Hofsass H, Alicino N J, Hirsch A L, Ameika L, Smith L D
J Assoc Off Anal Chem. 1978 May;61(3):735-45.
A collaborative study was carried out which compared the official chemical method, 43.B14-43.B24, the official rat bioassay, 43.165, and the high pressure liquid chromatographic method for vitamin D3 resin, vitamin D3 resin in oil, and dry concentrate. A total of 340 samples were distributed to 17 collaborators for analysis. Five laboratories performed both the chemical and HPLC methods on 5 sets of blind duplicates. A 2-way analysis of variance comparing both methods for each sample showed a significant (P less than 0.01) difference between methods only for Sample 5. When the 2 methods were compared over all the samples, no significant (P less than 0.05) difference was found. Except for Sample 5, there were no differences in the repeatability of the methods. Per cent recoveries on Sample 3, which contained exactly 0.200 X 10(6) IU/g, showed 98.2% for the chemical method and 100.6% for the HPLC method for the 5 laboratories that performed both methods. The assay results of the HPLC and chemical methods are in good agreement with those found by the biological assay on Samples 1-4, but not for Sample 5. Evidence indicates that Sample 5 degraded partially to isotachysterol, and while the HPLC method yielded a reasonable value on this material, the chemical method erroneously showed full potency. An amendment is included for the collaboratively studied HPLC method which detects and eliminates 5,6-trans-vitamin D3, a possible interferant.
开展了一项合作研究,比较了官方化学方法(43.B14 - 43.B24)、官方大鼠生物测定法(43.165)以及用于维生素D3树脂、油中维生素D3树脂和干浓缩物的高压液相色谱法。总共340个样品分发给17位合作者进行分析。五个实验室对5组盲样重复样品同时采用化学方法和高效液相色谱法进行分析。对每个样品的两种方法进行双向方差分析表明,仅样品5的两种方法之间存在显著差异(P小于0.01)。当对所有样品比较这两种方法时,未发现显著差异(P小于0.05)。除样品5外,两种方法的重复性没有差异。对于恰好含有0.200×10⁶IU/g的样品3,进行两种方法分析的5个实验室的化学方法回收率为98.2%,高效液相色谱法回收率为100.6%。高效液相色谱法和化学方法的测定结果与样品1 - 4的生物测定结果高度一致,但样品5不一致。有证据表明样品5部分降解为异速甾醇,虽然高效液相色谱法对该物质给出了合理值,但化学方法错误地显示出全部效力。对合作研究的高效液相色谱法进行了修正,该方法可检测并消除5,6 - 反式维生素D3(一种可能的干扰物)。