Elemental Impurities: Complete Guide to ICH Q3D Compliance

An elemental impurity is an inorganic trace element present in drug substances or products that must be controlled to ensure patient safety. ICH Q3D establishes internationally harmonized permitted daily exposure (PDE) limits for 24 metal and metalloid elements across pharmaceutical development.

If you're preparing CMC sections for regulatory submissions, elemental impurities represent one of the most technically demanding quality attributes. A single measurement above PDE limits can trigger complete batch rejection, regulatory holds, or require extensive justification in Module 3.

Unlike organic impurities with structure-based acceptance criteria, elemental contaminants require risk-based assessment across manufacturing processes, excipients, container closure systems, and water sources. Most CMC teams underestimate the documentation burden until FDA questions arrive.

In this guide, you'll learn:

• How ICH Q3D categorizes elemental impurities and establishes PDE limits for regulatory compliance
• When elemental impurity testing is required versus when risk assessment alone suffices
• Which analytical methods (ICP-MS, ICP-OES, AAS) meet regulatory expectations for sensitivity
• How to document risk assessments that satisfy FDA, EMA, and Health Canada reviewers

What Are Elemental Impurities? [ICH Q3D Definition]

Elemental impurities are distinct from organic process impurities addressed by ICH Q3A/Q3B. Rather than having defined chemical structures, elemental impurities are inorganic elements originating from manufacturing equipment (stainless steel, reactors), catalysts and processing aids (palladium, platinum), container closure systems (glass leachables), or raw material sources (mineral-derived excipients).

Key characteristics of elemental impurities:

• Originate from intentional additions (catalysts, processing aids) or inadvertent contamination (equipment, water, excipients)
• Controlled by permitted daily exposure (PDE) limits based on route of administration and duration of treatment
• Require risk-based control strategies rather than universal testing mandates
• Must be evaluated across the entire manufacturing process from API synthesis through finished product

ICH Q3D applies to new drug products (NDAs, BLAs) and new drug substances introduced after December 2015. Legacy products must comply upon significant manufacturing changes or when risk assessment indicates potential concerns.

The ICH Q3D Classification System

ICH Q3D categorizes 24 elemental impurities into three classes based on toxicity and probability of occurrence in pharmaceutical manufacturing. This classification determines whether testing is necessary or risk assessment alone is sufficient.

Class 1: High Toxicity Elements (Mandatory Risk Assessment)

Class 1 elements have significant safety concerns with the lowest PDE limits. These elements must always be evaluated, though testing may not be required if risk assessment demonstrates absence.

Class 1 risk assessment requirement: If manufacturing uses these elements as catalysts or if they're present in excipients/water above 30% of PDE, testing is mandatory. Otherwise, documented risk assessment may suffice.

Class 2A: Route-Dependent Toxicity (Common in Manufacturing)

Class 2A elements appear frequently in pharmaceutical manufacturing and require evaluation. Their presence is likely, making testing more common than Class 1.

Class 2A testing trigger: These elements commonly appear as catalysts in API synthesis or from equipment contact. Testing is typically required unless comprehensive risk assessment demonstrates negligible risk.

Class 2B: Route-Dependent Toxicity (Reduced Concern)

Class 2B elements have route-dependent PDEs but lower probability of occurrence. Testing is required only when risk assessment identifies specific concerns.

Class 2B testing strategy: Focus testing on elements actually used in synthesis (palladium, platinum for catalytic steps) rather than universal Class 2B panels unless excipient risk assessment indicates broader concerns.

Class 3: Lower Toxicity Elements (Oral Route Only)

Class 3 elements are considered lower toxicity concerns for oral products. They require evaluation only for parenteral and inhalation routes.

Class 3 exemption: For oral solid dosage forms, Class 3 elements typically don't require testing unless present at exceptionally high levels or when parenteral/inhalation routes apply. ICH Q3D classifies 7 elements as Class 3, with significantly higher PDE limits compared to Class 1 and 2 elements. Note that other elements (Fe, Mn, Zn, Al, B, Ca, K, Mg, Na, W) are not classified under Q3D as no PDE has been established due to their low inherent toxicity.

When Is Elemental Impurity Testing Required?

ICH Q3D uses a risk-based approach rather than mandating universal testing. The decision tree balances manufacturing knowledge, analytical data, and toxicological limits to determine control strategies.

Risk Assessment Decision Framework

Scenarios Requiring Measurement

Scenarios Exempting Testing

“

Regulatory Expectation: FDA and EMA expect documented risk assessments even when testing is not performed. A missing risk assessment is a deficiency, regardless of actual impurity levels.

Elemental Impurity Testing Methods

ICH Q3D requires analytical methods capable of measuring elemental impurities at or below established PDE limits. Method selection depends on required sensitivity, sample matrix, throughput requirements, and regulatory precedent.

ICP-MS (Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry)

Best for: Low PDE limits (Class 1, parenteral routes, inhalation)

ICP-MS advantages:

• Lowest detection limits of any technique, meeting parenteral and inhalation PDEs
• Simultaneous multi-element analysis reduces per-element cost
• High specificity with mass resolution
• Accepted globally by all major regulatory agencies

ICP-MS limitations:

• Requires sample digestion (acid destruction of organic matrix)
• Spectral interferences from polyatomic ions (e.g., ArCl+ interferes with As+)
• Higher capital equipment cost ($150K-$500K)
• Trained analyst requirement for method development

ICP-OES (Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry)

Best for: Higher PDE limits (Class 3, oral routes, screening)

ICP-OES advantages:

• Simpler operation than ICP-MS
• Lower equipment cost ($75K-$200K)
• Fewer spectral interferences
• Robust for high-throughput screening

ICP-OES limitations:

• Insufficient sensitivity for Class 1 elements at parenteral PDEs
• Cannot meet ICH Q3D limits for inhalation routes
• Still requires sample digestion

AAS (Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy)

Best for: Single-element confirmation, legacy methods

AAS use cases:

• Confirming specific elements flagged by screening
• Legacy stability programs not yet transitioned to ICH Q3D
• Resource-limited laboratories with existing AAS infrastructure

Why AAS is declining: Multi-element ICP methods are more efficient for ICH Q3D compliance. Testing 10 elements costs less with ICP-MS than 10 individual AAS runs.

Method Comparison for Common Scenarios

PDE Limits and Dose Calculations

Permitted daily exposure (PDE) represents the maximum acceptable daily intake of an elemental impurity based on route of administration. Calculating whether testing results comply requires accurate dose-based assessments.

PDE Calculation Formula

Route-Specific PDE Modifiers

Different administration routes have different systemic exposure profiles, justifying distinct PDE limits.

“

Critical Point: A drug substance specification based on oral PDE limits fails for parenteral formulation development. Establish specifications based on the most restrictive intended route.

Duration Modifiers for Short-Term Use

ICH Q3D PDEs assume chronic exposure (>10 years). Short-duration therapies may justify higher limits.

Regulatory caution: While ICH Q3D permits higher limits for short-term use, agencies scrutinize justifications. FDA reviewers often request chronic-use PDE compliance unless strong patient benefit justification exists.

Multi-Element Summation

When multiple elemental impurities from the same toxicity class are present, some regulatory agencies expect summation of risk.

ICH Q3D position: Summation is not required because PDEs are derived independently.

EMA position: For elements with similar toxicity mechanisms, summation may be requested.

Practical approach:

• If individual elements are all <50% of their respective PDEs, summation issues rarely arise
• If multiple elements approach 80-100% of PDEs, proactive summation assessment demonstrates quality control

Risk Assessment Documentation Requirements

A compliant elemental impurities risk assessment under ICH Q3D requires systematic evaluation of all potential sources, quantitative predictions, and clear testing decisions. Regulatory deficiencies most often cite inadequate documentation, not actual impurity presence.

Risk Assessment Components

Every ICH Q3D risk assessment must address:

1. Manufacturing Process Evaluation

- Complete list of reagents, catalysts, and processing aids with elemental composition

- Equipment material of construction for all contact surfaces

- Water quality specifications and elemental profiles

- Purification steps and expected elemental removal efficiency

1. Excipient Evaluation

- Certificates of analysis for all excipients showing elemental impurity data

- Contribution calculations based on excipient levels and formulation quantities

- Supplier qualification demonstrating consistent quality

1. Container Closure System

- Extractables/leachables studies per ICH Q3D requirements

- Migration potential under storage conditions

- Compatibility with dose-based PDE calculations

1. Risk Scoring and Prioritization

- Qualitative or quantitative scoring of likelihood and severity

- Identification of high-risk elements requiring testing

- Justification for elements excluded from testing

FDA Module 3.2.P.5.5 Expectations

The drug product quality specification section must include:

For elements requiring testing:

• Analytical method reference with validation summary
• Acceptance criteria with PDE-based justification
• Batch data demonstrating compliance (minimum 3 batches)

For elements excluded via risk assessment:

• Summary risk assessment table showing all 24 ICH Q3D elements
• Source evaluation (present/absent with rationale)
• Predicted concentration vs. 30% PDE threshold
• Conclusion statement for each element (test vs. no test)

EMA Module 3.2.P.5.5 Expectations

EMA reviews often request:

• Manufacturing flow diagram annotated with potential elemental impurity sources
• Quantitative calculations for equipment contribution (surface area, contact time, worst-case leaching)
• Excipient specifications including elemental impurity limits
• Justification for any elements tested but not specified (acceptance criteria vs. reporting threshold)

Common Deficiency Examples

Drug Substance vs. Drug Product Testing Strategy

ICH Q3D requires elemental impurity control at both the drug substance (API) and drug product (finished dosage form) levels. The testing strategy differs based on manufacturing process knowledge and risk profiles.

Drug Substance (API) Testing

Primary focus: Elements introduced during synthesis or present in starting materials

Drug substance specification strategy:

• Include all catalyst metals with acceptance criteria ≤50% of the PDE contribution to maximum drug product dose
• Tighter drug substance limits provide formulation flexibility
• Consider future formulation developments (higher dose, parenteral routes)

Drug Product Testing

Primary focus: Elements from excipients, manufacturing equipment, container closure systems

Testing optimization:

• If drug substance controls all Class 1 and catalyst metals, and excipients have suitable COAs, drug product testing may be limited or unnecessary
• If excipients lack elemental data, test finished product to capture all contributions
• Include at least one representative batch in product testing to confirm risk assessment predictions

Combination Testing Strategy Example

Scenario: Small molecule oral solid, 200 mg strength, palladium catalyst used in synthesis

Method Validation Requirements for Elemental Impurity Testing

USP <232> and <233> establish validation requirements specific to elemental impurities, supplementing general ICH Q2(R2) method validation principles (USP chapters originally referenced ICH Q2(R1), but the current harmonized standard is Q2(R2), adopted November 2023).

Critical Validation Parameters

Sample Preparation Validation

Elemental impurity methods typically require acid digestion or extraction. The sample preparation procedure requires separate validation elements:

Recovery studies:

• Spike elements into drug product matrix at 50%, 100%, and 150% of specification
• Process through complete sample preparation
• Demonstrate recovery within acceptance range (70-150%)
• Perform in triplicate at each level

Matrix effects assessment:

• Compare calibration curves in neat solution vs. matrix-matched solution
• Slope ratio >0.9 indicates minimal matrix suppression/enhancement
• If matrix effects >10%, use standard addition or matrix-matched calibration

Digestion efficiency:

• Visual inspection of digested samples (clear, no particulates)
• Spike poorly soluble element compounds (e.g., lead sulfate) to challenge digestion
• Include positive control (spiked matrix) and negative control (blank matrix) in each batch

LOQ Determination and Justification

The limit of quantitation must enable specification testing with adequate sensitivity.

LOQ requirement calculation:

LOQ validation:

• Prepare 6 replicates at target LOQ concentration
• RSD should be ≤20% (trace analysis acceptance)
• Accuracy should be 70-130% of nominal
• Signal-to-noise ratio ≥10:1

Regulatory Method Validation Deficiencies

Supplier Qualification and Excipient Control

Excipients often contribute more elemental impurities than the API itself, yet many applicants inadequately address excipient control in ICH Q3D assessments.

Excipient Supplier Qualification

Tier 1: Supplier with ICH Q3D data

• Supplier provides elemental impurity data per ICH Q3D (all 24 elements or risk assessment)
• Certificate of Analysis includes relevant elements with quantitative limits
• Periodic re-testing confirms specification compliance
• Regulatory acceptance: High. Include supplier data in risk assessment, minimal in-house testing needed.

Tier 2: Supplier with partial data

• Supplier provides data for some elements (e.g., Class 1 only)
• Historical data suggests low risk but no formal ICH Q3D assessment
• Approach: Request expanded testing, or test incoming excipients for missing elements, or test finished product to capture all contributions.

Tier 3: Supplier with no elemental data

• Supplier provides no elemental impurity information
• Common for legacy excipients or small suppliers
• Approach: Test excipient lots in-house, or test finished product with conservative risk assessment assumptions, or qualify alternative supplier.

Excipient Testing vs. Finished Product Testing

Calculating Excipient Contribution

Step 1: Obtain excipient elemental impurity data

• Request COA data from supplier
• If unavailable, test representative lots (minimum 3 lots)

Step 2: Calculate contribution to finished product

Step 3: Sum contributions from all excipients

Step 4: Compare to PDE-based limit

Excipient Change Control

When excipient suppliers change or excipient grades are substituted, ICH Q3D evaluation must be repeated:

• Obtain elemental data from new supplier
• Recalculate risk assessment
• If new supplier data shows higher levels, test finished product to confirm compliance
• Update risk assessment documentation and DMF if applicable

Container Closure System Considerations

Container closure systems can introduce elemental impurities through leaching, particularly for liquid formulations with prolonged storage.

When Container Closure Evaluation Is Required

Extractables Studies for Elemental Impurities

Study design:

• Expose container closure components to worst-case extraction conditions (elevated temperature, aggressive solvents)
• Analyze extractables using ICP-MS for elemental impurities
• Compare extracted levels to PDE limits considering:

- Extraction conditions vs. storage conditions (apply safety factor)

- Container surface area to product volume ratio

- Storage duration

Acceptance criteria:

• Extracted elemental levels <10% of PDE when normalized to patient exposure
• If extracted levels >10% PDE, conduct leachables study under real storage conditions

Leachables Studies for Elemental Impurities

Study design:

• Store drug product in final container closure under ICH stability conditions (25°C/60% RH, 40°C/75% RH)
• Test product for elemental impurities at 0, 3, 6, 12, 24 months
• Identify any increasing trends indicating ongoing leaching

Interpretation:

Regulatory expectation: EMA and FDA expect E&L studies for all parenteral products and most oral liquids. Solid oral products in conventional packaging (HDPE, PVC blister) can typically justify exemption via risk assessment.

Regulatory Submission Strategy

Elemental impurities documentation spans multiple CTD sections. A cohesive strategy prevents deficiencies and streamlines regulatory review.

CTD Module 3 Placement

Risk Assessment Summary Table (Recommended Format)

Provide a summary table in Section 3.2.P.5.5 addressing all ICH Q3D elements:

Pre-Submission Preparation Checklist

• [ ] Risk assessment complete for all 24 ICH Q3D elements
• [ ] Quantitative calculations for all "not tested" elements showing <30% PDE
• [ ] Excipient supplier data obtained and evaluated
• [ ] Catalyst purge data available if catalysts used
• [ ] Method validation complete with LOQ ≤50% of specification
• [ ] Batch data available (minimum 3 batches) demonstrating specification compliance
• [ ] Container closure extractables study (if applicable)
• [ ] Specifications include PDE-based acceptance criteria with clear derivation
• [ ] Quality Overall Summary (QOS) addresses elemental impurities strategy

Common Implementation Challenges

Challenge 1: Legacy Products Without ICH Q3D Data

Situation: Product approved before ICH Q3D effective date (2016) lacks elemental impurity testing.

Regulatory trigger for update:

• Post-approval manufacturing site change
• New formulation or strength
• Conversion to different route of administration
• Routine GMP inspection findings

Approach:

• Conduct retrospective risk assessment
• Test archived stability samples if available
• Establish specifications prospectively
• Include in next annual report or supplement

Challenge 2: Catalyst Removal Efficiency Unknown

Situation: API synthesis uses palladium or platinum catalyst, but purge data was never generated.

Resolution options:

1. Spiking study: Spike catalyst into process at known level, track through purification, demonstrate >1000× reduction
2. Analytical confirmation: Test drug substance batches with validated method showing levels <10% of PDE
3. Process understanding: Document filtration, crystallization, or chromatography steps expected to remove catalyst

Regulatory acceptance: Option 2 (measure and demonstrate low levels) is simplest and most accepted.

Challenge 3: Excipient Supplier Cannot Provide Data

Situation: Excipient supplier lacks ICH Q3D testing and will not perform it.

Options:

• Test excipient in-house: Validate method for excipient matrix, test representative lots, establish incoming specification
• Test finished product: Simpler than excipient testing; captures all sources but cannot isolate excipient contribution
• Qualify alternative supplier: If excipient is high-risk and current supplier uncooperative, switch to supplier with data
• Conservative risk assessment: Assume worst-case excipient contribution, design product specification accordingly

Challenge 4: Specification Limit Approaching PDE

Situation: Analytical results show elemental impurity at 85% of PDE-based specification.

Risk assessment:

• Immediate: Product remains compliant, no regulatory action needed
• Long-term concern: Variability could cause future failures; process improvement recommended

Mitigation strategies:

• Investigate source (equipment, excipient lot variability, environmental)
• Tighten incoming material specifications
• Implement process controls (equipment passivation, water system improvements)
• Consider tighter internal specification (e.g., 60% of PDE) with regulatory specification at PDE

Key Takeaways

Next Steps

Elemental impurities represent a critical quality attribute requiring proactive planning before regulatory submission. Inadequate documentation triggers information requests that delay approval timelines.

Organizations managing regulatory submissions benefit from automated validation tools that catch errors before gateway rejection. Assyro's AI-powered platform validates eCTD submissions against FDA, EMA, and Health Canada requirements, providing detailed error reports and remediation guidance before submission.

Sources