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  April 2017

PMFLIST April 2017

Subject:

Re: MET method validation: recovery of microorganisms

From:

Bob Friedel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Sat, 29 Apr 2017 15:20:44 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (175 lines)

There are a couple of ways to nullify the effect of antimicrobials:

1) Chemically-neutralize or dilute to sub-inhibitory levels
2) Physically separate (involving membrane filtration)
3) Both 1 & 2

Your method validation exercise should be conducted prior to routine implementation in the QA/QC Microbiology Lab.  The organisms of interest are inoculated directly into the Petri dish containing all of the experimental diluents/media/product (post-manipulation).  Post-incubation recoveries are then compared against one another as follows: 

Pour-plating: 

Control #1 = Agar + diluent
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered.

Control #2 = Agar + diluent + antimicrobial neutralizing chemical(s)
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered in the presence of the neutralizing chemicals.

Control #3 = Agar + diluent + antimicrobial neutralizing chemical(s) + raw material or product
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered in the presence of actual product.


For filtration, inoculating directly into the filter funnel containing the 3rd rinse is appropriate.  Post-incubation recoveries are then compared against one another. 

Membrane filtration:

Control #1 = Agar + diluent + membrane
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered.

Control #2 = Agar + diluent + membrane + antimicrobial neutralizing chemical(s)
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered in the presence of the neutralizing chemical(s).

Control #3 = Agar + diluent + membrane + antimicrobial neutralizing chemical(s) + raw material or product
-Tells us whether the organisms can be recovered in the presence of actual product.


The overall goal is to ascertain if there are any factors which (if present) impede the organisms from being recovered in the Petri dish or on the membrane filter.

Note: I do not have the latest copy of the ASTM Protocol E1054-08 (2013)  “Standard Practices for Evaluating Inactivators of Antimicrobial Agents Used in Disinfectant, Sanitizer, Antiseptic or Preserved Products.” <https://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/HISTORICAL/E1054-08.htm> but “back in the day” they advocated the surface-streak methodology when pour-plating actually took place.  This was in reference to plates that showed no growth after incubation.  The problem is that pour-plating and surface-streaking are two different methodologies.  And while having good intentions, the procedure [at that time] was misleading (and in my opinion “flawed”), as it advocated determining neutralization effectiveness post-incubation; not at the time the particular sample was manipulated and pour-plated.  ASTM’s position may have changed but I am unable to confirm this.
References:

Sutton, S.V.W. (1996) "Neutralizer Evaluations as Control Experiments for Antimicrobial Efficacy Tests,” In: Handbook of Disinfectants and Antiseptics, J.M. Ascenzi (ed), Chapter 3, pp. 43-62.

Dey, B.P and F.B. Englué Jr. (1994) “Neutralization of Antimicrobial Chemicals by Recovery Media,” J. Microbial. Methods, Vol. 19, pp. 51-58.

Casetta, P. and F. Negletti (1992) “Microbiological Controls of Antiseptics and Disinfectants by Membrane Filtration: Experimental Evaluation of the Interferences,” Boll. Chim. Farmaceutico, Vol. 131, No. 6, pp. 238-241.

Proud, D.W. and S.V.W. Sutton (1992) “Development of a Universal Diluting Fluid for Membrane Filtration Sterility Testing,” Appl. Environ. Microbial., Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 1035-1038.

Negretti, F. (1989) “Experimental Observations on the Bacteriological Control of the Antibiotics- I. Antibacterial Activity of Membranes Employed in Bacteriological Assays,” J. Pharm. & Biomed. Analysis, Vol. 7, No. 12, pp. 1861-1865.

Singer, S. (1987) “The Use of Preservative Neutralizers in Diluents and Plating Media,” Cosmet. & Toiletries, Vol. 102, Dec., pp. 55-60.

Naidoo, N.T., Price, C.H., and T.J. McCarthy (1971) “Adsorption of Benzalkonium Chloride onto Different Filter Media During Bacteriological Filtration,” Pharm. Weekblad, Vol. 106, pp. 509-514.

Van Ooteghem, M. and H. Heriots (1969) “The Adsorption of Preservatives on Membrane Filters,” Pharm. Acta, Helv., Vol. 44, pp. 610-619.

Kayser, A. and G. Vad de Ploeg (1965) “Growth Inhibition of Staphylococci by Sodium Thiosulfate,” J. Appl. Bacterial., Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 286-293.


Bob Friedel


> On Apr 28, 2017, at 6:38 PM, Aaron Fielder <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tony,
> 
>    I must agree with Julie. Surely the intent of the validation is to show that the actual test is capable of identifying and recovering sub-lethally damaged cells from actual raw materials (or finished goods for that matter)? In that case, we have to challenge the inoculae against the product as best we are able before trying to prove that the test method will recover them. That pre-exposure time will necessarily be arbitrary as, in real life, the native bugs will have been exposed for an extended period, from date of manufacture of the material, but an arbitrary lab decided time frame is a better challenge than simply showing that insoluble residues remain to stress the organisms after numerous rinsing steps or partially neutralized by agar. If we apply the USP method as written, and there are no residues, then the challenge organisms actually never meet the product at any stage of the validation, which doesn't seem particularly useful?
> 
> best regards, Aaron
> 
> 
> On 24/04/2017 10:20 PM, Tony Cundell wrote:
>> I must disagree with Julie. The issue is not the survival in the product
>> matrix or diluted product but whether the product residues prevent the
>> recovery of the inoculum in the culture. This is apparent on reading the
>> USP chapters.
>> 
>> For example, an aliquot of the dilution and a method suitability
>> microorganisms at <100 CFU is added to the sterile Petri dish, mixed, and
>> the molten agar is added, mixed again to fully disperse the two within the
>> agar. The plate is incubated and the recovery compared to a plate
>> inoculated without the aliquot. The acceptance criterion is between 50 and
>> 200%. Typically it is around 100%.
>> 
>> Tony
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 23, 2017 at 11:06 AM, Julie B <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 
>>> Saiyem,
>>> 
>>> it will depend on antimicrobial activity of your product. When you to
>>> execute method suitability via pour plate method you should add
>>> microorganisms into your product matrix (i.e. product and dilutent
>>> combination), and then plate aliquotes out. It should be no different with
>>> filtration method. No, if you experiencing inhibition, then yes you can add
>>> organisms into last rinse as it was recommended previously. However, I
>>> would not jump directly to the adding organisms to the last rinse without
>>> proving that adding organisms into product matrix does not work.
>>> 
>>> Hope that helps
>>> Julie Barlasov, MBA
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> Julie Barlasov, MBA
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> (908) 342-3582
>>> 
>>> On Fri, Apr 21, 2017 at 12:51 PM, moataz el gaaly <
>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> During the last third wash
>>>>  Hope it helps
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my HTC
>>>> 
>>>> ----- Reply message -----
>>>> From: "Muhammod Saiyem" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]
>>>> MICROBIOLOGYNETWORK.COM>
>>>> Subject: [PMFLIST] MET method validation: recovery of microorganisms
>>>> Date: Fri, Apr 21, 2017 16:59
>>>> 
>>>> Dear All
>>>> During method validation of microbial enumeration test of raw materials
>>> by
>>>> filtration, at which stage should I add test organisms?
>>>> 
>>>> Is it to the prepared sample solution, then filter & wash the filter
>>> paper
>>>> 3 times with suitable diluent (3*100ml)?
>>>> 
>>>> Or at first filter the sample solution, then wash the filter paper 2
>>> times
>>>> and add test organisms into the filtration cup during last time (3rd)
>>>> washing?
>>>> 
>>>> Please let me know your ideas.
>>>> 
>>>> Regards
>>>> Saiyem
>>>> Square Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
>>>> Bangladesh
>>>> 
>>>> 


------------------
The PMFList (http://microbiologynetwork.com/pmflist.asp) is operated from
The Microbiology Network (http://microbiologynetwork.com) and supported by
our sponsors 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.


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

Microbiologics, Inc. - http://www.microbiologics.com

Nelson Labs - http://www.nelsonlabs.com

BD Diagnostic Systems - http://www.bd.com/ds/

Boston Analytical http://www.bostonanalytical.com/

MilliporeSigma  http://www.emdmillipore.com/

Charles River Microbial Solutions:  Endosafe, Accugenix & Celsis   - www.criver.com/micro

Avista Pharma Solutions  http://www.avistapharma.com

Associates of Cape Cod, Inc. - http://www.acciusa.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

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