AN INNOVATIVE STRATEGY BASED ON UNCERTAINTY PROFILE FOR THE VALIDATION OF MICROBIOLOGICAL METHODS FOR COUNTING ENTEROBACTERIACEAE IN FOODS
Objective: A new and powerful statistical approach known as the uncertainty profile concept has been suggested for both testing the validity and making easy and straightforward interpretation of results obtained during the validation of an analytical method. The main goal of this paper is to confirm the applicability of this new strategy for the validation of a commercial kit, microbiological method, for the enumeration of the Enterobacteriaceae in foods and the estimate of the measurement uncertainty by using the newly provided formula and without referring to any additional experiments.
Methods: An innovative formula to assess the uncertainty by using validation data and without recourse to other additional experiments was proposed. The uncertainty was evaluated through the two-sided Î²-content, Î³-confidence tolerance interval, which is computed with three manners: the Meeâ€™s approach, the Generalized Pivotal Confidence, and the Modified Large Simple procedure
Results: After the use of the three chemometric method of calculation of tolerance intervals, the obtained results with uncertainty profile show without doubt that the enumeration method is valid over the range of target values given that the upper and the lower 66.7 %-content, 90 %-confidence tolerance limits have fallen within the two acceptance limits ofÂ±0.25 Log unit. If the Î² is stretched to 80 %-content, 90 %-confidence, the three computed tolerance intervals lead to different decisions.
Conclusion: we have demonstrated the ability of the uncertainty profile to be used for testing the validity of enumeration method which represents the first application of an uncertainty profile to food microbiological methods, and provides good estimations of the uncertainty measurements for each concentration level.
Keywords: Validation, Uncertainty profile, Î²-content-Î³-confidence tolerance interval, Uncertainty measurement, Microbiological method
2. ISO/DIS 17025, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland; 2000.
3. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Cohen N, Compagnon PA, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures-A SFSTP proposal-Part III. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2007;45:82-96.
4. Hubert Ph, Nguyen-Huu JJ, Boulanger B, Chapuzet E, Chiap P, Cohen N, et al. Harmonization of strategies for the validation of quantitative analytical procedures-A SFSTP proposal-Part II. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2007;45:70-81.
5. International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Topic Q2 (R1): Validation of Analytical Procedures: Text and Methodology, Geneva; 2005.
6. Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry (draft), Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation; 2000.
7. Food and Drug Administration, Guidance for Industry, Bioanalytical Methods Validation; 2001.
8. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), ISO-5725â€“2, Accuracy (Trueness and Precision) of Measurement Methods and Results-Part 2: Basic Method for the Determination of Repeatability and Reproducibility of a Standard Measurement Method, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland; 1994.
9. AOAC International, Method Validation Programs (OMA/PVM Department), is including Appendix D: Guidelines for Collaborative Study Procedures to Validate Characteristics of a Method of Analysis; 2000. Available from: http://www. aoac.org/vmeth/ devmethno.htm. [Last accessed on 20 Nov 2015].
10. ISO 16140 Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffsâ€“Protocol for the Validation of Alternative Methods, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland; 2003.
11. Feinberg M. Validation of analytical methods are based on accuracy profiles. J Chromatogr A 2007;1158:174â€“83.
12. Rozet E, Wascotte V, Lecouturier N, PrÃ©at V, DewÃ© W, Boulanger B, et al. Improvement of the decision efficiency of the accuracy profile by means of a desirability function for analytical methods validation application to a diacetyl-monoxime colorimetric assay used for the determination of urea in transdermal iontophoretic extracts. Anal Chim Acta 2007;591:239â€“47.
13. Marini RD, Chiap P, Boulanger B, Rudaz S, Rozet E, Crommen J, Hubert Ph. LC method for the determination of R-timolol in S-timolol maleate: Validation of its ability to quantify and uncertainty assessment. Talanta 2006;1120:322-6.
14. Jhilal F, Ihssane B, Bouchafra H, Sfaira M, Hadrami EL M, Saffaj T. Uncertainty profile: a new global strategy for the analytical validation and the estimation of measurement uncertainty. Les Technologies De Laboratoire 2013;7:114-20.
15. Bouchafra H, Elkarbane M, Ihssane B, Azougagh M, Jhilal F, Sosse SA, et al. J Chem Pharm Res 2014;6:2610-23.
16. Ihssane B, Sbai M, El Hadrami EM, Achour S, Saffaj T. A statistical approach based on the total error concept for validation the bioanalytical method: Application to the spectrophotometric determination of traces amount of acetaminophen in human plasma. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci 2014;6:413-21.
17. Saffaj T, Ihssane B. Uncertainty profiles for the validation of analytical methods. Talanta 2011;85:1535-42.
18. Saffaj T, Ihssane B. Response to comments on â€œUncertainty profiles for the validation of analytical methodsâ€. Talanta 2012;94:361-72.
19. Saffaj T, Ihssane B. Remarks on â€˜â€˜Reply to the responses to the comments on â€˜â€˜uncertainty profiles for the validation of analytical methodsâ€™â€™ by Saffaj and Ihssaneâ€™â€™. Talanta 2012;106:155-67.
20. Saffaj T, Ihssane B, Jhilal F, Bouchafra H, Laslami S, Sosse SA. An overall uncertainty approaches for the validation of analytical separation methods. Analyst 2013;138:4677-91.
21. Saffaj T, Ihssane B. Comments on â€œinnovative method for carbon dioxide determination in human postmortem cardiac gas samples using headspace-gas chromatographyâ€“mass spectrometry and stable labeled isotope as internal standardâ€ by varlet et al. Anal Chim Acta 2014;810:39-42.
22. ISO/DTS 21748, Guide to the use of repeatability, reproducibility and trueness estimates in measurement uncertainty estimation, ISO, Geneva; 2004.
23. Eurachem/CITAC Guide, quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, Eurachem/CITAC, Budapest. 2nd edn; 2000. Available from: http://www.eurachem.org/. [Last accessed on 20 Nov 2015].
24. Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement, ISO, Geneva, Switzerland; 1995.
25. EA-4/16, EA Guidelines on the Expression of Uncertainty in Quantitative Testing; 2004. Available from: http://www. europeanaccreditation.org/. [Last accessed on 20 Nov 2015].
26. Barwick VJ, Ellison LR, VAM Project 3.2.1, development and harmonization of measurement uncertainty principles. Part D: protocol uncertainty for evaluation from validation data; 2000.
27. Analytical Method Committee, Uncertainty of measurement: implications of its use in analytical science. Analyst 1995;120:2303-8.
28. Eurachem/CITAC Guide, quantifying uncertainty in analytical measurement, Eurachem/CITAC, Budapest. 3rd edn; 2000. Available from; http://www.eurachem.org/. [Last accessed on 20 Nov 2015].
29. Horwitz W, Albert R. The concept of uncertainty as applied to chemical measurements. Analyst 1997;122:615-27.
30. Visser R. Measurement uncertainty: opinions of the government, the accreditation council, and the candidate accredited laboratory. Accredit Qual Assur 2002;7:124-5.
31. Visser R. Measurement uncertainty: practical problems encountered by accredited testing laboratories. Accredit Qual Assur 2004;9:717.
32. Feinberg M, Boulanger B, DewÃ© W, Hubert Ph. New advances in method validation and measurement uncertainty aimed at improving the quality of chemical data. Anal Bioanal Chem 2004;380:502-14.
33. Gonzalez AG, Herrador MA. Accuracy profiles from uncertainty measurements. Talanta 2006;70:896-901.
34. Gonzalez AG, Herrador MA, Asuero AG. Practical digest for evaluating the uncertainty of analytical assays from validation data according to the LGC/VAM protocol. Talanta 2005;65:1022-30.
35. Quintela M, Baguena J, Gotor G, Blanco MJ, Broto F. Estimation of the uncertainty associated with the results based on the validation of chromatographic analysis procedures: application to the determination of chlorides by high-performance liquid chromatography and of fatty acids by high-resolution gas chromatography. J Chromatogr A 2012;1223:107-17.
36. Galban J, Ubide C. Uncertainty due to the quantification step in analytical methods. Talanta 2007;71:1339-44.
37. Hund E, Massart DL, Smeyers-Verbeke J. Comparison of different approaches to estimate the uncertainty of a liquid chromatographic assay. Anal Chim Acta 2003;480:39-52.
38. De Beer JO, Baten P, Nsengyumva C, Smeyers-Verbeke J. Measurement uncertainty from validation and duplicate analysis results in HPLC analysis of multivitamin preparations and nutrients with different galenic forms. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2003;32:767-11.
39. Dehouck P, Vander Heyden Y, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL, Marini RD, Chiap P, et al. "Interlaboratory study of a liquid chromatography method for erythromycin: determination of uncertainty". J Chromatography A 2003;1010:63-74.
40. Gonzalez AG, Herrador MA. Tr AC, A practical guide to analytical method validation, including measurement uncertainty and accuracy profiles. Trends Anal Chem 2007;26:227-38.
41. Mee R. Î²-expectation and Î²-content tolerance limits for balanced one-way ANOVA random model. Technometrics 1984;26:251-4.
42. D Hoffman, R Kringle. Two-sided tolerance intervals for balanced and unbalanced random effects models. J Biopharm Stat 2005;15:283-93.
43. Liao CT, Iyer HK. A tolerance interval for the normal distribution with several variance components. Statistica Sinica 2004;14:217-29.
44. Liao CT, Lin TY, Iyer HK. One and two-sided tolerance intervals for general balanced mixed models and one-way unbalanced random models. Technometrics 2005;47:323-35.
45. Wood R. Food analysisâ€“the past, present, and future, valid analytical measurement bulletin. National Measurement System 2005;32:4â€“7.
46. Van der Voet H, van Rhijn JA, Van de Wiel HJ. Inter-laboratory, time, and fitness-for-purpose aspects of effective validation, Anal Chim Acta 1999;391:159â€“71.