Search

The question whether a given set of test items can be considered “identical” is often addressed in terms of the homogeneity of the test material from which said items were taken. However, for some types of matrices – in particular, for matrices consisting of minute separate particles, only some of which carry the analyte under consideration – even in the case of homogenous test material, an irreducible source of variability between test items may remain: the fundamental variability. In this paper, the concept of fundamental variability is explained, and procedures for reducing and characterizing it are described.

Measurement uncertainty is typically expressed in terms of a symmetric interval , where denotes the measurement result and the expanded uncertainty. However, in the case of heteroscedasticity, symmetric uncertainty intervals can be misleading. In this paper, a different approach for the calculation of uncertainty intervals is introduced. This approach is applicable when a validation study has been conducted with samples with known concentrations. It will be shown how, under certain circumstances, asymmetric uncertainty intervals arise quite naturally and lead to more reliable uncertainty intervals.

The ISO 2859 and ISO 3951 series provide acceptance sampling procedures for lot inspection, allowing both sample size and acceptance rule to be determined, starting from a specific value either for the consumer or producer risk. However, insufficient resources often make it difficult to implement “ISO sampling plans.” In cases where the sample size is determined by external constraints, the focus shifts from determining sample size to determining consumer and producer risks. Moreover, if the sample size is very low (e.g. one single item), prior information should be included in the statistical analysis. For this reason, it makes sense to work within a Bayesian theoretical framework, such as that described in JCGM 106. Accordingly, the approach from JCGM 106 is adopted and broadened so as to allow application to lot inspection. The discussion is based on a “real-life” example of lot inspection on the basis of a single item. Starting from simple assumptions, expressions for both the prior and posterior distributions are worked out, and it is shown how the concepts from JCGM 106 can be reinterpreted in the context of lot inspection. Conceptual differences regarding the definition of consumer and producer risks in JCGM 106 and in the ISO acceptance sampling standards are elucidated and a numerical example is provided.

Meat species authentication in food is most commonly based on the detection of genetic variations. Official food control laboratories frequently apply single and multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays and/or DNA arrays. However, in the near future, DNA metabarcoding, the generation of PCR products for DNA barcodes, followed by massively parallel sequencing by next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies, could be an attractive alternative. DNA metabarcoding is superior to well-established methodologies since it allows simultaneous identification of a wide variety of species not only in individual foodstuffs but even in complex mixtures. We have recently published a DNA metabarcoding assay for the identification and differentiation of 15 mammalian species and six poultry species. With the aim to harmonize analytical methods for food authentication across EU Member States, the DNA metabarcoding assay has been tested in an interlaboratory ring trial including 15 laboratories. Each laboratory analyzed 16 anonymously labelled samples (eight samples, two subsamples each), comprising six DNA extract mixtures, one DNA extract from a model sausage, and one DNA extract from maize (negative control). Evaluation of data on repeatability, reproducibility, robustness, and measurement uncertainty indicated that the DNA metabarcoding method is applicable for meat species authentication in routine analysis.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-vdi-10.1177_10406387221115702 for Second round of an interlaboratory comparison of SARS-CoV2 molecular detection assays used by 45 veterinary diagnostic laboratories in the United States by Kaiping Deng, Steffen Uhlig, Laura B. Goodman, Hon S. Ip, Mary Lea Killian, Sarah M. Nemser, Jodie Ulaszek, Shannon Kiener, Matthew Kmet, Kirstin Frost, Karina Hettwer, Bertrand Colson, Kapil Nichani, Anja Schlierf, Andriy Tkachenko, Mothomang Mlalazi-Oyinloye, Andrew Scott, Ravinder Reddy and Gregory H. Tyson in Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation