Sample Treatments That Solve Low Endotoxin Recovery Issues

References

1. 1.↵
   1. Rietschel E. T.

   1. Galanos C.,
   2. Luderitz O.

   Lipopolysaccharide: Properties of an Amphipathic Molecule. In Chemistry of Endotoxin; Rietschel E. T., Ed.; Handbook of Endotoxin, Book 1; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; pp 46–58.

   Google Scholar
2. 2.↵
   U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention. General Chapter <85> Bacterial Endotoxins Test. In USP 40–NF 35, USP: Rockville, MD, 2017; pp 163–169.

   Google Scholar
3. 3.↵
   1. Young N. S.,
   2. Levin J.,
   3. Prendergast R. A.

   An Invertebrate Coagulation System Activated by Endotoxin: Evidence for Enzymatic Mediation. J. Clin. Invest. 1972, 51 (7), 1790–1797.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
4. 4.↵
   1. Iwanaga S.,
   2. Miyata T.,
   3. Tokunaga F.,
   4. Muta T.

   Molecular Mechanism of Hemolymph Clotting System in Limulus. Thromb. Re.s 1992, 68 (1), 1–32.

   OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar
5. 5.↵
   1. Bolden J. S.,
   2. Claerbout M. E.,
   3. Miner M. K.,
   4. Murphy M. A.,
   5. Smith K. R.,
   6. Warburton R. E.

   Evidence against a Bacterial Endotoxin Masking Effect in Biologic Drug Products by Limulus Amebocyte Lysate Detection. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2014, 68 (5), 472–477.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
6. 6.↵
   1. Bolden J.,
   2. Platco C.,
   3. Dubczak J.,
   4. Cooper J. F.,
   5. McCullough K. Z.

   The Use of Endotoxin as an Analyte in Biopharmaceutical Product Hold-Time Study. Pharmacopeial Forum 2015, 41 (5). http://www.usppf.com/pf/pub/index.html (accessed April 21, 2017).

   Google Scholar
7. 7.↵
   1. Reich J.,
   2. Lang P.,
   3. Grallert H.,
   4. Motschmann H.

   Masking of Endotoxin in Surfactant Samples: Effects on Limulus-Based Detection Systems. Biologicals 2016, 44 (5), 417–422.

   OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
8. 8.↵
   1. Bolden J. S.,
   2. Warburton R. E.,
   3. Phelan R.,
   4. Murphy M.,
   5. Smith K. R.,
   6. De Felippis M. R.,
   7. Chen D.

   Endotoxin Recovery Using Limulus Amebocyte Lysate (LAL) Assay. Biologicals 2016, 44, (5), 434–440.

   OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
9. 9.↵
   1. Tsuchiya M.

   Factors Affecting Reduction of Reference Endotoxin Standard Activity Caused by Chelating Agent/Detergent Matrices: Kinetic Analysis of Low Endotoxin Recovery. PDA J. Pharm. Sci. Technol. 2017, 71 (6), 478–487.

   OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full TextGoogle Scholar
10. 10.↵
    1. Bolden J.,
    2. Knight M.,
    3. Stockman S.,
    4. Omokoko B.

    Results of a Harmonized Endotoxin Recovery Study Protocol Evaluation by 14 BioPhorum Operations Group (BPOG) Member Companies. Biologicals 2017, 48, 74–81.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
11. 11.↵
    1. Chen J.,
    2. Vinther A.

    Low Endotoxin Recovery in Common Biologics Products. Presented at the 2013 PDA Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 15–17, 2013.

    Google Scholar
12. 12.↵
    1. Tsuchiya M.

    Limulus Test and Its Application (in Japanese). J. Antibact. Antifung. Agents 1990, 18, 287–294.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
13. 13.↵
    1. Roth R. I.,
    2. Panter S. S.,
    3. Zegna A. I.,
    4. Arellano F. A.,
    5. Levin J.

    Effects of Iron on Bacterial Endotoxin. J. Endotoxin Res. 1997, 4 (4), 273–278.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
14. 14.↵
    1. Fujita Y.,
    2. Tokunaga T.,
    3. Kataoka H.

    Saline and Buffers Minimize the Action of Interfering Factors in the Bacterial Endotoxins Test. Anal. Biochem. 2011, 409 (1), 46–53.

    OpenUrlPubMedGoogle Scholar
15. 15.↵
    1. Platco C.,
    2. Kave J.,
    3. Tidswell E. C.

    Resolution of Low Endotoxin/Lipopolysaccharide Recovery (LER/LLR) Testing. Am. Pharm. Rev. 2016, 19 (5), 20–25.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
16. 16.↵
    1. Brandenburg K.,
    2. Seydel U.

    Physical Aspects of Structure and Function of Membranes Made from Lipopolysaccharides and Free Lipid A. Biochim. Biophys. Acta, Biomembr. 1984, 775 (2), 225–238.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
17. 17.↵
    1. Heakal F. E.,
    2. Elkholy A. E.

    Gemini Surfactants as Corrosion Inhibitors for Carbon Steel. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 230, 395–407.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
18. 18.↵
    1. Lu H.,
    2. Pezron I.,
    3. Gaudin T.,
    4. Drelich A.

    Non-Equilibrium Micelles Formed by Sugar-Based Surfactant under Their Krafft Temperature. Colloids Surf., A 2018, 540, 167–176.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
19. 19.↵
    1. Gu T.,
    2. Sjoblom J.

    Surfactant Structure and Its Relation to the Krafft Point, Cloud Point and Micellization: some Empirical Relationships. Colloids Surf. 1992, 64 (1), 39–46.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
20. 20.↵
    1. Santos F. K. G.,
    2. Neto E. L. B.,
    3. Moura M. C. P. A.,
    4. Dantas T. N. C.,
    5. Neto A. A. D.

    Molecular Behavior of Ionic and Nonionic Surfactants in Saline Medium. Colloids Surf., A 2009, 333 (1-3), 156–162.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
21. 21.↵
    1. Xie W.-H.,
    2. Shiu W.-Y.,
    3. Mackay D.

    A Review of the Effect of Salts on the Solubility of Organic Compounds in Seawater. Mar. Environ. Res. 1997, 44 (4), 429–444.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar
22. 22.↵
    1. Garidel P.,
    2. Hoffmann C.,
    3. Blume A.

    A Thermodynamic Analysis of the Binding Interaction between Polysorbate 20 and 80 with Human Serum Albumin and Immunoglobulins: A Contribution to Understand Colloidal Protein Stabilization. Biophys. Chem. 2009, 143 (1-2), 70–78.

    OpenUrlPubMedGoogle Scholar
23. 23.↵
    1. Khan T. A.,
    2. Mahler H.-C.,
    3. Kishore R. S. K.

    Key Interactions of Surfactants in Therapeutic Protein Formulations: A Review. Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm. 2015, 97 (Part A), 60–67.

    OpenUrlGoogle Scholar