USP 1207

USP 1207 cover packaging integrity and leak testing for sterile pharmaceutical products

USP 1207 Summary

United States Pharmacopeia Chapter 1207 provides an overview of “leak test” methodologies (also termed technologies, approaches, or methods) as well as “package seal quality tests” useful for verification of sterile product package integrity. More detailed recommendations for the selection, qualification, and use of leak test methods are presented in three subchapters that address these specific topics:

Package Integrity and Test Method Selection <1207.1>

Package Integrity Leak Test Technologies <1207.2>

Package Seal Quality Test Methods <1207.3>

Vacuum Leak Tester LT-03
Vacuum Leak Tester, also for Methylene Blue Penetration Test

PACKAGE INTEGRITY AND TEST METHOD SELECTION

This chapter Package Integrity and Test Method Selection <1207.1> discusses sterile package integrity assurance, provides information about package leaks, and describes a range of package integrity test methods.

Package integrity verification occurs during three product life cycle phases:

LSST-01 Leak and Seal Strength Tester System
USP 1207 Pressure Decay Method

Package Integrity Leak Test Technologies

Chapter <1207.2> guides the selection and application of leak test methods for sterile packaging, based on research and standards. It categorizes methods into deterministic (preferred when feasible) and probabilistic (used when deterministic methods aren’t compatible). The chapter helps users choose the most suitable method based on detection limits, reliability, and specific packaging needs.

ASTM F2338 Vacuum Decay Leak Tester
USP 1207 Vacuum Decay Method

Table 1. Deterministic Leak Test Technologies

Deterministic

Leak Test

Technologies

Package

Content

Requirements

Package

Requirements

Leak Detection Limit

Measurement Outcome and

Data Analysis

Effect of

Method

on Package

Test Time

Order of

Magnitude

Electrical conductivity and

capacitance (high-voltage

leak detection)

Liquid (with no combustion

risk) must be more electrically conductive than package.

Product must be present at

leak site

Less electrically

conductive than

liquid product.

.

Row 3

Varies with product–

package, instrument, test

sample fixtures, and method parameters

Quantitative measure of electrical current passing through the test sample: provides an indirect determination of leak presence and leak location as shown by a drop in test sample electrical resistivity, with a resultant increase in voltage reading above a predetermined pass/fail limit

Nondestructive,

although impact

of test exposure

on product stability is recommended

Seconds

Laser-based gas headspace

analysis

Gas volume, path length,

and content must be compatible with instrument’s detection capability.

Allows transmission of near-IR light.

Row 1

Varies as a function of time span between analyses.

Quantitative measure of gas headspace content of the test sample by laser-based gas analysis, for a product requiring a headspace low in oxygen, carbon dioxide, or water vapor concentration; and/or low in absolute pressure.

Whole test sample leakage rate is determined by compiling readings as a function of time.

Nondestructive

Seconds

Mass extraction

Gas or liquid must be

present at leak site. Presence of liquid at leak site requires test pressures below vapor pressure. Product must not clog leak path

Rigid, or flexible

with package restraint mechanism.

Row 3

Varies with product

package, instrument, test fixtures/chamber, and method parameters.

Quantitative measure of mass flow rate resulting from test sample headspace escape or liquid product volatilization within an evacuated test chamber housing the test sample.

Quantitative pressure readings early in the test cycle indicate larger leak presence. Whole test sample leakage rate is determined by comparing the test sample mass flow results to results using leak rate standards and positive controls

Nondestructive

Seconds to minutes

Pressure decay

Gas must be present at leak site.

Product (especially liquids or semi-solids) must not cover potential leak sites

Compatible with pressure detection mode.

Rigid, or flexible with package restraint mechanism.

Row 3

Varies with product package, instrument, and method parameters

Quantitative measure of pressure drop within a pressurized test sample. Pressure drop readings are a measure of gas escape through leak paths.

Whole test sample leakage rate is determined by comparing pressure decay results to results using leak rate standards and positive controls.

Nondestructive,

unless the means

used to access

test sample interior compromises test sample

barrier.

Minutes to days,

depending on

package volume

and required

leak limit of detection

Tracer gas detection, vacuum mode

Tracer gas must be added

to package.

Tracer gas must have access to package surfaces being tested for leaks

Able to tolerate

high-vacuum

test conditions

Rigid, or flexible

with package restraint mechanism

Limited tracer gas permeability

Row 1

Varies with instrument

capability and test sample fixtures.

Quantitative measure by spectroscopic analysis of tracer gas leak rate emitted from a tracer-flooded test sample positioned in an evacuated test chamber.

Whole test sample leakage rate is calculated by normalizing the measured tracer leak rate by tracer concentration in the test sample.

Nondestructive,

unless tracer gas

introduction into

the package

compromises

test sample barrier.

Seconds to minutes

Vacuum decay

Gas or liquid must be

present at leak site.

Presence of liquid at leak

site requires test pressures

below vapor pressure.

Product must not clog leak

path.

Rigid, or flexible with package restraint mechanism

Row 3

Varies with product–package, instrument, test sample chamber, and method parameters.

Quantitative measure of pressure rise (vacuum decay) within an evacuated test chamber housing the test sample; vacuum decay readings are a measure of headspace escape from the test

sample, or liquid product volatilization.

Whole test sample leakage rate is determined by comparing vacuum decay results for the test sample to results of tests performed using leak

rate standards and positive controls

Nondestructive

Seconds to minutes

Table 2. Probabilistic Leak Test Technologies

Probabilistic

Leak Test

Technologies

Package

Content

Requirements

Package

Requirements

Leak Detection Limit

Measurement Outcome and

Data Analysis

Effect of

Method

on Package

Test Time

Order of

Magnitude

Bubble emission

Gas must be present at leak site.

Product (especially liquids or semi-solids) must not cover package surfaces to be leak tested.

Rigid, or flexible with package restraint mechanism.

Row 4

Varies with product package, test sample fixtures and positioning, method parameters, and analyst technique and skill.

Qualitative measure by visual inspection of bubble emission caused by escape of test sample headspace while sample is submerged and exposed to differential pressure conditions. Alternatively, sample surfaces may be exposed to

surfactant.

Continuous bubble emission indicates leak presence, location, and relative size.

Destructive

Minutes

Microbial challenge, immersion exposure

Growth-supportive media or product.

Presence of liquid at the leak site required for method reliability.

Able to tolerate pressure and immersion challenge.

Rigid, or flexible with package restraint mechanism.

Row 4

Varies with container-closure, test sample fixtures and positioning, challenge condition severity, and inherent biological variability.

Qualitative measure by visual inspection of microorganism growth inside test samples filled with growth-supportive media or product, post immersion in heavily contaminated challenge media while exposed to differential pressure conditions, followed by incubation to encourage microbial growth.

Growth in the test sample indicates the presence of test sample leak site(s) capable of allowing passive or active entry of microbes

Destructive

Weeks

Tracer gas detection, sniffer

mode

Tracer gas must be added

to package.

Tracer gas must have access to package surfaces to be tested for leaks.

Leak site accessible to probe.

Limited tracer gas permeability

Row 2

Varies with test sample, method parameters, test sample fixtures, and analyst technique and skill.

Smaller leak detection may be possible under optimum test conditions.

Quantitative measure by spectroscopic analysis of tracer gas near the outer surfaces of the trac er-flooded test sample, sampled using a sniffer probe.

Tracer presence above a pass/fail limit indicates leak presence and location.

Nondestructive, unless tracer gas

introduction to the package interior compromises test sample barrier.

Seconds to minutes

Tracer liquid

Contents must be compatible with liquid tracer.

Product must not clog leak path.

Rigid, or flexible

with package restraint mechanism.

Able to tolerate liquid immersion.

Compatible with liquid tracer detection mode.

Row 4

Varies with container-closure, test sample fixtures and positioning, challenge condition severity, and tracer liquid content.

Smaller leak detection may be possible under optimal test conditions employing chemical analysis tracer detection.

Measure of tracer in test sample previously submerged in tracer-charged liquid while exposed to differential pressure conditions. Alternatively, tracer-charged test samples may be submerged in tracer-free collection fluid.

Tracer migration measurement may be quantitative (by chemical analysis; preferred approach for small leak detection) or qualitative (by visual inspection).

Tracer presence indicates leak site(s) capable of allowing tracer passage. Tracer magnitude may indicate relative leak size (assuming a single-leak pathway).

Destructive

Minutes to hour

PACKAGE SEAL QUALITY TEST TECHNOLOGIES

This chapter summarizes methods to assess and monitor package seal quality, aiding in selection and application. Unlike leak tests, seal quality tests check parameters affecting package integrity but don’t directly confirm it; they ensure consistent quality in seal attributes and materials. While these tests help support integrity, they can’t identify actual leaks—a package may pass a seal quality test but still leak. Seal quality tests complement leak tests to provide overall package integrity. The methods included are based on scientific research and standards and require qualification for use rather than full validation.

GLT-01 Gross Leak Tester
USP 1207 Bubble Method

FAQ about USP 1207

USP <1207> establishes guidelines for verifying package integrity in sterile pharmaceutical packaging, focusing on ensuring that packages maintain sterility through rigorous leak and seal quality tests across a product’s lifecycle. It outlines both deterministic and probabilistic testing methods to ensure that packaging maintains sterility and protects the product throughout its lifecycle, from development to shelf stability​

The responsibility lies with pharmaceutical manufacturers, who must evaluate product-package profiles and consider lifecycle requirements to select test methods suited to their product’s specific packaging and sterility needs.

Integrity should be assessed during product development, manufacturing, and throughout shelf-life stability testing to ensure consistency and durability under real-world conditions.

Deterministic methods are highly controlled tests with known and reproducible outcomes, whereas probabilistic methods rely on variable outcomes, which can be useful when deterministic methods aren’t feasible.

Criteria include the package type, intended sterility requirements, sensitivity needs, and compatibility with deterministic or probabilistic testing, allowing for tailored selection to achieve accurate integrity assessments.

USP <1207> recommends validation at each lifecycle stage: initial development, ongoing process control during manufacturing, and final quality checks during shelf-life stability assessments.

Some methods are non-compulsory to allow flexibility for manufacturers to use alternative qualified tests that meet integrity requirements, supporting adaptability in evolving packaging technologies.

Multi-point analysis across process parameters captures variability in packaging conditions, ensuring integrity standards are met under different scenarios within expected production and distribution environments.

USP 1207 distinguishes between deterministic and probabilistic leak test methods. Deterministic methods, such as pressure decay, vacuum decay, and laser-based headspace analysis, provide reliable and precise results. These methods are recommended when high accuracy is necessary, particularly for complex or critical sterile products. Probabilistic methods like bubble emission and microbial challenge tests are used in situations where deterministic tests are not suitable or when a higher level of uncertainty is acceptable​.

The leak size detection limit is the smallest leak that a test method can reliably detect. This limit varies depending on the method and product characteristics. For example, while vacuum decay can detect small leaks, its sensitivity can be influenced by the package’s material properties and the environmental conditions during testing. Therefore, it is essential for manufacturers to calibrate and validate their chosen leak detection method to ensure it meets the specific requirements of their packaging​.

Package development studies focus on selecting the right materials, determining appropriate seal conditions, and assessing the package’s robustness. These studies often involve testing packages under extreme conditions (e.g., temperature fluctuations, transportation stresses) to evaluate their performance in real-world scenarios. The data collected from these studies help set specifications for production, ensuring consistent package quality and integrity.

Test method validation involves confirming that the selected leak test method is reliable, reproducible, and capable of detecting leaks at the required sensitivity level. Validation includes confirming the performance of the equipment under real-world conditions, defining acceptable leak limits, and ensuring that the test provides consistent results across different batches of packaging. Validation protocols are typically based on industry standards such as ASTM F2338 and ASTM F2096​.

Leak tests and seal quality tests are included to provide comprehensive assurance of package integrity, with leak tests assessing actual containment ability and seal quality tests monitoring parameters that support integrity without directly testing for leaks.

USP <1207> provides frameworks for developing, qualifying, and validating leak test methods to ensure they meet required sensitivity and reliability, emphasizing method-specific validation for container-closure systems.

USP <1207> categorizes sensitivities by “leak size detection limits,” suggesting benchmarks but advising users to validate these limits based on their specific product-package configurations.

Developing a product-package profile helps ensure the selected packaging materials, design, and closure mechanisms are suited to the product’s stability and sterility requirements under anticipated storage and handling conditions.

Seal quality tests undergo qualification (rather than full validation) to confirm instrument setup and operational performance, ensuring tests are appropriate for the package while not directly measuring leak integrity.

Deterministic methods are preferred due to their reproducibility and consistent results, offering reliable leak detection when package components and conditions permit.

Probabilistic tests are beneficial when deterministic methods are unsuitable for certain product–package combinations or when specific outcome requirements demand probabilistic approaches.

Deterministic tests offer repeatable and predictable results with a clear understanding of the leakage detection limit, which is crucial for sterile product packaging. Common deterministic methods include pressure decay and vacuum decay, both of which are more suitable for high-precision testing. On the other hand, probabilistic methods, like bubble emission or sniffer mode tracer gas detection, involve a level of uncertainty and are best suited for less critical products or those with simpler packaging​.

Seal quality tests, including seal strength and torque testing, help monitor the consistency of the seal process, but they do not directly assess leak integrity. While a package might pass a seal quality test, it could still have defects, such as punctures or scratches, that allow leakage. Seal quality tests are essential for detecting potential weaknesses in the sealing process, while leak tests confirm the actual integrity of the package.

Key factors include the type of packaging, the expected leak size, the sensitivity required, and the compatibility of the testing method with the package material. For example, more complex packaging systems, such as multi-chambered systems or those with fragile seals, may require more sophisticated methods like laser-based analysis or mass extraction. Simpler systems might be adequately tested with bubble emission or pressure decay​.

Package seal integrity is directly related to sterility assurance. A sealed package prevents microbial ingress, maintaining the sterility of the product. However, factors like material degradation or improper sealing techniques can compromise both the seal and sterility. Thus, regular testing of both seal strength and leak integrity is essential to guarantee that packaging not only stays intact but also protects the product throughout its shelf life​.

Looking for reliable USP 1207 leak detection equipment?

 Don’t miss out on the chance to optimize your quality control processes with state-of-the-art equipment.

Related Information

ASTM F2054

ASTM F2054 Standard Test Method for Burst Testing of Flexible Package Seals Using Internal Air Pressurization Within Restraining Plates request

Read More

ASTM F1140

ASTM F1140 Pressurization Tests for Packaging Request a quote Standard Summary ASTM F1140/F1140M-13(2020) Standard Test Methods for Internal Pressurization Failure

Read More

ASTM D3078

ASTM D3078 Comprehensive Overview of – The Most Used Package Leak Testing Method Request a Quote Standard Summary ASTM D3078,

Read More

ASTM F2338

ASTM F2338 Non-Destructive Vacuum Decay Leak Test Method request a quote Standard Summary ASTM F2338 Standard Test Method for Nondestructive

Read More

ASTM F2096

ASTM F2096 Leak Testing Standard: Bubble Leak Test Test Theory and Process Overview The ASTM F2096 test is designed to

Read More

Leak and Seal Strength Tester

The LSST-03 Leak and Seal Strength Tester is a state-of-the-art device engineered for rigorous assessment of package seal integrity across various industries. This equipment is crucial for verifying that packaging maintains its protective capabilities, thereby safeguarding product quality and safety. It is particularly suited for applications involving flexible packaging but is also adaptable to test non-flexible and rigid materials through its customizable design.

Read More