A comparison of the Kjeldahl and Dumas methods for the determination of protein in foods, using data from a proficiency testing scheme

被引:88
|
作者
Thompson, M
Owen, L
Wilkinson, K
Wood, R
Damant, A
机构
[1] Univ London Birkbeck Coll, Sch Biol & Chem Sci, London WC1H 0PP, England
[2] Cent Sci Lab, FAPAS, York YO41 1LZ, N Yorkshire, England
[3] Inst Food Res, Food Stand Agcy, Norwich NR4 7UA, Norfolk, England
[4] Food Stand Agcy, London WC2B 6NH, England
关键词
D O I
10.1039/b208973b
中图分类号
O65 [分析化学];
学科分类号
070302 ; 081704 ;
摘要
Both the Kjeldahl and the Dumas methods for the determination of protein in foodstuffs are currently in use, but the empirical nitrogen factors used to convert the determined nitrogen content to protein content are based on the Kjeldahl method alone. Non-equivalence between the two methods could therefore result in some laboratories reporting an incorrect protein content. We report here a study using data accumulated over several years in the results of a proficiency testing scheme. On average the Dumas method provided results that were relatively higher by about 1.4% than the Kjeldahl method, but the difference between the methods depended on the type of foodstuff. The methodology of looking for bias between analytical methods is critically discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:1666 / 1668
页数:3
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] A determination of mc(mc) from HERA data using a matched heavy-flavor scheme
    Valerio Bertone
    Stefano Camarda
    Amanda Cooper-Sarkar
    Alexandre Glazov
    Agnieszka Luszczak
    Hayk Pirumov
    Ringaile Plačakytė
    Klaus Rabbertz
    Voica Radescu
    Juan Rojo
    Andrey Sapronov
    Oleksandr Zenaiev
    Achim Geiser
    Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016
  • [42] A determination of mc(mc) from HERA data using a matched heavy-flavor scheme
    Bertone, Valerio
    Camarda, Stefano
    Cooper-Sarkar, Amanda
    Glazov, Alexandre
    Tuszczak, Agnieszka
    Pirumov, Hayk
    Placakyte, Ringaile
    Rabbertz, Klaus
    Radescu, Voica
    Rojo, Juan
    Sapronov, Andrey
    Zenaiev, Oleksandr
    Geiser, Achim
    JOURNAL OF HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS, 2016, (08):
  • [43] A Comparison of Protein Kinases Inhibitor Screening Methods Using Both Enzymatic Activity and Binding Affinity Determination
    Rudolf, Amalie Frederikke
    Skovgaard, Tine
    Knapp, Stefan
    Jensen, Lars Juhl
    Berthelsen, Jens
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (06):
  • [44] Comparison of protein precipitation methods from adipose tissue using difference gel electrophoresis
    Benabdelkamel, Hicham
    Masood, Afshan
    Alanazi, Ibrahim O.
    Alfadda, Assim A.
    ELECTROPHORESIS, 2018, 39 (14) : 1745 - 1753
  • [45] DETERMINATION OF THE PROTEIN-CONTENT OF OIL-BODIES FROM SOYBEAN SEEDS - COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS
    QUINTERO, LC
    ALBI, MA
    GRASAS Y ACEITES, 1985, 36 (04) : 235 - 238
  • [46] A COMPARISON OF WAVEFORM MODEL RE-TRACKING METHODS USING DATA FROM CYGNSS
    Mashburn, Jake
    O'Brien, Andrew
    Axelrad, Penina
    Zuffada, Cinzia
    Lowe, Stephen
    Shah, Rashmi
    Voronovich, Alexander
    Zavorotny, Valery
    IGARSS 2018 - 2018 IEEE INTERNATIONAL GEOSCIENCE AND REMOTE SENSING SYMPOSIUM, 2018, : 4289 - 4292
  • [47] COMPARISON OF INPATIENT COST ESTIMATION METHODS: USING DATA FROM A CYSTIC FIBROSIS TRIAL
    Dinan, M.
    Morgan, Dewitt E.
    Grussemeyer, C.
    Reed, S. D.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (03) : A7 - A7
  • [48] THE DETERMINATION OF THE SEISMIC QUALITY FACTOR-Q FROM VSP DATA - A COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT COMPUTATIONAL METHODS
    TONN, R
    GEOPHYSICAL PROSPECTING, 1991, 39 (01) : 1 - 27
  • [49] Comparison of dietary fiber contents of selected baby foods from two major brands in Canada using three methods
    Mongeau, R
    Brassard, R
    Deeks, JR
    Laffey, PJ
    Nguyen, L
    Brooks, SPJ
    JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY, 2001, 49 (08) : 3782 - 3786
  • [50] Comparison of FDA-Approved and Laboratory-Developed HER2 Immunohistochemical Assays Using College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing Data
    Troxell, Megan
    Hornick, Jason L.
    Bellizzi, Andrew
    LABORATORY INVESTIGATION, 2018, 98 : 796 - 797