AOAC OMA# 2011.14 (Final Action Review)-OMB

2011.14 (Oct. 2018) – MTE-03 Final Action Review FOR ERP USE ONLY DO NOT DISTRIBUTE

Comparison to ICP-MS.- During this collaborative study, a concurrent collaborative study using the same sample sets was conducted for the ICP-MS method OMA 2015.06 (9, 10). In addition to the minerals and trace elements determined by the ICP-AES method, OMA 2015.06 also determines Cr, Se, and Mo. Paquette and Thompson (9) compared the results of the two studies, demonstrating overall good agreement between mean values, with a slight negative bias of the MS method for Ca, Cu, Fe, Mn and Zn; the latter four being trace elements, which are more difficult to quantitate at the low levels present in the matrixes tested. A slight positive bias of the MS method was seen for Mg, K and P. The closeness of the mean values between methods, however, supports the accuracy of these methods. The main difference between the methods was observed in the precision. While both methods produced problematic RSD r and RSD R values for some analyte/matrix combinations, the AES method yielded additional repeatability and/or reproducibility values exceeding the SMPR limits for Ca, Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn, mainly in cases where the analyte concentrations were low. Conclusions Official Method 2011.14 / ISO DIS 15151:2017 / IDF 229:2017 was shown to yield acceptable accuracy and precision for 9 minerals and trace elements in infant and adult nutritional products, placebos, and dairy products with respect to SMPR 2014.004, except in cases of very low concentrations of trace minerals, specifically Cu, Fe, Mn, and Zn in nutritional placebos and dairy products. The method provides equivalent results to ICP- MS Official Method 2015.06 / ISO DIS 21424 / IDF 243.

Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker