August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Proficiency Tests
DLAfood
cosmeticsconsumer goodswww.dla-lvu.de
Evaluation Reportproficiency test
DLA 17/2018
ALM Verification:
Milk in Cereal Pap-Matrix
5 Samples containing Milk Powder (levels: 0,25 / 1,25 / 2,5 / 12,5 / 25 mg/kg)
Dienstleistung Lebensmittel Analytik GbRWaldemar-Bonsels-Weg 17022926 Ahrensburg, Germany
[email protected] www.dla-lvu.de
Coordinator of this PT: Matthias Besler-Scharf, PhD
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 1 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Allgemeine Informationen zur Eignungsprüfung (EP)General Information on the proficiency test (PT)
EP-AnbieterPT-Provider
DLA - Dienstleistung Lebensmittel Analytik GbRGesellschafter: Dr. Gerhard Wichmann und Dr. Matthias Besler-Scharf
Waldemar-Bonsels-Weg 170, 22926 Ahrensburg, Germany
Tel. ++49-(0)4532-9183358Mob. ++49(0)171-1954375 Fax. ++49(0)4102-9944976eMail. [email protected]
EP-NummerPT-Number
DLA 17/2018
EP-KoordinatorPT-Coordinator
Dr. Matthias Besler-Scharf
Status des EP-BerichtStatus of PT-Report
Abschlussbericht / Final report (17 August 2018) Gültig ist die jeweils letzte Version/Korrektur des Berichts. Sie ersetzt alle vorangegangenen Versionen.Only the latest version/correction of the report is valid. It replaces all preceding versions.
EP-Bericht FreigabePT-Report Authorization
Dr. Matthias Besler-Scharf (Technischer Leiter / Technical Manager)- gezeichnet / signed M. Besler-Scharf Dr. Gerhard Wichmann (QM-Beauftragter / Quality Manager)- gezeichnet / signed G. Wichmann Datum / Date: 17 August 2018
UnteraufträgeSubcontractors
Falls im Rahmen der Eignungsprüfung eine Prüfung der Gehalte, Homogenität und Stabilität von EP-Parametern durchgeführt wurde, hat DLA diese im Unterauftrag vergeben.In case the analysis of the content, homogeneity and stability of PT-parameters waspart of the proficiency test, the determinations were subcontracted by DLA.
VertraulichkeitConfidentiality
Die Teilnehmerergebnisse sind im EP-Bericht in anonymisierter Form mit Auswertenummern benannt. Daten einzelner Teilnehmer werden ausschließlich nach vorheriger Zustimmung des Teilnehmers an Dritte weitergegeben.Participant result are named anonymously with evaluation numbers in the PT report. Data of individual participants will be passed on to third parties only with prior consent of the participant.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 2 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Inhalt / Content1. Introduction..................................................42. Realisation...................................................5
2.1 Test material...........................................52.1.1 Characterization of the PT-Sample series...............72.1.2 Homogeneity............................................82.1.3 Stability..............................................82.2 Sample shipment and information to the test..............92.3 Submission of results....................................9
3. Evaluation...................................................103.1 Action Level Matrix Score (ALM-Score)...................113.2 Recovery-Score (RR-Score)...............................113.2.1 Recovery rates by precision experiment................123.2.2 Values by perception..................................14
4. Results......................................................154.1 Proficiency Test Milk...................................164.1.1 Qualitative: Action Level Matrix–Scores...............164.1.2 Quantitative: Recovery-Scores (ELISA Methods).........174.1.2.1 ELISA results: Casein / Milk protein (as skimmed milk powder).....................................................174.1.2.2 ELISA results: β-Lactoglobulin (as β-Lactoglobulin). 184.1.3 Quantitative: Recovery-Scores (LC/MS Methods).........194.1.4 Informative Data: Statistical characteristics (ELISA Methods)....................................................214.1.4.1 Casein / Milk protein (as skimmed milk powder)......21
5. Documentation................................................245.1 Details by the participants.............................245.1.1 ELISA Methods (Casein/milk protein)...................245.1.2 ELISA Methods (β-Lactoglobulin).......................265.1.3 LC/MS Methods.........................................275.2 Homogeneity.............................................285.2.1 Mixture homogeneity before bottling...................285.3 Information on the Proficiency Test (PT)................31
6. Index of participant laboratories............................327. Index of references..........................................33
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 3 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
1. Introduction
The participation in proficiency testing (PT) schemes is an essentialelement of the quality-management-system of every laboratory testing foodand feed, cosmetics and food contact materials. The implementation ofproficiency tests enables the participating laboratories to prove theirown analytical competence under realistic conditions. At the same timethey receive valuable data regarding the verification and/or validationof the particular testing method [1, 5].The purpose of DLA is to offer proficiency tests for selected parametersin concentrations with practical relevance.Realisation and evaluation of the present proficiency test follows thetechnical requirements of DIN EN ISO/IEC 17043 (2010) and DIN ISO13528:2009 / ISO 13528:2015 [2, 3].
The present PT-format „Action Level Matrix - ALM Verification“ offers thepossibility to prove that the analytical determination method applied bythe participating laboratory is capable to reliably detect the allergencontent relevant for food labelling by means of a kind of calibration rowof 5 samples containing the allergen in a specific food-matrix and ablank sample.The allergen contents of the PT-sample series vary from 1/10 to 5-fold ofthe action level, which is normally based on the threshold value dose(VITAL Concept 2.0) or the assessment values of the ALTS/ALS (German FoodExpert Committee) (see Table 3). The evaluation of PT-results wasperformed qualitative in scores from 1-5 (Score 3 = Action Levelsuccessfully detected). Quantitative results were given including therecovery rates for information in the report.Additionally a quantitative evaluation of the results for the ActionLevel as well as the Level 5 using z-scores was made for informationpurposes.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 4 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
2. Realisation
2.1 Test material
6 PT-samples with the food matrix cereal pap were provided for qualitat-ive detection and optional quantitative determination of milk. The milk-levels of the PT-sample series were in the range from 0,25 mg/kg to25 mg/kg (as skimmed milk powder), whereas the medial level representsthe “Action Level” (see Table 1).
The test material was a mixture of common in commerce infant foodproducts “cereal pap” for children from 4 and 6 month (labeled as milk-and gluten-free). The basic composition was identical for all 6 samples(see Table 1).After crushing and sieving by means of an impact mill (mesh 1,5 mm) thebasic mixture was homogenized and an aliquot was taken from it as blanksample.Afterwards the spiked sample series was produced as follows: The spiking material containing the allergenic ingredient skimmed milkpowder was sieved by means of a centrifugal mill (mesh 250 µm), added toan aliquot of the basic mixture and the mixture was homogenized. Subsequently, in 5 separate batches for each level basic mixture was ad-ded stepwise (2-3 steps) including homogenization after each step untilthe total amount of sample material was reached.
The 6 PT-samples were portioned to approximately 20 g in metallized PETfilm bags.
For the spiking a mixture of common in commerce skimmed milk powdersconsisting of 9 single products out of 5 countries (Europe, USA) wasused. The mixture of skimmed milk powders gave a recovery rate for case-in of about 107 % ± 43 % (n=9) in the spiking level sample of the PT DLA03/2018 calculated from different ELISA method results.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 5 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Table 1: Composition of DLA-Samples
PT-Sample series Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
„blank“ 0,25 mg/kg
1,25 mg/kg
2,5 mg/kg 12,5mg/kg 25 mg/kg
Ingredients g/100 g g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g g/100g
Organic-Cereal-Pap Ingredients:Millet whole flour (68%), brown rice flour (25%), corn whole flour (5,4%), buckwheat flour (1,6%), thiamineNutrients per 100g:Fat 3,6 g, carbohydrates 77g, protein 11 g
100 100 100 100 100 100
further Ingredients:Maltodextrin and Silicon diox-ide
- <0,1 <0,1 <0,1 <0,1 <0,1
Allergen-Contents mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
there of milk:– as skimmed milk powder*– with 33,0% total protein**– with 26,4% casein***– with 3,3% β-lactoglobulin***
- 0,261 0,086 0,069 0,009
1,24 0,41 0,33 0,04
2,56 0,84 0,67 0,08
12,3 4,07 3,26 0,41
25,5 8,42 6,74 0,84
Extended combined uncertainty (k=2)of skimmed milk powder-content (= ± 9,0 %)
± 0,023 ± 0,11 ± 0,23 ± 1,1 ± 2,3
*Allergen contents as „total food“ as described in column ingredients according togravimetric mixture** Protein contents according to laboratory analysis of raw material: 33,0 ± 0,36 %, n=5(total nitrogen according to Kjeldahl with F=6,38 for milk protein)*** Protein contents according to literature values (approx. 80% casein and 10% β-lactoglobulin in total milk protein [42])
Note: The metrological traceability of temperature, mass and volume during production of the PTsamples is ensured by DAkkS calibrated reference materials.
Each assigned value, here the spiked allergen-contents, is afflicted witha standard uncertainty. As uncertainties the following factors were con-sidered: protein content of spiking material, mixing homogeneity, homo-geneity and stability of skimmed milk powder/casein.All uncertainties were expressed in the form of their standard deviationsand then added as variances. The square root from the sum of the totalvariances results in the combined uncertainty “Uc”. Multiplied with thecoverage factor k=2 the extended uncertainties of the assigned values"U(Xpt)" are obtained [3, 13, 18-20].
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 6 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
2.1.1 Characterization of the PT-Sample series
The PT-sample series was characterized by ELISA (Immunolab Casein ELISA,n=3). All 5 spiking levels were detected with a good correlation betweenspiking and mean of results (see Fig. 1). The relative standard devi-ations (RSD) were in the range of approx. 63% to 3,3% and the recoveryrates ranged from 79% to 135% and was 177% for level 2.
Table 2: Characterization of PT-sample series milk in cereal-pap-matrixby ELISA determination (Immunolab Casein, as skimmed milk powder , n=3).
Abb./Fig. 1 : ELISA results of PT-sample series milk in cereal pap-matrix(Immonuloab Casein, n=3), Note: the x-scale is not shown linear to obtain a betterrecognizability of low values.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 7 of 35
PT-Sample Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
[m g/kg] [m g/kg] [m g/kg] [m g/kg] [m g/kg] [mg/kg]
Spiking 0,0 0,26 1,24 2,56 12,3 25,5Result 1 0,0 0,14 2,54 2,98 16,1 25,6Result 2 0,0 0,36 1,57 3,15 12,,9 26,8Result 3 0,0 0,13 2,46 4,19 13,3 27,3
Mean [mg/kg] 0,0 0,207 2,19 3,44 14,7 26,6SD - 0,13 0,54 0,66 1,98 0,89
RSD [%] - 62,6 24,6 19,0 13,5 3,3Recovery [%] - 79 177 135 119 104
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
2.1.2 Homogeneity
The mixture homogeneity before bottling was examined 8-fold by micro-tracer analysis. It is a standardized method that is part of the interna-tional GMP certification system for feed [14].Before mixing dye coated iron particles of µm size are added to thesample and the number of particles is determined after homogenization intaken aliquots. The evaluation of the mixture homogeneity is based on thePoisson distribution using the chi-square test. A probability of ≥ 5 % isequivalent to a good homogeneous mixture and of ≥ 25% to an excellentmixture [14, 15]. The microtracer analysis of the present PT samples level 1 to 5 showed aprobability of 100%, 97%, 90%, 87% and 83%. Additionally particle numberresults were converted into concentrations, statistically evaluated ac-cording to normal distribution and compared to the standard deviation ac-cording to Horwitz. For the evaluation HorRat values between 0,3 and 1,3are to be accepted under repeat conditions (measurements within a labor-atory) [17]. This gave a HorRat value of 0,41, 0,57, 0,81, 0,88 and 0,88respectively. The results of microtracer analysis are given in the docu-mentation.
2.1.3 Stability
A water activity (aW) of < 0,5 is an important factor to ensure the sta-bility of dry or dried products during storage. Optimum conditions forstorage is the aW value range of 0,15 - 0,3. In this range the lowestpossible degradation rate is to be expected [16].
The experience with various DLA test materials showed good storage sta-bility with respect to the durability of the sample (spoilage) and thecontent of the PT parameters for comparable food matrices and wateractivity (aW value <0,5).The aW value of the PT samples was approx. 0,34 (23,2°C). The stabilityof the sample material was thus ensured during the investigation periodunder the specified storage conditions.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 8 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
2.2 Sample shipment and information to the test
The portions of test material (sample 1 to 6) were sent to every parti-cipating laboratory in the 13th week of 2018. The testing method was op-tional. The tests should be finished at May 11th 2018 the latest.
With the cover letter along with the sample shipment the following in-formation was given to participants:The proficiency test Action Level Matrix (ALM) - Verification consistsof five different samples with specified contents of skimmed milk powderas well as a „blank sample“ in the matrix cereal pap powder.
• The 6 samples are numbered in a random order. • It is to be proven qualitatively by any suitable method that the
so-called „Action Level“ of 2,5 mg/kg skimmed milk powder can bedetected in the processed matrix (= Action Level 1 (VITAL concept2.0) and judgement value of the German Commission ALTS/ALS).
• If possible, the indication of quantitative results is desirable inorder to compare them with the levels of addition.
Please note the attached information on the proficiency test.(see documentation, section 5.3 Information on the PT)
2.3 Submission of results
The participants submitted their results in standard forms, which havebeen sent by email or were available on our website. On one hand the res-ults given as positive/negative and on the other hand the indicated res-ults of the allergenic ingredients e.g. total food item or protein inmg/100g were evaluated. Queried and documented were the indicated results and details of the testmethods like specificity, limit of quantification, test kit manufacturerand hints about the procedure.In case participants submitted several results for the same parameterobtained by different methods these results were evaluated with the sameevaluation number with a letter as a suffix and indication of the relatedmethod.
9 of 11 participants submitted results in time. Two participants submit-ted no results.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 9 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
3. Evaluation
Different ELISA-methods for the determination of allergens in foods areusing different antibodies, which are usually calibrated with differentreference materials and may utilize differing extraction methods. Amongothers this can induce different results of the analyte content [31-34].Furthermore matrix- and/or processing of samples can have a strong impacton the detectability of allergens by ELISA and/or PCR methods.
In the present PT the allergenic ingredient was provided in an especiallyprocessed food matrix in a kind of a calibration line with concentrationsin the range of the so called Action Level. The allergen content here re-ferred to as the “Action Level” is highlighted by colour in Table 3.
The participant results were evaluated qualitatively with an Action LevelMatrix Score (ALM-Score), which indicates the number of successfully de-tected concentration levels. The quantitative results were evaluated with a Recovery-Score (RR-Score),which indicates the number of results with a recovery rate in the rangeof 50 - 150% of the spiking level.
Table 3: Threshold doses, judgement values and legislative maximum val-ues.(Highlighted by colour: Action Level in the present PT)[21-23, 32]
Allergen Threshold dose *
(Vital Concept 2.0)
Judgement value
ALTS/ALS
Legislative Maximumvalue for declara-tion
mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg
Gluten 100 > 80 20 **
Egg (as whole egg powder)
0,66 > 1
Peanut 8 > 5
Soy (as Soy flour) 25 > 20
Milk (as defatted milkpowder)
2,8 > 2,5
Hazelnut 6,4 > 5
Cashew 106 > 50
Almond, Walnut, Pecan, Brazil-Nut, Pistachio, Macad-amia
- > 20
Sesame, unpeeled 11,8 > 10
Lupine 100 > 50
Celery seed - > 20
Mustard seed 1,9 > 5* calculated by threshold dose considering an intake of 100 g food [22,23]** Maximum value for declaration as „gluten free“ according to EU-VO 828/2014 [21]
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 10 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
3.1 Action Level Matrix Score (ALM-Score)
The qualitative valuation of each participant's results was performedwith the so called ALM-Scores from 1-5 considering the number of “posit-ive” or “negative” results matching the spiking of the PT-sample series(see Tab. 4). An ALM-Score from > 3 indicates a successful detection ofthe Action Level. The results of the matrix sample Level 0 were not eval-uated if the participant result is in accordance with ≥75% positive ornegative results of participants (consensus value) or if the result isbelow the limit of quantification of the used method.
Table 4: Evaluation of results using ALM-Scores
3.2 Recovery-Score (RR-Score)
The evaluation of the quantitative participant results for the spiked PT-samples was done by recovery scores (RR-Scores) which are related to thenumber of recovery rates in the range of acceptance. The RR-Scores arecalculated by counting the number of results in the range of acceptance(s. below) per number of quantitatively determined samples. Further thepercentage is given in the brackets behind.The recovery rates were calculated considering the content of spiked al-lergen (level of addition). The reference values are calculated from thevalues for Level 1 to 5 given in section 2.1 Sample material, Table 1. Asrange of acceptance RA for the evaluation of the participant results therange of the AOAC-recommendation of 50-150% for allergen-ELISAs was used[29]. This range was also used in the present PT for quantitative PCR-results.Only exact quantitative results were considered. Single results outsidethe given measuring range (e.g. indicated with > 25 mg/kg or < 2,5 mg/kg)or indicated with “0” were not considered.
The given recovery rates enable inter alia an assessment of matrix and/orprocessing influences.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 11 of 35
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 5 ALM-Score
„blank“ 0,5 mg/kg 2,5 mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12,5 mg/kg 25 mg/kg qualitative Action Level
negative negative negative negative negative positive 1 (20%)
negative negative negative negative positive positive 2 (40%)
negative negative negative positive positive positive 3 (60%)
negative negative positive positive positive positive 4 (80%)
negative positive positive positive positive positive 5 (100%)
Level 3 (Action Level)
Detection
pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg Number of detected
Levels 1 - 5
not successful
not successful
successful
successful
successful
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
3.2.1 Recovery rates by precision experiments
In ring trials of ASU §64 methods recovery rates in the range from 57% -119% were obtained by ELISA methods and 11% - 145% for PCR methods, de-pending on matrix or processing and concentration (s. Table 5a and 5b).The given target standard deviation σpt was calculated for a number of m= 2 repeated measurements.
Table 5a: ELISA-Methods – Recovery rates and precision data from chosenprecision experiments[36-37].
Parameter Matrix Mean[mg/kg]
Recovery robRSDr
RSDr RSDR σpt Method / Literature
Peanut Milkchocolate
173,733,85,9
87 %85 %59 %
---
8,8%5,2%7,8%
31%20%31%
30,4%19,7%30,5%
ELISA Manuf. AASU 00.00-69
Peanut Milkchocolate
215,740,110,1
108 %100 %101 %
---
5,9%7,2%7,3%
32%14%16%
31,7%13,0%15,1%
ELISA Manuf. BASU 00.00-69
Peanut Darkchocolate
148,230,95,7
74 %77 %57 %
---
6,0%13%6,1%
22%25%33%
21,6%23,2%32,7%
ELISA Manuf. AASU 00.00-69
Hazelnut Darkchocolate
16,37,563,731,62
81 %76 %75 %81 %
----
4,7%8,9%13%15%
12%15%24%33%
11,5%13,6%22,2%31,2%
ELISA Manuf. AASU 44.00-7
Hazelnut Darkchocolate
21,310,74,692,37
106 %107 %94 %119 %
----
7,1%11%11%9,3%
14%19%17%17%
13,1%17,3%15,1%16,4%
ELISA Manuf. BASU 44.00-7
The Working Group on Prolamin Analysis and Toxicity (WGPAT)performed ringtrials for validation of two commercial ELISA-Kits for determination ofgluten using monoclonal R5 antibodies [30]. 12 food samples with gliadincontents in the range if 0 - 168 mg/kg were analysed by 20 laboratories.The obtained recovery rates were in the range between 65 and 110%, therelative repeatability standard deviation was between 13 – 25% (1. meth-od) and 11 - 22% (2. method) and the relative reproducibility standarddeviation between 23 - 47 % (1. method) and 25 - 33% (2. method). The au-thors concludes that both ELISA-Kits fulfil the validation criteria forELISA methods [30].
THE IRMM (Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements) proofed thesuitability of five different ELISA-Kits for the determination of peanut[33]. The mean values were in the concentration range of 0,3 - 16,1 mg/kgand/or 1,2 - 20,4 mg/kg. The smallest relative reproducibility standarddeviation for each Kit was obtained for dark chocolate at 20 - 42% andcookies at 23 - 61%.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 12 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Table 5b: PCR-Methods - Relative repeated standard deviation (RSDr) andrelative reproducibility standard deviation (RSDR) according to chosenevaluation from experiments by precision and the resulting targetstandard deviation σpt [38-41].
Parameter Matrix Mean[mg/kg]
Recov-ery
robRSD
RSDr RSDR σpt Method / Literature
Soya Wheat flour Maize flour
107145
107 %145 %
63 %34 %
--
31 %24 %
--
rt-PCRASU 16.01-9
Soya flour Boiled saus-age (100°C, 60 min)
114,164,4
114 %161 %
- 14,7%27,7%
22,2%41,4%
19,6%36,5%
rt-PCRASU 08.00-65
Soya flour Sausage, autoclaved
33,1 33,1 % - 21,5% 30,8 26,8% rt-PCRASU 08.00-65
Soya flour Boiled saus-age (100°C, 60 min)
82,039,619,69,3
82 %99 %98 %93 %
- 17,3%22,9%22,9%31,1%
24,1%31,8%24,0%30,2%
20,8%27,4%17,7%-
rt-PCRASU 08.00-59
Wheat + Rye Boiled saus-age (100°C, 60 min)
96,1 120 % - 21,3% 35,4% 32,0% rt-PCRASU 08.00-66
Wheat + Rye Sausage, autoclaved
74,9 11,0 % - 24,6% 32,7% 27,7% rt-PCRASU 08.00-66
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 13 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
3.2.2 Values by perception
Requirements to the performance of analysis methods for quantitative de-termination of allergens in food were compiled for example from the Min-istry of Health and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan [28], by the Working Group 12„Food allergens“ of the Technician Committee CEN/TC 275 [25-27], by ainternational "Food Allergen Working Group" under the leadership of theAOAC Presidential Task Force on Food Allergens [29] and by the Codex Ali-mentarius Commitee (CAC/GL 74-2010) [24].
The following relevant ELISA and/or PCR validation criteria of the com-mittees are given in Table 6 and 7.
Table 6: ELISA validation criteria
Literature[24-29]
Recovery Rate RepeatabilityStandard Deviation
ReproducibilityStandard Deviation
MHLW 2006 50 - 150% ≤ 25%
CEN 2009 ≤ 20%
AOAC 2010 50 - 150% 6,9 - 34,4% (a) 19,5 - 57,2% (a)
CAC 2010 70 - 120% ≤ 25% ≤ 35%(a) = Example from hypothetical ring trail in the concentration range of 0,5 - 5 mg/kg
Table 7: PCR validation criteria
Literature[24]
Recovery Rate RepeatabilityStandard Deviation
ReproducibilityStandard Deviation
CAC 2010 ± 25% (a) ≤ 25% ≤ 35%(a) = Trueness / Richtigkeit
Due to the current performance of ELISA and PCR methods for quantitativedetermination of allergens in food, which can be derived from precisiondata by experiments and from validation criteria mentioned above, a com-mon relative target standard deviation (σpt value) from 25% was defined.The recovery rate was set to 50-150%.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 14 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4. Results
All following tables are anonymized. With the delivering of theevaluation report the participants are informed about their individualevaluation number. The qualitative evaluation was done together for ELISA and LC/MS methods.There was a separate quantitative evaluation of ELISA and LC/MS methods.There were no PCR results submitted. The results were grouped accordingto the applied methods (e.g. test kits) and sorted chronologicallyaccording to the evaluation number of the participants.In the result chapter all quantitative results of the participants aredisplayed formatted to 3 decimal places. In the documentation, all res-ults are given as they were transmitted by the participants.
To ensure the comparability of quantitative results DLA harmonized parti-cipants' results giving different specifications (e.g. as protein or asallergenic food) as far as possible.
ELISA results given as milk protein (total) were converted to skimmedmilk powder using the experimentally determined protein content of 33,0%in skimmed milk powder (see p.5). Results given as casein were first con-verted to milk protein (total) using the literature value of 80% casein[42], and were then recalculated to skimmed milk powder.
One set of ELISA results given as β-lactoglobulin and another LC/MS setof results were evaluated separately.
The qualitative results are presented in the corresponding evaluationtable as indicated below:
In cases when quantitative values were submitted the result table aregiven as indicated below:
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 15 of 35
ParticipantLevel 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 5 ALM-Score
Method Remarks„blank“ 0,5 mg/kg 2,5 mg/kg 5 mg/kg 12,5 mg/kg 25 mg/kg qualitative
pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg
Level 3 (Action Level)
Number of detected Levels 1 - 5
Level 1 - 0,5 mg/kg Level 2 - 2,5 mg/kg Level 4 - 12,5mg/kg Level 5 - 25 mg/kg
RR * RR * RR * RR * RR * RR *
[m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [mg/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%]
Participant Level 3 - 5,0 mg/kg (Action Level)
RR-Score Method Remarks
Result Result Result Result Result
Number in RA**
* RR = Recovery Rate (RR)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4.1 Proficiency Test Milk
4.1.1 Qualitative: Action Level Matrix–Scores (ELISA- and LC/MS Methods)
Comments:For levels 4 and 5 100% posi-tive results were obtained bythe participants.The Action Level (level 3) wassuccessfully detected by 77%(10) of results. Tree negativeresults for the Action Levelwere obtained by method VT(limit of quantification ac-cording to test kit instructi-ons 2,5 mg/kg skimmed milkpowder).The lower levels 1 and 2 wereeach detected positive by lessthan 50% of participants' re-sults.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 16 of 35
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 4 Level 5 ALM-ScoreMethod Remarks
„blank“ 0,25 mg/kg 1,25 mg/kg 2,5 mg/kg 12,5 mg/kg 25 mg/kg qualitative
pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg pos/neg
2a negative negative positive positive positive positive 4 (80%) AQ-C
7 negative positive positive positive positive positive 5 (100%) AQ-M
8 negative positive positive positive positive positive 5 (100%) IL
6a negative negative negative positive positive positive 3 (60%) MI-C
6b negative negative negative positive positive positive 3 (60%) MI-L
1a negative - positive positive positive positive 4 (80%) RS-FC
5 negative negative negative positive positive positive 3 (60%) RS-FC
1b negative - - positive positive positive 3 (60%) RS-FM
2b negative negative negative negative positive positive 2 (40%) VT
3 negative negative negative negative positive positive 2 (40%) VT
4 negative negative negative negative positive positive 2 (40%) VT
9 negative negative negative positive positive positive 3 (60%) VT
3 negative negative positive positive positive positive 4 (80%) LC-MS
Level 0 Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Methods:Number positive 0 2 5 10 13 13 AQ-C = AgraQuant Casein, RomerLabs
Number negative 13 9 7 3 0 0 AQ-M = AgraQuant Milchprotein, RomerLabs
Percent positive 0 18 42 77 100 100 IL = Immunolab
Percent negative 100 82 58 23 0 0 MI-C = Morinaga Institute ELISA Casein
Consensus value negative negative none positive positive positive MI-L = Morinaga Institute ELISA Lactoglobulin
Spiking negative positive positive positive positive positive RS-FC= Ridascreen® Fast Casein, R-Biopharm
RS-FM= Ridascreen® Fast Milchprotein, R-Biopharm
VT = Veratox, Neogen
LC-MS = Liquid chromatography / mass spectrometry
Evaluation number
Level 3 (Ac-tion Level)
Number of recorded Level 1 - 6
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4.1.2 Quantitative: Recovery-Scores (ELISA Methods)
4.1.2.1 ELISA results: Casein / Milk protein (as skimmed milk powder)
Comments:For levels 3 to 5 the recovery rates of participants' results were about 56% to 67% and thus within the AOACrecommendation of 50-150%. With one exception, the recoveries for levels 1 and 2 were above 150%.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 17 of 35
Level 1 – 0,25 mg/kg Level 2 – 1,25 mg/kg Level 4 - 12,5 mg/kg Level 5 - 25 mg/kg RR-Score Method Remarks
Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR *
[mg/kg] [%] [mg/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] Number in RA **
2a AQ-C
7 <LOQ 3,94 319 5,45 213 27,0 219 40,3 158 0/4 (0%) AQ-M Result converted °
8 0,290 111 2,19 177 3,45 135 14,7 119 26,6 104 4/5 (80%) IL
6a <0,950 <0,950 2,88 113 11,4 92 28,8 113 3/3 (100%) MI-C Result converted °
1a 0,655 251 8,75 708 3,46 135 12,0 97 33,7 132 3/5 (60%) RS-FC Result converted °
5 <1,89 <1,89 3,33 130 11,4 92 27,3 107 3/3 (100%) RS-FC Result converted °
1b 0,500 192 1,89 153 4,91 192 18,7 151 66,1 259 0/5 (0%) RS-FM Result converted °
2b VT
3 < 2,50 <2,50 <2,50 4,20 34 17,2 67 1/2 (50%) VT
4 <7,58 <7,58 <7,58 37,0 300 68,8 269 0/2 (0%) VT Result converted °
9 <2,00 <2,00 <2,50 7,00 57 15,0 59 2/2 (100%) VT
° calculation see p. 16
RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % Methods:Number in RA 1 Number in RA 0 Number in RA 4 Number in RA 5 Number in RA 6 AQ-C = AgraQuant Casein, RomerLabs
AQ-M = AgraQuant Milchprotein, RomerLabs
Prozent in RA 33 Prozent in RA 0 Prozent in RA 67 Prozent in RA 56 Prozent in RA 67 IL = Immunolab
MI-C = Morinaga Institute ELISA Casein
* Recovery rate 100% Ref erence v alue: skimmed milk powder, s. Page 6 RS-FC= Ridascreen® Fast Casein, R-Biopharm
** Acceptance range of AOAC for allergen ELISAs RS-FM= Ridascreen® Fast Milchprotein, R-Biopharm
VT = Veratox, Neogen
Evaluation number
Level 3 – 2,5 mg/kg (Action Level)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4.1.2.2 ELISA results: β-Lactoglobulin (as β-Lactoglobulin)
Comments:For the levels 3 to 5 quantified by the participant, the recovery rates were within the range of acceptance of50-150%. The results for Level 1 and 2 were below the limit of quantification of the used method.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 18 of 35
Level 1 – 0,25 mg/kg Level 2 – 1,25 mg/kg Level 4 - 12,5 mg/kg Level 5 - 25 mg/kg RR-Score Method Remarks
Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR *
[m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] Number in RA **
6b <0,031 <0,031 0,0500 59,3 0,230 56,5 0,540 64,1 3/3 (100%) MI-L
RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % Methods:Number in RA 0 Number in RA 0 Number in RA 1 Number in RA 1 Number in RA 1 MI-L = Morinaga Institute ELISA Lactoglobulin
Percent in RA 0 Percent in RA 0 Percent in RA 100 Percent in RA 100 Percent in RA 100
* Recovery rate 100% Ref erence v alue: beta-lactoglobulin, s. Page 6
** Acceptance range of AOAC f or allergen ELISAs
Evaluation number
Level 3 – 2,5 mg/kg (Action Level)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4.1.3 Quantitative: Recovery-Scores (LC/MS Methods)
Comments:For the levels 4 and 5 quantified by the participant, the recovery rates were within the range of acceptanceof 50-150%. The results for level 1 to 3 were below the limit of quantification of the used method.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 19 of 35
Level 1 – 0,25 mg/kg Level 2 – 1,25 mg/kg Level 4 - 12,5 mg/kg Level 5 - 25 mg/kgRR-Score Method Remarks
Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR * Result RR *
[m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] [m g/kg] [%] Number in RA **
3 < 10 < 10 < 10 14,3 115,9 30,7 120,3 2/2 (100%) LS-MS/MS
RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % RA** 50-150 % Methods:Number in RA 0 Number in RA 0 Number in RA 0 Number in RA 1 Number in RA 1 LC-MS = Liquid chromatography / mass spectrometry
Percent in RA 0 Percent in RA 0 Percent in RA 0 Percent in RA 100 Percent in RA 100
* Recov ery rate 100% Ref erence v alue: skimmed milk powder, s. Page 6
** Acceptance range of AOAC f or allergen ELISAs
Evaluation number
Level 3 – 2,5 mg/kg (Action Level)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Abb./Fig. 2 : Graphs of single results (Level 2-4) separated by methodswith corresponding mean recovery rates, lower scale skimmed milk powdercontent in mg/kg, upper scale recovery rate in % with * range of accept-ance from 50% - 150% (* range of acceptance: RA lower limit to RA upperlimit)
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 20 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
4.1.4 Informative Data: Statistical characteristics (ELISA Meth-ods)
4.1.4.1 Casein / Milk protein (as skimmed milk powder)
Sample: Action Level 2,5 mg/kg
Comm ents on the statistic data and comparison of the reference values:
Assigned value was the median of all results. The calculation of the z-scores was based on a target standard deviation of 25% (see Fig. 3, p.23).
All data are for information only.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 21 of 35
Statistic Data
Number of results 6
Number of outliers 0
Mean 3,91
Median 3,91
Robust Mean (X) 3,45
Robust standard deviation (S*) 1,16
Target range:
0,864
lower limit of target range 1,73
upper limit of target range 5,18
1,3
0,59
Results in the target range 5
Percent in the target range 83
All Results [mg/kg]
Assigned value (Xpt) XptALL
Target standard deviation σpt
Quotient S*/σpt
Standard uncertainty U(Xpt)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Sample: Level 25 mg/kg
Comm ents on the statistic data and comparison of the reference values:
Assigned value was the robust mean of all results (algorithm A). Thecalculation of the z-scores was based on a target standard deviation of25% (see Fig. 4, p. 23).
All data are for information only.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 22 of 35
Statistic Data
Number of results 8Number of outliers 0Mean 31,9Median 28,0Robust Mean (X) 29,7Robust standard deviation (S*) 12,8Target range:
7,43lower limit of target range 14,9upper limit of target range 44,6
1,75,6
Results in the target range 7Percent in the target range 88
*without result No. 4 (indication of results unclear)
All Results [mg/kg]
Assigned value (Xpt) XptALL
Target standard deviation σpt
Quotient S*/σptStandard uncertainty U(Xpt)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Abb./Fig. 3 : z-Scores action level 2,5 mg/kg(ELISA-results as skimmed milk powder) Assigned value: median of all results
Abb./Fig. 4 : z-Scores level 25 mg/kg (ELISA-results as skimmed milk powder) Assigned value: robust mean (alg. A) of all results
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 23 of 35
6a 5 8 1b 1a 7-5,0
-4,0
-3,0
-2,0
-1,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
-1,1 -0,6 -0,5 -0,5
1,01,6
Action Level 2,5 mg/kg z - Scores
Zugewiesener Wertt: Xpt Alle / Assigned Value: Xpt All
Auswertenummer / evaluation number
9 3 8 5 6a 1a 7 1b-5,0
-4,0
-3,0
-2,0
-1,0
0,0
1,0
2,0
3,0
4,0
5,0
-2,0 -1,7 -0,4 -0,3 -0,10,5
1,4
4,9Level 25 mg/kg z - Scores
Zugewiesener Wertt: Xpt Alle / Assigned Value: Xpt All
Auswertenummer / evaluation number
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
5. Documentation
5.1 Details by the participants
Note: Information given in German were translated by DLA to the best of our knowledge (without guarantee of correctness).
5.1.1 ELISA Methods (Casein/milk protein)
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 24 of 35
MU*
qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg Test-Kit + Provider
AQ-C 2a 11.05.18 positive positive negative negative positive positive 0,2 Casein
AQ-M 7 04.04.18 positive 1,8 positive 13,3 positive <LOQ negative <LOD positive 8,9 positive 1,3 0,05 0,4 0,25
IL 8 positive 3,45 positive 26,6 positive 0,29 negative 0 positive 14,7 positive 2,19 0,16* 0,8*
MI-C 6a 06.04. positive 0,76 positive 7,6 negative <0,25 negative <0,25 positive 3 negative <0,25 0,25 0,25 Casein
RS-FC 5 25.04.18 positive 0,88 positive 7,2 negative < 0,5 negative < 0,5 positive 3 negative < 0,5 0,5 0,5 Casein
RS-FC 1a 11.05. positive 0,913 positive 8,89 0,173 negative < 0,125 positive 3,17 positive 2,31 0,71 2,5 Casein
RS-FM 1b 27.04. positive 1,62 positive 21,8 0,165 negative < 0,125 positive 6,16 0,625 0,7 2,5
VT 3 03.05.18 negative <2,5 positive 17,2 negative < 2,5 negative < 2,5 positive 4,2 negative <2,5 1 2,5 0,4
VT 4 25.04.18 negative <2.5 positive 22,7 negative <2.5 negative <2.5 positive 12,2 negative <2.5 2,5 2,5 0,296
VT 9 11.5. positive <2.5 positive 15 negative <2 negative <2 positive 7 negative <2 2 2,5
VT 2b 09.04.18 negative positive negative negative positive negative 2,5
Method Abk.
Evaluationnumber
Date of Analysis
Result Sample 1 Level 2,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 2 Level 25 mg/kg
Result Sample 3 Level 0,25 mg/kg
Result Sample 4 blank
Result Sample 5 Level 12,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 6 Level 1,25 mg/kg
NWG / LOD *
BG / LOQ *
Result given as Method
Day/Month e.g. Food / Protein
AgraQuant Casein COKAL
1200, RomerLabs
Milk proteins, total
AgraQuant ELISA Milk
COKAL2448, RomerLabs
Skimmed milk powder
Immunolab Casein ELISA
Morinaga Casein ELISA
Kit II
Ridascreen® FAST Casein
R4612, R-Biopharm
in question
RIDASCREEN FAST Casein
R4612, R-Biopharm
in question in question Milk protein
RIDASCREEN FAST Milk, R4652, R-Biopharm
Skimmed milk powder
Veratox Total Milk Allergen,
Neogen
Milk protein, totalVeratox Total Milk Allergen,
Neogen
Skimmed milk powder
Veratox Total Milk Allergen,
Neogen
Skimmed milk powder
Veratox Total Milk Allergen,
Neogen
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Continuation details by participants:
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 25 of 35
Specificity Further remarks
Antibody e.g. Extraction solution / Time / Temperature yes/no
AQ-C 2a yes Sample 3 in question (1x positive, 1x negative)
AQ-M 7 Milk protein, total aqueous buf fer / 15 min / 60 degrees Celsius yes
IL 8
MI-C 6a Casein As per kit instructions yes
RS-FC 5 As per kit instructions yes
RS-FC 1a yes
RS-FM 1b yes
VT 3 yes
VT 4 yes
VT 9
VT 2b yes
Method Abk.
Evaluation number
Remarks to the Method (Extraction and Determination)
Method accred. accord. ISO/IEC 17025
The mean conversion factor of MoniQA MQA 092014 (3.6) and NIST1549 (4.4) skimmed milk pow der w as used: conversion factor = 4, * LOD and LOQ values relative to skimmed milk pow der
As per kit instructions; standard 2 diluted in order to record values <2.5; Work up w ith Extractor 2
As per kit instructions;standard 2 diluted in order to record values <2.5; Work up w ith Extractor 2
Casein, beta-Lactoglobulin
Sample 1) w eak positive Sample 3) OD Sample 3 > OD 0ppmSample 4) OD Sample 4 = OD 0ppmSample 6) OD S.6 > OD S.3 > OD 0ppm
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
5.1.2 ELISA Methods (β-Lactoglobulin)
Continuation details by participants:
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 26 of 35
MU* Result given as Method
Day/Month qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg e.g. Food / Protein Test-Kit + Provider
MI-L 6b 09.04. positive 0,05 positive 0,54 negative <0,031 negative <0,031 positive 0,23 negative <0,031 0,031 0,031
Method Abk.
Evaluationnumber
Date of Analysis
Result Sample 1 Level 2,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 2 Level 25 mg/kg
Result Sample 3 Level 0,25 mg/kg
Result Sample 4 blank
Result Sample 5 Level 12,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 6 Level 1,25 mg/kg
NWG / LOD *
BG / LOQ *
beta-Lactoglobulin
Morinaga ß Lac ELISA Kit II
Specificity Further remarks
Antibody e.g. Extraction solution / Time / Temperature yes/no
MI-L 6b ß Lactoglobulin As per kit instructions yes
Method Abk.
Evaluation number
Remarks to the Method (Extraction and Determination)
Method accred. accord. ISO/IEC 17025
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
5.1.3 LC-MS Methods
Continuation details by participants:
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 27 of 35
NWG / LOD * BG / LOQ * MU* Result given as Method
Day/Month qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg qualitative mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg e.g. Food / Protein Test-Kit + Provider
LC-MS/MS 3 positiv < 10 positive 30,7 negative < 10 negative < 10 positive 14,3 positive < 10 1/3 LOQ 10 0,4 Skimmed milk powder LC-MS/MS
Method Abk.
Evaluationnumber
Date of Analysis
Result Sample 1 Level 2,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 2 Level 25 mg/kg
Result Sample 3 Level 0,25 mg/kg
Result Sample 4 blank
Result Sample 5 Level 12,5 mg/kg
Result Sample 6 Level 1,25 mg/kg
03/05/18 09/05/18
Specificity Further remarks
Antibody e.g. Extraction solution / Time / Temperature yes/no
LC-MS/MS 3 yes
Method Abk.
Evaluation number
Remarks to the Method (Extraction and Determination)
Method accred. accord. ISO/IEC 17025
marker peptides alpha- S1- Casein
aqueous extraction w ith urea after hexane degreasing, then tryptic digestion and solid phase extraction
Sample 1) w eak positive signal , but below LOQSample 3) no signalSample 4) no signalSample 6) w eak positive signal , but below LOQ
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
5.2 Homogeneity
5.2.1 Mixture homogeneity before bottling
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 28 of 35
DLA 17-2018 Sample 1
1,00 kg
75 – 3002,028,7 mg/kg
Sample
1 5,03 100 39,82 5,03 91 36,23 4,97 93 37,44 5,02 96 38,25 4,96 92 37,16 5,00 96 38,47 5,02 88 35,18 4,99 94 37,7
8 87 37,5 mg/kg
93,7 1,43 mg/kg3,58 3,82 %0,96 9,27 %100 % 0,41131 % 131 %
Microtracer Homogeneity Test
Weight whole sampleMicrotracer FSS-rot lakeParticle size µmWeight per particle µgAddition of tracer
Result of analysis
Weight [g]Particle number
Particles [mg/kg]
Poisson distribution Normal distributionNumber of samples Number of samplesDegree of freedom MeanMean Particles Standard deviationStandard deviation Particles rel. Standard deviatonc2 (CHI-Quadrat) Horwitz standard deviationProbability HorRat-valueRecovery rate Recovery rate
DLA 17-2018 Sample 2
1,00 kg
75 – 3002,031,3 mg/kg
Sample
1 5,00 92 36,82 4,99 96 38,53 5,03 90 35,84 5,07 86 33,95 4,97 98 39,46 4,99 87 34,97 5,06 98 38,78 5,04 92 36,5
8 87 36,8 mg/kg
92,4 1,95 mg/kg4,89 5,30 %1,81 9,30 %97 % 0,57
118 % 118 %
Microtracer Homogeneity Test
Weight whole sampleMicrotracer FSS-rot lakeParticle size µmWeight per particle µgAddition of tracer
Result of analysis
Weight [g]Particle number
Particles [mg/kg]
Poisson distribution Normal distributionNumber of samples Number of samplesDegree of freedom MeanMean Particles Standard deviationStandard deviation Particles rel. Standard deviatonc2 (CHI-Quadrat) Horwitz standard deviationProbability HorRat-valueRecovery rate Recovery rate
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 29 of 35
Microtracer Homogeneity TestDLA 17-2018 Sample 3
Weight whole sample 1,00 kgMicrotracer FSS-rot lakeParticle size 75 – 300 µmWeight per particle 2,0 µgAddition of tracer 24,5 mg/kg
Result of analysis
Sample Weight [g]
1 4,97 57 22,92 5,06 72 28,53 5,08 70 27,64 4,96 62 25,05 5,03 64 25,46 5,00 66 26,47 5,07 58 22,98 5,00 61 24,4
Poisson distribution Normal distributionNumber of samples 8 Number of samples 8Degree of freedom 7 Mean 25,4 mg/kgMean 63,7 Particles Standard deviation 2,02 mg/kgStandard deviation 5,07 Particles rel. Standard deviaton 7,96 %
2,83 Horwitz standard deviation 9,83 %Probability 90 % HorRat-value 0,81Recovery rate 104 % Recovery rate 104 %
Particle number
Particles [mg/kg]
c2 (CHI-Quadrat)
Microtracer Homogeneity TestDLA 17-2018 Sample 5
Weight whole sample 1,04 kgMicrotracer FSS-rot lakeParticle size 75 – 300 µmWeight per particle 2,0 µgAddition of tracer 19,7 mg/kg
Result of analysis
Sample Weight [g]
1 4,99 51 20,42 5,04 59 23,43 5,00 51 20,44 5,05 64 25,35 5,00 62 24,86 4,96 55 22,27 4,97 63 25,48 5,07 57 22,5
Poisson distribution Normal distributionNumber of samples 8 Number of samples 8Degree of freedom 7 Mean 23,1 mg/kgMean 57,7 Particles Standard deviation 2,02 mg/kgStandard deviation 5,07 Particles rel. Standard deviaton 8,78 %
3,12 Horwitz standard deviation 10,0 %Probability 87 % HorRat-value 0,88Recovery rate 117 % Recovery rate 117 %
Particle number
Particles [mg/kg]
c2 (CHI-Quadrat)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 30 of 35
Microtracer Homogeneity TestDLA 17-2018 Sample6
Weight whole sample 1,00 kgMicrotracer FSS-rot lakeParticle size 75 – 300 µmWeight per particle 2,0 µgAddition of tracer 20,9 mg/kg
Result of analysis
Sample Weight [g]
1 4,99 69 27,72 4,97 72 29,03 5,03 66 26,24 5,03 68 27,05 4,99 82 32,96 5,03 77 30,67 5,03 74 29,48 5,00 64 25,6
Poisson distribution Normal distributionNumber of samples 8 Number of samples 8Degree of freedom 7 Mean 28,6 mg/kgMean 71,5 Particles Standard deviation 2,42 mg/kgStandard deviation 6,06 Particles rel. Standard deviaton 8,47 %
3,59 Horwitz standard deviation 9,66 %Probability 83 % HorRat-value 0,88
Recovery rate 137 % Recovery rate 137 %
Particle number
Particles [mg/kg]
c2 (CHI-Quadrat)
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
5.3 Information on the Proficiency Test (PT)
Before the PT the participants received the following information in the sample cover letter:
PT number DLA 17-2018
PT name ALM-Verification Milk: 5 Samples containing Milk Powder in CerealPap-Matrix (levels: 0,25 / 1,25 / 2,5 / 12,5 / 25 mg/kg) (and a “blanksample”), Allergenic material: skimmed milk powder
Sample matrix (processing)
Samples 1-6:Cereal Pap Powder/ ingredients: sorghum, rice, maize and buckwheat flour, thiamine and other food additives and the allergenic food skimmed milk powder
Number of samples and sample amount
5 different Samples: 20 g each+ 1 „blank sample“ : 20 g
Storage Samples : room temperature (long term 2 - 10°C)
Intentional use Laboratory use only (quality control samples)
Parameter qualitative (optional: quantitative):Skimmed milk powder (Milk / Milk proteins / Bovine-DNA)Levels: Skimmed milk powder 0,25 / 1,25 / 2,5 / 12,5 / 25 mg/kg
Methods of analysis Analytical methods are optional
Notes to analysis The analysis of PT samples should be performed like a routinelaboratory analysis.In general we recommend to homogenize a representative sampleamount before analysis according to good laboratory practice,especially in case of low sample weights. Preferably the total sampleamount should be homogenized.
Result sheet One qualitative (and optional quantitative) result each should be determined for Samples 1-6. The results should be filled in the result submission file.
Units positive / negative (optional: mg/kg)
Number of digits at least 2
Result submission The result submission file should be sent by e-mail to: [email protected]
Deadline the latest May 11 th 2018
Evaluation report The evaluation report is expected to be completed 6 weeks afterdeadline of result submission and sent as PDF file by e-mail.
Coordinator and contact person of PT
Matthias Besler-Scharf, PhD
* Control of mixture homogeneity and qualitative testings are carried out by DLA. Testing of the content, homogeneity and stability ofPT parameters is subcontracted by DLA.
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 31 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
6. Index of participant laboratories in alphabetical order
[Die Adressdaten der Teilnehmer wurden für die allgemeine Veröffentlichung des Auswerte-Berichts nicht angegeben.]
[The address data of the participants were deleted for publication of the evaluation report.]
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 32 of 35
SWITZERLAND
ITALY
GREAT BRITAINAUSTRIA
Teilnehmer / Participant Ort / Town Land / CountryGermany
GermanyGermany
GermanyGermanyGermany
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
7. Index of references
1. DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005; Allgemeine Anforderungen an die Kompetenz von Prüf- und Kalibrierlaboratorien / General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories
2. DIN EN ISO/IEC 17043:2010; Konformitätsbewertung – Allgemeine Anforderungen an Eignungsprüfungen / Conformity assessment – General requirements for proficien-cy testing
3. ISO 13528:2015 & DIN ISO 13528:2009; Statistische Verfahren für Eignungsprüfun-gen durch Ringversuche / Statistical methods for use in proficiency testing by interlaboratory comparisons
4. ASU §64 LFGB: Planung und statistische Auswertung von Ringversuchen zur Metho-denvalidierung / DIN ISO 5725 series part 1, 2 and 6 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results
5. Verordnung / Regulation 882/2004/EU; Verordnung über über amtliche Kontrollen zur Überprüfung der Einhaltung des Lebensmittel- und Futtermittelrechts sowie der Bestimmungen über Tiergesundheit und Tierschutz / Regulation on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules
6. Evaluation of analytical methods used for regulation of food and drugs; W. Hor-witz; Analytical Chemistry, 54, 67-76 (1982)
7. The International Harmonised Protocol for the Proficiency Testing of Ananlyti-cal Laboratories ; J.AOAC Int., 76(4), 926 – 940 (1993)
8. A Horwitz-like funktion describes precision in proficiency test; M. Thompson,P.J. Lowthian; Analyst, 120, 271-272 (1995)
9. Protocol for the design, conduct and interpretation of method performance stu-dies; W. Horwitz; Pure & Applied Chemistry, 67, 331-343 (1995)
10.Recent trends in inter-laboratory precision at ppb and sub-ppb concentrationsin relation to fitness for purpose criteria in proficiency testing; M. Thomp-son; Analyst, 125, 385-386 (2000)
11.The International Harmonised Protocol for the Proficiency Testing of Analyti-cal Chemistry Laboratories; Pure Appl Chem, 78, 145 – 196 (2006)
12.AMC Kernel Density - Representing data distributions with kernel density esti-mates, amc technical brief, Editor M Thompson, Analytical Methods Committee,AMCTB No 4, Revised March 2006 and Excel Add-in Kernel.xla 1.0e by Royal Socie-ty of Chemistry
13.EURACHEM/CITAC Leitfaden, Ermittlung der Messunsicherheit bei analytischenMessungen (2003); Quantifying Uncertainty in Analytical Measurement (1999)
14.GMP+ Feed Certification scheme, Module: Feed Safety Assurance, chapter 5.7Checking procedure for the process accuracy of compound feed with micro tracersin GMP+ BA2 Control of residues, Version: 1st of January 2015 GMP+ Internatio-nal B.V.
15.MTSE SOP No. 010.01 (2014): Quantitative measurement of mixing uniformity andcarry-over in powder mixtures with the rotary detector technique, MTSE MicroTracers Services Europe GmbH
16.Homogeneity and stability of reference materials; Linsinger et al.; AccredQual Assur, 6, 20-25 (2001)
17.AOAC Official Methods of Analysis: Guidelines for Standard Method PerformanceRequirements, Appendix F, p. 2, AOAC Int (2016)
18.EN ISO/IEC 17034:2016; Konformitätsbewertung - Allgemeine Anforderungen an dieKompetenz von Referenzmaterialherstellern / General requirements for the com-petence of reference material producers
19.ISO Guide 34:2000; General requirements for the competence of reference mater-ial producers
20.DAkkS 71 SD 1/4 016; Ermittlung und Angabe der Messunsicherheit nach Forder-ungen der DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025 (2011) [Estimation and indication of the meas-urement uncertainty]
21.Durchführungsverordnung der Kommission/ Commission Implementing RegulationEU 828/2014; über die Anforderungen an die Bereitstellung von Information-en für Verbraucher über das Nichtvorhandensein oder das reduzierteVorhandensein von Gluten in Lebensmitteln / on the requirements for the
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 33 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
provision of information to consumers on the absence or reduced presenceof gluten in food
22.Taylor et al. (2014) Establishment of reference doses for residues ofallergenic foods: report of the VITAL Expert Panel, Food Chem Toxicol 63:9-17
23.Demmel et al. (2015) Kap. 4.1 Existierende Aktionswerte, in: Allergene inLebensmitteln, Behr's Verlag, Hamburg [Chapter 4.1 Existing Action Levels,in Allergens in Foods]
24.Codex Alimentarius Commission (2010) - Guidelines on performance criteria andvalidation of methods for detection, identification and quantification ofspecific DNA sequences and specific protiens in foods, CAC/GL 74-2010
25.DIN EN ISO 15633-1:2009; Nachweis von Lebensmittelallergenen mitimmunologischen Verfahren - Teil 1: Allgemeine Betrachtungen / Foodstuffs -Detection of food allergens by immunological methods - Part 1: Generalconsiderations
26.DIN EN ISO 15634-1:2009; Nachweis von Lebensmittelallergenen mitmolekularbiologischen Verfahren - Teil 1: Allgemeine Betrachtungen / Foodstuffs- Detection of food allergens by molecular biological methods - Part 1: Generalconsiderations
27.DIN EN ISO 15842:2010 Lebensmittel – Nachweis von Lebensmittelallergenen –Allgemeine Betrachtungen und Validierung von Verfahren / Foodstuffs - Detectionof food allergens - General considerations and validation of methods
28.Ministry of Health and Welfare, JSM, Japan 200629.Working Group Food Allergens, Abbott et al., Validation Procedures for
Quantitative Food Allergen ELISA Methods: Community Guidance and Best PracticesJAOAC Int. 93:442-50 (2010)
30.Working Group on Prolamin Analysis and Toxicity (WGPAT): Méndez et al. Reportof a collaborative trial to investigate the performance of the R5 enzyme linkedimmunoassay to determine gliadin in gluten-free food. Eur J GastroenterolHepatol. 17:1053-63 (2005)
31.DLA Publikation: Performance of ELISA and PCR methods for the determination ofallergens in food: an evaluation of six years of proficiency testing for soy(Glycine max L.) and wheat gluten (Triticum aestivum L.); Scharf et al.; JAgric Food Chem. 61(43):10261-72 (2013)
32.EFSA (2014) Scientific Opinion on the evaluation of allergenic foods and foodingredients for labelling purposes1, EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutritionand Allergies (NDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy, EFSAJournal 2014;12(11):3894
33.IRMM, Poms et al.; Inter-laboratory validation study of five differentcommercial ELISA test kits for determination of peanut residues in cookie anddark chocolate; European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Belgium;GE/R/FSQ/D08/05/2004
34.Jayasena et al. (2015) Comparison of six commercial ELISA kits for theirspecificity and sensitivity in detecting different major peanut allergens. JAgric Food Chem. 2015 Feb 18;63(6):1849-55
35.ASU §64 LFGB L 06.00-56 Bestimmung von Sojaprotein in Fleisch undFleischerzeugnissen Enzymimmunologisches Verfahren (2007) [Determination ofsoyprotein in meat and meat products by enzyme immunoassay]
36.ASU §64 LFGB L 00.00-69 Bestimmung von Erdnuss-Kontaminationen inLebensmitteln mittels ELISA im Mikrotiterplattensystem (2003) [Foodstuffs,determination of peanut contamintions in foodstuffs by ELISA inmicrotiterplates]
37.ASU §64 LFGB L 44.00-7 Bestimmung von Haselnuss-Kontaminationen in Schokoladeund Schokoladenwaren mittels ELISA im Mikrotiterplattensystem (2006)[Foodstuffs, determination of hazelnut contamintions in chocolate and chocolateproducts by ELISA in microtiterplates]
38.ASU §64 LFGB L 16.01-9 Untersuchung von Lebenmitteln - Bestimmung von Soja(Glycine max) in Getreidemehl mittels real-time PCR (2016) [Foodstuffs,determination of soya (Glycine max) in cereal flour by real-time PCR]
39.ASU §64 LFGB L 08.00-59 Untersuchung von Lebenmitteln - Nachweis undBestimmung von Senf (Sinapis alba) sowie Soja (Glycine max) in Brühwürsten
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 34 of 35
August 2018 DLA 17/2018 – ALM Verification : Milk
mittels real-time PCR (2013) [Foodstuffs, detection and determination ofmustard (Sinapis alba) and soya (Glycine max) in boiled sausages by real-timePCR]
40.ASU §64 LFGB L 08.00-65 Untersuchung von Lebenmitteln - Simultaner Nachweisund Bestimmung von schwarzem Senf (Brassica nigra L.), braunem Senf (Brassicajuncea L.), weißem Senf (Sinapis alba), Sellerie (Apium graveolens) und Soja(Glycine max) in Brühwurst mittels real-time PCR (2017) [Foodstuffs,simultaneous detection and determination of black mustard (Brassica nigra L.),brown mustard (Brassica juncea L.), white mustard (Sinapis alba), celery (Apiumgraveolens) and soya (Glycine max) in boiled sausages by real-time PCR]
41.ASU §64 LFGB L 08.00-66 Untersuchung von Lebenmitteln - Nachweis undBestimmung von Weizen (Triticum L.) und Roggen (Secale cereale) in Brühwurstmittels real-time PCR (2016) [Foodstuffs, detection and determination of wheat(Triticum L.) and rye (Secale cereale) in boiled sausages by real-time PCR]
42.Allergen Data Collection - Update (2002): Cow's Milk (Bos domesticus), BeslerM., Eigenmann P., Schwartz R., Internet Symposium on Food Allergens 4(1): 19-106, http://www.food-allergens.de
Reprint, also in part, only with written permission from DLA-AhrensburgPage 35 of 35