2. Analysis and interpretation of results
- Relationship between analytical results
- Measurement uncertainty basic principles
- Method Performance characteristics
- Compliance criteria
- Handling of “negative” results
- Recovery factors
- TEFs and TEQs (dioxins and PCBs)
- Processing factors

3. Content Introduction on analysis Reporting analytical results
Interpretation of results: Compliant/Non-compliant
Interpretation of results: Key issues
Dioxins and PCBs: TEFs and TEQs
Processing factors for contaminants

4. Analysis - Regulation 882/04
Whereas 17
Laboratories involved in the analysis of official samples should work in accordance with internationally approved procedures or criteria based performance standards and use methods of analysis that have as far as possible been validated.
Article 11 – comma 2
Validation of methods of analysis may take place within a single laboratory according to an internationally accepted protocol.

5. (Confirmatory and Reference methods)
Full evidence that the particular requirements for a specific intended use are fulfilled
Method Validation
(Confirmatory and Reference methods)
Validation includes:
Specification of the method (scope, principle of the method, field of application, range of contamination)
Determination of the performance characteristics of the methods such as precision (R, trueness, LOD/LOQ, uncertainty
Verification that the requirements can be fulfilled by using the method
Validation report

6. Performance characteristics

7. Why is it necessary to validate your methods?
For guaranteeing reliability of results
Better agreement between analysts/laboratories/ countries
Requested by accreditation standards
(ISO/IEC 17025)
Assurance that results will be fit for purpose

8. When should methods be validated?
When it is necessary to verify that method’s performance parameters are adequate for use for a particular analytical problem and compliant to Commission rules as, for example:
New method developed for a particular problem
Established method revised to incorporate improvements or extended to a new problem
When quality control indicates an established method is changing with time
Established method used in a different laboratory, or with different analysts or different instrumentation
To demonstrate the equivalence between two methods, e.g. a new method and a standard

9. Analysis REGULATION (EC) No 882/2004, Annex III:
Methods of analysis should be characterised by the following criteria:
(a) accuracy;
(b) applicability (matrix and concentration range);
(c) limit of detection;
(d) limit of determination;
(e) precision;
(f) repeatability;
(g) reproducibility;

10. Analysis (h) recovery; (i) selectivity; (j) sensitivity;
(k) linearity;
(l) measurement uncertainty;
(m) other criteria that may be selected as required.

11. Reporting analytical results

12. How to interpret your analytical results?
The analytical result must be related to the edible part of a food commodity
Weight ratio whole product/edible part
In some cases the result must be related to the dry matter
An accredited analytical method shall have to be available by the lab
The result will be compliant with the law according to the use of the product
Direct human consumption
Subjected to further sorting processing or physical treatment such as roasting, cleaning etc.

13. Regulation EC/401/2006
ANNEX II

14. How to report analytical results?
X ± U
REGULATION 589/2014 UB
Analytical result
Mean
of duplicate analysis
Expanded Measurement Uncertainty
Common criteria for all the sampling regulations.
For dioxins and PCBs, moreover, X has to be expressed as the upperbound analytical result and has to be the mean of duplicate analysis (confirmatory). We’re going to see what the UB means along this presentation.
e.g. tin (in canned pineapple) = 210 mg/kg±21 mg/kg
Measurement uncertainty is 10 %

15. How to report analytical results?
The analytical result (X) must be reported corrected or uncorrected for recovery. The manner of reporting and the level of recovery must be reported.
If an extraction step is applied, the analytical result (X) must always be corrected
The analytical result corrected for recovery shall be used for controlling compliance
Bullet point 2 comes from Reg.333/2007

16. Measurement Uncertainty - Definitions
“A parameter, associated with the result of a measurement, that characterizes the dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand”
ISO, International vocabulary of basic and general terms in metrology; Geneva: International Organization for Standardization; 1993.

17. Measurement Uncertainty
There is concern that some laboratories under-estimate the size of their uncertainties and report unrealistically small uncertainties to their customers.
For chemical analyses, it would not be unreasonable to expect that the
(expanded) uncertainties reported by laboratories would be of the
following orders:
1000 mg/kg +/- 11 %
100 mg/kg +/- 16 %
10 mg/kg +/- 22 %
1 mg/kg +/- 32 %
<0,1 mg/kg +/- 44 %
Reference document: Report on the relationship between analytical results, Measurement uncertainty, recovery factors and the provisions of EU food and feed legislation, with particular reference to Community legislation concerning Contaminants in food and Undesirable substances in feed

18. Uncertainty – Definitions
Expanded uncertainty [U]
quantity defining an interval about a result of a measurement that may be expected to encompass a large fraction of the distribution of values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurand.
The combined uncertainty represents the uncertainty value with a confidence level of 68%
To have a confidence level of 95% (commonly accepted) a coverage factor of 2 is applied (k=2) when a large number of measurement are considered. However, k can be derived from tables of the t Student values.
U = 2*uc

19. How to assess the uncertainty?
Three approaches
II° approach
Use reproducibility data from inter- laboratory studies SR as the best measure of maximum variability. Uc will be equal to 2SR (top-down approach)
III° approach
Horwitz approach (Horwitz- Tompson equation)
RSDHR = 2 (1-0.5logC);
бHR=Xm* RSDHR/100
0,5 бHR ≤ sr ≤ 0,66 бHR
I° approach
Classic metrological approach (bottom up, ref: GUM, CEI ENV ; EURACHEM, EA 4/02)
Add up to repeatability measurement all other sources of uncertainty
• volumetric flask corrections (calibration, temperature);
• pipette volume corrections (calibration, temperature);
• reference material content uncertainty;
• concentration of calibrant uncertainty;
• signal measurement uncertainty;
• time measurement uncertainty;
• extraction variability (volume, temperature, and solubility effects);
• reaction or separation variability;
• effect of interferences which may or may not be present. etc.)

20. Expression of the analytical results
Number of significant figures taken into account when reporting results and interpreting them in relation to legal limits
In particular:
Same units as the ML (μg/kg, mg/kg)
the number of significant figures to be included in the reported result must be the same as reported in the legislation
( 0,01 mg/kg is not the same of 10 μg/kg!!)
the interpretation of an analytical result in relation to a statutory limit (Uncertainty measurement, intended use of the product)
Report on the relationship between analytical results, measurement uncertainty, recovery factors and the provisions of EU food and feed legislation, with particular reference to community legislation concerning
- contaminants in food (Council Reg (EEC) no 315/93 of 8 February 1993 laying down Community procedures for contaminants in food) - undesirable substances in feed (Directive 2002/32/EC of the EU Parliament and of the council of 7 may 2002 on undesirable substances in animal feed)

21. Example The analyst must decide what is the best approach
Legal limit of aflatoxin B1 in complementary feeds as set by the Regulation 574/2011: 0,01 mg/kg
If your analytical result is 24 μg/kg (0,024 mg/kg), how to consider it?
The result must be reported as 0,02 mg/kg (not compliant). But considering the uncertainty measurement, in two out of three cases the final result is compliant, in the third one is non compliant
44% uc= 0,01 (Horwitz approach)
20% uc= 0,005 Uext=2x0,005 = 0,01 (Metrological approach)
15% uc= 0,004 Uext=2x0,004=0,008 [0,024-0,008=0,016 ]
0,02 (NC)
The analyst must decide what is the best approach

22. Interpretation of results: Compliant/Non-compliant

23. Compliant / Non-Compliant
Measurement Uncertainty
Measured Value
Limit
Different Samples analysed by one Laboratory

24. Compliant / Non-Compliant
Measured Value
Limit
Same Sample analysed by different Laboratories

25. Compliant / Non-Compliant
This situation could happen due to different possible methods available for calculating the measurement uncertainty. Also due to more or less experienced laboratories.
Compliant
Non-Compliant
Measured Value
Limit
Solved for pesticides by setting a fixed measurement uncertainty of 50% every laboratory has to reach.
For Dioxins there is a core working group at the EU-RL thinking about a possible solution.

26. “CONFIRMATORY METHODS” “CONFIRMATORY METHODS”
DIOXINS & PCBs
The result of a single analysis:
The result of a duplicate analysis:
“SCREENING METHODS”
< ML
COMPLIANCE: lot accepted
“CONFIRMATORY METHODS”
As regards dioxins (PCDD/PCDF) and dioxin-like PCBs The lot is accepted, if the result of a single analysis
—  performed by a screening method with a false-compliant rate below 5 % indicates that the level does not exceed the respective maximum level of PCDD/Fs and the sum of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs as laid down in Regu­ lation (EC) No 1881/2006,
—  performed by a confirmatory method does not exceed the respective maximum level of PCDD/Fs and the sum of PCDD/Fs and dioxin-like PCBs as laid down in Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 taking into account the measurement uncertainty
NON-COMPLIANCE: lot rejected
“CONFIRMATORY METHODS”
> ML

27. How to handle “negative” results?
Need to express the compliance for total aflatoxins in a pistachio sample for direct
human consumption. Legislative basis: Regulation 165/2010/UE
Legal Limit for AfB1: 8.0 μg/kg; Legal Limit for total AFs : 10.0 μg/kg
AfB1: 9.9 μg/kg; (uAfB1 = 1,0); 2. (uAfB1 = 2,2)
AfB2: 4.0 μg/kg (uAfB2 = 0,4); 2. (uAfB1 = 0,9)
AfG1: <LoQ (LoQ= 0,5 μg/kg) = negative (uAfG1 = -)
AfG2: <LoQ (LoQ= 0,5 μg/kg) = negative (uAfG2 = -)
How to express the final result for TOT Afs =
Measurement uncertainty
LOWER
BOUND
APPROACH
13,9 μg/kg
Uexp TOT AF = 2 x √(uAfB1)2 + (uAfB2)2
Uexp TOT AF =2 x √(1,0)2 + (0,4)2 = 2x √1.2 = 2,2
Uexp TOT AF =2 x √(2,2)2 + (0,9)2 = 2x √5.7 = 4,8
[NC]
[C]
13,9 ± 2,2 μg/kg
13,9 ± 4,8 μg/kg 1. 2.

28. Interpretation of results: Key issues

29. Content Introduction on analysis Reporting analytical results
Interpretation of results: Compliant/Non-compliant
Interpretation of results: Key issues
Dioxins and PCBs: TEFs and TEQs
Processing factors for contaminants

30. How to interpret your analytical results?
The analytical result must be related to the edible part of a food commodity
Weight ratio whole product/edible part
In some cases the result must be related to the dry matter
An accredited analytical method shall have to be available by the lab
The result will be compliant with the law according to the use of the product
Direct human consumption
Subjected to further sorting processing or physical treatment such as roasting, cleaning etc.

31. Cd in crustaceans Example: Edible part
Regulation 1881/2006, Art. 1: The maximum levels specified in the Annex shall apply to the edible part of the foodstuffs
Cd in crustaceans
In the past, point of the Annex to R. 1881/2006 did not include the Edible Crab (“buey de mar”). Therefore, there was a problem with the interpretation of this description between labs: one lab used to analyse the whole content while the other removed the brown/orange part (which contains the highest amount of Cd). The Cd analytical result was really different and the same edible crab was compliant/non compliant depending on the lab criteria. It caused disturbances on the internal market (EU).
Today is point of the Annex.
…problem with the interpretation in the lab!

32. EDIBLE PART Cd in crustaceans “WHITE MEAT” “BROWN MEAT” Appendage Body
(crab, spider crab, edible crab…)
Head
(shrimps, prawns, lobsters…)
“WHITE MEAT”
Appendage
CULTURAL ISSUE.
“Edible part” is the whole content for some countries of the south of Europe (cultural habit). But for the rest of Europe the edible part is the white part.
How would you manage this issue?
We tried to harmonise the criteria and thought of setting up an ML for the whole content, but…

33. ML for crustaceans (whole content)
Low efficacy
High cost
After an exposure assessment, the possibility of setting up an ML was weighted. But the Cd content in the brown part is so high that setting up an ML for the whole content of crustaceans would have meant to destroy roughly half of the crustaceans market within the EU. And the habit (the high consumer of crustaceans with the whole part) would have been kept anyway.

34. Cadmium in crustaceans
EXPOSURE
Cd levels in crustaceans
Consumption of crustaceans
Therefore, in order to reduce exposure to Cd in this vulnerable group (high consumers), we decided to advice them to reduce consumption.

35. Cd in crustaceans: Solution
DGSANCO Information Note (2011):
“Consumption of brown crab meat”
M6 (2011) Regulation 420/2011: clarification of the part to be analysed (white part) for international trade (the same ML was kept).
Taking into account the different interpretations with regard to the portion of crabs to be analysed for comparison with the maximum level for cadmium, it should therefore be clarified that the maximum level set for cadmium in crustaceans in the Annex to Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 applies to muscle meat from appendages (legs and claws) and abdomen. For crabs and crab-like crustaceans, the maximum level applies to the appendages only. This definition excludes other parts of crustaceans, such as the cephalothorax of crabs and inedible parts (shell, tail). The cephalothorax comprises the digestive organs (hepatopanchreas) which are known to contain high levels of cadmium. As in some Member States consumers may eat parts of the cephalothorax on a regular basis, consumer advice at a Member State level to limit consumption of these parts may be appropriate to reduce exposure to cadmium. An Information Note on this issue was made available on the website of the DGSANCO.
CONCLUSION:
Different risk management measures depending on the case:
MLs for the whole population vs Consumer Advice for specific groups

36. Dioxins and PCBs: TEFs and TEQs

37. Dioxins and PCBs: TEFs and TEQs
REGULATION 1881/2006
What does it mean?

38. Toxic Equivalent Factors (TEF)
2,3,7,8-TCDD
HUMAN CARCINOGEN (GROUP 1, IARC)
210 PCDD/F congeners (75 dioxins, 135 Furans) … thereof 17 toxic substances
209 PCB congeners ………………………………………………. thereof 12 toxic substances
29 substances with different toxicity ->need of one value to describe the toxicity of a contaminated sample
2,3,7,8-TCDD is considered to be one the most dangerous compounds that pollute our enviroment. The most toxin dioxin. TEF=1 for this compound.
Model of Toxic Equivalent (TEQ)-(Calculated by multiplication of each congener concentration with the Toxic Equivalency Factor and summation)
TEF= 1
WHO (IPCS, List 1998; 2005)

39. dioxins and furans (pg/g)
TEF 1
dioxins and furans (pg/g)
Congeners
TEF
LOD
LOQ
Recovery (%)
Results
TEQ
Methods
EPA 1613
2,3,7,8 - TCDD
0,003
0,007 50
0,0097
Detection
HRGC/HRMS
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD
0,005
0,012 45
0,0352
Unit
pg/g
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
0,1
0,009
0,025 53
0,0119
0,0012
Accredited
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
0,0108
0,0011
Uncertainty (%)
RSD 4,3%
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
n.p.
<LOQ
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
0,01 47
0,0406
0,0004
OCDD
0,0001
0,024
0,063 42
0,1793
0,00002
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
0,004
0,010 49
0,2505
0,0251
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
0,05
0,018
0,0372
0,0019
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
0,5 46
0,0787
0,0394
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
0,006
0,015
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0,013 51
0,0082
0,0008
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF
0,008
0,022
Total TEQ-PCDD/PCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0,016
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
Upperbound
0,118
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF
0,021
Mediumbound
0,116
OCDF
0,029
0,077
Lowerbound
0,115
Seabass
Model of Toxic Equivalent (TEQ)-(Calculated by multiplication of each congener concentration with the Toxic Equivalency Factor and summation)
Here is the TEF list from The new one from 2005 is in the consolidated version of R. 1881/2006.
To explain UB and LB use the example of a RULER: instrument to measure length (cm>mm>µm).
Upper-bound concentrations;
upper-bound concentrations are calculated on the assumption that all values of the different congeners below the limit of quantification are equal to the limit of quantification.
Lower-bound concentrations;
lower-bound concentrations are calculated on the assumption that all values of the different congeners below the limit of quantification are equal to zero
The lot complies with the specification if the analytical result does not exceed the maximum level of non-dioxin- like PCBs laid down by Directive 2002/32/EC, taking into account the measurement uncertainty.
The lot does not comply with the specification if the upper-bound analytical result confirmed by duplicate analysis exceeds the maximum level laid down by Directive 2012/277/EC, taking into account the measurement uncertainty.

40. Examples: Analysis of dioxins and PCBs
There are 3 analytical results on hypothetical samples (fish, egg and olive oil)
Let’s discuss together their compliance with legislation

41. dioxins y furans (pg/g)
SAMPLE: Golden mullet (Liza aurata)
DIOXINS Y FURANS
dioxins y furans (pg/g)
Congeners
TEF
LOQ
Recovery (%)
Results
TEQ
2,3,7,8 - TCDD 1
0,005
70,20%
0,0209
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD
0,009
100,40%
<LOQ
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
0,1
69%
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
74,40%
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
100%
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
0,01
0,021
63,60%
0,043
OCDD
0,0003
0,071
66,00%
1,0946
0,000009
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
0,022
65%
0,6275
0,00628
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
0,03
0,013
74,80%
0,061
0,00054
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
0,3
0,004
78,30%
0,16
0,0144
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
68%
0,0133
0,00013
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
69,90%
0,0189
0,00019
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF
65,80%
EQT total-PCDD/PCDF (pg/g)
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
64,80%
1,2732
0,1273
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
0,018
84,90%
0,0646
0,000006 UB
0,1619
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF
82,00% MB
0,1563
OCDF
0,0229 0, LB
0,1507
DL-PCBs
PCBs no-orto (pg/g)
PCB congeners
EQT
PCB-77
0,0001
80%
84,4912
0,0084
PCB-81
39%
PCB-126
115%
21,557
2,1557
PCB-169
98%
80,083
2,4025
PCBs mono-orto (pg/g)
PCB-105
90%
2031,81
0,6095
PCB-114
84%
147,9891
0,0444
PCB-118
83%
7854,25
2,3563
PCB-123
406,22
0,1219
Total TEQ-DL-PCB (pg/g)
PCB-156
113%
3020,96
0,9063
PCB-157
107%
329,4594
0,0988
7,3773
PCB-167
1370,04
0,411
7,1335
PCB-189
92%
591,221
0,1774
6,8897
Non-compliant

42. dioxins y furans (pg/g)
SAMPLE: Hen egg
Fat content (%)
8,5
Type of sampling:
pg WHO-TEQ/g fat
DIOXINS Y FURANS
dioxins y furans (pg/g)
Congeners
TEF
LOQ
Recovery (%)
Results
EQT
2,3,7,8 - TCDD 1
0,179
78,80%
<LOQ
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD
0,223
36,80%
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
0,1
0,222
63%
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
0,208
66,40%
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
0,22
100%
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
0,01
0,387
96,10%
0,5079
0,0051
OCDD
0,0003
0,548
83,60%
0,8439
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
0,186
61%
0,4741
0,0474
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
0,03
0,142
45,50%
0,1873
0,0056
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
0,3
0,135
66,30%
0,2107
0,0632
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
0,215
77%
0,2728
0,0273
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0,192
82,10%
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF
0,336
68,70%
EQT total-PCDD/PCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0,207
73,30%
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
0,145
105,20%
0,1847
0,0018 UB
0,6938
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF
0,303
116,00% MB
0,4223
OCDF
0,467 LB
0,1507
DL-PCBs
PCBs no-orto (pg/g)
PCB congeners
PCB-77
0,0001
0,447
40,40%
6,7983
0,0007
PCB-81
0,443
 32,20%
0,4855
PCB-126
0,431
38,60%
0,8040
0,0804
PCB-169
0,294
39%
PCBs mono-orto (pg/g)
PCB-105
0,388
44,10%
36,6767
0,011
PCB-114
0,364
28,70%
2,3518
PCB-118
0,358
89%
102,3017
0,0307
PCB-123
0,367
38%
1,1063
Total TEQ-PCB
PCB-156
0,401
43,50%
15,8862
0,0048
PCB-157
0,429
44%
2,8077
0,0008
0,1410
PCB-167
0,372
49,60%
6,8631
0,0021
0,1366
PCB-189
0,355
32,10%
2,0844
0,0006
0,1322
Comply
If the analytical result from the lab was expressed in whole weight, we should convert the result to express it in fat (using the fat content reported).

43. dioxins y furans (pg/g)
MUESTRA: Olive oil
DIOXINS Y FURANS
dioxins y furans (pg/g)
Congeners
TEF
LOQ
Recovery (%)
Results
EQT
2,3,7,8 - TCDD 1
0,007 90
<LOQ
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDD
0,024 95
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDD
0,1
0,011
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDD
n.p.
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDD
0,01
0,055 72
OCDD
0,0003
0,188 55
0,3152
0,0001
2,3,7,8 - TCDF
0,058 87
3,0987
0,3099
1,2,3,7,8 - PeCDF
0,03
0,035 92
2,3,4,7,8 - PeCDF
0,3
0,135 89
1,4364
0,4309
1,2,3,4,7,8 - HxCDF
0,012 94
0,0186
0,0019
1,2,3,6,7,8 - HxCDF
0,0134
0,0013
1,2,3,7,8,9 - HxCDF 85
EQT total-PCDD/PCDF (pg/g)
2,3,4,6,7,8 - HxCDF 83
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 - HpCDF
0,047 81 UB
0,7835
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 - HpCDF 69 MB
0,7638
OCDF
0,048
0,16
0,000048 LB
0,7441
DL-PCBs
PCBs no-orto (pg/g)
PCB congeners
PCB-77
4,19 78
12,4288
0,0012
PCB-81
0,272 77
0,7646
0,0002
PCB-126
0,388
1,0904
0,109
PCB-169
0,245 75
PCBs mono-orto (pg/g)
PCB-105
7,98 79
38,6288
0,0116
PCB-114
0,9 80
2,51
0,0008
PCB-118
32,6
94,5241
0,0284
PCB-123
0,65
1,327
0,0004
Total TEQ-PCB (pg/g)
PCB-156
4,41 76
10,2109
0,0031
PCB-157
0,55
2,1391
0,0006
0,1653
PCB-167
1,97
7,1119
0,0021
0,1616
PCB-189
0,56 84
1,5889
0,0005
0,1579
Olive oil is 100% fat. NON-compliant for dioxins (UB), thus for the sum.
CONCLUSION:
It is important to understand the units and the calculations in order to assess compliance with MLs in legislation.

44. Processing factors for contaminants

45. MLs for Pb, Cd, Hg and inorganic Sn
Attention!
REGULATION1881/2006
MLs for Pb, Cd, Hg and inorganic Sn
This is a key issue for the aplication of MLs.
Article 2: Processing factors

46. Article 2: Processing factors
MLs apply to the edible part of fresh/raw products
For processed products
Product
Dried
Diluted
Processed
Compound
It shall be justified by the food business operator
The specific concentration or dilution factors for the drying, dilution, processing and/or mixing operations concerned or for the dried, diluted, processed and/or compound foodstuffs concerned shall be provided and justified by the food business operator, when the competent authority carries out an official control.
If the food business operator does not provide the necessary concentration or dilution factor or if the competent authority deems that factor inappropriate in view of the justification given, the authority shall itself define that factor, based on the available information and with the objective of maximum protection of human health.
Make a comment on the list agreed on at a SCFCAH meeting in 2009
Possibility of applying PFs

47. Sample from the market Anchovy in brine: 0,8 ppm Cd Cadmium mg/kg
wet weight
3.2.15
Anchovy
0,25
Anchovy in brine:
0,8 ppm Cd
You are a food inspector and take a sample of an anchovy in brine, is it compliant with legislation?

48. Sample from the market Fresh anchovy: 0,17 ppm Cd Cadmium mg/kg
wet weight
3.2.15
Anchovy
0,25
Fresh anchovy:
0,17 ppm Cd
We, the national authorities of both countries, performed a study together with the FBO and we realised that fresh anchovy was compliant.

49. Anchovies in brine How to apply PFs? X 4,5
The Cd content in the anchovies is exactly the same, but due to the dehydration (because of salt), the Cd concentrates four and a half times (same Cd referred to less weight).
CONCLUSION:
Remember that MLs are applicable to the fresh/raw product, unless otherwise specified in the Annex to Regulation 1881/2006.
X 4,5

50. CONCLUSIONS:
The analytical result corrected for recovery shall be used for controlling compliance with MLs
When performing official control we have to take into account key issues with respect to the application of the MLs in the legislation (edible part, intended use, TEQs for dioxins and PCBs, processing factors, etc.)