ArticleBioprocess and biosystems engineering2022
Continuous background correction of refractive index signal to improve monoclonal antibody concentration monitoring during UF/DF and SPTFF operations.
Article in Bioprocess and biosystems engineering, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Review on Quantitative Process Analytical Technology for Continuous Downstream Processing of Monoclonal Antibodies.Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Inline refractive index (RI) has the potential for monitoring protein concentration during final bulk concentration. While useful for monitoring and controlling product concentration, RI is sensitive to the respective background buffer being used for processing. This raises concerns around variations in buffer preparations, and during diafiltration where the buffer background is a mixture of different buffers during exchange. This study evaluated whether the use of a RI probe in the permeate line could facilitate continuous background subtraction (dual RI) and improve concentration monitoring during ultrafiltration/diafiltration and single pass TFF concentration for IgG1 and IgG4 antibodies. The proposed dual RI strategy yielded reductions in % error compared to the use of a single refractive index estimate from the retentate line (6.18% vs 8.63% for IgG4 and 2.65% vs 8.85% for IgG1) during traditional ultrafiltration/diafiltration. The improvement in IgG estimates were best during diafiltration where the continuous background subtraction of the permeate RI-enabled continuous monitoring of antibody material without knowledge of what the background buffer was compared to the use of a single RI estimate (6.47% vs 10.79% for IgG4 and 3.29% vs 19.59% for IgG1). In contrast minimal improvement to accuracy was obtained when using SPTFF as a concentration step. The ability to monitor product concentration changes via the proposed dual RI approach removes the need for complex calibrations, minimal worry about changing buffer backgrounds during diafiltration, and could enable better process control during product concentration in the cGMP manufacture of biologics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.