Blogs

Pharmaceutical and medical device packaging has evolved alongside advances in product formulation, storage requirements, and global distribution. Containers are no longer simple protective shells; they are engineered systems designed to preserve sterility, stability, and performance throughout the product lifecycle. As packaging structures grow more complex, evaluating their integrity requires testing methods that match the physical and material characteristics of each design.

Leak detection technology selection is often shaped by packaging geometry, materials, headspace conditions, and product sensitivity. A testing method that performs well for rigid glass vials may not provide accurate data for flexible pouches or multi-layer device packaging. Understanding how packaging design influences testing capability helps manufacturers align testing strategies with both performance expectations and regulatory demands.

Packaging Design Factors that Influence Leak Detection Performance

• Material composition and structure: Glass, plastics, foil laminates, and flexible materials respond differently to vacuum, pressure, electrical, and gas-based testing methods.
• Package rigidity or flexibility: Rigid containers allow stable testing environments, while flexible formats may deform and require alternative detection techniques.
• Seal and closure configuration: Heat seals, adhesive seals, crimped caps, and mechanical closures influence where and how leaks can form and be detected.
• Seal consistency and manufacturing variation: Variations in seal temperature, pressure, or alignment can create microchannels that demand sensitive and repeatable testing methods.
• Modified atmosphere or gas-filled packaging: Packages containing controlled gases need detection methods capable of identifying very small gas exchanges.
• Product characteristics: Liquids, powders, biologics, and combination devices interact differently with testing systems and may limit certain methods.
• Product sensitivity to test conditions: Some formulations cannot tolerate pressure changes, electrical exposure, or temperature shifts during testing.
• Regulatory and compliance expectations: Packaging design and testing approaches must align with deterministic testing preferences and documented validation requirements.

Selecting Leak Detection Technologies that Align with Design and Compliance Needs

Packaging formats, material types, and regulatory expectations influence the choice of leak detection methods across pharmaceutical and medical device applications. Selecting appropriate technologies allows accurate evaluation of package integrity throughout development and production.

Vacuum Decay Technology: Vacuum decay technology is a deterministic, non-destructive method that evaluates package integrity by measuring pressure changes within a sealed vacuum chamber. When a package is placed under vacuum, any defect allows air or gas to escape, creating measurable pressure variation. This approach is widely used for rigid and semi-rigid containers such as vials, bottles, and blister packs with adequate headspace. It delivers quantitative results and repeatable measurements, making it suitable for production and laboratory environments.

High Voltage Leak Detection (HVLD): High Voltage Leak Detection (HVLD) uses electrical conductivity to identify defects in liquid-filled, non-porous pharmaceutical packaging. During testing, a controlled electrical signal passes through the container. If a leak or microcrack is present, current flows through the defect, producing a measurable response. This technique is commonly applied to vials, ampoules, cartridges, and pre-filled syringes containing conductive liquids. HVLD is non-destructive and provides consistent results for detecting micro-level defects that may not be visible through visual inspection.

Airborne Ultrasound Technology: Airborne ultrasound technology is a seal quality inspection method used to evaluate packaging integrity. It is an ASTM F3004 test method and a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recognized standard for seal quality testing. This method captures ultrasonic signals generated by air movement through seal defects, enabling accurate identification of incomplete or weak seals. It provides a practical and cost-efficient option for inspecting final package seals while offering repeatable and reliable results across diverse packaging configurations.

Helium Leak Detection: Helium leak detection uses helium as a tracer gas to identify and measure extremely small leak paths in sealed packaging systems. Because helium molecules are very small and inert, they can pass through microscopic defects that other gases may not. During testing, packages are either filled with helium or exposed to a helium environment, and a mass spectrometer measures any escaping gas. This method offers highly sensitive and quantitative leak rate data, making it suitable for package development, validation, and research applications.

Packaging design and leak detection technology selection are closely linked. Material choice, seal configuration, headspace conditions, and product characteristics all influence how a testing method performs. As packaging formats continue to evolve, selecting technologies that align with design attributes and compliance expectations allows manufacturers to evaluate integrity with greater confidence.

A thoughtful approach to method selection—one that considers both design complexity and testing capability—helps create packaging systems that perform reliably throughout storage, distribution, and use.

Leak detection and seal evaluation influence how pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device packaging performs throughout storage, distribution, and use. As packaging formats evolve and regulatory expectations continue to mature, testing strategies have also advanced beyond traditional inspection methods. However, misunderstandings around leak detection persist, often shaping test selection and validation approaches in ways that do not fully reflect real-world packaging behaviour. Examining these misconceptions provides clarity on how seal quality inspection methods can be better aligned with product characteristics, packaging design, and quality objectives.

Understanding the Risks of Inadequate Leak Evaluation

When leak evaluation methods lack precision or consistency, package defects may remain undetected until later stages of the product lifecycle. Microscopic pathways in seals or materials can allow the ingress of gases, moisture, or microorganisms. Over time, such exposure may influence sterility, chemical stability, or physical appearance of the product.

Another challenge arises from test methods that rely on subjective interpretation. Visual inspection and manual techniques vary by operator and environmental conditions, which introduces variability into the evaluation process. This variability can obscure trends, making it difficult to identify recurring seal issues or process drift.

Limited detection capability also affects investigation efforts when packaging failures occur. Without quantitative data, assessing defect size or understanding how a leak formed becomes more complex. This lack of measurable insight can slow corrective actions and reduce confidence in packaging validation. In highly regulated environments, incomplete leak data may result in extended review cycles or additional testing requirements.

Inadequate leak evaluation may also influence supply chain outcomes. Packages exposed to temperature shifts, vibration, and handling stress may perform differently than anticipated if seal quality has not been thoroughly assessed. These challenges highlight the need for testing approaches that provide repeatable, data-driven results across a range of packaging conditions.

Key Myths in Package Leak Evaluation

Despite advances in testing technologies, several misconceptions continue to shape how leak detection and seal evaluation are approached.

Myth 1: Greater sensitivity always leads to better outcomes

Sensitivity is often highlighted when comparing leak detection methods, yet sensitivity alone does not describe how a package will behave in real use. Detecting extremely small leaks without understanding their relevance to product exposure can lead to over-interpretation of results. A more balanced approach considers measurable leak characteristics alongside product formulation, headspace conditions, and storage environment.

Myth 2: All leaks have the same impact

Leak pathways vary in size, geometry, and location, and these variations influence how gases or liquids move through a package. A defect in a sterile injectable container may lead to different outcomes than a similar-sized defect in a non-sterile or dry product package. Treating all leaks as equivalent overlooks the interaction between packaging materials and product attributes.

Myth 3: Visual inspection provides sufficient seal evaluation

Visual inspection remains widely used due to its simplicity, yet it cannot consistently identify micro-level seal defects. Channel leaks, pinholes, and material stress fractures often fall below the threshold of visual detection. While visual checks may identify surface-level irregularities, they offer limited insight into seal continuity or permeability.

Myth 4: Destructive testing offers higher confidence

Destructive methods such as peel or burst testing can provide information about seal strength, but they do not always reflect package performance under real storage or distribution conditions. These methods also limit sample availability and do not allow repeated measurements on the same unit. Non-destructive, deterministic technologies enable repeated evaluation and trend analysis without altering the package, which enhances data consistency.

Myth 5: A single test method suits all packaging formats

Packaging systems differ widely in material composition, seal geometry, and internal headspace. Rigid containers, flexible pouches, and combination format each present unique evaluation challenges. If one method applies universally can result in incomplete assessment of certain defect types. Test selection benefits from understanding the interaction between the method and the package design.

Misconceptions surrounding leak detection and seal evaluation continue to influence packaging test strategies across regulated industries. Overemphasis on sensitivity, continued reliance on visual inspection, and assumptions about uniform leak behaviour can narrow how package performance is assessed. These approaches may leave gaps in defect identification, data interpretation, and overall process understanding.

Shifting toward quantitative, repeatable leak evaluation methods provides clearer insight into how packaging performs across its lifecycle. Techniques such as vacuum decay offer pressure-based measurement of package integrity, while high voltage leak detection (HVLD) enables evaluation of liquid-filled, non-porous containers through electrical conductivity. Airborne ultrasound adds further visibility by identifying seal irregularities through sound-based detection, particularly in flexible and porous packaging formats. When applied thoughtfully, these technologies allow comparison of results across materials, seal designs, and production conditions.

By reevaluating long-held assumptions and aligning evaluation techniques with packaging characteristics, manufacturers can strengthen their approach to seal assessment and package integrity. Addressing these myths encourages more consistent testing practices and promotes clearer understanding of how leaks and seal variations influence overall packaging performance.