Variance Between Different Light Obscuration and Flow Imaging Microscopy Instruments and the Impact of Instrument Calibration

Abstract

Subvisible particles (SVPs) are an obligatory critical quality attribute of the product, and yet, they are found in all biopharmaceutical products intended for infusion or injection. Light obscuration (LO) is the primary pharmacopeial method used to quantify SVPs. However, the method may not be equally sensitive toward all particles that can possibly occur. Calibration of LO instruments is usually performed using polystyrene beads suspended in water. In this study, the dependence of the sizing accuracy of LO analysis was evaluated by using a calibration suspension of lower refractive index beads made of silica suspended in sucrose solution. It was demonstrated that the sizing accuracy was strongly dependent on the reference material’s properties used for calibration. It was also demonstrated that flow imaging microscopy suffered from the same artifact, albeit to a smaller extent. We further tested different LO sensors and instruments. Interestingly, our results show that the sizing accuracy varied from instrument to instrument, strongly depending on the properties of the sensor.To summarize, sizing and counting accuracies were dependent on the material used for calibration and its optical properties as well as the calibration curve, the sensor, and the instrument supplier. Closer match of optical properties between calibration system and test system seems to improve the sensitivity of the measurement. The results of this study raise the following major practical implications: (1) LO and flow imaging microscopy are not truly orthogonal analytical methods, (2) while matching optimal properties of material used for calibration and test items increased sensitivity, this is of poor practical applicability given that analytes contain multiple particles, and (3) setting product-specific limits for SVPs require special considerations with regard to the data sets used.