Cover Image
close this book Food Composition Data: A User's Perspective (1987)
close this folder Other considerations
close this folder A system for evaluating the quality of published nutrient data: Selenium, a test case
View the document (introductory text)
View the document Introduction
View the document Background
View the document Procedure
View the document Criteria
View the document Calculation of the mean SE value and confidence code
View the document Results
View the document Discussion
View the document Implications
View the document Acknowledgements
View the document Disclaimer
View the document References

Results

Results

Table 4 provides the Se data which were collected and evaluated for three foods: white rolls, whole milk, and canned crab. These foods were selected to show varying levels of Se among foods and within foods, different combinations of ratings, the typical range of QIs, and an example for each CC.

Analyses of white rolls were reported in three references. In reference 22, analyses were carried out on samples of the same product from two different sets of cities. Zeros were assigned in two categories: in analytical quality control because of poor precision in the second set of collections in reference 23, and because of lack of any documentation in references 3 and 22; and in sampling plan because of the Canadian origin of the product in reference 3. Onehalf of the ratings were 2, while 1 and 3 were assigned less frequently. The data from all four studies (three references) were found to be acceptable, and the four Se values were used to derive the mean value of 34 µg/100g, with minimum and maximum values of 21 and 61. The CC of a based on the sum of the QIs, 6.4, indicates that one can use this value with considerable confidence.

Sample analyses of whole milk were presented in 11 references which contained 15 studies. However, data from 11 studies were judged unacceptable based on a 0 rating in analytical method: lack of documentation, lack of validation of the method for milk, or reported Se levels below the stated quantitation limit. Out of the four remaining studies [2, 3, 4, 13], data from two [2, 3] were rated 0 in sampling plan due to their Canadian origin, while all were rated 0 in analytical quality control: references 3 and 4 reported no quality-control measures, while references 2 and 13 did not address both issues of accuracy and precision. Reference 4 does not explicitly report the number of whole milk samples analysed for Se; only the total number of samples is stated (103) which includes three types of milk in addition to whole milk. Although it is likely that a large number per type was analysed, the number of samples category received a 1 due to insufficient documentation. In two studies [2, 3], only one sample (in duplicate) was analysed. The mean Se level in whole milk, based on the data from four acceptable studies, is 1.6 µg Se/100g, with a minimum and maximum of 1.1 and 2.5. The sum of QIs is 5.6, which establishes a CC of b, indicating that a user of this datum can have some confidence in the value.

Canned crab samples were analysed by two sets of workers, with a Se value from only one study [5] receiving an acceptable Ql. The investigators reported no analytical quality-control measures (rated 0), analysed duplicate portions of only one sample (rated 1 in number of samples), and recovered only 80 90 per cent of Se in recovery trials (minimal validation results rated I in analytical method). Thus, the concentration of 22µg Se/lOOg is based on only one sample, with ratings of 0 to 2 in the other four categories. The CC of c makes it clear that more Se data are needed on canned crab.

Table 4. Data quality evaluation for white rolls, whole milk, and canned crab

Description Ref.

no.

Data quality criteria ratings Quality

index

Se (mg/100g) Comments
Number of samples (actual) Analytical Method Sample handling Sampling plan Analytical Quality Control
Mean SD
White rolls                    
Rolls, white, soft, enriched 7 2(4) 2 2 3 1 2 0a 25.50 14.06 4 composites of 3 samples each analysed
Rolls, white, soft, enriched 7 2(4) 2 2 3 0 1.8a 21.00 4.69  
White rolls 23 2(4) 1 2 2 0 1 4a 29 9 No Q.C. documentation
Rolls, brown and serve 3 2(3) 2 2 0 0 1.2a 61 24 Canadian
            S 6.4      
            Mean = 34   Confidence code = a
            Min.-Max. = 21-61    
Whole milk                    
Whole fluid milk 7 2(4) 2 2 3 1 2.0 0   All values < QL
Whole fluid milk 7 2(4) 2 2 3 0 1.8 0   All values < QL
Whole or skim milk 23 2(9) 0 2 2 0 0 5.9 0.8 No method validation
Whole milk 23 3(48) 0 2 1 0 0 5.9 1.2b No method validation
Whole milk 3 2(3) 3 2 0 0 1 4a 1 5 0.2 Canadian
Skim or whole milk 22 3(24) 0 2 2 0 0 6.9 2.1 No method validation
Whole homogenized 14 1(1) 2 2 2 0 1 4a 1.2   Duplicates
milk                    
Whole fresh milk 15 1(1) 0 2 0 0 0 0.8 1.0 Duplicates; no method validation
Whole fresh milk 15 1(1) 0 2 2 0 0 1.1 1.7  
Regular milk (>3.5% fat) 4 1(?) 3 3 2 0 1.8a 2.47   103 samples, all types
Whole homogenized milk 2 1(1) 2 2 0 0 1.0a 1.1   Duplicates; Canadian
Whole milk 10 1(?) 0 0 0 0 0 1.0   Reference is abstract
Milk 11 3(67) 0 0 1 0 0 4.0   No documentation
Whole milk 1 1(?) 0 0 1 0 0 4.8b   Packaged in SD (no doc..)
Whole milk 1 1(?) 0 0 1 0 0 1.9b   Packaged in OR (no doc.)
            S 5.6      
            Mean = 1.6   Confidence code = b
            Min.-Max. = 1.1-2.5    
Canned crab                    
                     
Geisha King crab.canned 24 1(?) 1 0 2 0 0.8 51   No sample handling documentation duplicates
Crab. processed.packed in water 5 1(?) 1 2 2 0 1.2a 21.68    
            S= 1.2      
            Mean = 22   Confidence code = c

 

a. An index > 1.0 is required for inclusion of an individual Sc value in the calculation of the mean.
b Conversion from volume to weight based on item no 01-077. "Whole Milk.'' in Us Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 8-/ (Science and Education

Administration USDA. Washington, D C., 1975).