Evaluation of the Decimal Reduction Time of a Sterilization Process in Pharmaceutical Production
- 372 Downloads
Consider measuring the effectiveness of sterilization during the production of a pharmaceutical substance. The decimal reduction time, D-value, of a sterilization process is defined to be the time required to reduce the number of microorganisms present by a factor of 10. Because the issue of concern is the rate of bacterial death this process is often referred to as “Death Kinetics.” Different methods for sterilization are possible depending on the nature of the pharmaceutical product, for example, heat treatment. Since the D-value depends to a large extent on environmental conditions, it is necessary to determine experimentally the substance specific D-value for each substance that is sterilized by means of moist heat. If the D-value of the substance is the same as that of a reference substance, typically water, the sterilization process is deemed successful.
KeywordsTest Substance Microbial Count Sterilization Process ASCII File Individual Assay
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- American National Standard (1991). Guidelines for the use of ethylene oxide and steam biological indicators in industrial sterilization processes. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation.Google Scholar
- Heintz, M., Urban, S., Gay, M., and Bühlmann, X. (1976). The production of spores of Bacillus Stearothermophilus with constant resistance to heat and their use as biological indicators during development of an aqueous solution for injection. Pharmaceutica Acta Helvetiae 51, 1337–1343.Google Scholar
- International Standard (1994). Sterilization of health care products—Biological indicators. ISO 11138–1, 2“d ed., 1994–10-01.Google Scholar
- Kota, S., Johnson, N.L. and Read, C.B. (1983). Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences, Vol. 3. Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
- Meeker, W.Q. and Escobar, L.A. (1995). Teaching about approximate confidence regions based on maximum likelihood estimation. The American Statistician 49, 48–53.Google Scholar