LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for PMFLIST Archives


PMFLIST Archives

PMFLIST Archives


PMFLIST@LISTS.MICROBIOLOGYNETWORK.COM


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

PMFLIST Home

PMFLIST Home

PMFLIST  May 2006

PMFLIST May 2006

Subject:

Re: Bioburden

From:

Victor Mencarelli <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 30 May 2006 12:13:36 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (454 lines)

Scott,

Therein lies the problem.  Simply put, until the regulators accept the 
inherent variability in the methods employed in microbiology, the 
microbiologist cannot "accept" the limitations.  Until the microbiologist 
accepts the limitations imposed by the method, the regulatory agencies 
will not even look at the issue.  Therefore, we are looking at a major 
impass based simply on the fact that 1) if the microbiologist simply 
accepts the limitations they are considered negligent in their duties by 
the regulators; 2) if the regulators simply accepts the limitation they 
appear to be "caving to industry"; and 3) until everyone sits down in a 
room with equal numbers and baseball bats, I really don't foresee much of 
a change in this issue.

While I realize my #3 above will garner either chuckles or jeers from the 
rest of list, it is simple.  Until everyone gets on the same page (and 
that includes the regulatory bodies hiring EXPERIENCED INDUSTRIAL 
MICROBIOLOGISTS) with this issue, we are going to have this charade 
continuing day after day after day.  Part of the problem is industry (not 
being willing to invite a "discussion" on the relative positions) (and by 
industry I am not referring to the consultants that are retained to 
present the industry views to FDA, I mean the actual COMPANIES 
themselves).  Part of the problem is the bureaucracy inherent in 
governmental regulations and regulators.  And truthfully, I believe that 
much of the issue is also lack of understanding of the issues by both 
groups.

These are just my opinions and in no way represent those of anyone else 
including my employer.  (Sorry, I had to put that disclaimer in for 
practical purposes here).

Vic Mencarelli
Regulatory Affairs Specialist
Engelhard Corp.
50 Health Sciences Dr.
Stony Brook, NY 11790
P: 631-380-2482
F: 631-689-6880
E-mail: [log in to unmask]

This message is intended for the designated recipient(s) only.  Further, 
it may contain proprietary, confidential and/or legally privileged 
information.  If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, 
copy or distribute this message or its attachments and you may not use the 
information contained in this message or any attachments for any purpose. 
If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender by reply 
email and irretrievably delete it.  Thank you.



Scott Sutton <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List 
<[log in to unmask]>
05/30/2006 11:27 AM
Please respond to
The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List 
<[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [PMFLIST] Bioburden






Holly,

I agree that many of the specifications are not achievable by the plate
count method and that the USP/EP have contributed to the problem. However,
the plate count method is not the only one available.  Matilde Soubes in 
an
earlier Email suggested the MPN method - that is a good alternative.

I am under no illusions about getting a more scientifically based 
regulatory
environment in the near future.  However, after several validation 
protocols
for new (rapid) methods, reviewing the unworkable EP Chapter 5.1.6 on
validation of methods (did anyone on that committee ever try to get an RSD
of 10-15% for plate counts?), and several discussions on environmental
monitoring alert and action levels with clients and regulators I have to
admit to becoming increasingly agitated about the need for us to admit and
adhere to the limitations of the methods we employ. 

Microbiologists have got to get to a point where we can measure the
uncertainty in our methods.

Scott

=========
Scott Sutton, Ph.D.
Pharma Consultant, Microbiology
Vectech Pharmaceutical Consultants
585-594-8273
[log in to unmask]
This Message is privileged, confidential and protected by law from
disclosure. If you received this message in error, then forward it to
[log in to unmask] and delete it from your system.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Holly A Settles
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 9:20 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PMFLIST] Bioburden

Scott, 

While I may agree with your argument for reporting the LOQ as 
scientifically supportable, I have to ask how we are to stop perpetuating 
the accuracy charade. 

The USP 2nd Supplement with the revised chapters for <61> Microbiological 
Examination of Nonsterile Products: Microbial Enumeration Tests and <1111> 

Microbiological Examination of Nonsterile Products: Acceptance Criteria 
for Pharmaceutical Preparations and Substances for Pharmaceutical Use has 
recently arrived on my desk. 

The recommended acceptance criteria in <1111> for total aerobic microbial 
count and total combined yeast/mold count for many of the nonsterile 
dosage forms and substances for pharmaceutical use are less than 20 or 200 

cfu/g or ml. 

Many of these materials are not suitable for membrane filtration, and must 

be diluted 1/10 to be able to be plated.  Consequently, by using the 
compendial method, and the scientifically justifiable LOQ of <250, it does 

not seem possible to me to comply with the current guidance.

While new technologies and alternative methods may be the answer to 
increasing the accuracy and sensitivity of the total count tests, it 
should be expected that the compendial tests will continued to be used in 
the industry.  I would also suspect that the reporting counts of <10 cfu/g 

or ml will continue to be convention.

Holly Settles
Microbiologist
Eli Lilly & Co.




Scott Sutton <[log in to unmask]> 
Sent by: The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List 
<[log in to unmask]>
05/30/2006 07:42 AM
Please respond to
The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List 
<[log in to unmask]>


To
[log in to unmask]
cc

Subject
Re: [PMFLIST] Bioburden






Linda,

The question, as I see it, isn't so much whether or not it sounds
reasonable.  "Reasonableness" is frequently based on our desires and
preconceptions.  The question is rather is it scientifically supportable.

Let's look at the question fresh - we can agree that in normal situations
the valid number of bacterial colonies to count on a plate is 25-250 (my
apologies, I was a little sloppy with this range on my previous Email). We
can agree that if there are more than 250 colonies on a plate, we report 
the
data out as TNTC (Too Numerous To Count).  So we agree on a countable 
range
and we agree on how to report excess at the high end.

How do we report excess at the low end of the countable range?  Do we 
ignore
it?  I suggest we change "accepted practice" and opt for good science in
this regard.  As we introduce more and more alternate, rapid 
microbiological
methods, we are going to be more often faced with the questions of 
accuracy
and precision in our test results. 

ISO 17025 "General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and
Calibration Laboratories" is an interesting read in this regard.  In 
section
5.4.5.2 of "Validation of Methods" you can find the statement "The
techniques used for the determination of the performance of a method 
should
be one of, or a combination of, the following: . . . assessment of the
uncertainty of the results based on scientific understanding of the
theoretical principles of the method and practical experience."  This
statement is only one of several dealing with validation (accuracy,
precision, range, etc - see USP <1223> or Pharm Eur 5.1.6) and uncertainty
of measurements to be found in that ISO standard. 

A question for testing labs certified under ISO 17025 - How do you meet 
the
requirements for understanding and reporting uncertainty in the data?

Back to the question at hand.   How do we report out data from a plate 
that
has too few colonies to be in the countable range?  Common practice is to
ignore the situation and report it out as if it were an accurate count.  I
have even seen situations were a lab will take duplicate plates with 
counts
of 0 and 1 and report out 0.5 CFU at a 1/10 dilution = 5 CFU/mL.  This
practice is not scientifically supportable.

Merely because it would be convenient to report out CFU down to 1 
CFU/plate
is not a justification for doing so.  These numbers are not even remotely
accurate and we are only digging deeper holes for ourselves by 
participating
in the charade - holes that will come to present major obstacles when we
attempt to validate an alternate method and are FORCED to apply rigorous
measures under USP or Pharm Eur guidance.

Yes, in answer to your question, the only defensible act in this situation
(in my opinion) is to acknowledge that the plate count method has a Limit 
of
Quantification, and the LOQ is 25 CFU/plate.  Pursuing this argument, if 
you
have counts that fall below the countable range of 25-250 CFU/plate on the
1/10 dilution you would report the data out as <250 CFU/mL.  Even if the
duplicate plate counts are 24 and 23 - they fall below the LOQ of the 
plate
count method.

Scott

=========
Scott Sutton, Ph.D.
Pharma Consultant, Microbiology
Vectech Pharmaceutical Consultants
585-594-8273
[log in to unmask]
This Message is privileged, confidential and protected by law from
disclosure. If you received this message in error, then forward it to
[log in to unmask] and delete it from your system.

-----Original Message-----
From: The Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum Email List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Linda K. Skowronsky
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2006 5:57 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PMFLIST] Bioburden

In reply to Scott's response....I'm confused. Based on what you said, then 


if we have no growth on 2 plates from a 1:10 dilution and we can only 
report cfu in the countable range of 20-200, does this mean the minimum 
detection limit would be <200? Does this sound reasonable??? Or perhaps I 
misunderstood...

Best Regards,
Linda

------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/PMFList_info.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.

Please take a second to visit our sponsors' web sites and say thank you 
for their support of this service.

Accugenix - http://www.accugenix.com

American Type Culture Collection - http://www.atcc.org

ATS Laboratories - http://www.ats-labs.com

Biolog - http://www.biolog.com

Biomerieux - http://industry.biomerieux-usa.com

Dupont Qualicon - http://www.qualicon.com

EMD Chemicals - http://www.emdchemicals.com

EMSL Analytical, Inc. - http://www.emsl.com

Genomic Profiling Systems, Inc. - http://www.genprosys.com

MIDI, Inc. - http://www.midi-inc.com

Millipore - http://www.millipore.com

Pall - http://www.pall.com

NovaTek International - http://www.ntint.com

Raven Biological Labs - http://www.ravenlabs.com

Veltek Associates, Inc - http://www.sterile.com

=================================
The nature of this service is to provide a medium for communication.  The 
specific statements and endorsements of individuals participating in the 
discussions are not necessarily those of The Microbiology Network, Inc., 
the PMF, or the sponsors of the list.


------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/PMFList_info.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.

Please take a second to visit our sponsors' web sites and say thank you 
for
their support of this service.

Accugenix - http://www.accugenix.com

American Type Culture Collection - http://www.atcc.org

ATS Laboratories - http://www.ats-labs.com

Biolog - http://www.biolog.com

Biomerieux - http://industry.biomerieux-usa.com

Dupont Qualicon - http://www.qualicon.com

EMD Chemicals - http://www.emdchemicals.com

EMSL Analytical, Inc. - http://www.emsl.com

Genomic Profiling Systems, Inc. - http://www.genprosys.com

MIDI, Inc. - http://www.midi-inc.com

Millipore - http://www.millipore.com

Pall - http://www.pall.com

NovaTek International - http://www.ntint.com

Raven Biological Labs - http://www.ravenlabs.com

Veltek Associates, Inc - http://www.sterile.com

=================================
The nature of this service is to provide a medium for communication.  The
specific statements and endorsements of individuals participating in the
discussions are not necessarily those of The Microbiology Network, Inc., 
the
PMF, or the sponsors of the list.


------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/PMFList_info.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.

Please take a second to visit our sponsors' web sites and say thank you 
for their support of this service.

Accugenix - http://www.accugenix.com

American Type Culture Collection - http://www.atcc.org

ATS Laboratories - http://www.ats-labs.com

Biolog - http://www.biolog.com

Biomerieux - http://industry.biomerieux-usa.com

Dupont Qualicon - http://www.qualicon.com

EMD Chemicals - http://www.emdchemicals.com

EMSL Analytical, Inc. - http://www.emsl.com

Genomic Profiling Systems, Inc. - http://www.genprosys.com

MIDI, Inc. - http://www.midi-inc.com

Millipore - http://www.millipore.com

Pall - http://www.pall.com

NovaTek International - http://www.ntint.com

Raven Biological Labs - http://www.ravenlabs.com

Veltek Associates, Inc - http://www.sterile.com

=================================
The nature of this service is to provide a medium for communication.  The 
specific statements and endorsements of individuals participating in the 
discussions are not necessarily those of The Microbiology Network, Inc., 
the PMF, or the sponsors of the list.



------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiol.org/PMFList_info.htm) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiol.org) and supported by
our sponsors (http://microbiol.org/sponsor.htm) as a service to
the scientific community.

Please take a second to visit our sponsors' web sites and say thank you for their support of this service.

Accugenix - http://www.accugenix.com

American Type Culture Collection - http://www.atcc.org

ATS Laboratories - http://www.ats-labs.com

Biolog - http://www.biolog.com

Biomerieux - http://industry.biomerieux-usa.com

Dupont Qualicon - http://www.qualicon.com

EMD Chemicals - http://www.emdchemicals.com

EMSL Analytical, Inc. - http://www.emsl.com

Genomic Profiling Systems, Inc. - http://www.genprosys.com

MIDI, Inc. - http://www.midi-inc.com

Millipore - http://www.millipore.com

Pall - http://www.pall.com

NovaTek International - http://www.ntint.com

Raven Biological Labs - http://www.ravenlabs.com

Veltek Associates, Inc - http://www.sterile.com

=================================
The nature of this service is to provide a medium for communication.  The specific statements and endorsements of individuals participating in the discussions are not necessarily those of The Microbiology Network, Inc., the PMF, or the sponsors of the list.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.MICROBIOLOGYNETWORK.COM

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager