USP <467> Headspace Residual Solvent Assay with a HT3 Headspace Instrument

Similar documents
Study of Residual Solvents in Various Matrices by Static Headspace

Analysis of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals (USP<467>) with Shimadzu GC-2010 Plus and HS-10 Headspace Sampler

Analysis of USP Method <467> Residual Solvents on the Agilent 8890 GC System

Residual solvents analysis using an Agilent Intuvo 9000 GC system

Analyzing Residual Solvents in Pharmaceutical Products Using GC Headspace with Valve-and-Loop Sampling

Simultaneous dual capillary column headspace GC with flame ionization confirmation and quantification according to USP <467> Application Note

Fast Analysis of USP 467 Residual Solvents using the Agilent 7890A GC and Low Thermal Mass (LTM) System

Routine-grade performance of a new static headspace autosampler for the analysis of residual solvents according to USP <467> method

The Determination of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals Using the Agilent G1888 Network Headspace Sampler Application

USP<467> residual solvents

Applying the Agilent 5977A MSD to the Analysis of USP<467> Residual Solvents with the 7697A Headspace Sampler and 7890B GC

The determination of residual solvents in pharmaceuticals using the Agilent G1888 headspace/6890n GC/5975 inert MSD system Application Note

Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals by USP Chapter <467> Methodology

Introducing New Functionalities in Liquid Stationary Phases in GC Columns for Confirming Organic Volatile Impurity Testing in Pharmaceutical Products.

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

Headspace Technology for GC and GC/MS: Features, benefits & applications

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC, AQUATek 100 Autosampler, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

A Generic Method for the Analysis of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceuticals Using Static Headspace-GC-FID/MS

A Comparative Analysis of Fuel Oxygenates in Soil by Dynamic and Static Headspace Utilizing the HT3 TM Automatic Headspace Analyzer

Using Hydrogen as An Alternative Carrier Gas for US EPA 8260

US EPA Method with the Tekmar Lumin P&T Concentrator, AQUATek LVA and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Methanol Extraction of high level soil samples by USEPA Method 8260C

Validation of USEPA Method 8260C Using Teledyne Tekmar Atomx, and Perkin-Elmer Clarus 600 GC/MS

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar Page 1

Roger Bardsley, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

Evaluation of a New Analytical Trap for Gasoline Range Organics Analysis

Validation of Volatile Organic Compound by USEPA. Method 8260C. Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions

The Analysis of Residual Solvents in Pharmaceutical Products Using GC-VUV and Static Headspace

Chlorinated Compounds in Hydrocarbon Streams Using a Halogen Specific Detector (XSD)

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds Using USEPA Method 8260 and the 4760 Purge and Trap and the 4100 Autosampler

Improved Volatiles Analysis Using Static Headspace, the Agilent 5977B GC/MSD, and a High-efficiency Source

A Capillary Gas Chromatographic Procedure for the Analysis of Nine Common Residual Solvents in Water-Insoluble Bulk Pharmaceuticals

A Fast, Simple FET Headspace GC-FID Technique for Determining Residual Solvents in Cannabis Concentrates

Validation of USEPA Method Using a Stratum PTC and the New AQUATek 100 Autosampler

Maximizing Sample Throughput In Purge And Trap Analysis

Analysis of Low Level Volatile Organic Compounds in Air Anne Jurek

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Soil Samples by EPA Method 8260 with The Stratum PTC and SOLATek 72 Multi-Matrix Autosampler

Helium conservation in volatile organic compound analysis using U.S. EPA Method 8260C

Validation of New VPH GC/MS Method using Multi-Matrix Purge and Trap Sample Prep System

Validation of Environmental Water Methods on One System: Considerations for Sample Volume, Purge Parameters and Quality Control Parameters

US EPA Method 8260 with the Tekmar Atomx XYZ P&T System and Agilent 7890B GC/5977A MS

Analysis of Volatile Organic Compounds in Water and Soil by EPA Method 8260 with the Atomx Concentrator/Multimatrix Autosampler

A Fast, Simple FET Headspace GC-FID Technique for Determining Residual Solvents in Cannabis Concentrates

Solid Phase Micro Extraction of Flavor Compounds in Beer

Optimizing. Abstract: is standardd. procedures. altered to

INNOVATIVE PRODUCTS, SUPERIOR SUPPORT. Presenter: Anne Jurek, Senior Applications Chemist, EST Analytical

A Comparison of Volatile Organic Compound Response When Using Nitrogen as a Purge Gas

Optimizing of Volatile Organic Compound Determination by Static Headspace Sampling

System and JUREK ANNE. Introduction: in an in purge and. trap sampling. Discussion: As part of. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

C146-E209. Headspace Samplers. HS-20 Series

Simultaneous Estimation of Residual Solvents (Isopropyl Alcohol and Dichloromethane) in Dosage Form by GC-HS-FID

Practical Faster GC Applications with High-Efficiency GC Columns and Method Translation Software

Exploring US EPA Method 524 Purge and Trap Variables: Water Vapor Reduction and Minimizing Cycle Time

Method 8260C by Purge and Trap Gas Chromatography Mass Spectrometry using the Clarus SQ 8

Analytical Trap Comparison for USEPA Method 8260C

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Air

Analysis of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol Utilizing the Stratum PTC and Aquatek 70

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

Analysis. Introduction: necessary. presented. Discussion: As part of be carried. consistent and reliable data. (MoRT) to.

Rtx-BAC Plus 1 and Rtx-BAC Plus 2 Columns Advanced Technology for Fast, Reliable Measurement of Alcohol in Blood

Rxi -624Sil MS The "Go To" GC Column for Fast, Effective Volatile Impurities Method Development

Application Note 116 Monitoring VOCs in Ambient Air Using Sorbent Tubes with Analysis by TD-GC/MS in Accordance with Chinese EPA Method HJ

Solid Phase Microextraction of Cyanogen Chloride and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water with Fast Analysis by GC-TOFMS

NEW Rtx -BAC Plus 1 and Rtx -BAC Plus 2 Columns

Optimizing Standard Preparation

Practical Faster GC Applications with High-Efficiency GC Columns and Method Translation Software

Application Note. Application Note 081 Innovative Cryogen-Free Ambient Air Monitoring in Compliance with US EPA Method TO-15. Abstract.

Hydrogen as a Carrier Gas in the Analysis of Polar/Non-Polar Compounds Using the Polyarc System. Application Note. Author. Introduction.

A Technical Guide for Static Headspace Analysis Using GC Inside: Basic Principles of Headspace Analysis

Streamlining the Analysis of Oral Contraceptives Using the ACQUITY UPLC H-Class System

Product Brief. - Hydrocarbons alkanes, alkenes, alkynes, dienes including natural gas, refinery gas, liquified petroleum gas

Trace analysis of mesityl oxide and diacetone alcohol in pharmaceuticals by capillary gas chromatography with flame ionization detection

Application Note. Abstract. Introduction. Experimental-Instrument Conditions. By: Anne Jurek

Thermal Desorption Technical Support

Optimal Conditions for USEPA Method 8260B Analysis using the EST Analytical Sampling system and the Shimadzu GCMS-QP2010s

GC METHOD FOR QUANTITATIVE DETERMINATION OF RESIDUAL 2-(2-CHLOROETHOXY)ETHANOL (CEE) AND N-METHYL-2-PYRROLIDINONE (NMP) IN QUETIAPINE

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Amy Nutter, Applications Chemist; Teledyne Tekmar P a g e 1

Application. Gas Chromatography February Introduction

Ed George and Anaïs Viven Varian, Inc.

Analysis of Trace (mg/kg) Thiophene in Benzene Using Two-Dimensional Gas Chromatography and Flame Ionization Detection Application

UCMR 3 Low-Level VOC Analysis by Purge and Trap Concentration and GC/MS using Selective Ion Monitoring

A Single Calibration for Waters and Soil Samples Performing EPA Method Anne Jurek Applications Chemist

Selection of a Capillary

An Advanced Base Deactivated Capillary Column for analysis of Volatile amines Ammonia and Alcohols.

USP Class 1 Residual Solvent Mixture

Optimal VOC Method Parameters for the StratUm PTC Purge & Trap Concentrator

Selection of a Capillary GC Column

Column Dimensions. GC Columns and Consumables. Mark Sinnott Application Engineer. March 12, 2010

Quantification of Pesticides in Food without Calibration using GC/FID with the Polyarc Reactor

Application News AD Quantitative Determination of Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water by EPA Method with Headspace Trap GC-MS

Analysis of BTEX in Natural Water with SPME

Static Headspace Blood Alcohol Analysis with the G1888 Network Headspace Sampler Application

Fast and Accurate Analysis of PBDEs in a Single Run, Including BDE-209

Fast and Accurate Analysis of PBDEs in a Single Run, Including

Optimization of 1,4-Dioxane and Ethanol Detection Using USEPA Method 8260 Application Note

AUTONOMOUS, REAL TIME DETECTION OF 58 VOCS IN THE PANAMA CANAL

Determination of VOC in Artificial Runway by Multiple Headspace Extraction-GC/MS. Gas Chromatography/ Mass Spectrometry APPLICATION.

GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYTICAL METHODS INTENDED FOR CIPAC COLLABORATIVE STUDY

Transcription:

Application Note Abstract The US Pharmacopeia recently released USP<467> as the current monograph for determining residual solvents in pharmaceutical products by static headspace. The USP classified these residual solvents into 3 categories; Class 1, Class 2 and Class 3. This headspace method does not require further validation if the USP parameters are followed. Following USP<467> monograph parameters, this study utilizes a Teledyne Tekmar HT3 (Figure 1) in the static mode, eliminating the need for extensive USP mandated method validation. The Class 1 compounds were evaluated from 50% to 500% of the USP limits. The Class 2 compounds were evaluated from 25% to 400% of the USP limits. The HT3 met all of the requirements of the recently released USP<467> Residual Solvent headspace monograph for both Class 1 and Class 2 solvents. Introduction The monograph classified residual solvents in pharmaceutical products into 3 categories based on their potential health risks. Class 1 solvents are compounds known to have unacceptable toxicities or environmental concerns and should be avoided unless there use can be strongly justified in a risk-benefit assessment. Class 2 solvents are compounds with less severe toxicities and their amounts limited in order to protect patients from potential adverse effects. Class 3 solvents are less toxic and should be used where practical. The monograph also uses 2 GC columns with different polarities. The USP definition for liquid phase of the G43 column is 6%cyanopropylphenyl 94%dimethylpolysiloxane. The USP definition for the liquid phase of the G16 polyethyleneglycol (av. Mol. Wt. 15000) is a high molecular weight compound of polyethylene glycol and a diepoxide. Experimental-Instrument Conditions The HT3 headspace instrument was connected to Shimadzu Model GC-20 GC with FID for this study. A Phenomenex Zebron ZB-624 column, 30m x 0.32mm x 1.8µm was used to meet the G43 column requirement of USP<467>. A Phenomenex Zebron ZB-WAXplus column, 30m x 0.32mm x 0.25µm was used to meet the G16 column requirement of USP<467>. The Shimadzu flow control was set to the linear velocity option to meet the USP<467> carrier gas flow control requirement of about 35cm/sec for both columns. Employing a 1mm ID inlet split liner provides better performance for use with the headspace analysis. USP 467 Residual Solvent Assey Headspace.docx; 7- Dec-

USP<467> recommends 3 different headspace operating parameters. Headspace operating parameter set 3 was used for this study. The HT3 constant heat headspace method parameter was used to ensure that a new headspace sample was ready after each 60 minute GC run time. Increasing the HT3 oven temperature and the transfer line temperatures by 5 C from the Set 3 parameters improved gas transfer of the compounds as allowed by the USP. Tables 1 display the static HT3 conditions while Table 2 displays the GC/FID parameters for both columns. HT3 Parameters Variable Value Variable Value Constant Heat Time On Pressurize psig GC Cycle Time 70 min Pressurize Time 0.50 min Platen/Sample Temp 80 C Pressurize Equil Time 0.05 min Valve Oven Temp 1 C Loop Fill Pressure 5 psig Transfer Line Temp 1 C Loop Fill Time 0.20 min Standby Flow Rate 50mL/min Inject Time 2.00 min Sample Equil Time 45.00 min Table 1: Static and Dynamic HT3 Parameters Shimadzu GC/FID Parameters USP G43 Column USP G43 Column Oven Program USP G16 Column USP G16 Column Oven Program Inlet: FID Phenomenex Zebron ZB-624, 30m, 0.32mm ID, 1.8µm; Linear Velocity 35 cm/sec 35 C for 20 min; C/min to 240 C, hold for 20 min, run time 60 min Phenomenex Zebron ZB-WAXplus, 30m, 0.32mm ID, 0.25µm; Linear Velocity 35 cm/sec 50 C for 20 min; 6 C/min to 165 C, hold for 20 min, Run Time 59.17 min Split Ratio 5:1 for the G43 Column: 15:1 for G16 Column, Temperature 140 C, Helium Carrier Gas, Linear Velocity 35cm/sec 320 C, Hydrogen Flow 35.0mL/min, Air Flow -400.0mL/min, Constant Column and Makeup Flow 30mL/min Table 2: GC/FID Parameters Standard Sample Preparation This study used Class 1, Class 2A and Class 2B USP residual solvent standards obtained from Restek. Dimethylsulfoxide (DMSO) was obtained from Sigma-Aldrich and was 99.5% grade. Class 1, Class 2A and Class 2B standard stock solutions were prepared following the USP <467> procedure. 1.0mL of the appropriate standard was transferred to 20mL headspace vials containing 5mL of water. Procedure C requires the same concentration as the Procedure A standards to quantitate articles under test. Analyzing the standards in triplicate demonstrates the reproducibility of the method for each compound.

A series of standards were prepared from 50% to 500% of the concentration of the Class 1 Standard prepared as part of the method. Similar standards from 25% to 400% were generated from the Class 2A and 2B standards. Analyzing these samples singularly verified the linearity of the method over these ranges. Parameters for evaluating the samples are listed in Table 1 and 2. Results and Conclusions This study used the Shimadzu GCSolution software Version 2.32 to evaluate the chromatography data. The peak area was used to calculate the %RSD for the triplicate injections of the single standards for each compound. The peak areas were also used to calculate the correlation coefficient r 2 for the linear range of samples for each compound. The signal to noise ratio of all of the Class 1 compounds and the resolution between the acetonitrile and its required peaks were also generated using the Shimadzu GCSolution software. Table 3 presents the data for the Class 1 compounds with both the G43 and the G16 column required by USP<467>. Figure 2 is the comparison of the USP standard concentration with the G43 and the G16 column. The numbers on the chromatograms correspond to the compound numbers in the tables. Table 4 presents the data for the Class 2A compounds with both the G43 and the G16 column required by USP<467>. Figure 3 is the comparison of the USP standard concentration with the G43 and the G16 column. Table 5 presents the data for the Class 2B compounds with both the G43 and the G16 column required by USP<467>. Figure 4 is the comparison of the USP standard concentration with the G43 and the G16 column. Class 1 G 43 Column G 16 Column Compound Range (ppm) S/N %RSD r 2 S/N % RSD r 2 1,1-Dichloroethene (1) 0.033 to 0.333 54 2.7 0.9990 9 5.0 0.9987 1,1,1-Trichloroethane (2) 0.042 to 0.42 54 0.9 0.9984 78 1.2 0.9984 Carbon Tetrachloride (3) 0.017 to 0.17 4.5 5.6 0.9993 Co elute A Benzene (4) 0.008 to 0.083 71 2.1 0.9984 98 2.6 0.9994 1,2-Dichloroethane (5) 0.021 to 0.21 52 1.4 0.9998 56 4.1 1.0000 Table 3: Signal to Noise Ratio (S/N), Percent Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD, n=3) and Correlation Coefficient (r 2 ) Data for the Class 1 Compounds with the G43 and G16 USP<467> Required Gas Chromatography Columns A Carbon tetrachloride co elutes with 1,1,1-trichloroethane with the G16 column but is separated from all peaks in the Class 1 standard with the G43 column.

Figure 2: Comparison of the Retention times of the Class 1 Compound at the USP Standard Concentration with the G43 Column (Left) and the G16 Column (Right). The additional peaks are system/dmso related peaks. The numbers correspond to the compound numbers in Table 3. Class 2 A G43 Column G16 Column Compound Range (ppm) R %RSD r 2 R % RSD r 2 Methanol (1) 6.25 to 0 1.3 0.9983 4.1 0.9981 Acetonitrile (2) 0.854 to.25 1.0 2.1 0.9983 2.2 2.6 0.9996 Methylene Chloride (3) 1.25 to 20 2.6 0.9997 4.7 0.9976 trans-1,2-dichloroethene (4) 1.96 to 31.3 2.1 0.9994 5.8 0.9964 cis-1,2-dichloroethene (5) 1.96 to 31.3 2.2 0.9987 5.3 0.9972 Tetrahydrofuran (6) 1.44 to 17.25 5.1 0.9951 4.2 B 0.9991 Cyclohexane (7) 8.1 to 97 1.8 0.9978 5.5 0.9960 Methylcyclohexane (8) 2.46 to 29.5 1.2 0.9988 5.2 0.9852 1,4-Dioxane (9) 0.79 to 12.7 0.4 0.9999 9.2 0.9978 Toluene () 1.85 to 22.25 1.8 0.9988 5.9 0.9998 Chlorobenzene (11) 0.75 to 9 1.6 0.9990 6.0 0.9986 Ethyl benzene (12) 0.77 to 9.2 0.9 0.9988 6.5 0.9976 p-xylene (13) 0.63 to 7.6 0.9 0.9990 6.5 0.9978 m-xylene(14) 2.72 to 32.6 Coelute C 6.5 0.9979 o-xylene (15) 0.41 to 4.9 1.2 0.9989 6.3 0.9992 Table 4: Resolution (R), Percent Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD, n=3) and Correlation Coefficient (r 2 ) Data for the Class 2A Compounds with the G43 and G16 USP<467> Required Gas Chromatography Columns B Tetrahydrofuran is a shoulder on the trans 1,2-dichlororethene peak with the G16 column but is separated from all peaks in the Class 2A standard with the G43 column. C m-xylene coelutes with p-xylene with the G43 column but is separated from all peaks in the Class 2A stanard with the G16 column.

Figure 3: Comparison of the Retention Times of the Class 2A Compounds at the USP Standard Concentration with the G43 Column (Top) and the G16 Column (Bottom). The numbers correspond to the compound numbers in Table 4. Class 2B G43 Column G16 Column Compound Range (ppm) % RSD r 2 % RSD r 2 Hexane (1) 0.121 to 1.45 2.0 0.9940 4.3 0.9820 Nitromethane (2) 0.042 to 0.333 3.6 0.9961 9.1 0.9983 Chloroform (3) 0.025 to 0.4 2.2 0.9995 1.9 0.9994 1,2-Dimethoxyethane (4) 0.083 to 0.667 5.1 0.9958 3.8 0.9997 Trichloroethene (5) 0.033 to 0.533 1.6 0.9989 2.7 0.9984 Pyridine (6) 0.083 to 1.33 9.9 0.9995 3.8 0.9986 2-Hexanone (7) 0.021 to 0.333 2.1 0.9999 5.4 0.9987 Tetralin (8) 0.042 to 0.669 0.8 0.9995 2.2 0.9999 Table 5: Percent Relative Standard Deviation (%RSD, n=3) and Correlation Coefficient (r 2 ) Data for the Class 2B Compounds with the G43 and G16 USP<467> Required Gas Chromatography Columns

Figure 4: Comparison of the Retention Times of the Class 2B Compounds at the USP Standard Concentration with the G43 Column (Top) and the G16 Column (Bottom). The additional peaks are system/dmso related peaks. The numbers correspond to the compound numbers in Table 5. USP Chemical Test Monograph <467> for Residual Solvents was easily validated using the Teledyne Tekmar HT3 headspace instrument with Phenomenex columns and a Shimadzu GC/FID adequately meets the requirements of the recently.