Analytical Quality by Design (AQbD) in

Pharmaceutical Development
Introduction

Figure 1. AQbD workflow

Quality by Design (QbD) is well established in the pharmaceutical industry for

manufacturing processes (ICH Q8 [1] for pharmaceutical development and ICH Q11 [2] for
development and manufacture of drug substances). QbD is “a systematic approach to
development that begins with predefined objectives and emphasizes … understanding and …
control, based on sound science and quality risk management” [1]. The outcome of using
QbD concepts is a well-understood product and process that consistently delivers its intended
performance. The knowledge obtained during development may support the establishment of
a design space and determines suitable process controls. These same QbD principles have
been applied to the development of analytical methods, and are termed “Analytical QbD”
(AQbD) [3-20]. Analogous to process QbD, the outcome of AQbD is a well understood, fit
for purpose, and robust method that consistently delivers the intended performance
throughout its lifecycle. The broad knowledge obtained from this process is used to establish
a method operable design region (MODR), a multidimensional space based on the method
factors and settings that provide suitable method performance. It is also used to establish
meaningful method controls of which system suitability is one component. A high level
overview of the AQbD steps is depicted in Figure 1.

This approach can be applied to any method development, though depending on the
compound stage of development and method scope, the application of the steps may differ.
Table 1. Method performance characteristics as defined in USPand ICH Q2(R1)

Method performance requirements:

Analytical target profile (atp) Once a measurement need is identified, method performance
requirements are defined. Columns one and two in Table 1 list analytical method
performance characteristics as defi ned in USPand ICH Q2(R1). Individually, these
characteristics are not sufficient to assess the quality of reportable results or demonstrate that
the method performance is appropriate for its intended use. This is because method
performance is fundamentally comprised of both systematic (bias) and random (variance)
components. An inspection of the definitions indicates a possible high-level categorization of
the performance characteristics: accuracy, specifi city, and linearity measure systematic
deviation from the true (known) reference value, and precision, detection and quantification
limits are inherent measures of (random) dispersion. A categorization of the analytical
method performance characteristics in terms of systematic and random components is shown
in Table 1, column 3 [21].

Among these performance characteristics, accuracy and precision provide the critical
information needed to quantify an unknown amount of the substance using the method. A
method cannot be accurate and precise without adequate specifi city, linearity over a stated
range, sufficient peak resolution for accurate integration, repeatability of injections, etc.
These are important characteristics to evaluate during method development (and provide an
extensive data set for setting method controls) as they lead to an accurate and precise method.
However, these performance characteristics do not speak directly to the risk of making an ill-
advised decision based upon the reportable result obtained from the method [22]. A joint
measure of accuracy and precision, on the other hand, directly addresses this [23]. Range is
an important component that is established based on acceptable behavior of both systematic
and random performance characteristics, and robustness defines an operational range of
method factors that will be illustrated in a later section.

The Analytical Target Profile (ATP) defines method performance requirements, and should
incorporate a joint criterion for accuracy and precision in order to define method acceptability
in terms of the uncertainty of results generated by the method. Other method performance
characteristics (linearity, specificity, etc.) do not need to be incorporated in the ATP as they
are not directly linked to understanding the agreement of a measurement with the true value.
An assay ATP should include a statement of accuracy and precision as exemplified by:

“The procedure must be able to accurately and precisely quantify drug substance in film-
coated tablets over the range of 70%- 130% of the nominal concentration with accuracy and
precision such that reported measurements fall within ± 3% of the true value with at least
95% probability.”

By including a probability statement in the ATP, the risk of making ill-advised decisions
from results will be controlled. The uncertainty range (± 3%) and probability (95%) are
established based on a predetermined acceptable level of risk of making an incorrect decision
with the data. For example, consider the result of a potency assay of 98.0% label claim for a
lot to be released against a lower specification of 95.0% label claim. If the potency method
has been verified to adhere to the above ATP statement (measurements fall within ± 3% of
the true value with at least 95% probability), the risk that the true lot potency is out of
specification (< 95.0% label claim) is less than 5%. (Note that the true lot potency will
always be unknown.) That is, the potency method provides a result that ensures the true assay
value is ± 3% of the reported value (98.0% ± 3%; or 95.0%-101.0%) with at least 95%
probability; or there exists less than 5% ([1-0.95]*100) chance that the true assay value
is101.0%.

The ATP shown here is not linked to a specific type of analytical methodology, therefore any
type of technology or technique can be used if it is shown to meet ATP requirements.

Factors for identifying a measurement technique

The next step is to identify an analytical technology for performing the measurements that
has the ability to conform to the ATP. The technique to be selected must be available at both
development and transfer sites, and have staff expertise in its routine operation and
maintenance. Analytical technologies are wide and diverse, and although much overlap in
applicability exists, each technique has strengths and weaknesses. Significant general [24-27]
and technique-specific [28-31] literature is available. Typical methods that are transferred
include those for identity (e.g., raw material, excipient, drug substance, dosage form), assay
(e.g., API assay, dosage form potency/content uniformity, blend composition, dissolution),
purity (e.g., process related, stability related, heavy metals, solvent, water), bio-performance
(e.g., dissolution, disintegration, hardness, particle size), form, and many other product-
specific methods. One factor that must be considered from the onset is if the method will be
on-line/at-line (in the manufacturing area) or off -line (in the lab). Factors to consider for this
decision include the method purpose, method type, cycle time, worker safety, range and
specificity (the latter two factors will help determine up-front if the method will have suitable
accuracy and precision to meet the ATP). On-line analytical tools are routinely used during
process development and manufacture [32]. However, in most cases, these (mainly
spectroscopic) methods must be compared to a “primary” analytical methodology for
quantitative measurements.
Figure 2. Reversed-phase method development workflow

Although a number of separation technologies (gas, liquid, supercritical fluid, and thin layer
chromatography, capillary electrophoresis and subsets of) are readily amenable for small-
molecule pharmaceutical analysis, the most prevalent separation technique is reversed-phase
liquid chromatography (RPLC). The high dynamic range and low variability of liquid
chromatographic instruments coupled with the compatibility of most formulations and active
pharmaceuticals leads to a majority of assay and related substances methods using RPLC.

Reversed-phase method Development Workflow

Figure 2 depicts the workflow used for RPLC methods development. The process involves
four steps (Waves 0-4) [15].

For identified components, Log D as a function of pH is determined in silico and plotted.

This plot is used to identify pH ranges that are predicted to provide stable component
retention times with small changes in pH. If the components are not identified, the full wave
1 screen is run. In this screen, chromatographic performance is determined across a range of
pH, two organic modifiers and several stationary phases. At the end of wave 1, the organic
modifier and column are set. In wave 2, a pH screen around the pH identified in wave 1 is
performed, and the pH is established. To identify optimum chromatographic conditions from
the method development screen, a temperature and gradient experiment is performed (wave
3). The method’s chromatographic conditions are tentatively established using optimization
software and are subsequently experimentally verified. These draft chromatographic
conditions are evaluated for a period of time to gain hands-on experience prior to performing
the next step, a method risk assessment.

Risk assessments

Quality Risk Management (ICH Q9) is “a systematic process for the assessment, control,
communication and review of risks to the quality … across the … lifecycle” [33]. Risk
assessments are an integral part of the Analytical QbD process. Their use facilitates
identification and ranking of parameters that could impact method performance and
conformance to the ATP. Risk assessments are often iterative throughout the lifecycle of a
method, and are typically performed at the end of method development, with product changes
(e.g., route, formulation or process) and as a precursor to method transfer. Risk assessments
at the development to commercial transfer stage typically focus on parameters from a
ruggedness perspective. These RAs focus on potential differences (e.g., laboratory practices,
environment, testing cycle times, reagents sources). Major differences (e.g., equipment
availability) should be identified and factored in at the technique selection and method
development stages.

Table 2. Analytical Method Deconstruction

Zoom In

AQbD risk assessments start with deconstructing the analytical method into Analytical Unit
Operations. Unit operation Inputs and the Analytical Actions related to the particular process
steps are identified. Parameters associated with the Analytical Actions are determined and
Attributes of the respective Analytical Unit Operation are correspondingly identified and
documented. An abbreviated method deconstruction example for sample preparation is listed
in Table 2.
Zoom In
Figure 3. RPLC potency and related substances method unit operation process flow diagram

The resultant information generated from the method breakdown can be visualized with
commercially available software in a multitude of ways (e.g., Fish Bone, Process Flow
Diagrams). A process flow diagram for the Analytical Unit Operations of a potency and
related substance RPLC method is illustrated in Figure 3.

Zoom In
Figure 4. Chromatographic separation and analysis unit operation process flow diagram

A representative process flow diagram depicting the analytical actions associated with the
chromatographic separation and analysis unit operation is shown in Figure 4.

Table 3. C&E Risk Assessment for a Chromatographic Separation

Zoom In

Risk matrices are utilized to assess parameter risks with respect to the relevant attributes
(e.g., accuracy, precision, resolution, tailing). During early development, simple matrices
built from scientific knowledge and experience of the methodology may be utilized (e.g.
Excel® based risk matrices). As programs progress in development, the use of more detailed
matrices (e.g., Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEAs), Cause and Effect (C&E) Analysis)
can facilitate the identification of high risk method parameters (factors) and attribute
responses for subsequent experimentation to ensure that they do not impact the method’s
ability to meet the ATP. An example risk assessment, based on a C&E matrix approach, for a
chromatographic separation and analysis (Figure 4) is listed in Table 3. The component
attributes are correlated to accuracy and precision aspects of the ATP, which are jointly
assessed.

Design of experiments (Does)

Experimental investigations could be one factor at a time (OFAT: often used to assess noise
factors such as column age or column lot number) or multi-factor statistical design of
experiments (DOEs). An example of the parameters and attribute responses for investigating
a chromatographic assay and related substance method is presented in Table 4. A statistician
can facilitate the selection of an appropriate statistical design (along with analyzing the
response information generated from the executed design) for the chosen parameters utilizing
statistical software to minimize the analyses required while maximizing the information
obtained.

Table 4. Experimental DoE Parameters and Attribute Responses for a RPLC Method
Once the data has been obtained, compiled, and processed, and appropriate response models
have been determined, statistical numeric and graphical optimization tools can facilitate the
simultaneous optimization of the multiple responses. The numeric optimization tool can
allow identification of factor settings that result in optimal desirability [34] with respect to
goals (e.g., to maximize resolution, theoretical plates; to minimize run time, tailing), high and
low limits, weightings, and importance rankings applied to the relevant factors and/or
responses. Numeric optimization is a mathematical approach for identifying an optimal
“sweet spot” within the experimental space evaluated. Graphical optimization, allows
application of factor and response limits, but relies on user intervention through iterative
analysis to identify acceptable performance regions. For a chromatographic separation focus
area, where the goal is to establish acceptable component detection (signal-noise and tailing)
and separation (retention and resolution), these numeric and graphical response limits are
estimates that facilitate identification of factor combinations (discrete points or regions and
associated chromatographic conditions) which have the potential to challenge conformance to
the ATP (e.g., small resolution value, component retention close to void). These tools are
especially useful when the number of responses or factors is greater than four and an overlay
of response surface contours becomes difficult to manage. A two-dimensional desirability
plot for the simultaneous optimization of responses (component retention times, resolutions,
and tailing factors) is presented in Figure 5, as a function of Column Temperature and Buffer
pH factors.
Zoom In
Figure 5. Numeric Optimization Interaction Plot of Desirability Presented as a Function of
Column Temperature vs. Buff er pH at Optimal Method Conditions
Zoom In
Figure 6. Graphical Optimization Interaction Plot of Initial Organic Content versus Final
Organic Content under pH 5.9 Method Conditions

An example of a graphical optimization is presented in Figure 6 as a two-dimensional

interaction plot of initial organic percent (y-axis) versus the final organic percent (x-axis).

In examples shown in Figures 5 and 6, the factors not presented graphically are individually
iterated to determine how they affect the selected two-dimensional space. Factor
combinations (chromatographic conditions) that have the highest probability of challenging
conformance to the ATP can be identified through this iterative approach and further method
verification exercises can be employed to establish ATP conformance and ultimately define
the MODR.

Method verification

Validation of the method in line with ICH Q2(R1) guidelines is typically carried out at a set
point (normal operating condition - NOC) within the chromatographic spaces evaluated. In
addition to validating the method characteristics as per regulatory guidance, verifying the
accuracy and precision provides additional understanding of the method’s measurement
uncertainty and confirms conformance to the previously defined method performance
requirements (ATP). This can be accomplished through a joint accuracy and precision
assessment done at method factor points within the chromatographic separation space that
present the greatest probability of challenging the method’s ability to meet the ATP.

Table 5. Robustness Verifi cation Study Results

Zoom In

An example of the method verification approach is illustrated in the following example. A

study was performed to verify method performance at three design points determined from a
primary study that looked at factors related to the robustness of the separation, as well as to
confirm conformance to the ATP. The verification study design is presented in the top of
Table 5 along with the attributes investigated. Three sample preparations at each
concentration level (70%, 100%, and 130%) were analyzed (and averaged) at each
verification point for a total of twenty seven samples. The response results that are assessed
against the ATP are presented at the bottom of Table 5, where the average (n=3) accuracy
and precision values are listed. Factors that contribute to the overall method (accuracy and
precision) variability include method repeatability components (e.g., instrument, standard and
sample preparation) and intermediate precision components (e.g., method assessment over
multiple days, instruments, analysts, laboratories). All of these sources of variability should
be taken into account when assessing the method against the ATP (for brevity, only method
repeatability components are listed in Table 5).
 Zoom In
Figure 7. ATP Probability Contour Plot for Assay Measurements

The visualization of the ATP for assay is graphically presented as the dark shaded region in
Figure 7. This region represents ± 3% of the true value with a 95% probability (the combined
contributions of accuracy (bias) and precision (method repeatability) are such that the true
potency value of a sample is within ± 3% of the reported value with at least 95% probability).
Accuracy (bias) and precision (variability) estimates residing within the shaded region
establish that the method meets the requirements of the ATP. Under this combined accuracy
and precision assessment, conformance to the ATP is met for methods having performance
characteristics of (1) high precision and accuracy (red X), (2) high precision, but bias (blue
X), (3) high accuracy but low precision (green X), but not (4) combined low precision and
biased (yellow X). Barnett et al. [22] describes the ATP accuracy and precision concepts in
more detail.

Table 6. Chromatographic Operable Ranges

The validation and verification experiments demonstrate that the method is robust across the
parameter ranges provided in Table 6. However, in this particular method example, a method
control strategy was enacted that constrained the organic modifier to 63% (rather than the
verification level of 62%) and fixed the flow rate to 1.00 mL/min to ensure acceptable
retention of degradation products. Operation within these limits ensures that the method
meets its intended performance requirements. Similar assessments for degradation products
can be made against an appropriately defined ATP for the degradation product.

Control Strategy/ Conformance to ATP

A meaningful method control strategy is established based on the wealth of data collected
during the method development and verification stages described above. Using this data,
correlations can be drawn between method attributes, such as resolution, and the ability to
meet ATP criteria. The control strategy should also include those method parameters that
influence method variability and will be fixed (e.g., reagent grade, instrument brand or type,
column type). It should be noted that the method control strategy does not appear
dramatically different under the AQbD approach when compared to the traditional approach.
However, method controls are established based on a more extensive data set using the ATP
criteria as a guide, thus ensuring a stronger link between the method purpose and method
performance.

Continuous monitoring/lifecycle management

Once a method is established for routine use, method performance should be monitored over
time to ensure that it remains compliant with the ATP criteria. This can be done, for example,
by using control charts or other tools to track system suitability data, methodrelated
investigations, etc. Periodic fit for purpose re-verification experiments can also be performed
as warranted. Continuous monitoring allows the analyst to proactively identify and address
any out-of-trend performance.

Existing methods should be periodically re-evaluated to address any gaps or improvement

opportunities identified in the current methodology by improving the methodology, or, as
analytical technologies advance, implementing a new technology.

Regulatory Considerations There is presently no regulatory guidance defining application of

Quality by Design concepts to analytical methods. However, since many of the concepts
described here are related to good science and risk assessment, regulatory agencies such as
the FDA and EMA have been open to inclusion of these concepts in regulatory filings
provided the applicant follows the current regulatory guidelines. The FDA and EMA recently
announced a joint collaboration that began in January 2013 [35]. The goals of the
collaboration are (1) to develop analytical methods (e.g. HPLC) based on the QbD paradigm;
(2) define protocols for method transfer; (3) establish methodology for verification of the
MODR upon site transfer; and (4) define review criteria for evaluation of QbD-based
analytical methods.

Conclusions
Quality by Design for analytical methods is well discussed in the pharmaceutical industry.
The outcomes of developing methods via QbD principles include enhanced understanding of
(method and instrument) risk factors that may lead to poor method robustness, and helping to
ensure that the method meets its intended performance requirements throughout the
(product/method) lifecycle.
Acknowledgements
We thank Pfizer Inc. and Analytical Research and Development for the support of this work.
We also thank Peter Jones, Loren Wrisley, Tim Graul, Roman Szucs and Melissa Hanna-
Brown for their contributions to the development of the AQbD concepts described in this
paper, Greg Steeno for the creation of Figure 7, and Ron Ogilvie for his constructive review
and comments.

Author biographies
Kimber Barnett, Ph.D. is an Associate Research Fellow at Pfizer Inc. with experience
supporting analytical development of drug substances and drug products. Kimber obtained
her Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from the University of Missouri under Professor Daniel
Armstrong. She is a member of the USP Expert Panel for Verification and Validation and has
published several articles on Analytical Quality by Design.

David Fortin, B.S. is a Senior Scientist at Pfizer Inc. with 19 years of separation science
experience ranging from API to Parenteral products. David is currently in the Quality by
Design method development group supporting early and late stage projects with robust – fit
for purpose – separation methods. David graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry from the
University of Connecticut in 1994.

Brent Harrington, M.S., is an Associate Director in the Statistics group at Pfizer Inc.
Worldwide Research and Development in Pharmaceutical Sciences. He is responsible for
providing experimental designs and statistical support for analytical method, and drug
product formulation and process development. Recently, Brent has been active in developing
and promoting performance-based criteria for analytical methods through the ATP concept.
Brent received his M.S. in Statistics from Virginia Tech.

Jeffrey Harwood, B.S. is a Senior Scientist in the Quality by Design Method Development
group at Pfizer Inc. Worldwide Research and Development in Analytical Research and
Development. Jeffrey obtained his B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Rhode Island.

James Morgado, B.S. is a Principal Scientist at Pfizer Inc. with 19 years of separation
science experience ranging from API to drug products. Jim is currently in the Quality by
Design method development group providing separations, risk assessment, and DOE support
to project teams. Jim graduated with a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of South Florida
in 1994.

George Reid, Ph.D., is a Research Fellow at Pfizer Inc in Analytical Research and
Development. In his current role, he has responsibilities in the areas of separation science,
spectroscopy/PAT and modeling. George obtained his Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from the
University of Missouri under Professor Daniel Armstrong and his B.S. in biochemistry at
Beloit College.

Jian Wang, Ph.D., is an Associate Research Fellow in the Quality-by- Design Method
Development group at Pfizer Inc Worldwide Research and Development in Analytical
Research and Development. He is a specialist in the area of separation sciences. Jian
received his Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry from Emory University under Professor Isiah
Warner.

References
1. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q8(R2): Pharmaceutical
Development (August 2009).
2. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q11: Development and
Manufacture of Drug Substances (Chemical Entities and Biotechnological/Biological
Entities) (May 2011).
3. Borman, P.; Nethercote, P.; Chatfield, M.; Thompson, D.; Truman K. The Application
of Quality by Design to Analytical Methods. Pharm. Tech. 2007, 31(12) 142-152.
4. Schweitzer, M.; Pohl, M.; Hanna-Brown, M.; Nethercote, P.; Borman, P.; Hansen, G.;
Smith, K.; Larew J. Implications and Opportunities of Applying QbD Principles to
Analytical Measurements. Pharm. Tech. 2010, 34 (2) 52-59.
5. Vogt, F.G.; Kord A.S. Development of Quality-By-Design Analytical Methods. J.
Pharm. Sci. 2011, 100(3), 797-812.
6. Bhatt, D.A.; Rane, S.I. QbD Approach to Analytical RP-HPLC Method Development
and its Validation. Int. J. Pharm. and Pharm. Sci. 2011, 3(1) 179-187.
7. Krull, I.; Swartz, M.; Turpin, J.; Lukulay, P.H.; Verseput, R. A Quality-by-Design
Methodology for Rapid LC Method Development, Part I. LCGC N. Am. 2008, 26,
1190-1197.
8. Krull, I.; Swartz, M.; Turpin, J.; Lukulay, P.H.; Verseput, R. A Quality-by-Design
Methodology for Rapid LC Method Development, Part II. LCGC N. Am. 2009, 27,
48-61.
9. Meyer, C.; Soldo, T.; Kettenring, U. Highlights of Analytical Chemistry in
Switzerland. Chimia 2010, 64(11), 825.
10. Graul, T.W.; Barnett, K.L.; Bale, S.J.; Gill, I; Hanna-Brown M. in Chemical
Engineers in the Pharmaceutical Industry: R&D to Manufacturing; am Ende, D.J. Ed.;
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 2011, pp 545-562.
11. Ling S.; McBrien, M. A Quality by Design Approach to Chromatographic Method
Development. LCGC: The Column 2011, 7(5), 16-20.
12. Molnar, I.; Rieger, H.-J.; Monks, K.E. Aspects of the “Design Space” in high pressure
liquid chromatography method development. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217, 3193-
3200.
13. Karmarkar, S.; Garber, R.; Genchanok, Y.; George, S.; Yang, X.; Hammond, R.
Quality by Design (QbD) Based Development of a Stability Indicating HPLC Method
for Drug and Impurities. J. Chromatogr. Sci. 2011, 49, 439-446.
14. Monks, K.E.; Rieger, H.-J.; Molnar, I. Expanding the term “Design Space” in high
performance liquid chromatography (I). J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2011, 56 (5), 874-
879.
15. Reid, G.L; Cheng, G; Fortin, D.T; Harwood, J.H.; Morgado, J.E.; Wang, J.; Xue, G.
Reversed- Phase Liquid Chromatographic Method Development in an Analytical
Quality by Design Framework, J. of Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Tech., 2013,
DOI:10.1080/10826076.2013.765457.
16. Monks, K.; Molnar, I.; Rieger, H.-J.; Bogati, B.; Szabo, E. Quality by Design:
Multidimensional exploration of the design space in high performance liquid
chromatography method development for better robustness before validation. J.
Chromatogr. A 2012, 1232, 218-230.
17. Orlandini, S.; Pinzauti S.; Furlanetto S. Application of quality by design to the
development of analytical separation methods, Anal Bioanal Chem. 2013, 405, 443–
450
18. Musters, J.; van den Bos, L.; Kellenbach, E. Applying QbD Principles To Develop a
Generic UHPLC Method Which Facilitates Continual Improvement and Innovation
Throughout the Product Lifecycle for a Commercial API. Org. Process Res. Dev.
2013, 17, 87−96.
19. Rozet, E.; Lebrun, P.; Debrus, B.; Boulanger, B.; Hubert P. Design Spaces for
analytical Methods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry, 2013, 42, 157-167.
20. Kochling, J.; Bridgewater, J.; Naji R. in Pharmaceutical Stability Testing to Support
Global Markets; Huynh-Ba, K. Ed.; Springer: New York, 2010, pp 169-179.
21. Cecil, Todd; Acceptable Analytical Method Variation – Setting System Suitability
Requirements, Pittcon 2013
22. Barnett, K.L.; Harrington, B.;. Graul, T.W. in Liquid Chromatography Applications;
Fanali, S.; Haddad, P.R.; Poole, C.F. Eds; Elsevier, 2013, pp 57–73.
23. Huberta, Ph.; Nguyen-Huub, J.-J.; Boulangerc, B.; Chapuzetd, E.; Chiapa, P.; Cohene,
N.; Compagnonf, P.-A.; Dew´ec, W.; Feinbergg, M.; Lallierh, M.; Laurentiei, M.;
Mercierd, N.; Muzardj, G.; Nivetk, C.; Valatl, L. Harmonization of strategies for the
validation of quantitative analytical procedures A SFSTP proposal—part I. J. Pharm.
Biomed. Anal. 2004, 36, 579–586.
24. Ahuja, S. and Jespersen, N. Modern Instrumental Analysis, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
2006.
25. Skoog, D.A., Holler, F.J, Crouch, S.R. Principles of Instrumental Analysis, Thomson
Learning, 2006.
26. Ahuja, S.; Scypinski, S. Handbook of Modern Pharmaceutical Analysis, Second
Edition, Academic Press, 2011.
27. Nickerson, B. Sample Preparation of Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms, Springer, 2011.
28. Ahuja, S.; Dong, M. Handbook of Pharmaceutical Analysis by HPLC, Elsevier, 2005.
29. Sasic, S.; Ozaki, Y. Raman, Infrared, and Near-Infrared Chemical Imaging, John
Wiley & Sons, 2011.
30. Burns, D.A.; Ciurczak, E.W. Handbook of Near-Infrared Analysis, Third Edition,
CRC Press, 2007.
31. Wawer, I.; Diehl B. NMR Spectroscopy in Pharmaceutical Analysis, Elsevier, 2011.
32. Reid, G.L., Ward, H., Palm, A.S., Muteki, K. Process Analytical Technology (PAT)
in Pharmaceutical Development, Amer. Pharm. Rev. 2012, 15(4), 49-55.
33. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Q9: Quality Risk Management
(November 2005).
34. Myers, R.H; Montgomery, D.C. Response Surface Methodology: Process and Product
Optimization using Designed Experiments, Second Edition, New York: John Wiley &
Sons, 1995.
35. QbD Considerations for Analytical Methods – FDA Perspective, presented at the
IFPAC Annual Meeting, Baltimore, January 25, 2013, Sharmista Chatterjee, Ph.D.,
CMC Lead for QbD ONDQA/CDER/FDA.