Advertisement

Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 12, Issue 3–4, pp 161–166 | Cite as

Reference material in residue control: assessment of matrix effects

  • Petra GowikEmail author
  • Joachim Polzer
  • Steffen Uhlig
Practitioner's Report

Abstract

The production of certified reference materials (CRM) requires a comprehensive consideration of which analytes and materials to select. The present study describes the pre-tests for the production of CRM for nitroimidazoles in plasma or muscle. By means of a commutability study, four factors, namely matrix (plasma – muscle), species (turkey – pig), matrix condition (fresh - lyophilized) and measurement technique (GC-NCI/MS-LC-MSMS) were checked for their usability. The results showed that the matrices, matrix conditions, as well as the species analyzed did not produce any relevantly different measurement results. Varying significantly and subject to a systematic error were those results which were determined by means of different measurement techniques.

Keywords

Commutability study CRM OptiVal InterVal Experimental design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The financial support of the European Commission is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Council Directive (EC) 96/23 of 29 April 1996 Off J, No L 125 (1996) 10Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jülicher B, Gowik P, Uhlig S (1999) Analyst 124:537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jülicher B, Gowik P, Uhlig S (1998) Analyst 123:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Uhlig S, Gowik P, Radeck W (2003) Anal Chim Acta 483:351–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gowik P, Jülicher B, Uhlig S (1998) J Chromatogr B 716:221–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WTO (2006) http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/sps_e/spsagr_e. htm#Article2Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    EURACHEM (2003) Traceability in chemical measurement: http://www.eurachem.ul.pt/Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Commission Decision (EC) 2002/794 of 11 October 2002 Off J, L 276 (2002) 66Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Commission Decision (EC) 2002/69 of 30 January 2002 Off J, L 30 (2002) 50Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Commission decision (EC) 2005/34 of 11 January 2005 Off J, L 16 (2005) 61Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    WTO Report of the Panel, United States – Safeguard measures on imports of fresh, chilled or frozen lamb meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/RWT/DS178/R21 December 2000 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/distab_e.htmGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    WTO Report of the Panel, Korea – Measures affecting import of fresh, chilled and frozen beef, WT/DS161/RWT/DS169/R31 July 2000 http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/distab_e.htmGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    InterValplus/OptiVal, software for method optimisation and validation, quo data ltd., Dresden, Germany, info@quodata.deGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Voogd CE (1981) Mutat Res 86:243Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Council Regulation (EEC) 2377/90 of 26 June 1990 Off J, L 224 (1990) 1Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Polzer J, Stachel C, Gowik P (2004) Anal Chim Acta 521:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Polzer J, Stachel C, Gowik P (2004) Anal Chim Acta 521:189–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Polzer J, Gowik P (2001) J Chromatogr B 761:47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Polzer J, Gowik P (2005) Anal Chim Acta 529:299—303CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food SafetyEuropean and National Reference Laboratory for Residues in Food of Animal OriginBerlinGermany
  2. 2.quo data Gesellschaft für Qualitätsmanagement und Statistik mbHDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations