Innotec — Equipment for particulate systems and bioprocess analysis
Standard

EP 2.9.19: Particulate Contamination by Sub-visible Particles

Active site.norm_type_Capítulo geral de farmacopeia Europa (Farmacopeia Europeia) EDQM / Comissão da Farmacopeia Europeia

EP 2.9.19 is the European Pharmacopoeia general chapter covering particulate contamination by sub-visible particles in injections and infusions. It defines two procedures: Method 1, light obscuration particle count, and Method 2, microscopic particle count. The chapter is harmonised with USP 788 and JP 6.07.

Light obscuration, microscopic counting and the limits applying to each volume

What EP 2.9.19 is

EP 2.9.19 is the European Pharmacopoeia general chapter dedicated to particulate contamination by sub-visible particles in injections and infusions.

The definition adopted in the chapter is precise and delimits scope: particulate contamination consists of extraneous, mobile, undissolved particles, other than gas bubbles, unintentionally present in the solutions. Gas bubbles do not count. Dissolved material does not count. What is counted is unwanted, insoluble particulate matter.

Sub-visible does not mean irrelevant. Particles below the visual detection threshold can indicate filtration failure, packaging component degradation, formulation incompatibility or protein aggregation, all with direct clinical implications in a parenteral product.

Where the test applies

The chapter covers most small and large volume parenteral products, including ready to use solutions for intramuscular, subcutaneous and intravenous administration.

Beyond solutions for dialysis, the European Pharmacopoeia requires this test for:

  • Liquid parenteral preparations (monograph 0520).
  • Sterilised water for injections (monograph 0169).
  • Solutions for organ preservation (monograph 1264).

Not all parenteral preparations can be examined by one or both of these methods, and the chapter acknowledges this explicitly.

Method 1: light obscuration particle count

Method 1 is the light obscuration particle count test, and it is the chapter's preferred procedure.

The principle is direct: the sample passes through a cell where a light beam is partially obscured by each particle. The magnitude of obscuration correlates with particle size, and the number of events yields the count.

The classic procedure calls for removing four portions of not less than 5 mL each and counting particles equal to or greater than 10 µm and equal to or greater than 25 µm. The result from the first portion is disregarded, and the mean of the remainder is calculated.

Disregarding the first portion is not bureaucratic detail: it carries system carryover and initial sample handling effects, and including it would bias the result upward.

Method 2: microscopic particle count

Method 2 is the microscopic particle count test. It uses a suitable binocular microscope, a filter assembly for retaining particulate contamination and a membrane filter, with a circular diameter graticule for sizing.

It comes into play in two distinct situations:

  • When Method 1 is not applicable, for instance with preparations having reduced clarity or increased viscosity.
  • When the Method 1 result exceeds the limits: in that case the preparation is tested by the microscopic particle count test.

That second case is frequently misunderstood. Exceeding the limit under Method 1 is not automatic failure. It is the trigger for Method 2, and reaching a conclusion on conformance may require running both procedures in sequence.

The technical reason is well known: light obscuration is sensitive to gas bubbles, refractive index differences and translucent particles, which can produce both false positives and underestimation. Microscopic counting observes the particle directly.

Sample preparation under Method 2

The chapter details preparation according to unit volume:

  • Large volume parenterals: single units are tested.
  • Small volume parenterals under 25 mL: the contents of 10 or more units are combined in a cleaned container. Where justified and authorised, the test solution may be prepared by mixing the contents of a suitable number of vials and diluting to 25 mL with particle-free water R, or with an appropriate solvent without particle contamination when particle-free water R is not suitable.
  • Small volume parenterals of 25 mL or more: may be tested individually.

Combining units has a statistical consequence often overlooked: it dilutes the effect of an out of pattern unit, which suits the purpose of the test but does not replace investigation where a discrete process failure is suspected.

Limits and evaluation criteria

Evaluation depends on the nominal container volume:

  • For preparations supplied in containers with a nominal volume greater than 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.A apply.
  • For preparations supplied in containers with a nominal volume less than 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.B apply.
  • For preparations supplied in containers with a nominal volume of 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.B apply.

The case of exactly 100 mL nominal volume deserves attention, since much of the misapplication happens there. Worth noting: for nominal 100 mL parenteral products, the EU considers the testing criteria from all three harmonised pharmacopoeias acceptable.

Under test 1.B, applying to containers of nominal volume of 100 mL or less, the preparation complies if the average number of particles in the units tested does not exceed 3000 per container equal to or greater than 10 µm, and does not exceed 300 per container equal to or greater than 25 µm.

Harmonisation: EP 2.9.19, USP 788 and JP 6.07

This chapter has undergone pharmacopoeial harmonisation conducted by the Pharmacopoeial Discussion Group (PDG), and that is among the most practically valuable facts for multinational operations.

The equivalent texts are:

  • Ph. Eur. 2.9.19, Particulate Contamination: Sub-visible Particles.
  • USP 788, Particulate Matter in Injections.
  • JP 6.07, Insoluble Particulate Matter Test for Injections.

According to Annex 3(R1) of the ICH Q4B guideline, these official texts can be used as interchangeable in the ICH regions, subject to one condition: instrument calibration and system suitability measurements should follow regional good manufacturing practice requirements.

There is, however, a recorded caveat that operations exporting to the United States need to know: the FDA might request that a company demonstrate the chosen method is acceptable and suitable for a specific material or product, irrespective of the interchangeability declaration.

PDG revision in progress

A revised version of chapter 2.9.19 was published in Pharmeuropa 33.2 and released for public consultation. The text resulted from lengthy discussions among experts from the Japanese Pharmacopoeia, the United States Pharmacopoeia and the European Pharmacopoeia within the PDG, with all three pharmacopoeias putting the updated text out for public consultation in their respective regions.

One technically relevant point of the revised text: the light obscuration particle count test now allows sample volumes less than 5 mL, depending on instrument capability.

That change connects directly to an earlier adaptation. At the 165th session of the European Pharmacopoeia Commission, in November 2019, revisions were adopted that supplemented the PDG harmonised text with alternative local requirements applicable to biological parenteral preparations.

The motivation is concrete: biological preparations are supplied in low volumes. The local requirements, marked in the text with white diamonds, allow these and other preparations to be tested using volumes smaller than 5 mL where suitable instrumentation is available.

Sub-visible and visible particles: distinct chapters

EP 2.9.19 addresses sub-visible particles. Visible particles are covered in their own chapter, 2.9.20.

Alongside it, the European Pharmacopoeia adopted general chapter 5.17.2, non-mandatory, providing recommendations on testing of particulate contamination by visible particles. That chapter addresses:

  • The different sources of foreign particle contamination in liquid preparations.
  • Inspection stages during production and quality control, including stability testing.
  • Acceptable quality level (AQL) testing, with reference to ISO standard 2859-1, following 100% inspection of the batch.

A relevant principle recorded in that chapter: detection of visible particles in parenteral products is probabilistic in nature, and the occurrence of particles is random. This means 100% inspection does not equate to a guarantee of absence, and the control strategy must account for that statistical reality.

Practical implications for the laboratory

Running EP 2.9.19 in a way that holds up at audit takes more than operating the particle counter. The points most often generating observations are:

  • Instrument calibration with traceable standards and system suitability per regional GMP requirements.
  • Control of the testing environment, to avoid particle contribution from the laboratory itself.
  • Quality of the particle-free water used for dilution and blanks.
  • Degassing technique and handling, to avoid counting bubbles as particles.
  • Recording the disregarded first portion and the calculated mean.
  • A defined procedure for triggering Method 2 when Method 1 exceeds limits.
  • Documented justification when applying the reduced volume local requirement.

For operations involving particle characterization and counting, calibration and equipment qualification, this set defines the real scope of implementing the test.

Official sources & references

Primary texts and guidance published by the issuing body.

Equipment for these workflows

Instruments with features that support this standard's requirements. Compliance is achieved by the user organization, not by the equipment alone.

1 1 product

Frequently asked questions

What is EP 2.9.19?

It is the European Pharmacopoeia general chapter covering particulate contamination by sub-visible particles in injections and infusions. It defines two procedures: Method 1, the light obscuration particle count test, and Method 2, the microscopic particle count test.

How does the chapter define particulate contamination?

As extraneous, mobile, undissolved particles, other than gas bubbles, unintentionally present in the solutions. Gas bubbles and dissolved material fall outside the definition, which directly affects sample preparation and degassing technique.

What is the difference between Method 1 and Method 2?

Method 1 is the light obscuration particle count and is the preferred procedure. Method 2 is the microscopic count, used when Method 1 is not applicable, for instance with preparations of reduced clarity or increased viscosity, or when the result exceeds the limits.

Which particle sizes are counted?

The test counts particles equal to or greater than 10 µm and particles equal to or greater than 25 µm. These are the two sizing thresholds on which the chapter's acceptance criteria are established.

Why is the first portion disregarded in Method 1?

Because it carries system carryover and initial sample handling effects. The procedure calls for removing four portions of not less than 5 mL, disregarding the result from the first, and calculating the mean number of particles for the preparation under examination.

What are the sub-visible particle limits?

Under test 1.B, applying to containers of nominal volume 100 mL or less, the preparation complies if the average does not exceed 3000 particles per container equal to or greater than 10 µm and 300 per container equal to or greater than 25 µm.

How do you choose between test 1.A and test 1.B?

By the nominal container volume. Above 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.A apply. Below 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.B apply. For a nominal volume of exactly 100 mL, the criteria of test 1.B also apply.

Is EP 2.9.19 harmonised with USP 788?

Yes. The chapter underwent pharmacopoeial harmonisation conducted by the PDG, alongside USP 788 and JP 6.07. Under ICH Q4B Annex 3(R1), the texts may be used as interchangeable in the ICH regions, provided calibration and system suitability follow regional GMP.

Is text interchangeability unrestricted?

No. There is a recorded caveat that the FDA might request a company demonstrate the chosen method is acceptable and suitable for a specific material or product, irrespective of the interchangeability declaration between the pharmacopoeias.

What changed in the PDG revision under consultation?

The revised text, published in Pharmeuropa 33.2, presents a harmonised procedure for each analytical procedure described. A relevant point is that the light obscuration particle count now allows sample volumes less than 5 mL, depending on instrument capability.

Why do biological preparations have their own local requirement?

Because they are supplied in low volumes. Revisions adopted in November 2019 supplemented the harmonised text with alternative local requirements, marked with white diamonds, allowing testing with volumes smaller than 5 mL where suitable instrumentation is available.

What is the difference between EP 2.9.19 and EP 2.9.20?

2.9.19 addresses sub-visible particles, counted by light obscuration or microscopy. 2.9.20 addresses visible particles, assessed by visual inspection at a viewing station. They are complementary tests applied to the same type of product.

Stay in the loop

Get updates, articles and news by email.