Introduction

Strategy for Validation of Methods

Validation of Standard Methods
Revalidation
Parameters for Method Validation
Selectivity/specificity
Precision and Reproducibility
Accuracy and recovery
Linearity and calibration curve
Range
Limit of Detection and Quantitation
Robustness
References
go back to top
Please Note: For convenient and trouble free implementation you can download a standard
operating procedure for method validation from the Users Club section.
Introduction
Method validation is the process to confirm that the analytical procedure employed for a
specific test is suitable for its intended use. Methods need to be validated or revalidated
before their introduction into routine use
whenever the conditions change for which the method has been validated, e.g.,
instrument with different characteristics
whenever the method is changed, and the change is outside the original scope of the
method.
Method validation has received considerable attention in literature and from industrial
committees and regulatory agencies. The Guidance on the Interpretation of the EN 45000
Series of Standards and ISO/IEC Guide 25 includes a chapter on the validation of methods
(1) with a list of nine validation parameters. The International Conference on Harmonization
(ICH) of Technical Requirements for the Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use
(2) has developed a consensus text on the validation of analytical procedures. The
document includes definitions for eight validation characteristics. An extension with more
detailed methodology is in preparation and nearly completed (3). The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) prepared a guidance for methods development
and validation for the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (4). The American
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC), the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USP) and other scientific organizations provide methods that are
validated through multi-laboratory studies.
Method Validation
The United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) has proposed guidelines on
submitting samples and analytical data for methods validation (5-7). The United States
Pharmacopoeia (USP) has published specific guidelines for method validation for
compound evaluation (8).
There are no official guidelines referring to biological fluids. The pharmaceutical industry
uses methodology published in the literature (9,10). The most comprehensive document
was published as the Conference Report of the Washington Conference on Analytical
Methods Validation: Bioavailability, Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Studies held in
1990 (sponsored by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists, the AOAC and
the US FDA, among others) (10). The report presents guiding principles for validation of
studies in both human and animal subjects that may be referred to in developing future
formal guidelines.
Representatives of the pharmaceutical and chemical industry have published papers on the
validation of analytical methods. Hokanson (11,12 ) applied the life cycle approach,
developed for computerized systems, to the validation and revalidation of methods. Green
(13) gave a practical guide for analytical method validation with a description of a set of
minimum requirements for a method. Renger and his colleagues (14) described the
validation of a specific analytical procedure for the analysis of theophylline in a tablet using
high performance thin layer chromatography (HPTLC). The validation procedure in that
article is based on requirements for European Union multistate registration. Wegscheider
(15) has published procedures for method validation with special focus on calibration,
recovery experiments, method comparison and investigation of ruggedness. The
association of official analytical chemists (AOAC) (16) has developed a Peer-Verified
Methods validation program with detailed guidelines on what parameters should be
validated.
This article gives a review and a strategy for the validation of analytical methods for both in-
house developed as well as standard methods and a recommendation on the
documentation that should be produced during and at the end of method validation.
go back to top

Strategy for Validation of Methods
The validity of a specific method should be demonstrated in laboratory experiments using
samples or standards that are similar to the unknown samples analyzed in the routine. The
preparation and execution should follow a validation protocol, preferably written in a step by
step instruction format. Possible steps for a complete method validation are listed in table 1.
1. Develop a validation protocol or operating procedure for the validation
2. Define the application, purpose and scope of the method
3. Define the performance parameters and acceptance criteria
4. Define validation experiments
5. Verify relevant performance characteristics of equipment
6. Qualify materials, e.g. standards and reagents
7. Perform pre-validation experiments
8. Adjust method parameters or/and acceptance criteria if necessary
9. Perform full internal (and external) validation experiments
10. Develop SOPs for executing the method in the routine
11. Define criteria for revalidation
12. Define type and frequency of system suitability tests and/or analytical quality control
(AQC) checks for the routine
13. Document validation experiments and results in the validation report
Table 1. Steps in Method Validation
First the scope of the method and its validation criteria should be defined. These
include:
compounds,
matrices,
type of information: qualitative or quantitative,
detection and quantitation limits,
linear range,
precision and accuracy
type of equipment and location
The methods performance characteristics should be based on the intended use of the
method. For example, if the method will be used for qualitative trace level analysis, there is
no need to test and validate the methods linearity over the full dynamic range of the
equipment. Initial parameters should be chosen according to the analysts best judgment.
Finally, parameters should be agreed between the lab generating the data and the client
using the data.
The scope of the method should include the different types of equipment and the locations
where the method will be run. For example, if the method is to be run on one specific
instrument in one specific laboratory, there is no need to use instruments from other
vendors or to include other laboratories in the validation experiments. In this way the
experiments can be limited to what is really necessary.
Before an instrument is used to validate a method, its performance should be verified using
generic standards (18,19). Satisfactory results for a method can only be obtained with well-
performing equipment. Special attention should be paid to the equipment characteristics
that are critical for the method. For example, if detection limit is critical for a specific
method, the instruments specification for baseline noise and, for certain detectors also the
response to specified compounds, should be verified. Any material used to determine
critical validation parameters, such as reagents and reference standards, should be
checked for accurate composition and purity.
If there is no or little information on the methods performance characteristics, it is
recommended to prove the methods suitability for its intended use in initial experiments.
These studies should include the approximate precision, working range and detection
limits. If the preliminary validation data appear to be inappropriate, either the method itself,
the equipment, the analysis technique or the acceptance limits should be changed. In this
way method development and validation is an iterative process. For example, in liquid
chromatography selectivity is achieved through selection of mobile phase composition. For
quantitative measurements the resolution factor between two peaks should be 2.5 or
higher. If this value is not achieved, the mobile phase composition needs further
optimization.
There are no official guidelines on the sequence of validation experiments and the optimal
sequence can depend on the method itself. Based on my experience, for a liquid
chromatographic method the following sequence has been proven to be useful:
1. selectivity of standards (optimizing separation and detection of standard mixtures)
2. precision of retention times and peak areas
3. linearity, limit of quantitation, limit of detection, range
4. selectivity with real samples
5. trueness/accuracy, at different concentrations
6. ruggedness (interlaboratory studies)
The more time consuming experiments such as accuracy and ruggedness are put towards
the end. Some of the parameters as listed under two to five can be measured in combined
experiments. For example, when the precision of peak areas is measured over the full
concentration range, the data can be used to validate the linearity.
During method validation the parameters, acceptance limits and frequency of ongoing
system suitability tests or quality control checks should be defined. Criteria should be
defined to indicate when the method and system are out of statistical control. The goal is to
optimize these experiments such that with a minimum number of control analyses the
method and the complete analytical system will provide long-term results that will meet the
objectives defined in the scope of the method.
A validation report should be prepared that includes:
objective and scope of the method (applicability, type)
type of compounds and matrix
detailed chemicals, reagents, reference standards and control sample preparations
procedures for quality checks of standards and chemicals used
safety considerations
method parameters
critical parameters indicated from robustness testing
listing of equipment and its functional and performance requirements, e.g. cell
dimensions, baseline noise, column temperature range
detailed conditions on how the experiments were conducted, including sample
preparation
statistical procedures and representative calculations
procedures for quality control in the routine (e.g., system suitability tests)
representative plots, e.g. chromatograms, spectra and calibration curves
method acceptance limit performance data
the expected uncertainty of measurement results
criteria for revalidation
person who developed and initially validated the method
summary and conclusions
go back to top

Validation of Standard Methods
A laboratory applying a specific method should have documentary evidence that the
method has been appropriately validated. "The responsibility remains firmly with the user to
ensure that the validation documented in the method is sufficiently complete to meet his or
her needs." (1) This holds for standard methods, for example, from EPA, ASTM, ISO or
USP, as well as for methods developed in-house. If standard methods are used, it should
be verified that the scope of the method and validation data, for example, sample matrix,
linearity, range and detection limits comply with the laboratorys analyses requirements;
otherwise, the validation of the standard method should be repeated using the laboratorys
own criteria. The laboratory should demonstrate the validity of the method in the
laboratories environment.
Full validation of a standard method is recommended where no information on type and
results of validation can be found in the standard method documentation.
go back to top

Revalidation
Operating ranges should be defined for each method based on experience with similar
methods, or they should be investigated during method developments. These ranges
should be verified during method validation in robustness studies and should be part of the
method characteristics. Availability of such operating ranges makes it easier to decide
when a method should be revalidated. A revalidation is necessary whenever a method is
changed and the new parameter is outside the operating range. If, for example, the
operating range of the column temperature has been specified to be between 30 and 40
C, the method should be revalidated if, for whatever reason, the new operating parameter
has been selected as 41 C. Revalidation is also r equired if the sample matrix changes
and if the instrument type changes, for example if a brand with significantly different
instrument characteristics is used. For example, a revalidation is necessary, if a High-
Performance Liquid Chromatographic method has been developed and validated on a
pump with a delay volume of 5 ml and the new pump only has 0.5 ml.
Part or full revalidation may also be considered if system suitability tests or the results of
quality control sample analysis are out of preset acceptance criteria and the source of the
error can not be tracked back to instruments or anything else.
go back to top

Parameters for Method Validation
The parameters for method validation have been defined in different working groups of
national and international committees and are described in literature. Unfortunately some of
the definitions are different between different organizations. An attempt for harmonization
was made for pharmaceutical applications through the International Conference on
Harmonization (2,3) where representatives from the industry and regulatory agencies from
USA, Europe and Japan defined parameters, requirements and, to some extent, also
methodology for analytical methods validation. The parameters as defined by the ICH and
by other organizations and authors are summarized in Table 1 and described in brief in the
following paragraphs.
They areSpecificity (*)
Selectivity
Precision (*)
repeatability (*)
intermediate precision (*)
reproducibility (**)
Accuracy (*)
Trueness
Bias
Linearity (*)
Range (*)
Limit of detection (*)
Limit of quantitation (*)
Robustness (**)
Ruggedness
Table 1. Possible parameters for method validation
(*) Included in ICH publications
(**) Terminology included in ICH publication but are not part of required parameters
go back to top

Selectivity/specificity
The terms selectivity and specificity are often used interchangeably. A detailed discussion
of this term as defined by different organizations has been made by Vessmann (17). He
particularly pointed out the difference between the specificity as defined by IUPAC/WELAC
and ICH. (IUPAC: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry, WELAC: Western
European Laboratory Accreditation Conference).
Even inconsistent with ICH, the term specific generally refers to a method that produces a
response for a single analyte only while the term selective refers to a method which
provides responses for a number of chemical entities that may or may not be distinguished
from each other. If the response is distinguished from all other responses, the method is
said to be selective. Since there are very few methods that respond to only one analyte, the
term selectivity is usually more appropriate. The USP monograph (8) defines selectivity of
an analytical method as its ability to measure accurately an analyte in the presence of
interference, such as synthetic precursors, excipients, enantiomers and known (or likely)
degradation products that may be expected to be present in the sample matrix. Selectivity
in liquid chromatography is obtained by choosing optimal columns and setting
chromatographic conditions, such as mobile phase composition, column temperature and
detector wavelength.
It is a difficult task in chromatography to ascertain whether the peaks within a sample
chromatogram are pure or consist of more than one compound. While in the past
chromatographic parameters such as mobile phase composition or the column have been
modified, more recently the application of spectroscopic detectors coupled on-line to the
chromatograph have been suggested (3,5). UV/Visible diode-array detectors and mass-
spectrometers acquire spectra on-line throughout the entire chromatogram. The spectra
acquired during the elution of a peak are normalized and overlaid for graphical
presentation. If the normalized spectra are different, the peak consists of at least two
compounds.
The principles of diode-array detection in HPLC and their application and limitations to peak
purity are described in the literature (20-22). Examples of pure and impure HPLC peaks are
shown in Figure 1. While the chromatographic signal indicates no impurities in either peak,
the spectral evaluation identifies the peak on the left as impure. The level of impurities that
can be detected with this method depends on the spectral difference, on the detectors
performance and on the software algorithm. Under ideal conditions, peak impurities of 0.05
to 0.1% can be detected.

Figure 1. Examples of pure and impure HPLC peaks. The chromatographic signal does not
indicate any impurity in either peak. Spectral evaluation, however, identifies the peak on the
left as impure.
go back to top

Precision and Reproducibility
The precision of a method is the extent to which the individual test results of multiple
injections of a series of standards agree . The measured standard deviation can be
subdivided into three categories: repeatability, intermediate precision and reproducibility
(2,3). Repeatability is obtained when the analysis is carried out in one laboratory by one
operator using one piece of equipment over a relatively short timespan. At least
5 or 6 determinations of
three different matrices at
two or three different concentrations
should be done and the relative standard deviation calculated. The acceptance criteria for
precision depend very much on the type of analysis. While for compound analysis in
pharmaceutical quality control precision of better than 1 % RSD is easily achieved, for
biological samples the precision is more like 15% at the concentration limits and 10% at
other concentration levels. For environmental and food samples, the precision is very much
dependent on the sample matrix, the concentration of the analyte and on the analysis
technique. It can vary between 2% and more than 20%.
The AOAC manual for the Peer Verified Methods program (16) includes a table with
estimated precision data as a function of analyte concentration.
Table 1. Analyte concentration versus precision within or between days (Ref. 16)
Intermediate precision is a term that has been defined by ICH (2) as the long-term
variability of the measurement process and is determined by comparing the results of a
method run within a single laboratory over a number of weeks. A methods intermediate
precision may reflect discrepancies in results obtained by different operators, from different
instruments, with standards and reagents from different suppliers, with columns from
different batches or a combination of these. The objective of intermediate precision
validation is to verify that in the same laboratory the method will provide the same results
once the development phase is over.
Reproducibility as defined by ICH (2,3) represents the precision obtained between
laboratories. The objective is to verify that the method will provide the same results in
Analyte % Analyte ratio Unit RSD (%)
100 1 100% 1.3
10 10-1 10% 2.8
1 10-2 1% 2.7
0.1 10-3 0.1 % 3.7
0.01 10-4 100 ppm 5.3
0.001 10-5 10 ppm 7.3
0.0001 10-6 1 ppm 11
0.00001 10-7 100 ppb 15
0.000001 10-8 10 ppb 21
0.0000001 10-9 1 ppb 30
different laboratories. The reproducibility of an analytical method is determined by analyzing
aliquots from homogeneous lots in different laboratories with different analysts and by using
operational and environmental conditions that may differ from but are still within the
specified parameters of the method (interlaboratory tests). Validation of reproducibility is
important if the method will used in different laboratories.
Differences in room temperature and humidity
Operators with different experience and thoroughness
Equipment with different characteristics, e.g. delay volume of an HPLC system
Variations in material and instrument conditions, e.g. in HPLC , mobile phases
composition, pH, flow rate of mobile phase
Equipment and consumables of different ages
Columns from different suppliers or different batches
Solvents, reagents and other material with different quality
Table 3. Typical variations affecting a methods reproducibility
go back to top

Accuracy and recovery
The accuracy of an analytical method is the extent to which test results generated by the
method and the true value agree. The true value for accuracy assessment can be obtained
in several ways.
One alternative is to compare results of the method with results from an established
reference method. This approach assumes that the uncertainty of the reference method is
known. Secondly, accuracy can be assessed by analyzing a sample with known
concentrations, for example, a certified reference material, and comparing the measured
value with the true value as supplied with the material. If such certified reference material is
not available, blank a blanksample matrix of interest can be spiked with a known
concentration by weight or volume. After extraction of the analyte from the matrix and
injection into the analytical instrument, its recovery can be determined by comparing the
response of the extract with the response of the reference material dissolved in a pure
solvent. Because this accuracy assessment measures the effectiveness of sample
preparation, care should be taken to mimic the actual sample preparation as closely as
possible.
The concentration should cover the range of concern and should particularly include one
concentration close to the quantitation limit. The expected recovery depends on the sample
matrix, the sample processing procedure and on the analyte concentration. The AOAC
manual for the Peer Verified Methods program (16) includes a table with estimated
recovery data as a function analyte concentration.
Active Ingred. [ %] Analyte ratio Unit Mean recovery
Table 4. Analyte recovery at different concentrations (Ref 16)
go back to top

Linearity and calibration curve
The linearity of an analytical method is its ability to elicit test results that are directly, or by
means of well-defined mathematical transformations, proportional to the concentration of
analytes in samples within a given range. Linearity is determined by a series of three to six
injections of five or more standards whose concentrations span 80-120 percent of the
expected concentration range. The response should be directly or by means of a well
defined mathematical calculation proportional to the concentrations of the analytes. A linear
regression equation applied to the results should have an intercept not significantly different
from zero. If a significant nonzero intercept is obtained, it should be demonstrated that
there is no effect on the accuracy of the method.
Frequently the linearity is evaluated graphically in addition or alternatively to mathematical
evaluation. The evaluation is made by visual inspection of a plot of signal height or peak
area as a function of analyte concentration. Because deviations from linearity are
sometimes difficult to detect two additional graphical procedures can be used. The first one
is to plot the deviations from the regression line versus the concentration or versus the
logarithm of the concentration, if the concentration range covers several decades. For
linear ranges the deviations should be equally distributed between positive and negative
values.
An other approach is to divide signal data by their respective concentrations yielding the
relative responses. A graph is plotted with the relative responses on the Y-axis and the
corresponding concentrations on the X-axis on a log scale. The obtained line should be
horizontal over the full linear range. At higher concentrations, there will typically be a
negative deviation from linearity. Parallel horizontal lines are drawn in the graph
corresponding to, for example, 95 percent and 105 percent of the horizontal line. The
method is linear up to the point where the plotted relative response line intersects the 95
percent line. Figure 2 shows a comparison of the 2 graphical evaluations on the example of
caffeine using High-Performance Liquid Chromatography.
[%]
100 1 100% 98-102
>=10 10-1 10% 98-102
>=1 10-2 1% 97-103
>=0.1 10-3 0.1 % 95-105
0.01 10-4 100 ppm 90-107
0.001 10-5 10 ppm 80-110
0.0001 10-6 1 ppm 80-110
0.00001 10-7 100 ppb 80-110
0.000001 10-8 10 ppb 60-115
0.0000001 10-9 1 ppb 40-120

Figure 2. Graphical presentations of linearity plot of a caffeine sample using HPLC.
Plotting the sensitivity (response/amount) gives clear indication of the linear range.
Plotting the amount on a logarithmic scale has a significant advantage for wide
linear ranges. Rc = Line of constant response.
go back to top

Range
The range of an analytical method is the interval between the upper and lower levels
(including these levels) that have been demonstrated to be determined with precision,
accuracy and linearity using the method as written. The range is normally expressed in the
same units as the test results (e.g. percentage, parts per million) obtained by the analytical
method.
go back to top

Limit of Detection and Quantitation
The limit of detection is the point at which a measured value is larger than the uncertainty
associated with it. It is the lowest concentration of analyte in a sample that can be detected
but not necessarily quantified. In chromatography the detection limit is the injected amount
thatthat results in a peak with a height at least twice or three times as high as the baseline
noise level.
The limit of quantitation is the minimum injected amount that gives precise measurements ,
in chromatography typically requiring peak heights 10101 to 20 times higher than baseline
noise. If the required precision of the method at the limit of quantitation has been specified,
the EURACHEM (1) approach can be used. A number of samples with decreasing amounts
of the analyte are injected six times. The calculated RSD% of the precision is plotted
against the analyte amount. The amount that orresponds to the previously defined required
precision is equal to the limit of quantitation.

Figure 3. Limit of quantitation with the EURACHEM method.
go back to top

Robustness
Robustness tests examine the effect operational parameters have on the analysis results.
For the determination of a methods robustness a number of chromatographic parameters,
for example, flow rate, column temperature, injection volume, detection wavelength or
mobile phase composition are varied within a realistic range and the quantitative influence
of the variables is determined. If the influence of the parameter is within a previously
specified tolerance, the parameter is said to be within the methods robustness range.
Obtaining data on these effects will allow to judge whether a method needs to be
revalidated when one or more of parameters are changed, for example to compensate for
column performance over time. In the ICH document (3) it is recommended to consider the
evaluation a methods robustness during the development phase, but it is not required to be
included as part of a registration application.
go back to top

References
1. EURACHEM Guidance Document No. 1/WELAC Guidance Document No. WGD 2:
Accreditation for chemical laboratories: Guidance on the interpretation of the EN 45000
series of standards and ISO/IEC Guide 25,1993. Available from the EURACHEM Secretariat,
PO Box 46, Teddington, Middlesex, TW11 ONH, UK,
2. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for the
Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Validation of analytical procedures, ICH-
Q2A, Geneva 1995.
3. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for the
Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Validation of analytical procedures:
Methodology, ICH-Q2B, Geneva 1996.
4. US EPA, Guidance for methods development and methods validation for the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Program, Washington, 1995
5. US FDA Technical Review Guide: Validation of Chromatographic Methods, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research (CDER), Rockville, MD, 1993
6. US FDA, General principles of validation, Rockville, MD, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER), May 1987.
7. US FDA, Guidelines for submitting samples and analytical data for method validation,
Rockville, MD, Center for Drugs and Biologics Department of Health and Human Services ,
Feb. 1987
8. General Chapter <1225>, Validation of compendial methods, United States Pharmacopeia
XXIII, National Formulary, XVIII, Rockville, MD, The United States Pharmacopeial
Convention, Inc, 1995, 17101612
9. Szepesi, M. Gazdag and K. Mihalyfi, Selection of HPLC methods in pharmaceutical analysis -
III method validation, J.Chromatogr. 464, 265-278
10. P. Shah et al., Analytical methods validation: Bioavailability, bioequivalence and
pharmacokinetic studies, Eur. J. Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics, 16(4), 249-255,
1989 (1991)
11. G.C. Hokanson, A life cycle approach to the validation of analytical methods during
pharmaceutical product development, part I: The initial validation process, Pharm.Tech., Sept.
1994, 118-130
12. G.C. Hokanson, A life cycle approach to the validation of analytical methods during
pharmaceutical product development, part II: Changes and the need for additional validation,
Pharm.Tech., Oct. 1994, 92-100.
13. J.M.Green, A practical guide to analytical method validation, Anal.Chem. News & Features,
May 1, 1996, 305A/309A
14. B. Renger, H.Jehle, M.Fischer and w. Funk, Validation of analytical procedures in
pharmaceutical analytical chemistry: HPTLC assay of theophylline in an effervescent tablet,
J.Planar Chrom., 8, July/Aug 1995, 269-278
15. Wegscheider, Validation of analytical methods, in "Accreditation and quality assurance in
analytical chemistry", edited by H. Guenzler, Springer Verlag, Berlin 1996
16. AOAC Peer Verified methods Program, Manual on policies and procedures, Arlington, VA,
Nov 1993
17. J.Vessman, Selectivity or specificity ? Validation of analytical methods from the perspective
of an analytical chemist in the pharmaceutical industry, J.Pharm&Biomed Analysis, 14 (1996)
867/869
18. Huber, L. "Validation of computerized analytical systems, Part 3: Installation and operational
qualification"; LC-GC Magazine 1996, 14(9), 806-812
19. L. Huber, Validation of Computerized Analytical Systems, Interpharm, Buffalo Grove, IL,
1995
20. Huber, Applications of diode-array detection in HPLC, Waldbronn, Germany, Agilent
Technologies, 1989, publ. number 12-5953-2330
21. D. Marr, P. Horvath, B. J. Clark, A. F. Fell, Assessment of peak homogeneity in HPLC by
computer-aided photodiode-array detection, Anal. Proceed., 23, 254-257, 1986
22. Huber and S. George, Diode-array detection in high-performance liquid chromatography,
New York, Marcel Dekker, ISBN 0-8247-4, 1993
go back to top

Copyright Labcompliance, All rights reserved
Last Updated: 31-12-2001
By accessing this site users (visitors) agree to the
Labcompliance terms of use (disclaimer)