74 / 142
6
Original Comment
Proposed Change
My response
Method name: although many of the
SMPR already issued are intended to
be applicable to "total" vitamin, this
h t b
t i th titl b t
Method name: Determination of vitamin XX
(XX) in..... 1. Applicability: Add: "For the
purpose of this SMPR, vitamin XX is defined
as the sum of xxxx". Include CAS numbers for
I will comment on this in parts. I do agree
that footnote 1 in each SMPR should be
included in the Applicability section with the
preface “
as no een se up n e
e, u
rather in the definition 1.
Applicability: For consistency and
alignment with other SMPRs already
published. Add definition as stated in
other SMPRs instead of in a footnote
2. Definitions: Accuracy has never
been defined as such previously, the
definition of "recovery" has always
been present instead. Keep
consistency
each compound using same format as other
SMPRs already published (example: choline,
C, B12, A, D) 2. Definitions: use same format
and contents as other SMPRs in SPIFAN.
Remove definition of the vitamin in this
section, include in section 1. Applicability.
Remove chemical structures, as this can
easily be found if CAS numbers are included.
If they absolutely have to be present, include
them in an Annex or at the end of the
document, as in the example of carotenoids.
4. Method performance requirements: low
limits given in the requirements are at the
same level or higher than minimum Codex
l
l Pl
i
thi h b
t d d
For the purpose of this SMPR…” Additionally
all CAS numbers should be included.
I do not have an issue with moving vitamin
definition to section one, and removing
structures.
Unless the change was made for specific
reasons which I am not aware of I have no
problem with making the Accuracy definition
consistent, and adding recovery.
I don’t believe sensitivity will be major issue
with any of these analytes therefore I am
f t bl
d i
th l
t
eve s. ease rev ew, s as een ex en e
to 50 % of minimum level for other SMPRs, or
even lower in some specific cases and when
justified. Technical comments: we have
questions on the inclusion of all possible
natural forms of the vitamins, knowing that
not all are present in the type of matrices in
the scope of the project. 5 % and 10 % for
RSDr and RSDR might be tight
com or a e re uc ng e ower range o up
to 50% of the Codex limits.
I believe the RSDs are achievable.
Including all forms was discussed and agreed
upon, and several objections were noted.
However the final concensus was the forms
stated in the SMPRs
Stakeholder Comments
Original Comment
Proposed Change
My response
I think NAD/NADH should be included
in SMPR, maybe it was overlooked? If
NAD(H) was considered and rejected
as unimportant then the SMPR should
state this, rather than ignoring its
contribution. FMN/FAD is mentioned
for vitamin B2, and the phosphate
coenzymes of B1 and B6, so the
innate coenzyme forms are
potentially an issue for SPIFAN
I don’t believe these forms
were discussed much at the
September meeting. At this
time due to the negligible
concentrations of these
forms, and the fact that
both alkali, and acid
h d l i
ill
il lib t
y ro ys s w eas y era e
both forms to one of the
measured forms I would
leave the SMPR as is.