Impact of Freezing on pH of Buffered Solutions and Consequences
for Monoclonal Antibody Aggregation
Parag Kolhe, Elizabeth Amend, and Satish K. Singh
Biotherapeutics Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pfizer Global Research and Development, Pfizer Inc, Chesterfield, MO 63017
Published online December 28, 2009 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).
Freezing of biologic drug substance at large scale is an important unit operation that ena-
bles manufacturing ﬂexibility and increased use-period for the material. Stability of the bio-
logic in frozen solutions is associated with a number of issues including potentially
destabilizing pH changes. The pH changes arise from temperature-associated change in the
s, solubility limitations, eutectic crystallization, and cryoconcentration. The pH changes
for most of the common protein formulation buffers in the frozen state have not been system-
atically measured. Sodium phosphate buffer, a well-studied system, shows the greatest
change in pH when going from þ25 to 30C. Among the other buffers, histidine hydro-
chloride, sodium acetate, histidine acetate, citrate, and succinate, less than 1 pH unit change
(increase) was observed over the temperature range from þ25 to 30C, whereas Tris-
hydrochloride had an 1.2 pH unit increase. In general, a steady increase in pH was
observed for all these buffers once cooled below 0C. A formulated IgG2 monoclonal anti-
body in histidine buffer with added trehalose showed the same pH behavior as the buffer
itself. This antibody in various formulations was subject to freeze/thaw cycling representing
a wide process (phase transition) time range, reﬂective of practical situations. Measurement
of soluble aggregates after repeated freeze–thaw cycles shows that the change in pH was
not a factor for aggregate formation in this case, which instead is governed by the presence
or absence of noncrystallizing cryoprotective excipients. In the absence of a cryoprotectant,
longer phase transition times lead to higher aggregation. V
C2009 American Institute of
Chemical Engineers Biotechnol. Prog., 26: 727–733, 2010
Keywords: formulation buffers, proteins, pH change during freezing, monoclonal antibody,
aggregation, freeze–thaw cycling
Freezing and thawing of large volumes of bulk protein solu-
tions has become an important step in the manufacture of bio-
therapeutics because of the ﬂexibility it affords in terms of
maximizing productivity and enabling drug product logistics in
alignment with market demands. Storing bulk protein drug
substance for periods of time in the frozen state enables a
decoupling of the drug substance production from that of drug
product. Freezing of drug substance also offers distinctive
advantages, such as minimization of risk of microbial growth,
increased product stability with extended shelf life, elimination
of agitation and foaming during transportation, and increased
ﬂexibility during manufacturing.
However, freeze and thaw
processing also presents fundamental scientiﬁc and engineering
with the freeze step being especially complicated.
can induce complex physical and chemical changes in the sol-
vent/solute conditions, resulting in denaturation of proteins
with the possibility of generation of irreversible aggregates
over time. All the changes arise because as ice crystals grow
and remove water from solution, they exclude all solute mole-
cules including the protein, leading to zones where protein can
be found at high concentration in the presence of other cryo-
concentrated solutes (buffer species and other excipients).
Although a number of phenomena determine the overall suc-
cess of the freezing process (such as ice interface adsorption
and unfolding, dessication, vitriﬁcation, storage temperature
vis-a-vis glass transition temperature), we will restrict the dis-
cussion in this article to the effect of the freezing on the pH of
the buffer making up the protein formulation.
It is well known that pH of conventional buffers can
change with temperature. Temperature dependence of the
ionization enthalpy determines the sensitivity, but for most
practical purposes computed/tabulated dpK
/dT values are
However, these values are only relevant to the liq-
uid state. Impact of freezing on pH has been commonly
exempliﬁed with phosphate buffer made of sodium salts
where reaching the solubility limit of the dibasic salt leads
to a drastic drop in the pH from 7 to around 4 between about
0.5 and about 9.9C (dependent on strength of buffer,
cooling rate, etc.).
The potassium salts of phosphate on
the other hand do not have this limitation, though a minor
increase in pH due to crystallization of the monobasic salt at
6C has been shown.
has provided frozen-
state pH data on some other buffers of interest.
centration of solutes (excipients) during freezing is expected
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to S. K.
Singh at satish.singh@pﬁzer.com
C2009 American Institute of Chemical Engineers 727
to impact the structure of the protein solution through the
change in pH and ionic strength. Denaturation caused by
structural perturbations due to pH change has been shown
for enzymatic systems, as measured by loss of activity.
Multimeric enzymes seem to be particularly susceptible
because of loss of active-site conformation. Aggregation of
antibodies (as measured by size exclusion chromatography)
frozen in phosphate buffer systems containing salts has also
We have therefore measured the pH–tem-
perature proﬁle in detail for some buffers of interest for anti-
body formulations, as well as in a formulated IgG2
monoclonal antibody (mAb) solution, going down to temper-
atures of practical interest in frozen storage of protein solu-
tions. The measurements have been primarily performed in
the freezing mode. This is the most relevant part of a freeze/
thaw process when considering long-term storage of proteins
in the frozen state, because impact on protein over storage
time will be determined by the conditions generated through
freezing. The storage temperature is also critical to the long-
term impact but is outside the scope of this work.
thaw process, if carried out improperly (e.g., without gentle
agitation), could also lead to degradation but generally has
little long-term impact because the process brings the protein
into its stable solution state.
Among the parameters considered important are rate of
processing (cooling and heating rate) and composition. The
impact of ‘‘rates’’ as presented in the literature does not pro-
vide any clear guidance as the terms ‘‘fast’’ and ‘‘slow’’ are
speciﬁc to the study, and rates (if) reported in the literature
Furthermore, the use of minimal volumes makes
the ‘‘process’’ aspect of literature studies difﬁcult to extrapolate
to bulk protein solutions. ‘‘Rate’’ as often used in the literature
refers to the drop in temperature over time. However, the
more important ‘‘rate’’ parameter relates to the time required
for the solution to actually freeze or thaw, that is, the actual
time spent in phase transition between onset of nucleation and
completion of ice formation or vice versa. This aspect is con-
trolled in this work by varying the volume of sample and the
freezer temperature, thus providing a range of times over
which the solution freezes and thaws. We have also subjected
the IgG2 antibody to freeze–thaw cycles under similarly vary-
ing rates, to show that buffer-induced pH change is not the
factor that impacts aggregation on freezing.
Material and Methods
Cool pH probe from which contains FRISCOLYT-
as a reference electrode was procured from Mettler-Tol-
edo. Kaye validator from GE was used to monitor the pro-
cess as well as buffer solution temperature. A Lauda Proline
RS485 benchtop circulating bath (silicone HTF) was used to
control and program the temperature ramps. The chemicals
used for preparation of buffers were of analytical grade and
were used as received.
The IgG2 mAb solution was studied in three formulations:
i. at 20 mg/mL in a 20 mM histidine HCl buffer, pH 5.5
with 84 mg/mL trehalose dihydrate, and 0.2 mg/mL polysor-
ii. at 20 mg/mL in a 20 mM histidine HCl buffer, pH
iii. at 5 mg/mL in a 20 mM sodium acetate buffer, pH
5.5 with 8.2 mg/mL NaCl, and 0.2 mg/mL polysorbate 80.
The setup used for pH measurement was designed to range
between þ25 and 30C. Approximately 25 mL of buffer so-
lution was added to a centrifuge tube. The InLab
probe containing FRISCOLYT-B
as a reference electrode
was immersed into the solution and the tube covered with par-
aﬁlm. The pH was measured by Navi pH meter (model F-55).
The circulating bath was used to program the temperature
change. Kaye validator probes were immersed in the bath as
well as in the buffer solution so that the temperature of the
bath along with buffer solution was monitored. Figure 1 shows
a typical temperature proﬁle obtained during the measure-
ments. The pH probe was calibrated with pH standard solu-
tions of 4 and 7 before every experiment. During cooling, the
pH was allowed to come to a steady value before a reading
was taken. At least 5 min was allowed for the pH meter read-
ing at every temperature except for temperatures below
20C, where at least 2 min was allowed as the observed pH
changes were not signiﬁcant and settled rapidly.
Freeze/thaw cycling studies on the IgG2 mAb were carried
out by freezing in 20, 40, or 70C freezers and thawing
at room temperature with gentle agitation. Impact of rate of
freezing was studied by varying the ﬁll volume as well as
freezer temperature. Formulation (i) was tested as 1 mL ﬁll
in 1-mL vials, and 50 mL ﬁll in 50-mL glass vials. Formula-
tions (ii) and (iii) were tested as 50 mL ﬁlls in the 50-mL
vials at 40 or 70C only.
Test vials for the study were loaded in a tray at deﬁned
positions, some distance apart from each other to avoid ther-
mal interaction between them. The tray was placed in the
freezers in a deﬁned location. Temperature proﬁles of solution
in the vials were recorded separately using the Kaye validator.
Vials placed at different locations in the tray had very similar
proﬁles. Use of 1- and 50-mL vials in different freezers led to
widely different freezing and thawing times, measured as the
time required for the phase transition to complete. The phase
freezer) and 830 min (50 mL in 20C freezer).
Size exclusion chromatography
Size exclusion chromatography (SE-HPLC) was used to
detect soluble aggregate levels in the mAb samples. The
Figure 1. Typical temperature proﬁle during the determina-
tion of pH as a function of temperature.
728 Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3
column used for this analysis was TSK3000SWXL (300 mm
7.8 mm) in a 50 mM sodium phosphate pH 7.0 with 600
mM sodium chloride running buffer at 1.0 mL/min over 20
min. Detection was by UV absorbance at 214 nm.
pH of buffers during freezing
Changes in pH of commonly used formulation buffers
were monitored as a function of temperature from þ25 to
30C. Various common formulation buffers used in this
study are summarized in Table 1 along with the difference in
pH observed at þ25, 0, and 30C, dpK
/dT values (liquid
state). The data are shown in Figures 2–8 as plots of pH vs.
temperature. To aid in the understanding of the results, we
have also plotted liquid-state pK
values (at the speciﬁed ionic
strength, I) from the literature (Goldberg et al.
culated pHs using literature reported dpK
/dT. Note that the
pH measured in this situation is that of the cryoconcentrating
solute phase excluded by the formation of ice. [As part of this
study, a 20 mM phosphate buffer with 350 mM arginine, pH
7.5 was also examined. On cooling between þ25 and 10C,
the pH ﬂuctuated about 0.2 units. Below this temperature, the
pH started ﬂuctuating wildly between 2and11. No cause
for this could be ascertained, and the results of this buffer are
not presented here.]
Phosphate Buffer. To ensure that the experimental system
and pH probe provided reliable results, we started by examin-
ing a 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer at pH 7. The pH of
this buffer as a function of temperature is shown in Figure 2.
It can be seen that for 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer of pH
7, no signiﬁcant changes in the pH was observed down to
0C, consistent with its pK
behavior. A precipitous drop in
pH was observed as the temperature was decreased below 0C
because of saturation of the dibasic salt. At 15C, a pH drop
of 3.1 units was measured compared with that at 0C. The pH
gradually decreased as the temperature was lowered further,
and a ﬁnal pH value of 3.4 was measured at 30Cindicating
a total pH drop of 3.6 units. The slower decrease after
10C is consistent with completion of the eutectic crystal-
lization of Na
at this temperature, after which a single
saturated phase freezes. These observations are consistent with
those reported previously by several authors, conﬁrming the
suitability of our system, although results down to 30C
have not been reported previously.
zen buffer was also performed. As shown in the Figure 2, the
pH after thaw returned to the original value at 25Cwitha
Acetate Buffer. Figure 3 shows the changes in pH
observed for 20 mM sodium acetate buffer, pH 5.6 at
þ25C. Consistent with observations that carboxylic acids
/dT values close to zero, no change is seen down
to 0C. Below 0C, a linear increase in the pH value was
observed as a function of decreasing temperature. The ﬁnal
pH observed for the sodium acetate buffer was 6.1 at
30C, an increase of 0.5 units in pH from þ25C and
Table 1. Summary of Changes in pH for Various Formulation Buffers as a Function of Temperature
/dT in Liquid
in pH (25 to
50 mM Sodium phosphate 7.00 7.02 þ0.0044 (pK
), 0.026 (pK
3.36 3.36 at 30C 7.00 at 25C 3.64
20 mM Sodium acetate 5.63 5.66 þ0.0002* 6.14 5.61 at 5C 6.14 at 30C 0.51
20 mM L-Histidine-HCl 5.37 5.86 0.022** 6.19 5.37 at 25C 6.14 at 30C 0.82
20 mM Histidine-acetate 5.52 5.97 Combined effect 6.48 5.52 at 25C 6.48 at 30C 0.96
20 mM Sodium citrate 6.16 6.49 0.0016 (pK
), 0.0 (pK
)* 5.93 5.69 at 10C 6.17 at 20C 0.23
20 mM Tris-HCl 7.37 7.93 0.028* 8.54 7.37 at 5C 8.54 at 30C 1.17
20 mM Sodium succinate 5.55 5.60 0.0018 (pK
), 0.0 (pK
)* 5.85 5.49 at 10C 5.85 at 30C 0.3
*All values from Stoll and Blanchard.
** Calculated from pK
values reported for histidine in Perrin.
Note that dpK
/dT for imidazole is 0.020.
Figure 2. Change in pH as a function of temperature for so-
dium phosphate buffer when the temperature was
decreased from 125 to 2308C and increased from
230 to 1258C.
values from Goldberg et al.
Figure 3. Change in pH as a function of temperature for ace-
tate buffer when the temperature was decreased
from 125 to 2308C.
values from Goldberg et al.
; calculated pH
based on values of dpK
/dT in Table 1).
Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3 729
from 0C. The literature pK
values (I¼0) for dissociation
of acetic acid at various temperatures are also plotted in the
Figure 3 for reference and provides conﬁrmation for the
results because the pH change (liquid state) parallels the pK
plot. Finally, the data from Larsen
are also plotted. There
is some general agreement in the data below 0C with
reporting a 0.2 unit increase, whereas our measure-
ments give a 0.26 unit increase over the same temperature
range. Clearly, no solubility limits are reached that would
lead to abrupt changes in pH. Acetate buffer appears to have
low crystallization potential when compared with other buf-
Cooling below the eutectic temperature of sodium ac-
etate (18C) leads to a further steady increase in pH.
L-Histidine (Hydrochloride) Buffer. Temperature–pH pro-
ﬁles of 20 mM histidine HCl buffer are shown in Figure 4.
A signiﬁcant linear increase in the pH was observed down to
0C, consistent with general behavior of amines, considering
the imidazole group as an aliphatic amine. There is a reduc-
tion in the rate of increase of pH below 0C, but as the tem-
perature is lowered to 30C, the increase in pH continues.
The ﬁnal pH observed for the histidine HCl buffer was 6.2
at 30C, an increase of 0.8 units in pH from þ25C, and
0.3 units from 0C. Calculated values for pH as a function
of temperature in the liquid state showed a close agreement
with the observed pH values. Literature pK
and 100 mM) (for the basic nitrogen on the imidazole group)
as a function of temperature are also plotted and show that
the measured pH values run in parallel. The temperature–
values for histidine show a signiﬁcant effect of ionic
strength. The pH of this buffer was also measured in the
thaw mode and shows good agreement with the freeze curve.
The slight hysteresis is likely due to the effect of cryocon-
centration of buffer, that is, effectively a higher buffer
strength with a higher pK
at the same temperature. Histidine
remains amorphous during freezing, but can crystallize out
on thawing for pH ranges outside 5.5–6.5.
The lack of
abrupt changes in pH in Figure 4 is in agreement with the
proposition that solubility limits were not reached and/or
crystallization did not occur in the system investigated.
Histidine Acetate Buffer Solution. Under circumstances
where chloride ions are not acceptable in the formulation, it
may be replaced by acetate ions (see e.g., Chen et al.
combination buffer of histidine (20 mM) and acetate (13.82
mM) was prepared at pH 5.5 and monitored as a function of
temperature (Figure 5). The change in pH when the tempera-
ture is lowered from 25 to 0C follows the trend for histi-
dine, as no contribution to the change is expected from the
acetate component. Further decrease in temperature below
0C leads to the pH continuing to increase. The ﬁnal pH
observed for the histidine acetate buffer was 6.48 at 30C,
an increase of 1 unit in pH from þ25C, and 0.45 units
from 0C. Although not exact, the change of pH in this
range can also be accounted for by the changes of pK
histidine and acetate, added together in the appropriate molar
Tris-HCl Buffer Solution. Tris-HCl as a primary amine
shows signiﬁcant changes in pH as a function of temperature
(Figure 6). The initial pH for the buffer at þ25C was 7.37.
When the temperature was decreased, an increase in pH val-
ues was observed similar to the behavior observed for histi-
dine as well as histidine-acetate buffers. The change in pH
parallels the change in pK
and interestingly continues with
the same slope into the frozen state also. The ﬁnal pH
observed for the Tris-HCl buffer was 8.54 at 30C, an
increase of 1.2 units in pH from þ25C, and 0.6 units
Figure 4. Change in pH as a function of temperature for histi-
dine buffer when the temperature was decreased
from 125 to 2308C.
values from Goldberg et al.
; calculated pH
based on values of dpK
/dT in Table 1).
Figure 5. Change in pH as a function of temperature for histi-
dine acetate buffer when the temperature was
decreased from 125 to 2308C.
Figure 6. Change in pH as a function of temperature for Tris-
HCl buffer when the temperature was decreased
from 125 to 2308C.
values from Goldberg et al.
; calculated pH
based on values of dpK
/dT in Table 1).
730 Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3
from 0C. Data from Larsen
are in general agreement with
our results, showing a slight tendency for increase in pH
below 0C, but the measured values are different. Tris(hy-
droxyl methyl amino methane) (CH
) has a
eutectic at 5.3C and therefore has the potential to reach
its solubility limit. However, the pH in the frozen state is
trending toward basic, implying that no solubility limit is
reached in our experimental system.
Citrate Buffer. Citrate buffers, as a (tri)carboxylic acid,
show a very weak dependence of pK
on temperature in the
solution state, as also seen by the literature pK
values plotted in Figure 7. We monitored the changes in pH
as a function of temperature for two citrate molarities (5 and
20 mM) for three different pH values of 5.5, 6.0, and 6.5
(Figure 7). The main change occurs between 0 and 10C,
probably due to precipitation of sodium citrate. After this
process is complete below 10C, a small increase in pH is
seen. There is no signiﬁcant impact of buffer strength in the
range studied. Trends in the data from Larsen
are again in
general agreement with the results of this study. The results
are also consistent with that reported by Orii and Morita,
where no signiﬁcant changes in sodium citrate buffer at pH
5.5 were observed by using pH indicators.
Succinate Buffer. Succinic acid, as a (di)carboxylic acid,
shows little change in pK
with temperature in liquid state
Stoll and Blanchard report a dpK
/dT ¼0.0018 and
/dT ¼0. Our measurements are in agreement (Figure
8) for the temperature range above 0C. A small acidic shift
(0.1 units) occurs on cooling just below this point, but the
pH starts to increase below 15C. Lam et al. hypothesized
the crystallization of sodium succinate salt (at 30C) lead-
ing to an acidic shift in pH, as a cause for the poor stability
of Ifn-cwhen lyophilized in succinate buffer.
tion temperature and extent of crystallization was dependent
and would be expected to occur around 25C for
a buffer of pH 5.5. However, in the previous reports, crystal-
lization has been only observed during heating step and not
This suggests that our observation of the
slight increase in pH during cooling is likely not related to a
crystallization event, but simply a general trend of increase
in pH in the frozen state as the temperature drops.
Histidine Formulation Buffer Containing mAb. Tempera-
ture–pH proﬁles of histidine formulation (i) [containing 20
mg/mL mAb along with trehalose and polysorbate 80] are
shown in Figure 4 and agree well with the proﬁles of the
histidine buffer itself. This conﬁrms that the buffer in this
case is a good representative of the formulation behavior
during freezing and thawing.
Disaccharides such as trehalose or sucrose stabilize the
protein by preferential exclusion mechanism and are added
to protein formulations as cryoprotectants.
ride generally does not serve as a good cryoprotectant
because of its tendency to form a eutectic and crystallize out
of solution during freezing.
This study tried to separate
the impact of presence/absence of these excipients from any
potential effect of pH changes on protein stability during
freeze/thaw cycling. Nonionic surfactants such as polysor-
bate 80 also protect against freezing-induced aggregation by
preventing or reducing unfolding of the protein at the ice–
However, this study was not designed to
explicitly examine the effect of this excipient.
Size exclusion chromatography results on the mAb solu-
tions after a number of freeze/thaw cycles are shown in Fig-
ure 9. Lack of change in formulation (i) shows that for this
mAb, pH change on freezing in itself has no impact on solu-
ble aggregation levels because of freeze/thaw processing.
However, presence of a cryoprotectant is critical as the data
for formulation (ii) (Figure 9) show that lack of a suitable
cryoprotectant (trehalose) leads to signiﬁcant aggregate for-
mation. In agreement with this, the acetate formulation con-
taining NaCl (iii) also shows signiﬁcant aggregation. The pH
change in the frozen state for acetate buffer is of the same
order as in the histidine buffer. However, NaCl crystallizes
on freezing and does not function as a cryoprotectant. In this
system, the presence of surfactant seems to have little pro-
tective impact because formulation (ii) without surfactant
(and no other additive) shows lower overall aggregation lev-
els than formulation (iii) that does contain this surfactant
(but also contains NaCl). Finally, the data in Figure 9 show
Figure 7. Change in pH as a function of temperature for ci-
trate buffers of various pH (5.5, 6.0, and 6.5) and
molarity when the temperature was decreased from
125 to 2308C.
values from Goldberg et al.
Figure 8. Change in pH as a function of temperature for succi-
nate buffer when the temperature was decreased
form 25 to 2308C.
(hindicates pKa values from Goldberg et al.
Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3 731
that the mAb, although susceptible to aggregation, is pro-
tected by a well-designed formulation (i) when subject to
multiple freeze/thaws over a wide range of process condi-
tions. The freezing (phase transition) time ranged between
55 min (1-mL in 70C freezer) and 830 min (50-mL in
20C freezer) (not shown), and it is this transition period
that is most detrimental to the protein undergoing freeze/
Formulations (ii) and (iii) in Figure 9 show slightly
higher aggregation when frozen at 40C instead of 70C
probably reﬂecting impact of time of freezing in the system
without cryoprotectants, although for formulation (iii), the
levels after 10 cycles become similar. Note that in this study,
the impact of freeze/thaw cycles was only assessed by meas-
uring the level of soluble aggregates by SE-HPLC. In fol-
low-on studies, we have seen that such treatment also
generates proteinaceous subvisible (2lm size) particles,
with a much larger number of particles arising in formula-
tions that contain NaCl compared with trehalose (unpub-
lished data). This is in agreement with the observations on
soluble aggregate made in this study. The SE-HPLC method
used here will not detect these particles as they are ﬁltered
out by the column. Further discussion of the impact of such
subvisible particles is beyond the scope of this study, but it
may sufﬁce to note that from a bulk drug substance perspec-
tive, ﬁltration of the bulk solution through 0.22-lm ﬁlters
before ﬁlling into vials is standard practice in the industry.
The pH of a number of pharmaceutically relevant buffers
has been measured in the frozen state down to 30C. The
measurements have been primarily performed in the cooling/
freezing mode. Results in the liquid state down to 0C agree
with literature. Carboxylic acids (acetic, succinic, and citric)
and inorganic acids (phosphoric) have low dpK
primary amines (tris) are signiﬁcantly impacted. Histidine, a
popular buffer component for proteins especially mAbs, also
has a large dpK
/dT coefﬁcient because of its imidazole moi-
ety, an aliphatic amine. Once frozen, the pH behavior is
generally determined by solubility of the least-soluble com-
ponents of the buffer. Although the behavior of a sodium
phosphate buffer is well known, information on the other
buffers is very limited. In the frozen state, apart from the so-
dium phosphate buffer, the other buffers studied do not show
any signiﬁcant pH change driven by solubility limitation of
any component. These buffers show nearly linear increases
in pH ranging between 0.4 and 0.8 units from the pH at 0C,
when cooled down to 30C. This seems to be a general
behavior likely not related to any solubility limitations but
driven by activity or viscosity effects.
species such as histidine and acetate leads to an additive
effect on the temperature–pH proﬁle. A similar observation
has been recently utilized in the preparation of temperature-
resistant pH buffers where buffers with positive and negative
temperature coefﬁcients have been combined,
number of the biological buffers (e.g., MOPS, MES, HEPES,
and BisTrisPropane) required to create these systems have
not been used in parenteral pharmaceutical formulations. Ex-
amination of the dpK
/dT tables in Stoll and Blanchard
shows that apart from phosphate (pK
), the majority of buf-
fers, including pharmaceutically relevant ones, have negative
or zero temperature coefﬁcients. It is only the biological buf-
fers of the type listed earlier that have the positive tempera-
Information about pH–temperature effect can be used to
design formulation development studies and evaluate poten-
tial impact of freezing-induced pH change vs. other effects
of freezing (e.g., ice interfacial adsorption, cryoconcentra-
tion, and phase separation) on the stability of the protein.
Freeze/thaw studies on an IgG2 mAb formulated in histidine
or acetate buffers show that pH change due to buffer can be
ruled out as a factor in the aggregation behavior. Instead, the
absence of cryoprotectant is the key determinant of freeze/
thaw aggregation. This mAb has optimum liquid-state stabil-
ity at pH 5.5 and shows minor increases in aggregation over
time at pH 6.0 (data not shown). Although the two systems
are not directly comparable, the observation of lack of
impact of change of pH in frozen state in this work is in
general agreement with the observation of slow increase in
aggregation at pH 6.0 when in the liquid state.
Although protein molecules differ in their intrinsic aggre-
it is possible to deconvolute the mecha-
nism of freeze/thaw-induced aggregation from the pH-
induced destabilization. Trehalose as a noncrystallizing
additive protects through the preferential exclusion mecha-
nism and/or by reducing the cold denaturation temperature
(extrapolating from Tang and Pikal
), during the (phase)
transition period when the system is cryoconcentrating but is
not completely kinetically immobilized. It is in this transition
period that the protein can be denatured at the ice interface
or through any pH-change induced stress.
The mAb in the
trehalose formulation shows the lack of impact of a wide
range of freeze process time, while the absence of a cryopro-
tectant enhances the impact of process time. On the other
hand, increasing concentrations of NaCl during freezing can
also cause the protein to salt-out and probably leads to the
aggregation seen after freeze/thaw. Furthermore, NaCl crys-
tallizes out at its eutectic point (21.2C, 22 wt % NaCl
or 3.7 M).
Crystallized excipients are known to have no
cryoprotective (or lyoprotective) effect (see e.g., Mi et al.
We have measured the changes in pH for commonly used
protein formulation buffers as the buffer is cooled from þ25
Figure 9. Soluble aggregate levels as measured by size exclu-
sion chromatography for mAb solutions in different
formulation buffers when subject to various freeze–
732 Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3
to 30C. Apart from the well-known behavior of sodium
phosphate buffer, the other buffers tested here show small
(\1 unit) pH change when cooled below 0C. Dramatic
changes due to solubility limitations were not detected. Com-
bining buffer species was observed to lead to an additive
effect on the temperature–pH proﬁle. The information can be
used to design formulation development studies and evaluate
potential impact of freezing-induced pH change on the sta-
bility of the protein. Studies with an IgG2 mAb showed that
the buffer-induced pH change could be ruled out as a factor
for aggregate formation in this case, which instead was gov-
erned by the presence or absence of noncrystallizing exci-
pients. In the absence of a cryoprotectant, longer phase
transition times lead to higher aggregation.
1. Ho K, Tchessalov S, Kantor A, Warne N. Development of
freeze and thaw processes for bulk biologics in disposable bags
PAT. Am Pharm Rev. 2008;11(5):64–70.
2. Singh SK. Storage considerations as part of the formulation
development program for biologics. Am Pharm Rev. 2007;
3. Singh SK, Kolhe P, Nema S, Wang W. Large-scale freezing of
biologics—a practitioner’s review. I. Fundamental aspects. Bio-
process Int. 2009;7(10):32–44.
4. Singh SK, Kolhe P, Nema S, Wang W. Large-scale freezing of
biologics—a practitioner’s review. II. Practical advice. Biopro-
cess Int. 2009;7(11):34–42.
5. Bhatnagar BS, Bogner RH, Pikal MJ. Protein stability during
freezing: separation of stresses and mechanisms of protein stabi-
lization. Pharm Dev Technol. 2007;12:505–523.
6. Goldberg RN, Kishore N, Lenner RM. Thermodynamic quanti-
ties for the ionization reactions of buffers. J Phys Ref Data.
7. Good NE, Winget GD, Winter W, Connolly TN, Izawa S, Singh
RM. Hydrogen ion buffers for biological research. Biochemistry.
8. Christensen JJ, Hansen LD, Izatt RM. Handbook of Proton Ioni-
zation Heats and Related Thermodynamic Quantities. New York:
9. Perrin DD. Dissociation Constants of Organic Bases in Aqueous
Solution: Supplement. London: Butterworths; 1972.
10. Perrin DD. Ionization Constants of Inorganic Acids and Bases
in Aqueous Solution. Oxford: Pergamon; 1982.
11. Stoll VS, Blanchard JS. Buffers: principles and practice. Meth-
ods Enzymol. 1990;182:24–38.
12. Gomez G, Pikal MJ, Rodriguez-Hornedo N. Effect of initial
buffer composition on pH changes during far-from-equilibrium
freezing of sodium phosphate buffer solutions. Pharm Res. 2001;
13. Murase N, Franks F. Salt precipitation during the freeze-concentra-
tion of phosphate buffer solutions. Biophys Chem. 1989;34:293–
14. Van Den Berg L. The effect of addition of sodium and potas-
sium chloride to the reciprocal system: KH
on pH and composition during freezing. Arch Biochem Biophys.
15. Van Den Berg L, Rose D. Effect of freezing on the pH and
composition of sodium and potassium phosphate solutions; the
reciprocal system KH
O. Arch Biochem Bio-
16. van Den Berg L. pH changes in buffers and foods during freez-
ing and subsequent storage. Cryobiology. 1966;3:236–242.
17. Larsen SS. Studies on stability of drugs in frozen systems. VI.
The effect of freezing upon pH for buffered aqueous solutions.
Arch Pharm Chem Sci Ed. 1973;1:41–53.
18. Bhatnagar BS, Pikal MJ, Bogner RH. Study of the individual
contributions of ice formation and freeze-concentration on iso-
thermal stability of lactate dehydrogenase during freezing.
J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:798–814.
19. Pikal-Cleland KA, Cleland JL, Anchordoquy TJ, Carpenter JF.
Effect of glycine on pH changes and protein stability during
freeze-thawing in phosphate buffer systems. J Pharm Sci. 2002;
20. Pikal-Cleland KA, Rodriguez-Hornedo N, Amidon GL, Carpenter
JF. Protein denaturation during freezing and thawing in phosphate
buffer systems: monomeric and tetrameric beta-galactosidase.
Arch Biochem Biophys. 2000;384:398–406.
21. Sarciaux JM, Mansour S, Hageman MJ, Nail SL. Effects of buffer
composition and processing conditions on aggregation of bovine
IgG during freeze-drying. J Pharm Sci. 1999;88:1354–1361.
22. Kueltzo LA, Wang W, Randolph TW, Carpenter JF. Effects of
solution conditions, processing parameters, and container mate-
rials on aggregation of a monoclonal antibody during freeze-
thawing. J Pharm Sci. 2008;97:1801–1812.
23. Williams-Smith DL, Bray RC, Barber MJ, Tsopanakis AD,
Vincent SP. Changes in apparent pH on freezing aqueous buffer
solutions and their relevance to biochemical electron-paramag-
netic-resonance spectroscopy. Biochem J. 1977;167:593–600
24. Shalaev EY. The impact of buffer on processing and stability of
freeze-dried dosage forms. I. Solution freezing behavior. Am
Pharm Rev. 2005;8(5):80–87.
25. Chang B, Randall CS. Use of subambient thermal analysis to
optimize protein lyophilization. Cryobiology. 1992;29:632–656.
26. Osterberg T, Wadsten T. Physical state of L-histidine after
freeze-drying and long-term storage. Eur J Pharm Sci. 1999;8:
27. Chen B, Bautista R, Yu K, Zapata GA, Mulkerrin MG,
Chamow SM. Inﬂuence of histidine on the stability and physical
properties of a fully human antibody in aqueous and solid
forms. Pharm Res. 2003;20:1952–1960.
28. Orii Y, Morita M. Measurement of the pH of frozen buffer sol-
utions by using pH indicators. J Biochem. 1977;81:163–168.
29. Lam XM, Costantino HR, Overcashier DE, Nguyen TH, Hsu
CC. Replacing succinate with glycolate buffer improves the sta-
bility of lyophilized interferon-c.Int J Pharm. 1996;142:85–95.
30. Shalaev EY, Johnson-Elton TD, Chang L, Pikal MJ. Thermo-
physical properties of pharmaceutically compatible buffers at
sub-zero temperatures: implications for freeze-drying. Pharm
31. Kendrick BS, Chang BS, Arakawa T, Peterson B, Randolph
TW, Manning MC, Carpenter JF. Preferential exclusion of su-
crose from recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist: role
in restricted conformational mobility and compaction of native
state. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1997;94:11917–11922.
32. Lee JC, Timasheff SN. The stabilization of proteins by sucrose.
J Biol Chem. 1981;256:7193–7201.
33. Chang BS, Kendrick BS, Carpenter JF. Surface-induced denatu-
ration of proteins during freezing and its inhibition by surfac-
tants. J Pharm Sci. 1996;85:1325–1330.
34. Taylor MJ. The meaning of pH at low temperature. Cryoletters.
35. Sieracki NA, Hwang HJ, Lee MK, Garner DK, Lu Y. A temper-
ature independent pH (TIP) buffer for biomedical biophysical
applications at low temperatures. Chem Commun (Camb). 2008:
36. Wang X, Das TK, Singh SK, Kumar, S. Potential aggregation
prone regions in biotherapeutics. A survey of commercial mono-
clonal antibodies. mAbs. 2009;1:254–267.
37. Tang XC, Pikal MJ. The effect of stabilizers and denaturants on
the cold denaturation temperatures of proteins and implications
for freeze-drying. Pharm Res. 2005;22:1167–1175.
38. Cocks FH, Brower WE. Phase diagram relationships in cryobi-
ology. Cryobiology. 1974;11:340–358.
39. Mi Y, Wood G, Thoma L. Cryoprotection mechanisms of poly-
ethylene glycols on lactate dehydrogenase during freeze-thaw-
ing. AAPS J. 2004;6:e45–e54.
Manuscript received Jun. 18, 2009, and revision received Oct. 21, 2009.
Biotechnol. Prog., 2010, Vol. 26, No. 3 733