Candidates for 2016 ERP of the Year

ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES

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

276