Air pattern or “smoke” studies
demonstrating laminarity and sweeping action over and away from the
product under dynamic conditions
should be conducted.
The studies should be
well-documented with written conclusions. Videotape or other recording mechanisms have
been found to be useful in assessing airflow initially as well as facilitating
evaluation of subsequent equipment configuration changes. However, even successfully qualified systems
can be compromised by poor personnel,
operational, or maintenance practices.
Smoke studies and
multi-location particulate data are vital when performing qualification studies
to assess whether proper particulate control dynamics have been achieved
throughout the critical area.
Personnel should minimize interventions into the critical zones. Such interventions can
adversely disrupt the unidirectional
and should therefore be designed to minimize both the extent and frequency of
occurrence.
Equipment should not obstruct
airflow and, in critical areas, its design should not disturb unidirectional
airflow.
Rapid movements can create
unacceptable turbulence in a critical area. Such movements disrupt the
unidirectional airflow, presenting a challenge beyond intended cleanroom design
and control parameters. The principle of slow, careful movement should be
followed throughout the cleanroom.
Keep the entire body
out of the path of unidirectional airflow Unidirectional airflow design
is used to protect sterile equipment surfaces, container closures, and product.
Disruption
of the path of unidirectional flow air in the critical area can pose a
risk to product sterility.
Manufacturers should be aware
of a device's
air monitoring capabilities, and the air sampler should be evaluated
for its suitability for use in an aseptic environment based on collection
efficiency, cleanability, ability to be sterilized, and disruption of unidirectional
airflow.
Exposure conditions should
preclude desiccation (e.g., caused by lengthy sampling periods and/or high
airflows), which inhibits recovery of microorganisms.
Evaluation methodology:
If in case poor visibility mentioned the reasons (i.e Reflection / less lighting/denser smoke)
Result shall be reported as Yes or No and in some cases rating can be done as Very good "+++", Good "++", Improvement req. "+" and Poor "-"
Evaluation methodology:
- Studies demonstrating laminarity over the product path
- Sweeping action away from the product path
- Activity/intervention performed as per procedure
- Any Turbulence observed in smoke flow
- Airflow is unidirectional
- Airflow from supply and evacuate through return
- Clip demonstrate the complete interventions
- Density Smoke flow
- Continues smoke flow
- Visibility of intervention
If in case poor visibility mentioned the reasons (i.e Reflection / less lighting/denser smoke)
Result shall be reported as Yes or No and in some cases rating can be done as Very good "+++", Good "++", Improvement req. "+" and Poor "-"
That is an interesting post. I hope that it will be better if you'll add here more detailed explanation of the needed actions.
ReplyDelete