AOAC Methods Review (Codex STAN 234)

10. Is the method fit for purpose to measure the provision as listed in the commodity standard?

No

10a. Please provide information

True, a collaborative study was published, but it fails modern requirements of at least eight laboratories (only 6 were used). This is a vastly outdated method and should be retired/removed from AOAC/CODEX because laboratories do not perform ICP-AES analyses like this anymore. They are modifying this method extensively and so you might as well list the method that is closest to modern practice (AOAC 2011.14).

11. Is the method fit for purpose according to technical evaluation? 11a. Please provide information on technical evaluation

No

Numerous shortfalls: most important is that no internal standard is required. Needs a multi-point calibration curve. Needs to require multielement standards to matrix match; dangerous perchloric acid digestion should be replaced with microwave digestion; should be written for modern ICPs not direct-readers; suggested sample size is quite high at 15g per 50 mL; no control sample required, etc. Collaborative study produced expectedly higher reproducibility vs. 2011.14

12.Is the method listed alongside any other methods in CXS 234?

No

13. Is further review of this method needed?

No

13b. 1. If no, please provide final recommendation for CXS 234, considering only the method under review 13b. 2. If no, please provide final recommendation for CXS 234, considering all methods listed for this commodity and provision 14. Is this method in use in your laboratory or by other laboratories of which you are aware?

Remove

For now, remove this method as it is very outdated. Replace it, now or later, with AOAC 2011.14, which is written for modern ICPs, employs internal standardization and has better figures of merit (collaboratively studied on 18 infant/adult formulas as well as six milk/dairy products/ingredients.)

No