Sunday, 30 August 2020

HPLC Guard Column: Use & Benefits in Gradient method


In Pharmaceutical Industries Related Substances test analysis is very critical, particularly when the HPLC method analysis is gradient method . To get smooth baseline, no additional peak is always challenge in gradient method analysis.

In such cases Guard column is useful to get smooth baseline and exclusion of any additional peak due to impurity available in solvent which is used in mobile phase and diluents preparation.

"If you have already validated method, then method Equivalency data is required before routine use of Guard column".

SecurityGuard HPLC Guard columns

What is a guard column?

A guard column is a protective column or cartridge installed between the injector and the analytical column. It serves to remove the impurities and suspended solids from reaching the analytical column. Typically it has a length of about 2 cm and internal diameter of 4.6 mm. Guard columns are packed with pelicullar particles of around 40 μm size to offer negligible pressure drop. 

 The proficient operation of HPLC instrument is dependent on freedom of mobile phase and sample from chemical impurities or solid suspensions. Precaution and handling of use of  mobile phase  discusses measures that should be adopted during preparation and use of mobile phase. Importance of cleaned sample (Centrifuge or filter with syringe filter)  injection is always benefits.

HPLC column is a critical component of the HPLC system which requires careful handling and protection. It is expensive to keep replacing columns frequently so your objective should be to maximize the useful life of the column so that every time you get the desired accuracy and consistency of results.

The chromatographic behavior of the HPLC column begins to decline over use due to gradual accumulation of impurities and suspensions. Particles larger than 2μm present in mobile phase or sample start to deposit on the inlet frit of the column thereby disturbing uniformity of flow. Smaller particles result in increased backpressure so they begin to block the flow path in the stationary phase.

Nature of contaminants:

  • Highly retained compounds such as fatty acids in reverse phase separations
  • Irreversibly retained compounds like residual proteins which were not removed completely at time of sample extraction. 
  • Particulate impurities can result from non filtration of samples, particulates released by wear of system components such as seals in the pump or injector.
  • Crystalline deposits resulting from drying of residual buffers inside column. Washing of columns with HPLC grade water after use or buffer solutions prevents such salt deposit formation.

Desirable features of guard columns:

  • Guard column should have preferably the same packing as the analytical column to eliminate separation complications
  • Internal ID of guard column should be comparable to analytical column to minimize back-pressure. Shorter guard column length is preferable but it should be long enough to prevent strongly retained compounds from reaching the main column
  • Frit facing the injector should be removable for cleaning by removal of about 2 mm of material and filling with fresh material
  • Disposable cartridge type guard columns are convenient and economical to use compared to refillable guard columns.

Guard columns need to be changed on regular basis but intermediate change becomes necessary through observation of changes in chromatographic behaviour such as increase in backpressure, peak broadening and, changes in retention time of peaks. However, the frequency of change can be decided on the basis of chemical composition of sample, presence of highly retained or irreversibly retained components, injection volume or number of injections.

 


OOS Investigation case study -7 (Instrument error)

OOS Investigation case study-7 (Assay)

OOS observed in Assay test. 
(Single preparation test and duplicate injections from same vial) 
During investigation when you found any root cause in Preliminary or hypothesis testing, before planning of re-analysis, Use any of Investigation tools (5 Why, 6 M etc to rule all other probabilities)Review it thoroughly and plan the negative experiment if required to make the investigation more adequate. 

During investigation when you found any root cause in Preliminary or hypothesis testing, before planning of re-analysis, Use any of Investigation tools (5 Why, 6 M etc to rule all other probabilities)Review it thoroughly and plan the negative experiment if required to make the investigation more adequate. 

Description of Event:
OOS result observed in Assay test.
Result: 97.4% (From same vial Injection-1: 99.8%, Injection-2:94.9%)
-Limit: 95.0 - 105.0%.

Mean result is within specification limit, but one injection result from same vial is 94.9% which is not complying to the specification limit, hence OOS initiated.


Preliminary investigation:
During preliminary investigation checked all possibilities for lower Assay results like Instrument error (No pressure fluctuation , no air bubble in mobile phase/Rinse line ) Calculation error (wrong weight, wrong potency etc.), Standard preparation error (recovery factor of standard and control standard is 99.8%) and all other possible causes for lower result, but no error is identified in preliminary investigation.

During review of pressure graph it was notice that though there is no pressure fluctuation, but at zero time (during injection) subject injection pressure is lower than other all injections pressure (Blank, Standard, control standard and injection-1 of sample (99.8% result).

Zoom pressure graph: (In normal scale graph this pressure difference may not be visible).

Based on above observation there might be possibility that during second injection due lower pressure complete planned volume (20µl) is not drawn by injector.

So to rule the instrument error hypothesis testing should be planned as still we are not sure that which result is true i.e. 99.8% or 94.9% .
Re-measurement:

Hypothesis testing is performed to rule out instrument error, vial filling error, dilution error etc. Hypothesis is planned on different HPLC system and all other things are remain same.
Same vial result is found within specification limit (Mean 99.6%, Injection-1: 99.7%,  Injection-2: 99.5%)
Refilled (100.1%) and re-dilution (99.8%) results are found well with in specification limit. 

Based on outcome of hypothesis , repeat testing/re-analysis can be planned from same aliquot/sample and invalidate the initial OOS result.

Now the question is , 
Why one injection result is lower?, Is this due to low pressure at zero time, If yes, then why lower pressure at zero time in one injection? Is this momentary instrument malfunction? Or any other reason. We have to hand over instrument to service engineer to identify the root cause for low pressure.

Based on service engineer report ,scientific rational and justification we can conclude the OOS with proper CAPA.  

Impact Assessment:

As an Impact assessment we have to evaluate at least last 05 analysis on same instrument and after rectification of error at least 03 analysis.