Understanding OEB Containment Requirements

When I first encountered the challenge of selecting appropriate containment technology for a high-potency API project, I quickly learned that navigating OEB classifications would be fundamental to making the right decision. The Occupational Exposure Band (OEB) classification system isn’t just another industry acronym—it’s the cornerstone of pharmaceutical safety standards that directly impacts equipment selection, facility design, and operator protection strategies.

OEB classifications categorize compounds based on their toxicity and the acceptable exposure limits for workers. The system typically ranges from OEB 1 (least potent) to OEB 5 (highly potent), with each level corresponding to specific airborne concentration limits measured in μg/m³. These exposure limits decrease dramatically as you move up the scale, with OEB 4 compounds typically limited to 1-10 μg/m³ and OEB 5 compounds requiring protection at <1 μg/m³ levels.

What’s particularly challenging is that these classifications aren’t merely suggestions—they reflect real health risks that can have serious consequences if containment fails. During a recent industry conference, Dr. Martin Holloway, an industrial hygienist with 20 years in pharmaceutical safety, emphasized that “selecting an isolator with insufficient containment capacity isn’t just a compliance issue; it represents a genuine health risk to manufacturing personnel.”

The regulatory landscape compounds this complexity. While the OEB system itself isn’t explicitly written into regulations, health authorities worldwide increasingly expect manufacturers to implement appropriate containment strategies based on compound toxicity. The FDA, EMA, and other regulatory bodies evaluate containment approaches during inspections, making proper isolator selection critical for compliance.

Looking at the actual exposure limits helps clarify why precision in selection matters:

What complicates matters further is that compounds can be reclassified as new toxicological data emerges. I’ve witnessed facilities scrambling to upgrade containment strategies after a reclassification event—a costly and disruptive scenario that proper planning could have mitigated.

Key Considerations for OEB Isolator Selection

The selection process for an OEB isolator involves balancing multiple factors beyond simply matching the equipment to your compound’s OEB classification. I’ve found that organizations often focus exclusively on meeting the minimum containment requirements while overlooking other critical considerations that affect long-term success.

Your facility’s physical constraints represent the first hurdle. During a recent project consultation, we discovered that a client’s ceiling height would not accommodate their desired isolator configuration—a realization that forced a substantial redesign. Take precise measurements of available space, including ceiling height, doorway dimensions for equipment delivery, and utility access points. This assessment should also consider future flexibility needs; I’ve seen too many operations hampered by containment solutions that couldn’t adapt to evolving processes.

Process requirements form another crucial dimension. Consider batch sizes, manufacturing steps to be performed within the isolator, and material handling requirements. Dr. Sarah Chen, Head of Manufacturing Science at a major pharmaceutical company, notes that “the most common mistake we see is selecting an isolator based on general specifications rather than analyzing the specific manipulations operators will perform.” Ask detailed questions: Will you perform weighing, sampling, charging, or other operations? Each activity brings unique containment challenges that affect design requirements.

Take material transfer mechanisms, for example. The QUALIA technical team emphasizes that material entry and exit represents one of the highest contamination risks in any containment system. Different approaches offer varying levels of protection:

Budget considerations extend beyond the initial purchase price. The OEB4-OEB5 isolator systems require ongoing investment in maintenance, certification, consumables, and utilities. One manufacturing director I spoke with admitted they had selected a lower-cost isolator only to find that higher energy consumption and maintenance requirements resulted in a higher total cost of ownership within just three years.

Ergonomic factors directly impact both containment effectiveness and operational efficiency. Poorly designed glove ports or uncomfortable working heights lead to operator fatigue, which increases the risk of procedural errors. I’ve witnessed operations where seemingly minor design issues led to workarounds that compromised containment—a classic example of how overlooking operator experience can undermine safety investments.

What’s particularly challenging is balancing current needs against future flexibility. The pharmaceutical landscape evolves rapidly, and today’s dedicated product line might need retooling for different compounds tomorrow. The most successful implementations I’ve seen incorporated modular designs that allowed for reconfiguration as needs changed.

Technical Specifications That Matter

When evaluating technical specifications for high-containment isolators, the details make all the difference between adequate protection and exceptional performance. During a factory acceptance test I attended last year, an otherwise well-designed isolator failed containment verification due to a single suboptimal technical specification—inadequate airflow at a critical transfer point.

Air management systems represent the foundation of containment performance. The basic principle seems straightforward—maintain negative pressure within the isolator to prevent outward migration of contaminants—but the execution requires precision engineering. Advanced pharmaceutical isolator systems typically maintain pressure differentials between -35 Pa and -70 Pa relative to the surrounding room, with continuous monitoring to detect any deviations.

HEPA filtration forms another critical component, with most OEB 4 and OEB 5 applications requiring both supply and exhaust HEPA filtration. What’s not immediately obvious is the importance of filter housing design. Jennifer Wilkins, a containment specialist I consulted with, explained that “leak paths around filters can undermine containment regardless of filter efficiency.” The most effective systems incorporate bag-in/bag-out housings that allow filter changes without breaking containment.

The specification data reveals significant design differences between containment levels:

Containment verification represents a particularly nuanced area. The industry has moved beyond simplistic smoke visualization tests to sophisticated surrogate powder testing methods that quantify actual containment performance. The ISPE Good Practice Guide recommends using surrogate compounds with appropriate physical characteristics and analytical detection methods to verify containment to the required OEB level. During a recent project, our team selected naproxen sodium as a surrogate compound based on its detection sensitivity and handling properties similar to our target API.

Material construction quality significantly impacts both performance and longevity. For OEB 4 and OEB 5 applications, 316L stainless steel with electropolished finishing (surface roughness Ra <0.5 μm) has become standard due to its cleanability and resistance to aggressive cleaning agents. However, I’ve noticed an industry trend toward advanced polymer composites for certain components, offering improved chemical resistance and reduced risk of particle generation from mechanical wear.

Integration capabilities with upstream and downstream equipment often receive insufficient attention during specification development. One pharmaceutical client discovered too late that their new high-containment isolator system couldn’t physically connect with their existing processing equipment due to incompatible transfer systems. Comprehensive technical specifications should address not just the isolator itself but all interfaces with other process equipment.

Control systems have evolved substantially in recent years, moving from basic PLC controls to sophisticated monitoring and data management platforms. The most advanced systems offer remote monitoring capabilities, electronic batch records integration, and predictive maintenance algorithms—features that can significantly reduce operating costs over the equipment lifecycle.

Advanced Features in Modern OEB Isolators

The evolution in isolator technology over the past decade has been remarkable. When I first entered the field, isolators were primarily passive containment devices. Today’s systems integrate smart technologies that actively enhance safety while improving operational efficiency. These advancements aren’t mere bells and whistles—they address fundamental challenges in high-containment manufacturing.

Automation capabilities represent perhaps the most significant leap forward. Modern systems incorporate robotics and automated handling systems that minimize the need for glove port interventions—traditionally the weakest points in containment integrity. During a demonstration of an advanced OEB 5 isolator last month, I observed automated sampling systems that reduced operator interventions by nearly 70% compared to previous-generation equipment.

Real-time monitoring systems have transformed how we verify ongoing containment performance. Gone are the days of periodic manual checks; advanced isolators now feature continuous particle monitoring, airflow sensors, and pressure differential tracking with alarming functions. These systems don’t just identify containment breaches after they occur—they detect subtle trends that predict potential failures before containment is compromised.

The integration of vision systems represents another breakthrough. One pharmaceutical manufacturer I visited recently installed isolators with integrated cameras that allowed supervisors to observe operations remotely, enhancing training effectiveness and enabling rapid intervention when procedural deviations were observed. These systems reduce the number of personnel required in classified areas while improving oversight.

Ergonomic advancements have progressed beyond basic considerations to sophisticated design elements. Adjustable-height work surfaces, optimally positioned glove ports, and improved lighting systems significantly reduce operator fatigue—a critical factor in maintaining procedural discipline. I’ve spoken with operators who described how these seemingly minor improvements dramatically reduced the physical strain during extended manufacturing campaigns.

The industry’s most innovative features combine multiple advantages:

Cross-contamination prevention has become increasingly sophisticated as multiproduct manufacturing grows more common. Advanced isolator designs incorporate dedicated air handling systems for each processing zone, specialized coating technologies that resist particle adhesion, and automated cleaning systems that achieve consistent results without relying on operator technique.

What particularly impressed me during my review of the technological advances was how these features work synergistically. For example, the combination of real-time monitoring with automated cleaning validation creates a documented assurance of containment integrity that wasn’t possible with previous generations of equipment. As manufacturing engineer David Petersen explained during a recent industry panel, “The integration of these advanced features doesn’t just improve safety margins—it fundamentally changes how we approach containment strategy development.”

The push toward data integration has yielded perhaps the most transformative benefit: predictive maintenance capabilities. By analyzing performance patterns, advanced systems can identify potential component failures before they impact production, significantly reducing unplanned downtime and containment risks associated with emergency maintenance.

Industry Applications and Use Cases

The application of OEB isolator technology varies significantly across industry segments, with each facing unique challenges and priorities. Having consulted across multiple pharmaceutical sectors, I’ve observed how containment requirements evolve based on manufacturing context and product characteristics.

In traditional pharmaceutical solid dose manufacturing, the primary containment challenges occur during dispensing, granulation, and tableting operations where powdered APIs present significant exposure risks. During a recent plant assessment, I observed a manufacturer using an integrated OEB 4 containment system that enclosed the entire manufacturing train from dispensing through coating. This approach eliminated cross-contamination risks between steps while maintaining the necessary containment level throughout the process.

The oncology manufacturing sector faces particularly stringent requirements, often dealing with compounds in the highest OEB classifications. What strikes me about this segment is the absolute precision required—there’s simply no margin for error when handling compounds with therapeutic doses measured in micrograms. One oncology facility I toured had implemented a redundant containment approach, with primary containment provided by isolators and secondary containment through room pressurization and specialized gowning protocols.

Contract manufacturing organizations (CMOs) face unique challenges due to the diversity of compounds they handle. The need for maximum flexibility while maintaining appropriate containment for each compound creates complex design requirements. A CMO engineering manager shared that they’d selected modular isolators with interchangeable components that could be reconfigured based on specific product requirements—an approach that balanced capital efficiency with containment performance.

Biotech applications present distinct considerations, particularly when dealing with large molecule manufacturing. While biological compounds typically present lower inhalation risks than small molecule APIs, other exposure routes become more significant. A biotech processing specialist explained their approach: “For biologics, we’re often more concerned with preventing product contamination than operator exposure, but the isolator technology addresses both concerns simultaneously.”

Research and development operations face yet another set of challenges. During early development phases, compound toxicity data may be limited, requiring conservative containment approaches based on structural analysis rather than established OEB classifications. I’ve worked with several R&D organizations that implemented “universal precaution” approaches using high-containment isolators for all compounds with unknown toxicity profiles.

The most compelling applications I’ve encountered combine multiple manufacturing operations within integrated containment solutions:

Personalized medicine creates perhaps the most complex containment scenario, with extremely small batches of highly potent compounds manufactured in rapid succession. During a site visit to a cell therapy facility, I observed adaptable isolator systems specifically designed for these applications, with rapid decontamination capabilities that enabled processing different patient materials with minimal downtime.

What’s become clear across these diverse applications is that successful implementation depends on tailoring the containment approach to the specific manufacturing context rather than applying generic solutions. As Dr. Rebecca Chen noted in her keynote at last year’s ISPE Containment Conference, “The most effective containment strategies begin with a thorough understanding of the specific process flow, material characteristics, and operator interactions unique to each manufacturing operation.”

Implementation and Validation Strategies

Implementing an OEB isolator system represents much more than equipment installation—it’s a comprehensive process requiring meticulous planning and validation. I’ve seen well-designed systems fail to deliver adequate containment due to implementation oversights that could have been avoided with proper preparation.

Site preparation represents a critical foundation often underestimated in project planning. During a recent implementation project, we discovered too late that the existing facility’s HVAC system couldn’t support the additional heat load from the isolator equipment, requiring costly modifications that delayed startup. Beyond utilities, structural considerations like floor loading capacity, vibration control, and access for maintenance must be thoroughly evaluated. I recommend developing a detailed engineering checklist specific to your facility before finalizing equipment specifications.

The factory acceptance testing (FAT) phase provides a crucial opportunity to identify design issues before the equipment reaches your facility. I strongly advise against treating this as a formality—bring your key technical personnel and operators to participate actively in the testing. During one memorable FAT, an experienced operator identified an ergonomic issue with glove port positioning that would have caused significant operational challenges had it not been corrected before delivery.

Installation qualification (IQ) documentation should be extraordinarily detailed for containment systems. Beyond basic utility connections, pay particular attention to sealing elements, filter installations, and control system integrations. These aspects directly impact containment performance and are difficult to remediate after installation. The documentation should include comprehensive photographic evidence of critical installation details.

Operational qualification (OQ) for containment systems must go beyond basic functionality testing to include worst-case operational scenarios. This approach was emphasized by regulatory consultant James Wilson during a recent compliance seminar: “Regulators increasingly expect to see challenge testing that proves containment integrity under realistic processing conditions, not just idealized test scenarios.”

Performance qualification (PQ) represents the most critical validation phase for containment equipment. This testing should include:

What I’ve found particularly challenging is developing robust cleaning validation protocols for containment systems. The inaccessibility of internal surfaces in isolators makes traditional swab sampling difficult. Advanced approaches now incorporate riboflavin testing with UV visualization for coverage verification, followed by targeted sampling of worst-case locations. For multi-product facilities, cleaning validation becomes even more complex, requiring careful selection of “worst-case” products for cleaning studies.

Operator training deserves special emphasis, as even perfectly designed systems can fail if operational procedures aren’t followed consistently. I’ve advocated for a tiered training approach that begins with classroom instruction on containment principles, progresses to hands-on training with mockup equipment, and culminates with supervised operations using non-potent materials. This approach builds both technical competence and a culture of containment awareness that supports long-term compliance.

Documentation requirements extend beyond standard validation protocols to include detailed containment risk assessments, industrial hygiene monitoring plans, and emergency response procedures for containment breaches. During a regulatory inspection I witnessed, investigators were particularly interested in how containment failures would be detected, contained, and remediated—having robust documentation addressing these scenarios proved crucial to a successful outcome.

When implementing high-performance containment isolators, I’ve found that creating a cross-functional implementation team yields the best results. This team should include engineering, quality, operations, and EHS personnel to ensure all perspectives are considered throughout the implementation process.

Future Trends in Containment Technology

The containment industry stands at an inflection point, with several emerging trends poised to transform how we approach potent compound handling. Having attended several forward-looking technology conferences over the past year, I’m particularly excited about developments that balance enhanced protection with operational efficiency.

Sustainability considerations have become increasingly prominent in containment system design. Traditional isolators consume substantial energy through continuous air exchanges and often generate significant waste through single-use components. Next-generation designs are addressing these challenges through energy-efficient air handling systems and recyclable or reusable components. One manufacturer demonstrated prototype isolators that reduced energy consumption by nearly 40% through innovative airflow design and advanced motor technology.

Miniaturization and modular design represent another significant trend, particularly relevant for personalized medicine applications where batch sizes continue to decrease. Rather than traditional room-sized containment systems, I’ve observed a shift toward compact, reconfigurable isolators that can be rapidly deployed and validated. This approach not only reduces capital costs but also provides the flexibility needed for evolving manufacturing requirements.

The integration of artificial intelligence into containment monitoring systems will likely revolutionize safety management. During a technology demonstration last quarter, I experienced a prototype system that used machine learning algorithms to detect subtle changes in airflow patterns that might indicate developing containment issues—well before traditional monitoring systems would trigger alerts. This predictive capability could fundamentally change our approach to containment verification.

Industry 4.0 principles are being applied to create interconnected containment systems that communicate with broader manufacturing execution systems. The most advanced integrated containment solutions now incorporate real-time data sharing with upstream and downstream equipment, enabling truly coordinated manufacturing flows that enhance both safety and efficiency.

Material science advances are yielding new surface treatments and construction materials that resist particle adhesion and microbial growth while withstanding aggressive cleaning agents. A containment scientist I interviewed recently described experimental surfaces with “programmable hydrophobicity” that could dramatically reduce cross-contamination risks during product changeovers.

What particularly intrigues me is the emerging concept of “containment as a service” rather than simply equipment procurement. Several manufacturers are developing comprehensive packages that combine equipment, monitoring, maintenance, and even operational support under performance-based contracts. This approach shifts the focus from equipment specifications to quantifiable containment performance metrics—a potentially transformative change in how organizations manage containment risks.

Regulatory expectations continue to evolve, with increasing emphasis on continuous verification rather than periodic testing. Dr. Lawrence Chen, a former FDA investigator I spoke with at a recent industry event, noted that “regulators are looking for real-time containment data that demonstrates consistent performance throughout manufacturing operations, not just during scheduled verification tests.”

The convergence of these trends suggests a future where containment systems become more adaptive, data-driven, and integrated with broader manufacturing operations. Rather than standalone protection devices, isolators are evolving into sophisticated components of connected manufacturing ecosystems that simultaneously protect personnel, products, and the environment while generating valuable process understanding.

Case Study: Successful OEB Isolator Implementation

I had the opportunity to observe a particularly instructive OEB isolator implementation at a mid-sized pharmaceutical manufacturer transitioning from OEB 3 compounds to an OEB 4 oncology product. Their experience highlights both the challenges and success factors in containment upgrades.

The project began with a comprehensive risk assessment that identified dispensing and granulation as critical exposure risk points. Rather than applying a blanket containment approach, the team developed a targeted strategy focusing resources on these high-risk operations. This approach required integrating new isolator technology with existing equipment—a challenge that would test their engineering creativity.

Initial vendor discussions revealed a critical decision point: should they select standardized isolators or custom-designed solutions? The standardized equipment offered faster delivery and lower initial costs, while custom solutions promised better process fit and potentially lower operational costs. After extensive analysis, they selected a semi-customized approach based on modular platforms that could be configured to their specific process requirements.

Their selection criteria prioritized three factors:

1. Containment performance verified by surrogate testing
2. Integration capabilities with existing equipment
3. Operational flexibility for future products

The implementation team invested significant effort in operator engagement throughout the selection process. They created full-scale cardboard mockups of different isolator configurations and had operators simulate key tasks to identify ergonomic issues before finalizing designs. This approach revealed several potential problems that were addressed in the final specification, including glove port positioning that would have caused operator strain during extended operations.

Installation presented several unexpected challenges. The team discovered that the existing facility’s electrical capacity couldn’t support the additional load from the isolator systems without upgrading distribution panels. Additionally, the delivery path for the largest isolator required temporarily removing a wall section—a contingency not identified during planning. These challenges extended the implementation timeline by nearly eight weeks.

The validation approach combined standard protocols with innovative testing methods. Beyond typical smoke studies and pressure differential testing, they conducted comprehensive surrogate powder testing using naproxen sodium as a surrogate compound. These tests revealed a potential containment weakness during waste removal operations that required procedural modifications and additional operator training before final acceptance.

Training emerged as a critical success factor, with the team developing a comprehensive program that went beyond basic operational instruction. They created scenario-based exercises that challenged operators to respond to potential containment breaches, equipment malfunctions, and process deviations. This approach built both technical competence and critical thinking skills essential for maintaining containment integrity.

Post-implementation monitoring provided valuable insights into real-world performance. Industrial hygiene sampling during actual production demonstrated containment performance exceeding design requirements, with exposure levels consistently below 20% of the OEB 4 limit. However, they also identified unexpected operational challenges—particularly longer-than-anticipated cleaning times between batches that reduced overall equipment efficiency.

The project yielded several quantifiable benefits:

What I found most instructive was the team’s candid assessment of lessons learned. They acknowledged underestimating the integration challenges with existing equipment and the impact on overall operational efficiency. The project manager noted that “while we achieved our primary containment objectives, we should have devoted more attention to operational flow and cleaning logistics during the design phase.”

This case illustrates the multifaceted nature of successful containment implementations. Beyond the technical specifications of the isolator itself, factors like facility integration, operational procedures, and personnel training proved equally critical to the project’s success.

Conclusion and Decision Framework

Selecting the right OEB isolator represents one of the most consequential decisions in pharmaceutical manufacturing facility design. The process requires balancing multiple considerations including technical performance, operational requirements, and long-term flexibility. Through my experiences working with numerous manufacturers, I’ve developed a structured decision framework that can help guide this complex selection process.

Begin with a thorough understanding of your actual containment requirements rather than general industry assumptions. This means developing a detailed containment classification for each compound based on toxicological data rather than relying solely on therapeutic class generalizations. I’ve seen companies over-specify containment requirements based on conservative assumptions, resulting in unnecessary capital expenditure and operational complexity. Conversely, under-specifying containment creates obvious safety and compliance risks.

Consider both current and future manufacturing needs in your selection process. The most successful implementations I’ve observed incorporated sufficient flexibility to accommodate evolving product portfolios without requiring complete replacement of containment systems. This might mean selecting higher containment capabilities than immediately necessary or choosing modular designs that can be reconfigured as needs change.

The total cost of ownership extends far beyond the initial equipment purchase. One pharmaceutical engineering director I respect greatly uses a 10-year cost model that incorporates energy consumption, maintenance requirements, consumable components, and cleaning validation expenses. This approach often reveals that higher initial investments in advanced isolator technology yield substantial savings over the equipment lifecycle through reduced operating costs and improved manufacturing efficiency.

Implementation timelines deserve careful consideration, particularly in competitive therapeutics markets where speed to market provides significant advantages. Standard isolator configurations typically offer faster delivery and validation, while custom solutions require longer lead times but may better address specific process requirements. This tradeoff should be evaluated based on your specific market position and timing requirements.

Perhaps most importantly, view isolator selection as one component of a comprehensive containment strategy rather than a standalone solution. The most effective approaches combine engineered controls (isolators), procedural controls, and administrative systems into an integrated containment program. Even the most advanced isolator technology cannot compensate for inadequate procedures or insufficient training.

For organizations navigating this decision for the first time, I recommend consulting with experienced containment professionals who can provide perspective on real-world performance versus manufacturer specifications. The gap between theoretical and actual performance can be substantial, particularly when containment systems must operate within the constraints of existing facilities and operational requirements.

As you evaluate options, remember that optimal containment solutions often combine different approaches based on specific process steps and risk profiles. Many successful implementations I’ve witnessed utilized high-performance isolators for highest-risk operations while employing simpler containment technologies for lower-risk activities—an approach that optimizes both protection and resource allocation.

Ultimately, selecting the right OEB isolator requires balancing technical performance, operational requirements, and business constraints against the fundamental imperative of protecting people, products, and the environment. By applying a structured evaluation approach and learning from industry experience, you can navigate this complex decision successfully and implement containment solutions that support both compliance and competitive manufacturing operations.

Frequently Asked Questions of OEB Isolator Selection

Q: What is an OEB Isolator, and why is it important in the pharmaceutical industry?
A: An OEB isolator is a specialized containment system used in the pharmaceutical industry to handle hazardous and potent compounds safely. It is crucial for protecting operators from exposure to toxic substances while maintaining product integrity. OEB isolators are designed with multiple layers of protection, including physical barriers, negative pressure environments, and HEPA filtration, ensuring a safe working environment.

Q: What are the key factors to consider during OEB Isolator Selection?
A: Key factors in OEB isolator selection include material selection, ergonomics, and containment requirements. Engineers must choose materials resistant to chemicals and cleaning agents, design ergonomic glove ports for operator comfort, and ensure the isolator meets stringent containment standards like maintaining a leak rate below 0.05% of the isolator volume per minute at 250 Pa.

Q: How do OEB Isolators ensure safety for operators handling highly potent compounds?
A: OEB isolators ensure operator safety through multiple layers of protection. These include physical barriers like glove ports, advanced airflow management systems that prevent hazardous particles from escaping, and HEPA filtration to purify exhausted air. Real-time monitoring systems track pressure differentials and alert operators to any deviations, ensuring safety even during system failures.

Q: What types of materials are best suited for constructing OEB Isolators?
A: Materials used for OEB isolators must be durable and resistant to chemical degradation. Stainless steel, such as 316L, is commonly used for the main structure due to its corrosion resistance and ease of cleaning. Viewing panels and glove ports often utilize specialized plastics like polycarbonate or acrylic, offering clarity and impact resistance.

Q: Can OEB Isolators be customized for specific pharmaceutical applications?
A: Yes, OEB isolators can be customized to meet specific pharmaceutical needs. They can be designed to incorporate various integrated equipment, such as weigh scales or lyophilizers, and can be configured for different internal environments, including humidity and temperature control. Additionally, the isolators can be adapted for different hazard levels and process requirements.

External Resources

1. OEB Isolator Selection Guidelines – A comprehensive search result page providing guidance and resources for selecting OEB isolators tailored to specific containment needs.
2. Pharmaceutical Isolator Selection – A search result page offering insights into isolator selection based on pharmaceutical processes and OEB standards.
3. Containment Solutions for OEB Isolators – Esco Pharma provides containment solutions, including isolators, that align with OEB standards for safe handling of hazardous substances.
4. Designing Effective OEB5 Isolators – This article discusses key components and design principles for OEB5 isolators, focusing on maximum containment and safety.
5. Occupational Exposure Bands and Isolators – EREA offers customized isolators designed to meet the safety needs of handling substances classified under OEB 5 and 6.
6. User Requirements Specification for Isolators – ProSys provides guidance on developing a User Requirements Specification for containment isolators, which can be applied to OEB isolator selection.