Table 2.
Comparison of the two endotoxin testing methods.
| Method | Advantages | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| LAL |
- Widely used method. - Three variants available (Gel-clot, Chromogenic, Turbidimetric), providing flexibility based on needs. - The chromogenic method is more sensitive than the gel-clot method and allows for more precise quantification. - The turbidimetric method is faster, making it useful for high-throughput testing. |
- The gel-clot method is less sensitive and may lack precision in complex matrices such as cell-based products. - Cellular components or excipients may interfere with the test by masking the presence of endotoxins or disrupting the lysate-endotoxin reaction. |
| rFC |
- Avoids the use of horseshoe crabs, making it more ethical and sustainable. - Offers performance comparable to the LAL test. - Recognized by some regulatory agencies as a valid method for endotoxin detection. |
- No specific disadvantages have been mentioned in sources, but as an alternative to the LAL test, it may face similar challenges regarding matrix interference in complex products. |
Abbreviations: LAL Limulus Amebocyte Lysate; rFC Recombinant Factor C.