Determination of Ochratoxin A in Green Coffee by Immunoaffinity Column Cleanup and Liquid Chomatography: Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A collaborative study was conducted to evaluate a method using immunoaffinity column cleanup with liquid chromatography (LC) for the determination of ochratoxin A (OTA) in green coffee at levels that could be included in possible future regulations of the European Union. The test portion was extracted with methanol–3% aqueous sodium hydrogen carbonate solution (50 + 50, v/v). The extract was filtered, and the filtrate was diluted with phosphate-buffered saline and applied to an immunoaffinity column containing antibodies specific for OTA. After washing, the toxin was eluted from the column with methanol and quantified by LC with fluorescence detection. Pairs of 4 homogeneous noncontaminated and naturally contaminated materials (mean levels of <0.12, 2.44, 5.15, and 13.46 ng/g) and blank samples (<0.12 ng/g) for spiking were sent to 20 participant laboratories from 8 countries. The materials were analyzed according to the method description and all difficulties encountered in the analysis were reported. Statistical analysis was carried out according to the Harmonized Protocol of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry. The relative standard deviation for repeatability (RSDr) ranged from 7.42 to 20.94%, and the relative standard deviation for reproducibility (RSDR) ranged from 16.34 to 29.17%. The method showed acceptable within-laboratory and between-laboratories precision for green coffee materials, as evidenced by HorRat values of ≤0.85, at the studied range, for spiked and naturally contaminated materials. The mean recovery was 92.8% for green coffee material spiked with OTA at a level of 4.82 ng/g.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".