[

Microbiology Topics.
Scott Sutton
Qualification of
an Environmental
Monitoring Program
Scott Sutton
"fvlicrobiology Topics" discusses various topics in
microbiology of practical use in validation and com-
pliance. We intend this column to be a useful
resource for dai Iy work applications.
Reader comments, questions, and suggestions a.re
needed to help us fulfi!1 our objective far this col-
umn. Please send your comments and suggestions
to column coordinator Scott Sutton at scott.sutton@
microbiol.org or journal coordinating editor Susan
Haigney at [email protected].
KEY POINTS
The following key points are discussed in this article:
The number of sites to be used in qualifying clean
rooms for non-viable particulate measurements
can be found in International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) 14644-1. However, there
are no recognized standards for determination of
this number for viable air (passive and active) nor
for surface monitoring. Amethod is suggested in
this article
Recommendations for the selection ofsample sites
to be used in the qualification program are provided.
These recommendations are directed at providing
data to allowcreation of a program useful in deter-
mination of the state ofcontrol ofthe facility
The frequency of sampling during a qualification
study of this type should minimally be at least the
rate of the eventual routine monitoring program
for each area
The qualification study should provide data to allow
determination of meaningful alert and action lev-
els for that facility. It must be noted that there are
significant technical and scientific issues with the
regulatory guidelines for the areas of an aseptic core
region. Asuggestion consistent with the proposed
revisions to United States Pharmacopeia chapter
<1116> "Microbiological Control and Monitoring
Environments Used for the Manufacture of Health-
care Products" is provided
The qualification program is an excellent oppor-
tunity to begin the study of the microbial flora in
your facility.
INTRODUC'I'lON
The qualification, or requalification, of an aseptic
manufacturing facility depends in large part on the
demonstration of controlled microbial conditions.
The following are several areas where this is espe-
cially true:
Cleaning studies
Contamination control planning (1)
Equipment hold-time studies (Le., establishment
of clean and dirty hold times-process hold times
are process-specific)
Selection of sample sites for environmental
monitoring
Establishment of facility-relevant alert and action
levels for controlled environments.
For more Author
information,
go to
gxpandjvl.com/bios
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Scott Sutton, Ph.D., is owner and operator of The Microbiology Network (www.microblol.org),
which provides services to microbiology-related user's groups. Dr. Sutton may be reached bye-mail at
[email protected].
78 JOURNAL OF VALIDATION TECHNOLOGY [SPRING 2010J i'!thol11 .com
This article focuses on a method to qualify and jus-
tify the selection of the sample sites within a facility
used for routine environmental monitoring. The dis-
cussion presented by the author is not meant to describe
the only possible approach to this selection but rather
one that the author has used in the past with success.
Due to the limitations of space, this discussion does
not include sampling of the water system, gasses, or
personnel that have distinct considerations.
NUMBER OF SITES FOR QUALIFICATION
STUDIES
lSO 14644-1 describes a method to determine the num-
ber of sampling sites for site qualification. Annex B
states that we should determine the minimum number
of sample sites by the following equation (2):
Where, N
L
is the minimum number of sampling
locations (rounded up to a whole number).
Ais the area of the clean room or zone in meters
2

This might work well enough for non-viable par-

ticulate measures (which is the intent and scope of
lSO 14644-1), but we also wish to consider viable air
sampling (both passive and active) and viable sur-
face monitoring. Frequently, the sample site study
is worked into the facility HVAC performance quali-
fication study for ease of documentation and logistic
considerations. Let's make this a bit easier and argue
that for the initial facility HVAC qualification protocol,
both viable and non-viable active air sampling sites
should be done at the same locations (or as close as
practical to avoid compromising the other measure
or the product integrity). This leaves determination
of the number of sites for passive air sampling and
surface sampling.
Passive air sampling (i.e., settle plates) is a frequent-
ly-used measure of clean room (or controlled zone)
monitoring. Settle plates have several advantages in
this regard, chief among them the ability to remain
in continuous exposure for up to four hours. Four
hours is cited in the European Union (EU) guidance
(3)-extended exposure times must be demonstrated
via demonstration of the growth promoting capabilities
of the aged and exposed media. In addition, passive
viable monitoring (settle plates) is not disruptive to
the immediate environment and may possibly sample
sites very near product exposure points (4). In addi-
tion, settle plates are not as prone to variation among
gxponcljvt.com
Scott Sutton.
different vendors as are active samplers (5). However,
it is not clear whether all the advantages cited for pas-
sive sampling apply in areas of laminar air flow at the
rates used for modern clean rooms. In addition, settle
plates may be particularly susceptible to handling,
transport, and lab contamination. However you view
their usefulness, current regulatory expectation for air
monitoring includes the use of settle plates and the
justification of sampling sites. Aprudent measure is to
use the same number of sampling sites for settle plates
as used for the active viable and non-viable sampling
programs. These will not be the same sites, but similar
in number.
This leaves us with determination of the number of
surface samplingsites for the qualification study. There
is no regulatory guidance directed to this point for the
international pharmaceutical industry. Even the Phar-
maceuticallnspection Convention and Pharmaceutical
Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PlC/S), which gen-
erally can be counted on to provide details on almost
everything microbiological, is silent on this point (6).
Oddly enough, even the Parenteral Drug Association
(PDA) Technical Report #13 (7) offers no help here. We
are left to our own devices. One approach to determi-
nation of the number of sites would be to address it in
a manner similar to that of ISO 14644-1 for the walls
and floors (as relevant). Each surface would then be
treated as a separate item and the minimum number of
sites determined for each. While this might work for
walls and floors, the number of surface sampling sites
for equipment remains unanswered and is not notice-
ably amenable to this approach. This, quite frankly, may
well be something that must be left to determination at
each individual site-the numbers could be driven by
the nature of the equipment and the associated manu-
facturing process.
Havingdetermined the number ofsites for each room,
we now need to determine their location. It should be
obvious that using the "square root of the area" method
will frequentlyyield a larger number ofsample sites than is
needed for routine monitoring, but that is appropriate for
a validation study. Use the data collected from this "over
sampling" to determine the appropriate sample sites.
SELECTION OF SAMPLE SITES FOR THE
QUALIFICATION STUDY
The selection of sample sites should be designed to
provide useful information for eventual selection of
routine sample sites.
PDA. PDATechnical Report #13 (7) provides the fol-
lowing useful guidance in this regard:
JOURNAL OF VALIDATION TECHNOLOGY [SPRING 2010] 79
Microbiology Topics.
"Factors to consider in selecting sites for routine
surveillance are:
1. At which sites would microbial contamination
most likely have an adverse effect on product
quality?
2. What sites would most likely demonstrate
heaviest microbial proliferation during actual
production?
3. Should site selection involve a statistical design
(e.g., following the calculations in Federal Stan-
dard 209E) or should site selection be made on
the basis of grid profiling? Should some sites for
routine monitoring be rotated? [Note from author:
As 20ge has been withdrawn in favor of ISO 14644,
the answer is "No"}
4. What sites would represent the most inacces-
sible or difficult areas to clean, sanitize, or
disinfect?
5. What activities in the area contribute to the
spread of contamination?
6. Would the act of sampling at a given site disturb
the environment sufficiently to cause erroneous
data to be collected or contaminate product?"
FDA. The US Food and Drug Administration's asep-
tic processing guidance document (8) also provides
some guidance in section IVA:
"Air in the immediate proximity of exposed steril-
ized containers/closures and filling/closing operations
would be of appropriate particle quality when it has a
per-cubic-meter particle count of no more than 3520
in a size range of 0.5 pm and larger when counted
at representative locations normally not more than
one foot away from the work site, within the airflow,
and during filling/closing operations. This level of air
cleanliness is also known as Class 100 (ISO 5).
"We recommend that measurements to confirm
air cleanliness in critical areas be taken at sites where
there is most potential risk to the exposed sterilized
product, containers, and closures. The particle count-
ing probe should be placed in an orientation dem-
onstrated to obtain a meaningful sample. Regular
monitoring should be performed during each pro-
duction shift. We recommend conducting nonviable
particle monitoring with a remote counting system.
These systems are capable of collecting more com-
prehensive data and are generally less invasive than
portable particle counters. See Section X.E. for addi-
tional guidance on particle monitoring.
"Some operations can generate high levels of prod-
uct (e.g., powder) particles that, by their nature, do
80 JOURNAL OF VALIDATION TECHNOLOGY [SPRING 2010J
not pose a risk of product contamination. It may
not, in these cases, be feasible to measure air quality
within the one-foot distance and still differentiate
background levels of particles from air contaminants.
In these instances, air can be sampled in a manner
that, to the extent possible, characterizes the true
level of extrinsic particle contamination to which the
product is exposed. Initial qualification of the area
under dynamic conditions without the actual filling
function provides some baseline information on the
non-product particle generation of the operation."
Further, Section XA states:
"Sample timing, frequency, and location should
be carefully selected based upon their relationship
to the operation performed...
"It is important that locations posing the most
microbiological risk to the product be a key part of
the program. It is especially important to monitor the
microbiological quality of the critical area to deter-
mine whether or not aseptic conditions are main-
tained during filling and closing activities. Air and
surface samples should be taken at the locations where
significant activity or product exposure occurs during
production. Critical surfaces that come in contact with
the sterile product should remain sterile throughout
an operation. When identifying critical sites to be
sampled, consideration should be given to the points
of contamination risk in a process, including factors
such as difficulty of setup, length of processing time,
and impact of interventions."
Ell. The EU guidance document "Manufacture of
Sterile Medicinal Products" (3) provides the following
site selection guidance:
"18. Where aseptic operations are performed mon-
itoring should be frequent using methods such as
settle plates, volumetric air, and surface sampling
(e.g., swabs and contact plates). Sampling methods
used in operation should not interfere with zone
protection."
USP. Similarly, the following guidance in the pro-
posed revision to United States Pharmacopeia (USP)
chapter <1116> (9) is of general interest:
"Microbiological sampling sites are best selected
when human activity during manufacturing opera-
tions are considered. Careful observation and map-
ping of a clean room during the qualification phase
can provide information concerning the movement
and positioning of personnel within these rooms.
Such observation can also yield important informa-
tion about the most frequently conducted manipula-
tions and interventions.
il'thlJlTle.com
"Other areas of concern relative to introduction of
contamination into clean rooms are at entry points
where equipment and materials move from areas of
lower classification to those of higher classification.
Therefore, areas within and around doors and airlocks
should be included in the monitoring scheme."
I would like to distill from these different sources
some specific considerations for sample site selection
in the qualification study. After the minimal number
of sites in a room is determined, their most useful
location must be determined. This determination
should be documented in a written justification and
should consider the following:
Contamination vectors (e.g., handles, control
panels, doors, etc.)
High traffic areas
Personnel flow
Material flow
Waste flow
Surfaces that are difficult to disinfect
HVAC returns
Product risk
Extent of product exposure
The type of activity performed near that site
Interventions and manipulations
Surfaces that are difficult to disinfect.
SAMPUNG FHEQUENCY FOR THE
QUALIFICATION STUDY
The sampling frequency for the qualification of a
specific controlled environment should, in general,
follow that of the regulatory recommendations for that
level of control. This is a matter of some discussion as
the recommendations in Europe (EU Annex 1), ISO,
and the US (USP) are not in complete agreement. The
qualification study may benefit from more frequent
sampling and under more conditions (e.g., sampling
under both dynamic and at-rest conditions) than are
planned for the routine monitoring program.
The environmental monitoring (EM) qualification
protocol should allow for the sampling frequency
to be described in detail and justified from the per-
spective of generating sufficient information under
relevant conditions to allow selection of meaningful
routine sample sites.
DURATION Of QUALIFICATION STUDY
The duration of the qualification study should be
determined by the need to acquire sufficient data and
the frequency of testing for that sample site. Asite
tested on a weekly basis may require three months of
gxpandjvLcorn
Scott Sutton.
data (approximately 12-14 data points) before enough
data are available. The qualification protocol should
justify the duration of the study on this basis (and
not what best fits the mandated timeline for facility
qualification).
SELEcnON OF ROUTINE SITES
The qualification study should include sufficient
replicates under conditions both "at rest" and "dy-
namic" to allow identification of sites that provide
useful information. It should be clarified that the
term "useful information" is not meant to describe
those sites that give the most desirable counts but
rather those sites that either give the highest counts
(i.e., serve as the most sensitive measure of the state
of control of the room) or were shown to be appro-
priately placed to herald a problem in the room. The
number of sites in a room or zone should similarly
be driven by data generated during this study. Both
the number and location of sites or each clean room
or zone should be justified in the report from this
qualification study.
The following section (X. LA) from the FDA guid-
ance (8) is relevant for consideration:
"All environmental monitoring locations should be
described in SOPs with sufficient detail to allow for
reproducible sampling of a given location surveyed.
Written SOPs should also address elements such as 1.
frequency of sampling, 2. when the samples are taken
(i.e., during or at the conclusion of operations), 3.
duration of sampling, 4. sample size (e.g., surface area,
air volume), 5. specific sampling equipment and tech-
niques, 6. alert and action levels, and 7. appropriate
response to deviations from alert or action levels."
ESTABLlSHlV1ENT OF ALERT AND ACTION
LEVELS
Data from the qualification study should be used to
set the initial operating alert and action levels for the
routine environmental monitoring program. Agood
rule of thumb is that the Alert Level should be at the
95th percentile of observed readings for a given period
of time, the Action Level at the 99th percentile (see
the PDA Technical Report #13 for an excellent discus-
sion of setting alert and action levels). While com-
mon industry practice is to uncritically accept regula-
tory recommendations for predefined clean zones,
this practice is discouraged in the US (8). There is
controversy over the regulatory guidance for highly
controlled areas as concern with control levels set so
far below the level of quantification for plate count
JOURNAL OF VALIDATION TECHNOLOGY [SPRING 2010] 81
Microbiology Topics.
assays (generally 25-30 CFU per plate, compared with
regulatory guidance setting alert and action levels as
low as single digits). This concern led USP to suggest
a frequency distribution approach for these areas (9).
An interesting discussion of this approach can be
found in Caputo and Huffman (10).
Whichever approach is chosen to the determina-
tion of the inital alert and action levels, they should
be one of the deliverabIes from the EM qualification
program.
A NOTE ON THE "MICROORGANISM
CATALOG"
FDAhas clearly recommended establishment of a list-
ing of common microorganisms found in the aseptic
manufacturing environment. This expectation is laid
out in section X.B. (8), as follows:
"Characterization of recovered microorganisms pro-
vides vital information for the environmental monitoring
program. Environmental isolates often correlate with the
contaminants found in a media fill or product sterility
testing failure, and the overall environmental picture
provides valuable information for an investigation. Moni-
toring critical and immediatelysurrounding clean areas
as well as personnel should include routine identification
of microorganisms to the species (or, where appropriate,
genus) level. In some cases, environmental trending data
have revealed migration ofmicroorganisms into the asep-
tic processing room from either uncontrolled or lesser
controlled areas. Establishing an adequate program for
differentiating microorganisms in the lesser-controlled
environments, such as Class 100,000 (ISO 8), can often
be instrumental in detecting such trends. At minimum,
the programshould require species (or, where appropri-
ate, genus) identification of microorganisms in these
ancillary environments at frequent intervals to estab-
lish a valid, current database of contaminants present
in the facility during processing (and to demonstrate
that cleaning and sanitization procedures continue to
be effective)."
The EM qualification studyis an excellent opportunity
to start this catalog and to generate information on the
effectiveness of the cleaning and sanitization program
from a microbiological perspective. Make sure that the
EM qualification program includes relevant evaluations
of all organisms isolated from air and surface samples,
to the species level.
82 JOURNAL OF VALIDATION TECHNOLOGY [SPRING 20101
REFERENCES
1. Pharmaceutical Microbiology Forum, PMF Newsletter,
Volume 13, Number 6, June 2007, http://microbiology-
forum.org/PMFNews/PMFNews.13.06.0706.pdf.
2. ISO, ISO 14644-1, "Cleanrooms and associated con-
trolled environments-Part 1: Classification of air
cleanliness," Annex B, 1999.
3. EU, EudraLex The Rules Governing Medicinal Products
in the European Union Volume 4: EU Guidelines to Good
Manufacturing Practice Medicinal Products for Human and
Veterinary Use: Annex 1 Manufacture of Sterile Medicinal
Products, 2008.
4. Whyte, W., "In Support of Settle Plates," PDA JPharm
Sci Tech. 50(4):201-204, 1996.
5. Yao, M. and Mainelis, G., "Investigation of Cut-Off
Sizes and Collection Efficiencies of Portable Microbial
Samplers," Aerosol Sci Techno/. 40:595 - 606, 2006.
6. PIC/S, PI-006-2 Recommendations on Validation Master
Plan, Installation and Operational Qualification, Non-sterile
Process Validation, Cleaning Validation, 2004.
7. PDA, PDATechnical Report #13 (Revised): Fundamentals
of an Environmental Monitoring Program, 2001.
8. FDA, Guidance for Industry: Sterile Drug Products Pro-
duced by Aseptic Processing-Current Good Manufacturing
Practice, 2004.
9. USP, "Chapter <1116> Microbiological Control and
Monitoring Environments Used for the Manufacture
of Healthcare Products," Pharm Forum. 33(3),2007.
10. Caputo, RA and A Huffman, "Environmental Monitor-
ing: Data Trending Using a Frequency ModeI," PDA J
Pharm Sci Tech. 58(5):254-260,2004. .IV,.
AR'T'ICLE ACRONYM LISTING
EM Environmental Monitoring
EU European Union
FDA US Food and Drug Administration
ISO International Organization on Standarization
PDA Parenteral Drug Association
PI CIS Pharmaceutical Inspection Convention and
Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-Operation
Scheme
USP United States Pharmacopeia
r----------------------------------------------------------