Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  316 / 328 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 316 / 328 Next Page
Page Background

ER 5

Same temperature for both enzymatic procedures, allowing better efficiency. Changed to quadratic

curve due to the slight non-linearity of the standards.

ER 6

It would be interesting to understand why leaving the sample (taking a break) after dilution of fully

digested samples has an impact on recovery (line 699, p31)

ER 7

good

ER 8

n/a

Analytical Range

ER 1 1-100%

ER 2

0-100 mg starch in the assay

ER 3

Range studied was 1.00% - 69.6%. Corn starch was used as a spiking agent which suggests this material

can be tested directly on this material (89% dietary starch) as long as enzymes are keep in sufficient

excess/

ER 4

See method collaborative study report.

ER 5

~1% to 100%

ER 6

about 1 (lowest amount in samples tested in MLT) - 100% starch (considering corn starch used as

control)

ER 7

good

ER 8

Acceptable

LOQ

ER 1 Approx. 0.3% (probably a little larger)- definitely less than 1%

ER 2

0.9% of starch sample weight basis

ER 3

0.3%. Acceptable limit.

ER 4

See method collaborative study report.

ER 5

0.3%

ER 6

This has been estimated as 0.2% dietary starch by using reagent blanks. The approach seems

reasonable, although one may expect the practical LoQ to be higher when applied to samples (and is

probably not independent of the free glucose content of a sample)

ER 7

good

ER 8

Acceptable

Accuracy/Recovery

ER 1 99.3 pure corn starch, 90@ control corn starch.

ER 2

89.9% +/- 3.7%

ER 3

993.8% wi+/- 0.8% is excellent

ER 4

See method collaborative study report.

ER 5

Pure corn starch: 99.3% ± 0.8% (Theoretical = 100%) Corn Starch: 89.9% ± 3.7% (Estimated = 89.4)

ER 6

This does not appear to have been extensively tested. Pure starch products have been assayed and the

recoveries are greater than 95%, Dextrins appear to be more problematic, but this does not seem to

have been discussed.

ER 7

good

ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES

276