Skip to main content
Log in

Rapid method for determination of protein content in cereals and oilseeds: validation, measurement uncertainty and comparison with the Kjeldahl method

  • Practitioner's Report
  • Published:
Accreditation and Quality Assurance Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this research was to test suitability of the Dumas combustion method to completely substitute the Kjeldahl method in routine laboratory determination of crude protein content in cereals and oilseeds. The validation of the method demonstrated that it is able to determine crude protein content in cereals and oilseeds in an efficient and accurate manner, with a detection limit w(N) = 0.006%, quantification limit w(N) = 0.019%, repeatability precision RSD r = 0.41%, intra-laboratory reproducibility precision RSD R = 0.74%, trueness, expressed in terms of bias b = 0.43%, and linear response between (2.36–19.2) mg N. Measurement uncertainty, expressed as relative expanded uncertainty (coverage factor k = 2, confidence level 95%), was calculated from validation data (U rel = 2.24%). In order to examine the relationship between two methods, 15 cereal grain and oilseed samples were analyzed using Dumas and Kjeldahl procedure. The Kjeldahl procedure gave slightly lower w(N) values than the Dumas procedure: w K(N) = 0.9905 w D(N) = 0.0376 (R 2 = 0.9996). Relative standard deviations and results of homogeneity test obtained during analysis of complex cereal products (cereal breakfast and muesli bars) show that the Dumas combustion method may be less suitable for analysis of such samples compared to Kjeldahl method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Jung S, Rickert DA, Deak NA, Recknor J, Johnson LA, Murphy PA (2003) J Am Oil Chem Soc 80:1169–1173

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Thompson M, Owen L, Wilkinson K, Wood R (2004) Meet Sci 68:631–634

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiles PG, Gray IK, Kissling RC (1998) J AOAC Int 81:620–632

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Simonne AH, Simonne EH, Eitenmiller RR, Mills HA, Cresman CP (1997) J Sci Food Agric 73:39–45

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Taverniers I, De Loose M, Van Bockstaele E (2004) TrAC 23:535–552

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. ISO (1993) Guide to the expression of uncertainty in measurement. ISO, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  7. EURACHEM (1995) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement. Laboratory of the Government Chemist (LGC), London

  8. AOAC (2000) Official methods of analysis of association of official analytical chemists, 17th edn. Gaithersburg, MD Method 992.23

  9. EURACHEM/CITAC (2000) Quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, EURACHEM/CITAC Guide CG4, http://www.eurachem.org

  10. Jorhem L, Engman J, Schröder T (2001) Fresenius J Anal Chem 370:178–182

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Linsinger T (2010) Comparison of a measurement result with the certified value, European Commission, Retieseweg, Belgium, ERM® www.erm-crm.org

  12. CITAC/EURACHEM guide (2002) Guide to quality in analytical chemistry—an aid to accreditation, http://www.eurachem.org

  13. Thompson M, Ellison S, Wood R (2002) Pure Appl Chem 74:835–855

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Krejčová A, Pouzar M, Černohorský T, Pešková K (2008) Food Chem 109:848–854

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is a part of the Project (TR—20068) supported by the Ministry of Science and Technological Development, Republic of Serbia.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bojana Beljkaš.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Beljkaš, B., Matić, J., Milovanović, I. et al. Rapid method for determination of protein content in cereals and oilseeds: validation, measurement uncertainty and comparison with the Kjeldahl method. Accred Qual Assur 15, 555–561 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-010-0677-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00769-010-0677-6

Keywords

Navigation