High polarity analytes in food - enrofloxacin and sulfadiazine in bovine tissue (CCQM-K141)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Within the Organic Analysis Working Group (OAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantitè de Matiére (CCQM), key comparison CCQM-K141 and associated pilot study CCQM-P178 were coordinated by the National Research Council Canada (NRC). This comparison was a Track A key comparison that formed part of the OAWG 10-year strategic plan. The comparison demonstrated capabilities for measuring high-polarity analytes in a high-fat and high-protein matrix. The measurand chosen as the model system was enrofloxacin and sulfadiazine in bovine tissue. Thirteen National Metrology Institutes or Designated Institutes participated in the CCQM-K141, while two National Metrology Institutes participated in CCQM-P178. The bovine muscle tissue study material was derived from a single live animal that was administered with chemical based pharmaceutical agents prior to processing. Therefore, the study material was naturally incurred, providing a true test of extraction procedures relative to more commonly encountered spiked materials. NRC confirmed excellent homogeneity and stability of the material prior to shipping. Three 10 g bottles of freeze dried powdered muscle tissue were supplied. NRC also provided isotopically labelled solutions of the two measurands, 13 C 6 -sulfadiazine and enrofloxacin-d 5 (HI Salt), to those interested in using isotope dilution mass spectrometry (IDMS) methodologies. Procurement and purity assignment with appropriate metrological traceability of native calibrants were the responsibility of individual participants. The study required extraction, clean-up, analytical separation, and selective detection of the analytes. The level of agreement was reasonable given the measurands and matrix were new for most laboratories. The KCRV values and their uncertainties at the 95% confidence level of 57.81 ± 2.57 μg/kg for enrofloxacin and 2285 ± 68 μg/kg for sulfadiazine were calculated using the DSL means. While one participant's value was voluntarily excluded from the KCRV calculations for enrofloxacin, all other participants demonstrated equivalence for both measurands. Significant effort was undertaken post-study to identify the major sources of variability between results. In particular, the various extraction conditions used by participants were investigated thoroughly. While there appeared to be a correlation between highly acidic conditions and higher recovery, this was not definitive and could not be confirmed. The form of standards employed (i.e. free base vs salts) and potential differential solubility between forms was also a suspected source of variability. Biases could also have been introduced with the choice of solvents used for standard preparation, with some solvents better able to minimize adsorption of the analytes to glass surfaces. KEY WORDS FOR SEARCH enrofloxacin, sulfadiazine, bovine tissue, incurred, key comparison Main text To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report . Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/ . The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».