Method quantification limit

The approach described in Lee Aizawa (2003) consists of two steps for the determination of the LOD and LOQ. These firstly involve determination of the Instrumental Detection Limit (IDL) and Instrumental Quantification Limit (IQL), and using these values to estimate the Method Detection Limit (MDL) and Method Quantification Limit (MQL), following calculation of the LOD and LOQ for the extraction/analysis method. 

The definitions of method detection and quantification limits should be reliable and applicable to a variety of extraction procedures and analytical methods. The issue is of particular importance to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and also pesticide regulatory and health agencies around the world in risk assessment. The critical question central to risk assessment is assessing the risk posed to a human being from the consumption of foods treated with pesticides, when the amount of the residue present in the food product is reported nondetect (ND) or no detectable residues . 

There are several factors involved in defining the limitations of an analytical method. Selecting the right method for defining these limitations can be as important as the actual definitions. Factors that must be taken into consideration in defining detection and quantification limits are ... 

Comparison of methods for calculating detection and quantification limits for analytical methods used for food... 

Several methods have been discussed for the determination of method limitations when evaluating procedures for the determination of pesticides in food. A brief comparison of the methods discussed for the determination of the detection and quantification limits of methods used for the analysis of food products can be found in Table 2. 

In this regard several sophisticated chromatographic methods, with a quantification limit down to about 0.2 ng/g, have been developed and published for the determination of zearalenone. The methods were mainly based on high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) with fluorescence detection (Krska 1998 Visconti and Pascale 1998 Schuhmacher et al. 1998 Tanaka et al. 2000), but HPLC with mass spectrometry detection was also used (Shirai et al. 2000 Josephs et al. 2001). 

Another RP-HPLC technique has been applied for the determination of synthetic food dyes in soft drinks with a minimal clean-up. Separation of dyes was obtained in an ODS column (150 x 4 mm i.d. particle size 5 pm). Solvents A and B were methanol and 40 mM aqueous ammonium acetate (pH = 5), respectively. Gradient conditions were 0-3 min, 10 per cent A 3-5 min, to 25 per cent A 5-8 min, 25 per cent A 8-18 min, to 75 per cent A 18-20 min, 75 per cent A. The flow rate was 1 ml/min and dyes were detected at 414 nm. The separation of synthetic dyes achieved by the method is shown in Fig. 3.35. The concentrations of dyes found in commercial samples are compiled in Table 3.21. The quantification limit depended markedly on the type of dye, being the highest for E-104 (4.0 mg/1) and the lowest for E-102 and E-110 (1.0 mg/1). The detection limit ranged from 0.3 mg/1 (E-102 and E-110) to 1.0 mg/ml (E-104 and E-124). It was suggested that the method can be applied for the screening of food colourants in quality control laboratories [113]. 

Abstract A preconcentration method using Amberlite XAD-16 column for the enrichment of aluminum was proposed. The optimization process was carried out using fractional factorial design. The factors involved were pH, resin amount, reagent/metal mole ratio, elution volume and samphng flow rate. The absorbance was used as analytical response. Using the optimised experimental conditions, the proposed procedure allowed determination of aluminum with a detection limit (3o/s) of 6.1 ig L and a quantification limit (lOa/s) of 20.2 pg L, and a precision which was calculated as relative standard deviation (RSD) of 2.4% for aluminum concentration of 30 pg L . The preconcentration factor of 100 was obtained. These results demonstrated that this procedure could be applied for separation and preconcentration of aluminum in the presence of several matrix. 

Specific impurity tests are based on the same principle as general purity tests. Howevet, the method is limited to the quantification of one or several compounds only and will not be used for the determination of unknown impurities. 

Typical parameters that are generally considered most important for validation of analytical methods are specificity, selectivity, precision, accuracy, extraction recovery, calibration curve, linearity, working range, detection limit, quantification limit, sensitivity, and robustness. 

Despite the fact that the preparation of chloramphenicol-specific antibodies was reported as early as in 1966 (36), it was 1984 before the first immunoassay was published for the determination of chloramphenicol residues in swine muscle, eggs, and milk (37). This first-published method was a radioimmunoassay that required an extraction procedure and special laboratory facilities to attain a quantification limit of 1 ppb. Employed polyclonal antibodies showed insignificant crossreactivity with structurally related compounds, except that thiamphenicol that did not interfere with the analysis. However, cross-reactivity was significant for metabolites deviating from the parent compound in the acyl side chain. 

Analytical procedures and quantification limits for both laboratory and field methods... 

Orlando and Bonato [73] presented a practical and selective HPLC method for the separation and quantification of omeprazole enantiomers in human plasma. Ci8 solid-phase extraction cartridges were used to extract the enantiomers from plasma samples and the chiral separation was carried out on a Chiralpak AD column protected with a CN guard column, using ethanol-hexane (70 30) as the mobile phase, at a flow-rate of 0.5 ml/min. The detection was carried out at 302 nm. The method is linear in the range of 10-1000 ng/ml for each enantiomer, with a quantification limit of 5 ng/ml. Precision and accuracy, demonstrated by within-day and between-day assays, were lower than 10%. 

Zarghi et al. [76] developed an HPLC method, using a monolithic column, for quantification of omeprazole in plasma. The method is specific and sensitive with a quantification limit of 10 ng/ml. Sample preparation involves simple, one-step extraction procedure, and analytical recovery was complete. The separation was carried out in reversed-phase conditions using a Chromolith Performance (RP-18e, 100 x 4.6 mm) column with an isocratic mobile phase consisting of 0.01 mol/1 disodium hydrogen phosphate buffer-acetonitrile (73 27) adjusted to pH 7.1. The wavelength was set at 302 nm. The calibration curve was linear over the concentration range 20-1500 ng/ml. The coefficients of variation for intra- and interday assay were found to be less than 7%. 

Murakami et al. [82] developed and validated a sensitive HPLC technique to quantify omeprazole in delayed release tablets. The analysis was carried out using a RP-Cig column with UV-VIS detection at 280 nm. The mobile phase was diluted with phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) and acetonitrile (70 30) at a flow-rate of 1.5 ml/min. The parameters used in the validation process were linearity, range, quantification limit, accuracy, specificity, and precision. The retention time of omeprazole was about 5 min with symmetrical peaks. The linearity in the range of 10-30 ng/ml presented a correlation coefficient of 0.9995. The excipients in the formulation did not interfere with the analysis and the recovery was quantitative. Results were satisfactory and the method proved to be adequate for quality control of omeprazole delayed-release tablets. 

---