. However, while bacterial penetration of sterilizing-grade filters during process-specific filter validation is rarely detected, some fluids (such as vaccines and liposomal fluids) have been associated with an increased incidence of bacterial penetration. The goal of the following analysis was to identify important drivers of process-specific filter validation failure. The identification of these drivers will possibly serve to assist in the design of commercial sterile filtration processes with a low risk of filter validation failure. Filter validation data for low-surface-tension fluids was collected and evaluated with regard to bacterial concentration and rates, as well as filtered fluid volume and rate (Pall Corporation). The master data set (∼1160 individual filtrations) included all recorded instances of process-specific filter validation failures but did not include all successful filter validation bacterial challenge tests. This allowed for a close examination of the conditions that lead to process-specific filter validation failure. As previously reported, two significant drivers of bacterial penetration were identified: the total bacterial load (the total number of bacteria per filter) and the bacterial load rate (the rate at which bacteria were applied to the filter). In addition to these parameters, another three possible drivers of failure were also identified: volumetric throughput, filter flux, and pressure. When designing a commercial process for the sterile filtration of a low-surface-tension fluid (or any other penetrative-risk fluid), targeting the identified bacterial challenge loads, volume throughput, and corresponding flux rates could decrease, and possibly eliminate, the risk of validation filter failure. However, it is important to keep in mind that these are general trends described in this study and some test fluids may not conform to the general trends described here. Ultimately, it is important to evaluate both filterability and bacterial retention of the test fluid under proposed process conditions prior to finalizing the manufacturing process to ensure successful filter validation of low-surface-tension fluids.
- © PDA, Inc. 2015
PDA members receive access to all articles published in the current year and previous volume year. Institutional subscribers received access to all content. Log in below to receive access to this article if you are either of these.
If you are neither or you are a PDA member trying to access an article outside of your membership license, then you must purchase access to this article (below). If you do not have a username or password for JPST, you will be required to create an account prior to purchasing.
Full issue PDFs are for PDA members only.
Note to pda.org users
The PDA and PDA bookstore websites (www.pda.org and www.pda.org/bookstore) are separate websites from the PDA JPST website. When you first join PDA, your initial UserID and Password are sent to HighWirePress to create your PDA JPST account. Subsequent UserrID and Password changes required at the PDA websites will not pass on to PDA JPST and vice versa. If you forget your PDA JPST UserID and/or Password, you can request help to retrieve UserID and reset Password below.
