PTI Inspection Systems, a manufacturer of non-destructive package inspection technologies for the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, is set to launch a new VeriPac 455 Micro Leak Tester at the Interphex Show, April 20-22, 2010 in New York, reported Pharmaceutical Online.
PTI Inspection Systems said that VeriPac 455 technology, which is based on the ASTM vacuum decay leak test method F2338-09, was developed using VeriPac instruments.
The VeriPac 455 is competent of detecting leak size down to 0.005 cc/min and can be incorporated into protocols at any point in the handling process since it is non-destructive, non-invasive and requires no sample preparation. Applications for this technology include stability studies, clinical studies, quality assurance testing and production statistical process control (SPC).
According to PTI Inspection Systems, case studies in the domain of container closure integrity using VeriPac vacuum decay technology have proven that it is an effective, beneficial non-destructive leak test method to inspect pharmaceutical packaging.
Heinz Wolf, general manager of PTI Inspection Systems, said: “The VeriPac Model 455 demonstrates the latest evolution in VeriPac technology. New features incorporate significant advances in internet connectivity and networking capabilities which enable remote operation, system monitoring and troubleshooting.
“Setup and operation have never been easier. We have also built in various levels of security and accessibility for operators, supervisors and technical personnel, all of which can be customized according to each company’s preference and needs.
“Destructive test methods without a data stream are being replaced more and more by systems that conform to a uniform standard, such as ASTM. The focus and goal of PTI’s inspection technologies is to exclude subjectivity from package testing, as well as maintain the integrity of the package so it can enter the market or be used for further testing.
“Subjective testing using destructive test methods can be costly by providing misleading results and results that vary from operator to operator, which further complicates the inspection and validation processes.”