340 likes | 355 Views
The ORACLE is a low-resolution, rapid NMR technology that accurately analyzes fat in any unknown food sample without the need for method development. It aims to be the standard reference technique for fat testing worldwide.
E N D
Current fat testing limitations • Rapid techniques (NMR, NIR, FT-IR, etc.) • Method development required • Matrix dependent • Reference methodology • Long analysis times (hours) • Skilled chemists • Hazardous chemicals (safety & disposal) • Repeatability issues
Original Scope Design Goal: Create a universal fat system that removes the bottlenecks and limitations of reference chemistries and rapid techniques. Design a rapid system that no longer requires any form of method development. Long-term vision: To become the standard reference technique for fat testing worldwide
What is the ORACLE? • Low Resolution, rapid NMR that requires NO fat method development • Accurately analyzes fat in ANY unknown food sample
How it works The ORACLE utilizes a breakthrough NMR technology developed by CEM that overcomes the deficiencies of previous NMR technologies. Two improvements over Trac technology • Isolates detection of proton signals on fat molecules from all other sample components • Eliminates partial decay signals of varying fat molecules
Validation of Technology • ~30 CRM’s analyzed on ORACLE • Samples extensively tested in collaborative studies (typically 10+ certified laboratories) • CEM outsourced 100’s of samples to Eurofins and Silliker • Submitted samples in “blind” and “non-blind” fashion to capture true sample variability
Certificate of Analysis (COA) • Accompanies every CRM sample • Information varies slightly based on where it was sourced (e.g. Muva Kempten vs. NIST) • Assessed values for determined components (e.g. fat/oil, moisture, protein, ets) • Explanation of Statistics • Suggested sample sizes • Handling/Preparation instructions • Shelf life
Further Validation from Actalia • Actalia is a COFRAC accredited lab in France • Validates equipment for the dairy industry • High respected by ISO and IDF • Seen as “experts” in dairy analysis
Actalia Study • 2 major conclusions from ORACLE testing • The ORACLE “..reproducibility of the instrument is lower than the reproducibility of the reference method.” • The accuracy of the ORACLE compared to reference chemistry showed the “…regression slope (0.999) and the intercept (0.009) are not significantly different, respectively from 1.00 and zero (P=5%).”
Simple to Operate • Designed so that anyone can operate • Simply touch “run” button to start analysis • No method development or chemists required
Two Ways to Operate Rapid- SMART 6 High Throughput- Oven Testing labs running 50+ samples per day Dry samples overnight in oven Condition 1 hour in CEM Precision Heater Block and then analyze fat in ORACLE • Process control labs that need rapid moisture & fat results • Results = < 5 minutes • Dry samples in the SMART 6 for moisture results and then analyze fat in ORACLE
SMART 6 + ORACLE • Ideal for process control customers requiring rapid results (i.e. food production facilities) • Results in 3-5 minutes • Analyze moisture and fat in any sample- wet or dry
SMART 6 + ORACLE Procedure SMART 6 Moisture Analysis 2-4 minutes Condition in QuikPrep 30 seconds ORACLE Fat Analysis 30 seconds
Air Oven Testing Sequence ORACLE Fat Analysis 30 seconds Condition in Heater Block 30-60 minutes Dry in Oven Overnight
Robot • Option with High Throughput customers • For use with one or two 50-place heater blocks • Allows users to walk away after conditioning begins • Automated sample analysis allows lab techs to focus on other testing needs
Global Repeatability • All ORACLEs are designed to produce the same NMR signal • Ensures consistent results across suppliers and manufacturers worldwide
Current fat testing limitations • Rapid techniques (NMR, NIR, FT-IR, etc.) • Method development required • Matrix dependent • Reference methodology • Long analysis times (hours) • Skilled chemists • Hazardous chemicals (safety & disposal) • Repeatability issues
Reference Chemistry Woes • Blanket methods not necessarily optimized for samples • Using the wrong method can greatly effect the final % Fat result Aued-Pimentel et al. Quim. Nova, 2010, 33, 76 – 84
Error at Certified Reference labs • Blind submittals show true error of a reference method • Outside labs may choose to omit certain duplicate results, especially if range is large. Customer would not know. • Blind submittals less susceptible to omission Dairy Powders
Inter-laboratory Error • Sample was prepared and split at CEM, so both labs received identical samples
Intralaboratory- Lay’s Baked BBQ Chips Retest * Note- only sample 3 retested “Weighing Error”
Current fat testing limitations • Rapid techniques (NMR, NIR, FT-IR, etc.) • Method development required • Matrix dependent • Reference methodology • Long analysis times (hours) • Skilled chemists • Hazardous chemicals (safety & disposal) • Repeatability issues
CEM Accuracy Advantage NIR - FOSS CEM – ORACLE AOAC Method 2008.06 AOAC Method 2007.04 Moisture Average Difference +/- 0.20% Average Difference +/- 1.03% Fat Average Difference +/- 0.36% Average Difference +/- 0.03% Displaying unbiased data from each system’s AOAC method as proof of undeniably better accuracy
Cost of Ownership • NIR costs based on suggested maintenance of ANN calibrations • 2 components (Moisture, Fat) • $25/sample reference testing cost • No reformulations or recalibrations, only typical maintenance • CEM costs basedon consumables for SMART 6, ORACLE, and Sprint • 2 components (Moisture, Fat) • List price (can be decreased based on purchase quantity)
One System, Any Sample • Moisture and Fat analysis for any sample can be tested on the ORACLE • Liquid, Powder, semi-solid, cultured, and more • NIR AND FT-IR must be used to analyze the full range of samples • FT-IR for liquid, NIR for cultured and powder • Increased costs instruments, service, calibrations, software upgrades • New products require new NIR/FT-IR calibrations, which require additional time and capital