BACKGROUND AIMS: Airborne particulate monitoring is mandated as a component of good manufacturing practice. We present a procedure developed to monitor and interpret airborne particulates in an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) class 7 cleanroom used for the cell processing of Section 351 and Section 361 products. METHODS: We collected paired viable and non-viable airborne particle data over a period of 1 year in locations chosen to provide a range of air quality. We used receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine empirically the relationship between non-viable and viable airborne particle counts. RESULTS: Viable and non-viable particles were well-correlated (r(2) = 0.78), with outlier observations at the low end of the scale (non-viable particles without detectable airborne colonies). ROC analysis predicted viable counts ≥ 0.5/feet(3) (a limit set by the United States Pharmacopeia) at an action limit of ≥ 32 000 particles (≥ 0.5 µ)/feet(3), with 95.6% sensitivity and 50% specificity. This limit was exceeded 2.6 times during 18 months of retrospective daily cleanroom data (an expected false alarm rate of 1.3 times/year). After implementing this action limit, we were alerted in real time to an air-handling failure undetected by our hospital facilities management. CONCLUSIONS: A rational action limit for non-viable particles was determined based on the correlation with airborne colonies. Reaching or exceeding the action limit of 32 000 non-viable particles/feet(3) triggers suspension of cleanroom cell-processing activities, deep cleaning, investigation of air handling, and a deviation management process. Our full procedure for particle monitoring is available as an online supplement.
BACKGROUND AIMS: Airborne particulate monitoring is mandated as a component of good manufacturing practice. We present a procedure developed to monitor and interpret airborne particulates in an International Organization for Standardization (ISO) class 7 cleanroom used for the cell processing of Section 351 and Section 361 products. METHODS: We collected paired viable and non-viable airborne particle data over a period of 1 year in locations chosen to provide a range of air quality. We used receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis to determine empirically the relationship between non-viable and viable airborne particle counts. RESULTS: Viable and non-viable particles were well-correlated (r(2) = 0.78), with outlier observations at the low end of the scale (non-viable particles without detectable airborne colonies). ROC analysis predicted viable counts ≥ 0.5/feet(3) (a limit set by the United States Pharmacopeia) at an action limit of ≥ 32 000 particles (≥ 0.5 µ)/feet(3), with 95.6% sensitivity and 50% specificity. This limit was exceeded 2.6 times during 18 months of retrospective daily cleanroom data (an expected false alarm rate of 1.3 times/year). After implementing this action limit, we were alerted in real time to an air-handling failure undetected by our hospital facilities management. CONCLUSIONS: A rational action limit for non-viable particles was determined based on the correlation with airborne colonies. Reaching or exceeding the action limit of 32 000 non-viable particles/feet(3) triggers suspension of cleanroom cell-processing activities, deep cleaning, investigation of air handling, and a deviation management process. Our full procedure for particle monitoring is available as an online supplement.
Authors: P N Hoffman; J Williams; A Stacey; A M Bennett; G L Ridgway; C Dobson; I Fraser; H Humphreys Journal: J Hosp Infect Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.926
Authors: Gregory W Stocks; Sean D Self; Brandon Thompson; Xavier A Adame; Daniel P O'Connor Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Fernando Cobo; Glyn N Stacey; Charles Hunt; Carmen Cabrera; Ana Nieto; Rosa Montes; José Luis Cortés; Purificación Catalina; Angela Barnie; Angel Concha Journal: Appl Microbiol Biotechnol Date: 2005-10-26 Impact factor: 4.813
Authors: Alexander E Stover; Siranush Herculian; Maria G Banuelos; Samantha L Navarro; Michael P Jenkins; Philip H Schwartz Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-06-10 Impact factor: 1.355