Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Validation for switching microbiological testing methods

microbiology validation SQF micro test method

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

matthewcc

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 102 posts
  • 13 thanks
8
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 December 2021 - 03:08 PM

Hello all, I have a question that I didn't see anywhere on the microbiology side of the forums.  We are going to switch microbiological testing methods from USP to FDA BAM for aerobic plate count (APC) and yeast & mold.  How many samples should we run in a validation test--would 10 be enough?  We want to run side-by-side comparisons of new vs. old using some of our most problematic (high APC).

 

We have about 100 different ingredients that we use and 256 different finished products that we manufacture.  We manufacture dietary supplements in the United States under 21 CFR Part 111, 117, and 121, and are SQF food safety certified.

 

Thank you,

Matthew



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 21 December 2021 - 10:15 PM

Hello all, I have a question that I didn't see anywhere on the microbiology side of the forums.  We are going to switch microbiological testing methods from USP to FDA BAM for aerobic plate count (APC) and yeast & mold.  How many samples should we run in a validation test--would 10 be enough?  We want to run side-by-side comparisons of new vs. old using some of our most problematic (high APC).

 

We have about 100 different ingredients that we use and 256 different finished products that we manufacture.  We manufacture dietary supplements in the United States under 21 CFR Part 111, 117, and 121, and are SQF food safety certified.

 

Thank you,

Matthew

Hi Matthew,

 

It depends on the reason/objectives for the switch and the specific methodological differences.

 

How do you anyway know which method is "correct" ? Such evaluations usually require use of reference samples whose micro. characteristics are reliably known, eg by acquiring additional data from external labs.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


kingstudruler1

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 291 posts
  • 103 thanks
64
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted 22 December 2021 - 07:12 AM

I don't know much about supplements or USP for that matter.   However BAM was intended for food and cosmetics.  USP is intended to be used for supplements, drugs, etc.  

 

USP methods are intended for these more complex products that could cause false negatives, etc.   Maybe this is a non issue for your products and apc & YM.

 

What is the  reason for changing?



matthewcc

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 102 posts
  • 13 thanks
8
Neutral

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 December 2021 - 07:34 PM

We were told by a scientist at a laboratory/consulting firm that USP methods were established in the 1800s for drugs such as injectables and this is why they might not be appropriate for dietary supplements.  Also, these USP methods have requirements that suitability testing must be performed each time a new ingredient is tested--presumably because dietary supplements were not their original intended use.  For these reasons we are looking to change.



Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 19,080 posts
  • 5312 thanks
1,273
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 23 December 2021 - 04:15 AM

We were told by a scientist at a laboratory/consulting firm that USP methods were established in the 1800s for drugs such as injectables and this is why they might not be appropriate for dietary supplements.  Also, these USP methods have requirements that suitability testing must be performed each time a new ingredient is tested--presumably because dietary supplements were not their original intended use.  For these reasons we are looking to change.

 

Hi matthew,

 

I suggest you also investigate microbiological proficiency testing aka ring tests.. There are a few discussions on the topic in earlier threads here.


Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


kingstudruler1

    Grade - SIFSQN

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 291 posts
  • 103 thanks
64
Excellent

  • United States
    United States

Posted 23 December 2021 - 03:29 PM

We were told by a scientist at a laboratory/consulting firm that USP methods were established in the 1800s for drugs such as injectables and this is why they might not be appropriate for dietary supplements.  Also, these USP methods have requirements that suitability testing must be performed each time a new ingredient is tested--presumably because dietary supplements were not their original intended use.  For these reasons we are looking to change.

 

I understand.   Can you get around suitability testing  just by switching methods?   Isn't method suitability defined in 111 part J?   

 

i'm not trying to convince you not to switch.  I just don't want you to do the wrong thing.    Hopefully there is a another supplement person that can chime in.   The scientist's logic does make sense to me.     







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: microbiology, validation, SQF, micro test method

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users