Professional Documents
Culture Documents
net/publication/321975479
CITATIONS READS
0 1,258
4 authors, including:
Ron Snee
Snee Associates, LLC
428 PUBLICATIONS 7,824 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Ron Snee on 21 December 2017.
Environmental Variables
• Ambient Temperature and Humidity
• Reagent Quality
• Analyst
• Day of Week
• Season of Year
Snee Associates, LLC
• Shift 10
Test Method Design
Experimentation Strategy
Screening Optimization
Experiment Experiment
Total
Variation
Process or Measurement
Product System
Variation Variation
Accuracy Precision
Total
Variation
Gage R&R Studies
Process or Measurement Focus on
Product System Repeatability and
Variation Variation Reproducibility
Accuracy Precision
Repeatability Reproducibility
Operator B
Operator C
Repeatability
Operator A
Reproducibility
Analyst A1 A2 A3 A4 …………..
A21 A22 A23 A24
Adapted from Ahuga and Dong (2005) Handbook of Pharmaceutical Analysis by HPLC
Source DF SS MS F P
Sample 5 187.501 37.5001 39.9815 0.000
Analyst 3 15.623 5.2076 5.5522 0.009
Sample*Analyst 15 14.069 0.9379 1.4339 0.155
Repeatability 72 47.097 0.6541
Total 95 264.290
Percent
HPLC Gage
40 R&R Study 97.5
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part 1
R Chart by Analyst
1 2 3 4
4 UCL=3.802
Sample Range 100.0
2 _ 97.5
R=1.667
95.0
0 LCL=0
• Repeatability
Sample Mean
Average
97.5 _
_ 97.5
X=96.568
LCL=95.354 95.0
95.0
Measurement
Variation
Measurement
Variation
Study B
Operators
Do Not Agree
on Length of
Sample 6
Apparatus
Degassing
Acid Conc
Dummy 3
No Significant
Filter Position
Dummy 2
Effects
0 1 2 3 4
Effect
Lenth's PSE = 1.4
Process?
Sampling Method?
Analytical Lab?
Some or All of the Above?
Manufacturing Process
Sampling Method
Measurement Method
A combination of these
sources of variation
Batch Process:
A sample is taken form each batch and analyzed in the
lab to determine the moisture content of the product
It is desired to understand the sources of
variation for the moisture content measurement
so that it can be determined the nature and
magnitude of the needed improvements
Three sources of variation are identified:
Batch-to-batch
Sample-to-sample within a batch
Test-to-test within a sample
Sampling Study:
15 Batches
2 Samples per batch
2 Analytical tests per sample
Total of 30 samples and 60 tests
40
35
MOISTURE CONTENT
30
25
20
15
10
SAMPLE 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
BATCH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Source DF SS MS F P
BATCH 14 1210.9333 86.4952 1.492 0.226
SAMPLE 15 869.7500 57.9833 63.255 0.000
TEST 30 27.5000 0.9167
Total 59 2108.1833
Source of Process Variation
Test
Variance Components 3% Batch
19%
Source Var Comp. % of Total StDev
BATCH 7.128 19.49 2.670
SAMPLE 28.533 78.01 5.342
TEST 0.917 2.51 0.957 Sample
78%
Corrective Action:
Operators were trained to use the proper sampling
methods
Sampling process was more closely supervised
Studies were initiated to further improve the
sampling procedure
Alternative sampling schemes were investigated:
Guideline:
Sample those sources with the largest variance
Purpose
Identify and quantify the sources of variability in a critical
raw material used to manufacture an API
Nested Sampling Design was used
Material from 2 suppliers was analyzed
3 lots were evaluated from each supplier
4 containers were sampled from each lot
3 measurements (assay %) were made on each container
Total of 2x3x4x3 = 72 assay results
101.5
Individual Value
101.0
_
100.5 X=100.523
100.0
99.5
99.0
LCL=98.814
1 8 15 22 29 36 43 50 57 64 71
Observation
102.0
101.5
Result(%)
101.0
100.5
100.0
99.5
99.0
1 2
Supplier
• Supplier 2
• Has Greater Variation than Supplier 1
• Variation is due to sampling (59%) and testing (35%)
• Next Steps
• Assess sampling and test methods used by Supplier 2
• Consider evaluating what Supplier 1 is doing differently
Potency (%) on a QC
Control Material
84 Rows of Data
42 QC Runs
2 Measurements / Run
95.0 UC L=95.101
94.5
94.0
Av g=94.178 Out-of-Control Runs
93.5 Detected. Process Is
LCL=93.254
93.0 Not Stable; Long-Term
92.5
Variation = 58%
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
3
6
9
Run
Note: T he s ig ma wa s cal c ul ated us in g th e ra nge .
R of Potency
UC L=1.604
1.5
Good Repeatability
Range of Potency
1.0
Within-Run Variation in
0.5 Av g=0.491 Control
0.0 LCL=0.000
12
15
18
21
24
27
30
33
36
39
42
3
6
9
• Stable Process
• Good Reproducibility
• Long-Term
Variance = 21%
• Un-Stable Process
• Poor Reproducibility
• Long-Term
Variance = 58%