Determining Particulate Containment
Through Surrogate Monitoring at
Pharmaceutical Companies in India
May 18, 2011
Ganesh Desai
+91 9327547481
Agenda
• Background
• Approaches adopted
• Exposure Sources
• Recommendations
• Lessons Learned
2
Pharmaceutical Companies in India
• India is identified as most desirable country for
supplying dosage form and API to Pharmaceutical
corporations
• More than 200 contract manufacturers (CM) in India
• India has the most US FDA approved manufacturing
sites outside the USA.
• Driving Forces:
– Low cost of production and pool of scientific talents
– Price control
3
Objective of Studies
• Surrogate monitoring was conducted in a small scale
manufacturing facilities of Company A, Company B and
Company C.
• Determine the degree of individual exposure with the current
containment to surrogate and relate to potential Active
Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) exposure levels
• Recommend exposure controls to reduce exposures to API below
OEL
• Determine contribution of work practices in overall exposures
• Determine the need and type of respiratory protection to be used
4
Sampling Protocol and Analytical Methods
• ISPE Good Practice Guide Assessing The Particulate
Containment Performance of Pharmaceutical Equipment
• Standardized Measurement of Equipment Particulate
Airborne Concentration (SMEPAC) committee
• Sampling Methodology and Instrumentation
– Air sampling pump - flow rate ranging 2 liters/min to 5 liters/min
– Primary Calibrator
– Sampling media – 1 micron 25 mm diameter PTFE filter and Swabs
• Analytical Methods
– American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) accredited laboratory
analyzed the sample
– High Pressure Liquid Chromatographic and an Electrochemical
detector
– Limit of Quantification: 2.5 nanograms
5
Surrogate Specifications • Lactose was selected as surrogate
• Factors considered in selection of Lactose:
– Particle size of target Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)
– Detection sensitivity
– Pharmacological activity (no effect on testing personnel or risk of cross-contamination)
– Available particle size range giving a worst case of dustiness
– Ease of disposal (environmental consideration)
– Solubility in water (post-test cleaning)
– Stability (test material and sampled material storage)
6
Surrogate Sampling Locations
• Area samples – 5 and ½ feet above the floor.
• Transfer points – Within 6 inches (15 centimeters) of a
pass in/pass out transfer point.
• Personal Breathing Zone (PBZ) Samples– On the lead
operator, (i.e. the operator performing the majority of the
tasks). The preferred location is attached to the collar as
close to the breathing zone as possible
• Swab Samples – As per the ISPE protocol
7
Unit Operations Dispensing
Sifting
Granulation
Drying
Milling
Blending
Compression
Coating
8
Equipment Tested
• Isolator
• Down flow booth
• Sifter
• Rapid Mixer Granulator
• Fluid Bed Dryer (FBD)
• FBD with in-line mill
• Co Mill
• Bin Blender
• Compression Machine
• Coating Machine
9
Findings
• Exposure monitoring results were found to be
above the company established occupational
exposure limits in Company A, Company B
and Company C.
• Containments or engineering controls are not
effective when safe work practices are not
followed
10
Exposure Sources: Dispensing
• Isolator (Company A)
– Emissions from the connections of the hicoflex bags
• Laminar Flow Booth (Company B and C)
– Over filling of Scoop
– Rubbing of hands to remove Lactose adhered on the gloves
– Shaking of bag to remove leftover Lactose
– Spilled Lactose not cleaned immediately
– Adherence of Lactose on the secondary gown and gloves
– Visible particles seen on the outer side of the bag
11
Exposure Sources: Sifting
• Isolator (Company A)
– Particulate emission seen from the discharge point
• Vibratory Sifter (Company B and C)
– Tapping of sieve
– Spilled surrogate was not cleaned, which became airborne
after the sifter was turned ON
– Poly bag with blend away from charging area resulting in
spillage and particles becoming airborne
12
Exposure Sources: Granulation
• Rapid Mixer Granulator (Company A, B and C)
– Addition of blend manually in the RMG
– Opening of RMG during the granulation to scrap the
powder from the side walls of the RMG
– Manually pushing the left over blend in the discharge
point of the RMG
– Particulate emission seen from the discharge point
13
Exposure Sources: Drying
• Ultima Pro 75 (Company A) – Spillage observed while opening the transfer valve
– Traces of dust particles coming out while removing the Hicoflex® bag from the discharge point, Small gap between two docking joints resulting in leakage of particles
– Tapping of the Hicoflex® bag to ensure smooth flow
• Fluid Bed Dryer (Company B and C) – Scrapping of blend from the walls of the IBC resulting in
particulate emissions
– Particulate emissions seen while manual scooping of blend in the poly bags
– Exposure were low during the first iteration as vacuum transfer system was used.
14
Exposure Sources:
Milling
• Particulate emissions seen
from the charging point
when the co-mill was
switched ON
• Particulate emission seen
from the discharge point
as the bag was held
loosely
Blending
• Spillage during charging of
blend in the blender
• Spillage on the bin not
cleaned resulting in dust
particles becoming air borne
while bin was rotated
• Shaking of bags to remove
leftover blend
15
Exposure Sources:
Compression of Tablets • Reach height for charging above shoulder height resulting in
Lactose spillage
• Compressed tablets taken without de-dusting for hardness
testing
• The powder on the tablets was removed by tapping on the
tablets, making the powder airborne.
• Sample tablets collecting bin was kept uncovered
16
Exposure Sources: Coating of Tablets
• Leaks seen from the rubber lining of the door of the coating
machine
• Spillage of tablets while loading them in the coating pan
• The coating machine was modified to accommodate tablet
filling chute which resulted in sealing of the door becoming
inefficient to control the exposure
• Particulate emissions when the coating machine door was
opened to adjust the spray pattern
• The employee had to remove the tablets blocked on the
discharge point manually
17
Common Contributory Factors -
Containment
• Leakage from flange joints (sieve, mill)
• De-dusting and tablet filling area of compression without a
local exhaust ventilation (LEV)
• Significant emissions at all discharge points (Sieve, RMG,
Mill, Blender)
• Manual scooping in Compression machine instead of using an
Intermediate Bulk Container (IBC)
• Manual scooping in the Mill instead of vacuum transfer
• Emissions observed from the rubber lining of the door of the
coating machine.
18
Common Contributory Factors –
Work Practices
• Material leaking from flange joints on Sieve, RMG, Mill
• Over filling of scoop while manual charging
• Shaking while emptying of Lactose with plastic bags
• Compressed air used for cleaning
• Dry sweeping in place of using a vacuum equipped with a
HEPA filter.
19
Recommendations
20
Crimping
Recommendations
• Upgrade respiratory protection to Full face-piece Air
Purifying Respirator and Powered Air Purifying Respirator
(PAPR), until the controls are placed and exposure is
confirmed below the required OEB.
• Consider providing flexible containment for the equipment
such as sifter, RMG and the mill.
• Using Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBCs)
• Use crimping process to reduce the exposure during
discharging and handling of plastic liners.
• Clean spilled blend immediately by wet mopping or by a
vacuum equipped with HEPA filter.
21
Recommendations
• Ensure the local exhaust ventilation system is
operational before commencing the coating activity,
• Ensure the rubber lining on the door of the coating
machine provide effective sealing to reduce emission,
• Keep a portable local exhaust ventilation near the
transfer points,
• Raise employee awareness on health hazards of APIs
and the importance of following safe work practices
and using recommended respiratory protection. Include
safe work practices in the operating procedures.
22
Strengths of Surrogate Monitoring Study • Evaluate containment performance without potential
exposures to potent Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
(APIs)
• Evaluate containment performance in situations where
an analytical method has not been developed for the
API of interest
• Extrapolate data for similar equipments and for
multiple APIs with similar characteristics
• Containment validation data applicable to the APIs for
which Occupational Exposure Limits are not
established and analytical methods are not developed
23
Limitations of Surrogate Monitoring Study
• Conditions are simulated and are not the actual
working conditions
• It does not evaluate exposures to gases or vapors
which may escape the containment
• Employees work practices may be positively or
negatively biased knowing the purpose of the study
• Results are indicative and not confirmative
24
Lessons Learned
• Surrogate monitoring is effective in determining
degree of exposure
• Best of the containments or engineering controls are
not effective when safe work practices are not
followed
• Parent companies expecting suppliers to demonstrate
(through containment validation) that API is exposure
below OEL is the most effective way of reducing
exposure to API
25
Thank You
26