18 / 41
FOR EXPERT REVIEW PANEL USE ONLY
NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
2
Pros/Strengths:
•
The significant advantage of this method compared to previous methods is that fructan
Ingredient dependent correction factors are not required.
•
The possibility of interference from sucrose and monosaccharides have been minimized in the
analysis.
•
Reducing and/or non‐reducing fructan end‐groups don’t affect the analytical result.
•
All components of the fructan are measured, thus there is no need for ingredient‐specific
correction factors,
•
The method is sufficiently sensitive to detect low amounts of fructan (0.03 g/100g in
reconstituted products).
•
The method has been validated independently in two laboratories using the SPIFAN material
test kit.
Cons/Weaknesses
•
The blank subtraction is warranted and necessary for samples expected to contain low levels
of fructans (we estimate at levels below 0.15 g/100g).
•
The recoveries on the samples with low spike levels even after blank correction do not meet
the SMPR in all cases (for two matrices the recovery exceeds 110%, being 117% and 119%).
•
In the case of the the SLV data from Eurofins, one of the sample out of 12 gave spike recovery slightly
less (89%) than required by the SMPR (90%).
•
Pooled % RSDr value obtained was 8.9% for the sample 14 listed in annex D with fructan conc. near
LOQ of 0.036%. % RSDr in samples at LOQ level is some what higher than required by the SMPR (<6%).
•
RSD(iR) was between 4.6 – 7.4 % in all samples except at the lowest concentration (0.036 g/100g)
where it reached 14%.
Supporting Data
General Comment: The method has been validated independently in both laboratories using the SPIFAN
material test kit. Of the 19 matrices in the SPIFAN kit, 6 were found to contain fructans.
-
Method Optimization: Satisfactory. Introduced blank requirement for accurate analysis at low
levels.
•
Performance Characteristics
-
Does the method meet the SMPR for the following: