2. Confidential Business Information

3. Ethanol Industry Mycotoxin Task Group
Industry Task Group Formed
> 5 B gallons represented from producers
8 Commercial Labs
University and Government Representatives
First Task Group Meeting: Friday, April 7, 2017
Task Group has met 10 times in 6 months
Started a best practices white paper task group at AAFCO
Performed 3 Inter-Laboratory Studies (ILS)
Focus has been on DON initially; other toxins are of interest to the group as well
3P Lab Group CV = 38%

4. Additional Background
Started out as an effort to standardize the test methods for mycotoxin analysis of DDGS – similar in concept to the effort we undertook in 2007 regarding proximate analysis of DDGS:
Evaluation of Analytical Methods for Analysis of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles
-AFIA Sub-Working Group Final Report and Recommendations, February 2007
Quickly modified the scope to focus on getting the results between labs to agree regardless of the method utilized
Confidential Business Information

6. Evaluation of Analytical Methods for Analysis of Dried Distillers Grains with Solubles

7. Inter-Laboratory Studies
Samples of naturally contaminated DDGS are split with a riffle splitter and sent to participating labs
Also prepared a Known Value Reference Material – prepared by the gravimetric addition of pure toxin in a known non-detectable substrate
Labs analyze samples in triplicate, allowing for both precision and accuracy to be evaluated
Precision is measured by the Intra and Inter-Laboratory Coefficient of Variation of the triplicates
Accuracy is measured by: 1) the z-score of each lab – i.e. degree of variance from the Group Mean and 2) the % recovery of a known value reference material

8. Individual Lab Performance
Following charts are for each participating lab individually
CV chart is on the left; z-score chart is on the right
All charts are scaled identically to display performance relative to the group
1 sample excluded from ILS #1 because it was a ND for DON – all labs performed similarly on this sample
Lab-734 does not have a calculated CV for ILS #3 because they have only reported 1 result for each sample as of (10/9/17)

9. Lab-109

10. Lab-158

11. Lab-217

12. Lab-263

13. Lab-498
Confidential Business Information

14. Lab-506

15. Lab-734

16. Lab-787

17. ILS #1 8 Participating Labs 3 Samples
1 of the samples was excluded from this analysis/presentation because it was a ND – all labs performed similarly on this excluded sample
Samples were split and shipped to labs
Labs analyzed each sample in triplicate and reported the results

18. ILS #1 – DON-5

19. ILS #1 – DON-9

20. ILS #2 8 Participating Labs 5 Samples
DON-12 sample was a known value DDGS sample – prepared by gravimetric addition of pure DON Toxin = ppm
Samples were split and shipped to labs
Labs analyzed each sample in triplicate and reported the results

21. ILS #2 – DON-1

22. ILS #2 – DON-2

23. ILS #2 – DON-12 (13.65ppm)

24. ILS #2 – DON-16

25. ILS #2 – DON-20

26. ILS #3
8 Participating Labs
3 Samples
DON-6 sample was a known value DDGS sample – prepared by gravimetric addition of pure DON Toxin = ppm
Samples were split and shipped to labs
Labs analyzed each sample in triplicate and reported the results

27. ILS #3 – DON-6 (10.87ppm)

28. ILS #3 – DON-7

29. ILS #3 – DON-15

31. Conclusions
Tremendous improvement has been made on both inter-laboratory variability and % recoveries
Variation reduction is approaching a diminishing return, signaling we may have obtained most of the benefit achievable
Lab 734 is the hold out and still needs to significantly improve their % recovery of DON – if Lab 734 falls in line, variation will be at a manageable level
Move efforts to other toxins (Aflatoxin, Fumonison, and Zearalenone)

32. Confidential Business Information