Identification and Remediation of Type III or Class III (Magnetite) Rouge in Manufacturing Equipment and Water Systems

Peer-Reviewed

Submitted: October 1, 2025

Accepted: February 6, 2026

Abstract

Type III or Class III rouge (magnetite) appears as a black oxide in water systems and production equipment exposed to sanitization, pasteurization, or steam sterilization conditions. Remediation of type III rouge often requires electropolishing or mechanical polishing of the stainless-steel surface, resulting in significant labour cost, safety risk to operators with confined space entry, downtime of the equipment or system, and a reduction in thickness of the stainless steel. Raman spectroscopy is a non-invasive analytical method that can quickly identify the presence of magnetite (Fe3O4) in rouge. Based on the identification of magnetite, a detergent additive can be combined with a formulated citric/oxalic or a phosphoric/citric acid blend to transform insoluble magnetite to a more soluble form of iron oxide. This approach to type III rouge remediation utilizing a detergent blend, spray device, and recirculating pump reduces downtime, safety risk, material loss, and overall cost of maintenance.

A common surface in production equipment and piping is 300 series stainless steel. This surface is compatible with most pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical processes; however, certain conditions can lead to discoloration and/or rouge on the surface. Rouge is a corrosion product on or in the surface of the iron alloy. Rouge is generally classified as Type I–III or Class I–III.1-3 Type I rouge (migratory rouge) is an iron oxide that is loosely attached to the surface and can be wiped off the surface. The origin of this rouge is often from an upstream source. Type II rouge (in situ rouge) is difficult to wipe off and often contains underlying damage to the surface. Examples of Type II rouge include galvanic, intergranular, pitting and stress corrosion. Common acid blends, such as citric/oxalic or phosphoric/citric solutions, can be effective at removing Type I and II rouge.4 These treatments do not restore original surface roughness. Electro- or mechanical polishing may be required to correct surface damage due to Type II rouge from pitting corrosion. Type III rouge is often associated with high temperature and purity water systems. Type III rouge is challenging to remediate due to the presence of magnetite (Fe3O4). Magnetite removal often requires aggressive chemicals or electro- or mechanical polishing. An acid detergent with phosphonate can be used alone or in combination with a citric/oxalic or phosphoric/citric acid blend to improve the solubility of magnetite and the removal of Type III rouge.

Understanding when and which acid detergent (or detergent additive) to use in rouge remediation can be difficult. The selection of the acid detergent should consider effectiveness to remove the rouge, substrate compatibility, rinse profile, stability and shelf life, analyzability, toxicity, disposal constraints, personnel safety, toxicity, foaming characteristics, microbial effectiveness, quality of manufacture, long-term availability, quality of manufacture and overall cost.5-8 Raman spectroscopy can be a powerful tool in identifying the oxide compound(s) present and provide direction to successful remediation. Alternative spectroscopy and microscopy techniques may be applicable for surface characterization and corrosion monitoring, such as X-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electrochemical microscopy (SECM).9 Raman uses inelastic light scattering, where the incident light (from a high-intensity laser light source) transfers energy to molecular vibrations, and the scattered light collected at the detector provides structural information relating to the molecule. Each molecule/compound will have a unique spectrum. Magnetite displays a primary peak with Raman spectroscopy between 662 and 670 cm-1.10-12 A secondary peak is often observed at 532 and 550 cm-1. A common roadblock in successful rouge remediation is the presence of magnetite. A quick identification of magnetite in a rouge surface using Raman spectroscopy can be helpful in selecting the right chemical treatment and cleaning parameters.

This article reviews the use of Raman spectroscopy in a series of case studies to quickly identify the iron oxide compound(s), including magnetite and hematite, on the surface of representative endcaps or piping spool pieces. The article also provides a strategy using a detergent additive to remove magnetite without performing costly electro- or mechanical polishing.

Methods/parameters

A Raman microscope with a 532 nm laser (DXR3, Thermo Scientific) was used to analyze selected sample areas. Areas that visually exhibited the greatest amount of residue were selected and focused on using the confocal microscope prior to analysis. The samples were analyzed as is (without cleaning, modification, etc.) using the following conditions in Table I for Raman analysis.

After analysis of the selected sample areas, a spectral library search (Wiley Science Solutions KnowItAll Spectral Library) was performed for each Raman spectrum.

Reference Raman spectra of iron oxide

For reference and comparison throughout the following case studies, the Raman spectra of hematite (Fe2O3) and of magnetite (Fe3O4) are shown in Figures 1 and 2 (access on PharmTech.com).

Hematite exhibits peaks at approximately 220, 290, 400, 600, and 1300 cm-1

Case study 1

A large multinational biopharmaceutical drug manufacturer indicated that visible rouge was unable to be removed from a tank using 10% v/v citric/oxalic acid detergent at 70 to 80 oC. Citric/oxalic and phosphoric/citric acid blends are commonly recommended for rouge removal.4,13,14 The nature of the rouge was investigated using Raman spectroscopy to identify the oxide composition and determine the reason for the difficulty in the chemical removal. Raman spectroscopy is an analytical tool that can be used in the laboratory and modified for use on the manufacturing floor.

Raman analysis. The following swab samples of the rouge were analyzed using Raman spectroscopy (See Figure 3; access on PharmTech.com):

1. TA-9720 Bottom of the Tank Outlet
2. TA-9620 Pre-Derouge Swab Bottom Visible Ring
3. TA-9755 Rouge Spot Near NA Port
4. TA-9640 Rouge Observation Top Spot Near Sight Glass

Raman search results. A spectral library search (Wiley KnowItAll Spectral Library) was performed for each Raman spectrum. All the residue samples exhibited a best match to a mixture of iron oxide compounds—hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4). A representative search result is shown in Figure 4 (access on PharmTech.com).

Summary. All the Raman spectra from the selected swabs were similar to each other and exhibited peaks around 200, 300, 400, 700, and 1300 cm-1, which can be attributed to an iron oxide mixture of Fe2O3 and Fe3O4.

Remediation strategy for case study 1. The general recommendation based on the swab analysis by Raman spectroscopy was to increase the concentration of the citric/oxalic agent detergent to 15% v/v and add a detergent additive at 15% v/v with recirculation through a device at 60 to 80 oC for 1 to 3 hours to solubilize and remove the rouge containing magnetite (Fe3O4).

Case study 2

A large multinational biopharmaceutical blood product drug manufacturer submitted two end caps (one smaller and one larger) for Raman spectroscopy analysis. Both end caps exhibited brown discoloration consistent with rouge (Figures 5 and 6; access on PharmTech.com).

Small end cap appearance. With 10x magnification, the small end cap exhibited orange, blue and purple/brown discolored areas. Areas of each colour were selected for Raman analysis to determine if there were any differences in the Raman spectra. Representative areas of analysis for the three different colours observed on the end cap’s surface are marked by a red square in the images below (Figures 7-9; access on PharmTech.com).

Raman analysis. The three different colored areas of the end cap were analyzed, and the Raman spectra were found to be comparable to each other. A comparison of the spectra is shown in Figure 10 (access on PharmTech.com).

Large end cap appearance. A magnified image of the residue present on the large end cap is shown in Figure 11 (access on PharmTech.com). The small area marked by a red square is representative of the area selected for Raman analysis.

Raman analysis. The Raman spectrum of the brown area from the large end cap is shown in Figure 12 (access on PharmTech.com).

Raman search results. The three Raman spectra of the small end cap and the Raman spectrum of the large end cap were comparable to each other, with peaks at approximately 660, 600, 496, 408, 292, and 223 cm-1.

When a spectral library search was performed (Wiley Spectroscopy KnowItAll Spectral Library), the residue from the end caps appeared to be a mixture of hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4). A comparison of the Raman spectra of the residue from the small and large end caps to the hematite and magnetite Raman spectra is displayed in Figure 13 (access on PharmTech.com).

The end cap spectra matched well to the hematite spectrum; however, the peak around 665 cm-1 had a greater intensity than the hematite reference spectrum, suggesting the presence of magnetite, which has a high intensity peak around 665 cm-1.

Remediation strategy for case study 2. The residue was effectively removed from stainless steel by agitated immersion using a solution of 15% v/v formulated phosphoric/citric detergent plus 15% v/v detergent additive at 80 °C for 24 hours (Figure 14; access on PharmTech.com).

Case study 3

A large multinational biopharmaceutical drug product manufacturer submitted pipe samples with suspected rouge for Raman spectroscopy analysis. The pipe samples exhibited a brown discoloration consistent with rouge throughout its outer surface.

Raman spectroscopy analysis. Three different areas on the pipe were analyzed using Raman spectroscopy. The spectra of the three areas were found to be comparable to each other. A comparison is shown below in Figure 15 (access on PharmTech.com).

Raman search results. A spectral library search was performed (Wiley Spectroscopy KnowItAll Spectral Library), and the Raman spectrum of the brown discoloration from the pipe had a best match to the spectrum of a mixture of hematite (Fe2O3) and magnetite (Fe3O4). A comparison of the Raman spectrum of the hematite and magnetite mixture and the Raman spectrum of the brown residue from the pipe is shown in Figure 16 (access on PharmTech.com).

Remediation strategy. The brown discoloration was effectively removed compared to untreated controls from stainless steel by agitated immersion using a solution of 15% v/v formulated phosphoric/citric acid detergent plus 15% v/v formulated detergent additive or a 15% v/v formulated citric/oxalic acid detergent plus 15% v/v formulated detergent additive at 80 °C for 4 hours. The surface was tested with an electrical pen test kit to confirm a passive surface following treatment. Testing with 15% v/v formulated phosphoric/citric acid or the formulated citric/oxalic acid detergent at 80 °C for 24 hours was not successful in removing the discoloration shown in Figure 17 (access on PharmTech.com) alongside untreated controls (left side) and successfully derouged and passivated pipe samples (right side).

Conclusion

A general requirement of pharmaceutical drug manufacturers is that equipment shall be constructed so that surfaces that contact components, in-process materials, or drug products shall not be reactive, additive or absorptive so as not to alter the strength, quality, integrity, identity and purity of the drug product.15-17 The presence of discoloration or rouge on direct and indirect product surfaces has been cited by regulatory authorities.18-21 The EU Guidelines for Good Manufacturing Practice for Medical Products for Human and Veterinary Use (Annex 1) state in section 2.5 that process equipment, utilities, raw materials and premises are potential sources for microbial and particulate contamination. Stainless steel maintenance and cleaning of direct, indirect, and non-direct surface must be considered within any contamination control strategy.22 A risk-based strategy to stainless-steel maintenance utilizing International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) Q9 Quality Risk Management has two primary principles: the evaluation of risk to quality from rouge should be based on scientific knowledge and ultimately linked to the protection of the patient and product, and the level of effort, formality and documentation should be commensurate with the level of risk.23,24 Stainless steel commonly used in pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical manufacturing can be discoloured or rouged based on several factors, including the nature of the in-process solution, product, medias, buffers, reagents and water quality.

Through a series of case studies, the authors used Raman spectroscopy to identify the presence of magnetite on various process and utility system samples (swabs, end caps and spool pieces). Type III rouge (magnetite) presents considerable challenges to chemical remediation and stainless steel maintenance programs. Based on the identification of magnetite, a readily available detergent additive can be combined with a formulated citric/oxalic or phosphoric/citric acid detergent commonly used for derouging and passivating stainless steel. The two-detergent approach transforms the insoluble magnetite to a more soluble form of iron oxide for removal without polishing or a secondary passivation step. This science-based approach to type III rouge remediation incorporates a detergent additive, spray device and recirculating pump to reduce equipment downtime, operator safety risk, material loss from polishing and overall cost of maintenance and compliance to current good manufacturing practices.

References

1. Tverberg JC, Ledden JA. Rouging of stainless steel in WFI and high purity water systems. In: Proceedings of Tube 2000; 2000; Düsseldorf, Germany.

2. Gonzales MM. Stainless steel tubing in the biotechnology industry. Biotechnology/Pharmaceutical Facilities Design. Published April 30, 2001.

3. Avery RE, Raney RK. Rouging in stainless steel equipment for hygienic services. Eur J Parenter Pharm Sci. 2008;13(1):21-24.

4. Lopolito P. Addressing rouge in biopharmaceutical manufacturing equipment. PharmTech. September 15, 2010. / American Standard of Testing Materials (ASTM). A 967 – 99: Standard Specification for Chemical Treatments for Stainless Steel Parts.

5. Verghese G, Thomas J. Cleaning agents for biopharma manufacturing. Genet Eng News. 2003;23(6).

6. Verghese G, Kaiser N. Cleaning agents and cleaning chemistry. In: Pluta P, ed. Cleaning and Cleaning Validation. Vol 1. PDA and DHI; 2009.

7. Salonen H, et al. Cleaning products: their chemistry, effects on indoor air quality, and implications for human health. Environ Int. 2024;190:108836. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108836.

8. Verma C, et al. Principles and theories of green chemistry for corrosion science and engineering: design and application. Green Chem. 2024;26:4270-4357. doi:10.1039/D3GC05207A

9. Sharma S, et al. Surface characterization for corrosion monitoring. In: Electrochemical and Analytical Techniques for Sustainable Corrosion Monitoring. Elsevier Inc; 2023:103-120. doi:10.1016/B978-0-443-15783-7.00016-5

10. Bhattacharya B, et al. Surf Coat Technol. 2006;201:526-532.

11. Oh SJ, Cook DC, Townsend HE. Characterization of iron oxides commonly formed as corrosion products on steel. Hyperfine Interact. 1998;112:59-65.

12. Hanesch M. Raman spectroscopy of iron oxides and (oxy)hydroxides at low laser power and possible applications in environmental magnetic studies. Geophys J Int. 2009;177(3):941-948. doi:10.1111/j.1265-246x.2009.04122.x

13. American Society for Testing and Materials. ASTM A380–96: Standard Practice for Cleaning, Descaling, and Passivation of Stainless Steel Parts, Equipment, and Systems. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 1996.

14. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Bioprocessing Equipment (BPE): Non-mandatory Appendix E Passivation Procedure Qualification. 2014.

15. US Food and Drug Administration. 21 CFR Part 211: Current Good Manufacturing Practices for Finished Pharmaceuticals. September 29, 1978.

16. European Union. Guideline for Good Manufacturing Practices for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use: Annex 15, Section 10.10. Revised March 30, 2015.

17. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR): 21 CFR 211, Part D, Section 211.65.

18. US Food and Drug Administration. Warning letter. FDA. Published December 15, 2013. Accessed February 27, 2026. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2009/ucm148998.htm

19. US Food and Drug Administration. Warning letter CMS #630316. FDA. August 10, 2022. Accessed February 27, 2026. https://www.fda.gov

20. US Food and Drug Administration. GMP Trends (Form 483). FDA. April 15, 2014. Accessed February 27, 2026. https://www.fda.gov

21. US Food and Drug Administration. GMP Trends (Form 483). FDA. May 1, 2024. Accessed February 27, 2026. https://www.fda.gov

22. European Union. Guideline for Good Manufacturing Practices for Medicinal Products for Human and Veterinary Use: Annex 1, Section 2.5. Brussels; August 22, 2022.

23. International Conference for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceutical for Human Use (ICH). ICH-Q9 Harmonized Tripartite Guideline: Quality Risk Management. November 9, 2005.

24. Rivera, et al. A risk-based approach to stainless steel equipment maintenance. Pharm Technol. 2017;41(2):54-60.

About the authors

Emily Null, MS, scientist; Mildred R. Bernardo, lead scientist; Si Myra Tyson, MS, technical services lab specialist; Dijana Hadziselimovic, technical services laboratory manager; Paul Lopolito, technical services director; all with STERIS Corp.