The Akers–Agalloco Method - Pharmaceutical Technology

Latest Issue

Latest Issue
PharmTech Europe

The Akers–Agalloco Method

Pharmaceutical Technology
Volume 29, Issue 11

Table I: Validation of aseptic processing.
The authors take a broader view of the contamination potential in aseptic processing and recognize that contamination comes from various sources. Table I presents a vision of risk assessment that has been used for many years (11). This vision draws upon that broader view and incorporates concerns that affect each of these tasks and the others that affect sterility assurance for aseptically produced sterile materials.

There are several basic concepts that result from this conception of aseptic processing. The effect of personnel on the aseptic process is all-important, and one must define risk to sterility predominantly in terms of the human activities required to execute the process. Other factors can be included, but focus on the contribution from personnel must be paramount. Risk is directly related to the number of human interventions required during the process: the fewer interventions required, the lower the risk of contamination. Interventions can be scaled relative to criticality. The type of interventional activity performed and the proximity of that activity to sterile materials suggest that some form of weighting of the intervention's influence is appropriate.

Other factors in contamination exposure include:

  • the container-opening diameter (smaller diameters are preferred, following the deposition models described previously);
  • the length of time the container is exposed to the environment, from its initial entry until its closure;
  • the length of time the closure is exposed to the environment before the container is sealed;
  • lyophilization, which can increase the exposure risk as a result of extended exposure time of the unsealed container and a need for additional interventions;
  • container type, (e.g., ampuls versus. vials, sealed versus. unsealed);
  • automation that significantly reduces the need for operator interaction with sterile equipment and materials;
  • complex assembly activities, which depend to a large extent on operator skill and thus increase risk;
  • novelty of personnel, equipment, or procedures, which increases risk.

One of the authors' fundamental premises is that all ISO 5 environments are not equivalent in their ability to support successful aseptic processing. Limitations to microbial detection in these clean environments make distinctions among them subjective. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that some technologies are superior to others in their ability to limit microbial intrusion and contamination. The environmental conditions in which the aseptic process is performed were included as a major factor in risk assessment. Environmental conditions are an overall factor in the present model. The application of these general principles and others of similar intent form the basis for the authors' risk-assessment model.

The pharmaceutical industry seems to give little consideration to risk mitigation during equipment selection. Only slightly more consideration of risk mitigation is given during the choice of container or delivery system. Ease of assembly and operation can make a substantial difference in risk exposure. Reducing the number of required aseptic connections is beneficial. Automated component handling is helpful in reducing risk. Low in-process adjustment and maintenance requirements should be key specifications. Equipment that can operate with minimum accumulation time also is desirable because it reduces exposure.

Akers–Agalloco method for risk assessment

The objective of this effort is a method that is:

  • easy to use;
  • based on real-world risk factors rather than more theoretical concepts;
  • based on an occurrence and criticality model;
  • focused on the effect of personnel;
  • inclusive of fatigue as a factor;
  • prone to reward processes in which interventions are reduced to a minimum.

Occurrence in the present model includes the quantity and criticality of interventions as well as other elements of process risk that are indirectly related to the core activity of aseptic filling. It includes:

  • background environmental risk, which is distinct from the filling environment;
  • aseptic compounding risk, which is heavily dependent on interventions;
  • aseptic setup risk, which is heavily dependent on interventions;
  • aseptic-filling risk, which is heavily dependent upon interventions and calculated separately for manual and machine processes;
  • lyophilization risk, which is included where present.


blog comments powered by Disqus
LCGC E-mail Newsletters

Subscribe: Click to learn more about the newsletter
| Weekly
| Monthly
| Weekly

FDASIA was signed into law two years ago. Where has the most progress been made in implementation?
Reducing drug shortages
Breakthrough designations
Protecting the supply chain
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
More stakeholder involvement
Reducing drug shortages
Breakthrough designations
Protecting the supply chain
Expedited reviews of drug submissions
More stakeholder involvement
View Results
Eric Langerr Outsourcing Outlook Eric LangerTargeting Different Off-Shore Destinations
Cynthia Challener, PhD Ingredients Insider Cynthia ChallenerAsymmetric Synthesis Continues to Advance
Jill Wechsler Regulatory Watch Jill Wechsler Data Integrity Key to GMP Compliance
Sean Milmo European Regulatory WatchSean MilmoExtending the Scope of Pharmacovigilance Comes at a Price
From Generics to Supergenerics
CMOs and the Track-and-Trace Race: Are You Engaged Yet?
Ebola Outbreak Raises Ethical Issues
Better Comms Means a Fitter Future for Pharma, Part 2: Realizing the Benefits of Unified Communications
Better Comms Means a Fitter Future for Pharma, Part 1: Challenges and Changes
Source: Pharmaceutical Technology,
Click here