4.2 Article

Sugar Profile Method by High-Performance Anion-Exchange Chromatography with Pulsed Amperometric Detection in Food, Dietary Supplements, Pet Food, and Animal Feeds: First Action 2018.16

期刊

JOURNAL OF AOAC INTERNATIONAL
卷 103, 期 1, 页码 89-102

出版社

AOAC INT
DOI: 10.5740/jaoacint.19-0193

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Numerous methods are routinely applied for sugar profile analysis. There is a need for a method that can analyze for the common mono- and disaccharides in human food, pet food, and animal feed. There was no compendia method that had such a large scope of coverage. This requires a method that can overcome the common issues seen with the methods available today, which can have interferences or issues with precision and accuracy when applying them to other matrices. Objective: To develop and validate a method that can meet the Standard Method Performance Requirements (SMPR (R)) outlined by the AOAC INTERNATIONAL Stakeholder Panel on Strategic Food Analytical Methods (SMPR 2018.001). Methods: The current work describes an optimized high-performance anion exchange with pulsed amperometric detection method that builds on the previously published work from this laboratory for the analysis of nutritionally relevant sugar compounds including galactose, glucose, fructose, sucrose, isomaltulose, lactose, and maltose. This method was optimized to provide coverage across a variety of different matrices, including human food, dietary supplements, pet food, and animal feed. A global multilaboratory validation was conducted to validate the method and compare against the SMPR requirements. Results: A summary of the validation data is presented. The requirements set forth by AOAC SMPR 2018.001 were all met with this method. Conclusions: The method and data from the global multilaboratory validation were reviewed by the AOAC Expert Review Panel, and determined the method met the SMPR requirements. Highlights: The method was granted AOAC First Action Official Methods(SM) status.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据