Extractables and leachables.

Extractables and leachables evidence breaks down when material knowledge, actual process contact, analytical data, toxicology and product lifecycle live in separate files. A film extractables report does not by itself qualify a bioreactor bag; a stopper study does not support every drug product; an unidentified peak cannot be closed because it sits below an arbitrary reporting value.

E&L work crosses engineering, suppliers, analytical laboratories, toxicology, development, stability, manufacturing, packaging, quality and regulatory, and the gaps between them are where a conclusion drifts away from the configuration it was drawn from. Seal keeps the argument connected from material and component through worst-case exposure, study sample, raw analytical signal, compound identity, toxicological assessment and qualification decision, to every use that inherits the conclusion.

1Map what touches the product, and under which conditions.

The product-contact map is the starting model: process stages, single-use assemblies, filters, tubing, connectors, gaskets, container closure, delivery device and hold containers, each with its material of construction, formulation, additives, sterilisation, supplier and part revision. It records direct and indirect contact and where each component sits in the assembly.

Exposure conditions stay quantitative. Fluid composition, pH, surfactant or protein content, temperature, duration, surface-area-to-volume ratio, flow, sterilisation dose, number of cycles, route, dose and frequency are recorded as ranges and time-varying stages, not as a single “product contact” flag.

Material and supplier knowledge is versioned to the exact material revision: formulation disclosure, controlled additives, residual monomers, supplier extractables and change notifications. Where composition is proprietary, the record governs confidential evidence and shows what remains unknown rather than implying completeness.

1.1Why teams choose Seal for extractables and leachables

E&L conclusions usually live in study reports and toxicology memos, with the link between a study and the assemblies it is used to qualify maintained in spreadsheets. With the product-contact map, study samples, analytical signals, identities and toxicological conclusions connected, each qualification states the uses it supports. When a supplier changes a formulation or a threshold is revised, where-used and bracketing identify the affected conclusions instead of a manual search.

2Let risk set the study, and treat bracketing as a claim.

Patient route, daily dose, duration, population, contact intensity, material complexity, process stage, downstream clearance and prior knowledge set the depth of study. Manufacturing equipment, packaging, delivery systems and combination products are assessed differently within one portfolio view.

Each study starts from the conclusion it is meant to support: screening, controlled extraction, simulation, leachables, stability-associated monitoring, supplier-change bridging or investigation. The protocol version keeps the test articles, lots, extraction vehicles, conditions, controls, techniques, thresholds and planned evaluation.

Bracketing is a scientific claim that must be justified factor by factor: formulation, supplier, geometry, surface area, contact solution, temperature, duration, sterilisation, route, dose and shelf life. Seal records the worst case for each factor and shows every use that inherits it. An excluded configuration stays visible instead of disappearing from the study matrix.

3Make every threshold reproducible.

The analytical evaluation threshold (AET) is derived from a safety concern threshold, daily dose, units per day, sample preparation, dilution, extraction ratio and analytical uncertainty. Every threshold keeps its formula, inputs, units, version, rounding and approval. When the dose or presentation changes, recalculation identifies the findings and conclusions affected.

Swipe to see the full diagram →

4Keep each signal and its identification confidence.

GC-MS, LC-MS, ICP-MS, headspace and other techniques keep their instrument methods, source data, calibration, blanks, system suitability, libraries, processing and audit trail. Seal connects the source files to normalised findings without pretending identification confidence is the same across techniques.

Each signal has an identification lifecycle: retention, accurate mass, fragments, spectral match, candidate identities, authentic standard, confidence category and quantitation basis evolve as the investigation proceeds. Unknowns remain findings in their own right, with mass, estimated concentration, confidence, open work and decision impact.

Compound identity resolves across studies. Synonyms, salts, isomers and identifiers map to one controlled compound record, so the same compound is not counted twice under several laboratory names, while genuine ambiguity is preserved.

5Assess toxicology against actual patient exposure.

Exposure is calculated from the measured or estimated concentration, product volume, maximum daily dose, dosing frequency, duration, leaching trend and uncertainty. Manufacturing-process leachables can include clearance or dilution only when the actual downstream process and recovery evidence support it.

The toxicological assessment is evidence, not a traffic light. Structure, genotoxicity, sensitization, route relevance, duration, population, read-across, permitted daily exposure, uncertainty factors, data gaps and assessor remain versioned. A conclusion of acceptable, monitor, identify further, reduce exposure, control by specification or unacceptable states its exact scope and assumptions.

6Qualify for a stated use, then monitor it.

A qualification decision names the contact configuration, process or package, product, presentation, site, market, conditions, maximum exposure, supporting studies, unresolved unknowns, controls, restrictions and review date. Supplier extractables can support the conclusion without becoming a blanket authorisation.

Leachables monitoring follows the stability protocol: target compounds, unknowns, batches, orientations, conditions and pull points, with trends visible. It distinguishes a transient manufacturing leachable from a compound that increases through shelf life. A new peak, an unknown above threshold or a blank contaminant opens a bounded investigation that keeps the original evidence and traces impact to materials, products, batches, stability conclusions and filings.

7Start change impact at the physical state.

A changed resin source, additive, supplier site, geometry, sterilisation dose, contact time, product formulation, dose, route, package, method, threshold or toxicological value can each affect a qualification. Where-used and bracketing identify the minimum new evidence, without assuming that every change needs a full repeat or none.

Material knowledge, compound assessments, standards, methods and qualified brackets can be reused across programmes with explicit applicability. Seal shows both the leverage and the dependency: a revised toxicological threshold or supplier formulation identifies every conclusion that reused it.

8Prove one difficult contact system end to end.

Follow one single-use flow path and final container closure through material versions, supplier disclosures, contact stages, risk assessment, controlled extraction, unknown identification, AET calculation, toxicological assessment, leachables stability, bracketing, qualification and a supplier change.

Include one proprietary formulation, an unknown above the AET, a blank contaminant, a compound with route-specific thresholds, an unbracketed long contact, a dose change and a changed film additive. The first qualification must show which exact uses are supported and every assumption they depend on.