Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

April 2, 2008

Equipment Hold-Time for Cleaning Validation


By Richard J. Forsyth

Regulatory agencies expect companies to establish and monitor clean


equipment- and dirty equipment-hold times for manufacturing equipment as
part of their cleaning validation program.

The concepts of "clean-hold time" and "dirty-hold time" have been part of cleaning
validation since its inception. Clean hold time is generally considered to be the time
between the completion of cleaning and the initiation of the subsequent manufacturing
operation. Dirty hold time can begin when the clean equipment is initially soiled, but more
often is defined as the time between the end of manufacturing and the beginning of the
cleaning process. Intuitively, it makes sense to be concerned about both hold times. Dirty
equipment is harder to clean the longer the hold time, and clean equipment has a greater
chance of becoming soiled as hold time increases.

Background

In its Guide to Inspection of Validation of Cleaning Processes, the US Food and Drug
Administration considers identifying and controlling the length of time between the end of
processing and each cleaning step to be critical elements of the cleaning processes (1).
FDA also expects pharmaceutical companies to demonstrate that routine cleaning and
storage of equipment does not allow for microbial proliferation. The European Union
expects companies to provide a validation master plan with clearly defined and
documented validation program elements (2). Health Canada looks for companies to
describe the interval between the end of production and the beginning of the cleaning
procedures as well timeframes and conditions for the storage of clean equipment that do
not allow for microbial proliferation (3). Finally, the Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention
and Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) guideline looks for
documentation of both dirty- and clean-hold times (4). The general practice among industry
is to routinely document and track equipment-hold times to ensure ongoing compliance.

Although regulatory agencies expect manufacturers to document and address hold times,
they do not describe a process for establishing hold times. In this validation study, a dirty-
hold time was established but ongoing implications were not examined (5). Several articles
define both clean- and dirty-hold times and how to establish them but do not mention a
strategy to guide the experiments (6, 7). A more recent article, which referred to hold-time
studies as "the lost parameter for cleaning validation," explored several issues associated
with hold-time studies (8). Issues included storage conditions, test locations, testing
methodology, and the length of hold-time studies.

The concern with clean-hold times is that clean equipment will not stay clean indefinitely
despite using appropriate storage conditions. Holding soiled equipment makes it more
difficult to remove pharmaceutical soil and allows biological contamination to proliferate. To
address these concerns, the author extended clean-hold time testing for more than 2 yrs
and extended dirty-hold time studies for up to 9 days. After identifying clean- and dirty-hold
time, ongoing control of the hold times became difficult. Every time a piece of equipment is
used, the operator needs to confirm and document that the actual clean-hold time does not
exceed the established clean-hold time. And before washing a piece of equipment, the
washer needs to confirm and document that the actual dirty-hold time does not exceed the
established dirty-hold time.

This study suggests that if clean- and dirty-hold time issues are addressed
during the validation study that the severity of exceeding the established
hold times diminishes to a near-acceptable level.

Validation studies

As part of the cleaning-validation study in a pilot plant (5), soiled equipment


was held after processing for an extended period of time before cleaning.
The hold times for the three validation trials held ranged from 2 h–217 h or
9 days. Data from the validation study including dirty-hold times are shown Table I: Dry
granulation
in Tables I, II, and III. The results include data from a typical dry- equipment train—
granulation equipment train and a wet-granulation equipment train. The dirty-hold validation
majority of the data (187 of 231 swabs) showed no detectable residue. All (Acceptable residue
limit [ARL] = 100
results were far below the acceptable residue limit (ARL) of 100 µg/swab. µg/swab)
The tests showed that over the time span examined, the dirty-hold time had no
discernable impact on the ability of the cleaning process to effectively remove Table II: Wet
the soil from the manufacturing equipment. granulation
equipment
train—dirty-
The clean-hold time validation study was conducted hold validation
(Acceptable
independently. After cleaning, the equipment was wiped or residue limit
sprayed with alcohol to remove residual water, dried, and [ARL] = 100
µg/swab)
covered to prevent any dust or particulate accumulation.
The validation study consisted of three trials; one trial extended the
clean-hold time. The clean-hold times for the three trials ranged from
same-day cleaning to a hold time of 2 yrs and 5 mo. Storage conditions
included both the clean-equipment hold area in the pilot plant and a
storage room outside the pilot plant but in the same building. Data from
Table III: Equipment the clean-hold time study are shown in Tables IV, V, and VI. The
dirty-hold time majority of the data (128 of 180 swabs) showed no detectable bioburden
and all results were far below the ARL of 100 colony forming units (cfu)/swab. The results
include data from a typical dry-granulation equipment train and a wet granulation
equipment train. The results demonstrate that bioburden was not present immediately after
cleaning and was not a cause for concern during storage of properly cleaned, dried, and
covered equipment.

Discussion

Cleaning-validation studies have established equipment dirty-hold times and


clean-hold times for pharmaceutical manufacturing equipment. The ongoing
expectation is that equipment cleaning documentation verifies compliance with
the validated hold times. A conservative approach uses either the established
time for each group of equipment, which makes recordkeeping difficult, or the
shortest established extended hold time for all equipment. Using this
approach, the dirty-hold time is limited to 7 days and the clean-hold time to
several weeks. A more aggressive approach uses the longest hold-time data.
This gives a maximum dirty-hold time of 9 days and a clean-hold time of more
than 2 yrs. Table IV: Dry
granulation
equipment
train—clean-
hold validation
(Acceptable
residue limit
[ARL] = 100
cfu/swab)
An examination of the clean-hold time data supports the more aggressive
approach. The data were consistent for both the wet- and dry-granulation
equipment. The average bioburden level for the 180 samples taken was 1.1
cfu/swab. There were 128 samples with no detectable bioburden and only nine
with a bioburden greater than 10 cfu/swab. Although the majority of samples were
taken shortly after cleaning, samples were taken at 1, 2, 5, and 8 mo and at 2 yrs,
5 mo with no discernable increase in bioburden. With a bioburden limit of 100
cfu/swab, clean-hold time is not an issue for cleaned equipment that is dried,
covered, and stored appropriately.
Table V:
Wet
granulation
The dirty-hold-time study needed to answer two questions. Does the soil
equipment become harder to clean the longer it sits, and what is the possibility of
train— microbial proliferation on soiled equipment? Soils can be more difficult
clean-hold
validationto clean when they are wet and allowed to dry onto the surface, or when
(Acceptablethe soil is hygroscopic and transforms into a pasty material or
residue
limit [ARL]subsequently dries. A high-shear granulator is the only equipment that
= 100 carries out wet granulation at the conclusion of unit operation. The dirty-
cfu/swab) hold time for the high-shear granulator (196 h) was lengthy enough to
allow any wet material to dry. The controlled humidity of the pilot plant prevented
any moisture uptake by residual granulation. All other equipment in the validation Table VI:
studies resulted in a dry granulation at the conclusion of unit operation. Microbial Equipment
clean-hold
proliferation was not a realistic possibility, which was corroborated by the clean- time
hold time data.

Subsequent to the validation studies, the gross cleaning


Figure 1. High-shear granulator prepared for
of the equipment, including scraping and vacuuming the
cleaning. (FIGURES ARE COURTESY OF
THE AUTHOR) equipment was shifted from the equipment-cleaning
process to the manufacturing process, which effectively
shortened dirty-hold times. Because of environmental considerations for residue disposal,
equipment operators scrape and vacuum accumulated residue from equipment surfaces.
Operators then wipe equipment surfaces with alcohol to remove as much of the residue as
possible to minimize the amount of residue discharge to the municipal sewer system. An
example of a typical soiled equipment surface prepared for cleaning is shown in Figures 1
and 2. The steps taken for environmental concerns effectively shorten the dirty-hold time.
The alcohol wipe dries within minutes, leaving no wet material to dry and become harder to
clean. The dry soiled surfaces do not have sufficient water activity to support microbial
proliferation. There is no sufficient residue remaining for hygroscopic residues to be a
concern. The dirty-hold time data, which measured cleaning effectiveness out to 9 days,
demonstrated a worst-case scenario for the pilot plant facility. The dirty-hold time is not of
significant concern for soiled equipment awaiting
cleaning.

Figure 2. Granulator exit chute prepared for


Under the operating conditions tested as part of the cleaning.
cleaning validation studies, the clean- and dirty-hold times
have little impact on the ongoing operations of the pilot-plant facility. In addition, routine
verification of adherence to these parameters adds little value to a firm's ability to produce
quality formulations. The risk, therefore, tied to not monitoring hold times should be low for
validated cleaning and storage conditions.

Conclusion

If clean- and dirty-equipment hold times are established during validation and maintained
under properly defined and controlled conditions, the need to monitor clean- or dirty-hold
times is not necessary. Avoiding these steps can result in savings of time and resources as
well as potential regulatory exposure.
Richard J. Forsyth is an associate director of worldwide GMP quality with Merck & Co.,
Inc, WP53C-307, West Point, PA. 19486, tel. 215.652.7462, fax 215.652.7106,
richard_forsyth@merck.com [richard_forsyth@merck.com]

Submitted: Nov. 16, 2007. Accepted: Dec. 20, 2007.

References

1. FDA, Guide to Inspection of Validation of Cleaning Processes, Division of Field


Investigations, Office of Regional Operations, Office of Regulatory Affairs (Rockville, MD),
July 1993.

2. EU, Annex 15, European Union Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice, Working Party
on Control of Medicines and Inspections, European Commission (Brussels, Belgium), July
2001.

3. Health Canada, Cleaning Validation Guidelines (Guide-0028), Drug GMP Inspection Unit
(Ottawa, Ontario) May 2000.

4. "Recommendations on Validation Master Plan Installation and Operational Qualification;


Non-Sterile Process Validation; and Cleaning Validation," in proceedings of the PIC/S
(PIC/S, July 2004).

5. R. J. Forsyth and D. Haynes, "Cleaning Validation in a Pharmaceutical Research


Facility," Pharm. Technol. 22 (9), 104–112, 1998.

6. J. A. Morales Sanchez, "Equipment Cleaning Validation Within a Multi-Product


Manufacturing Facility," BioPharm Inter. 31 (2), 38– 49, 2006.

7. A. H. Mollah, "Risk-Based Cleaning Validation in Biopharmaceutical API Manufacturing,"


BioPharm Inter. 30 (11), 54–68, 2005.

8. T. Fugate, "Hold Time Studies: A Lost Parameter for Cleaning Validation," J. Val.
Technol. 13 (3), 206–209, 2007.
Table I: Dry granulation equipment train—dirty-hold validation (Acceptable residue limit [ARL] = 100 µg/swab)
Table V: Wet granulation equipment train—clean-hold validation (Acceptable residue limit [ARL] = 100 cfu/swab)
Table II: Wet granulation equipment train—dirty-hold validation (Acceptable residue limit [ARL] = 100 µg/swab)
Table III: Equipment dirty-hold time
Table IV: Dry granulation equipment train—clean-hold validation (Acceptable residue limit [ARL] = 100 cfu/swab)
Table VI: Equipment clean-hold time
Figure 1. High-shear granulator prepared for cleaning. (FIGURES ARE COURTESY OF THE AUTHOR)
Figure 2. Granulator exit chute prepared for cleaning.

2008 Advanstar Communications Inc.. Permission granted for up to 5 copies. All rights reserved.
You may forward this article or get additional permissions by typing
http://license.icopyright.net/3.7458?icx_id=505369 into any web browser. Advanstar Communications
Inc. and Pharmaceutical Technology logos are registered trademarks of Advanstar Communications Inc. The iCopyright
logo is a registered trademark of iCopyright, Inc.

Похожие интересы