Star Wars and science fiction fans know that technology is a double-edged sword. On one hand, advances in science offer us fantastic powers to solve difficult problems (space travel, light sabers). On the other hand, the potential for catastrophe is also greater. With better technology comes a greater responsibility to prevent its misuse.

Early botanical scientists understood both the power and limitations of science to describe a complex natural world. Carl Linnaeus, who developed the original system to classify plants and animals, recognized that all organisms are not discrete species necessarily, but exist on a continuous spectrum of life.

Five ways NaturPro helps to ensure scientific validity…

Today, scientists in academia work to identify and quantify the diverse array of chemical constituents in botanical products, while industry works to ensure a safe, effective and consistent product. At our disposal are alphabet soups of various analytical technologies that offer increasingly better detection of constituents, even down to the picogram, which relative to a gram can be visualized as a drop of water in a thousand swimming pools.

But with picoscale resolution comes a lot of noise (one trillion per gram, to be exact) and even more responsibility to reliably separate a signal from it. Even at the parts-per-million (ppm) level—equivalent to a cup of water in a swimming pool—we often observe unexplainable results that defy logic.

How our “UnLab” approach controls for shoddy methods and unexplainable results… 

For example, only today’s best and most expensive instruments, such as multiple mass spectrometers linked to a chromatograph, such as LC/MS/MS (also known as tandem-MS, which means two mass spectrometers are hooked to each other; the first MS removes a lot of the “junk” that can interfere with the result from the second MS), are able to account for matrix effects that occur when testing complex mixtures. The reason complex mixtures are so difficult to examine is they contain so many different compounds, and therefore the chances are relatively high that one of these is observed at the same retention time (or peak) on the chromatogram as the compound a scientist is trying to quantify. Also, because the sample is being injected into super-heated, high-pressure instruments, there are often chemical reactions create new interfering compounds. Matrix effects can falsely change results in a significant way that cannot be resolved without further work. Results should always be questioned and replicated, and ultimately, investments in the development of methods are required to generate confidence.

Validation of matrix-specific methods across multiple laboratories address these challenges, however few methods have been validated to the extent required to be confident in the results. An example from the nutrition field: the inherent challenges in quantification of vitamin D (a pure compound and age-old vitamin, no less!)

Both the best and worst thing about good science is that with each answer comes another question. There is always more work to be done to achieve the greater goal: reproducible results. Needless to say, rigorous analysis of complex mixtures such as botanical products is often not straightforward. Unfortunately, the aims of science often oppose the aims of high-throughput lab testing.
How do you know whether a lab is focused on getting the right results? Here are some criteria to help decide whether or not to work with an independent laboratory:

• Is it transparent? Does it share methods, chromatograms, observations, historical data and control charts?
• Does it perform validation? Does it verify methods using appropriate controls such as calibration curves and spike recovery? What steps are taken when it initially sets up a method?
• Does it have a process for dealing with out-of-specification results, and will it share that process? Does it have an internal recordkeeping system that tracks method precision and alerts them when a method or system is out of calibration?
• Does it run internal control samples? Does it run samples in triplicate or duplicate at least, and does it report statistical analysis on the certificate of analysis (CoA), such as standard deviation from multiple runs?
• How does it validate the purity of reference standards? When it gets a new batch of reference standard, does it run it against an internal control sample? How often does it make fresh reference standard solution?
• Is it a proactive communicator, for example how often does it advise on the best methods to use, and alert their customers on new developments in methods?

Not all testing needs to be expensive or high-tech, but every method needs to be rigorous enough to provide results that are reproducible in another lab. For example, thin layer chromatography (TLC) is not high-tech, but it can be valid to determine botanical identity with the right mix of expertise, a rigorous and validated set of reference standards, and enough trial and error to develop the method and be confident in reproducibility of results. High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) is great when actual validation of the method and reference standards have been certified for their purity.

The true test of scientific validity is when multiple labs running different methods achieve the same result, especially when they are blinded as to the expected result.

Despite all of the challenges in quality control (QC) testing of botanicals, the world is changing, and our industry is rapidly improving. With scientific validity mandated by supplement GMPs (good manufacturing practices), and increasing demands for transparency and validity from all stakeholders, everyone is upping their game. Good science, not science fiction, provides reproducible results we can all be confident in.

Learn about reproducible results through our UnLab…

By: Blake Ebersole

This article appears with revisions, and was originally published in the March 2014 issue of Natural Products Insider.

We are QC Testing Consultants for Supplements and Foods.

NaturPro offers independent quality control analysis and testing for foods and dietary supplements.

Why Testing is Important: Supplement and natural product testing with a compliant laboratory is required by FDA for foods, dietary supplements and ingredients to ensure they meet standards for safety, quality and effectiveness.

For example, identity, potency and purity are quality control parameters needed to legally sell a natural product as an ingredient, food or dietary supplement.

Have food or supplement testing questions? Contact Us..

NaturPro Scientific is driven to achieve the right answers for our clients.  

Some have even called us the ultimate UnLab.

We are not a lab. And this independence means that we are free to pick from the top scientific experts for each type of test or analysis. 

As a result, we are truly able to work on behalf of our clients, to ensure that correct methods are used and reliable results are obtained.

Objectives of QC Testing:

1. To ensure analytical methods used are valid and fit for purpose
2. To make sure laboratories don’t take shortcuts with your sample
3. To determine if results are precise and accurate
4. To replicate the results of another lab
5. To resolve out-of-specification test results
6. To resolve disputes in data reports
7. To determine if “dry-labbing” may be occurring
8. To have an independent expert to review methods and results
9. To perform due diligence on a supplier or partner
10. To eliminate the potential for perceived conflict of interest when testing own products
11. To qualify a lab as a good partnership choice.

3 main benefits of food and dietary supplement QC testing consultants:

1. Better analysis and testing validity  for reliable, replicable and defensible results.
2. Fast turnaround and lower testing costs.
3. Reduced retesting, rejections, production delays and product recalls.

We know the shortcuts that testing labs can take, and how to prevent that from happening to you, to ensure testing gives the most scientific, accurate and defensible results possible.

Contact Us with your QC Testing Questions

A core concept across GMPs for many industries is scientific validity, and this is also one of the necessary requirements of the dietary supplement GMPs. For example, the purpose of an ingredient specification is to disclose scientifically valid methods and results for the tests, and these methods and results are used to verify the quality and identity of the material being sold.

Scientific validity means that tests must be suitable for what they are intended to measure. In a rapidly evolving industry, scientific validity is a core principle guiding our efforts to ascertain the identity, safety, and label claims of the material that millions of people take to support their health.

Here’s some ways NaturPro helps to ensure scientific validity…

To apply scientific principles to the measurement means that we develop a foundation of confidence in test results that accumulates only through repeated testing of viable hypotheses. During the process, we understand that like with many scientific measurements, sources of error exist which tend to increase with complexity. For example, complex samples containing thousands of chemical constituents (e.g., botanical extracts), and instrumentation methods that have a lot of variables all contribute to our bank of “known unknown” and “unknown unknowns.”

Testing using any single method can be an educated guess as an answer to a different question, especially for labs that may only sporadically test a given matrix with a single type of test.

Today’s analytical technology to measure analytes in complex mixtures is way ahead of the not-too-distant past, but now we understand a mitigating factor: that with greater power and resolution comes an increasing number of factors that may cause test results to be inaccurate or imprecise.

For example, it can be difficult to account for systematic error associated with dirty chromatography columns or non-optimal instrument conditions. Inaccurate purity data on reference standards (due to either inaccurate standard purity values, or unaccounted-for degradation during storage) are also a common sources of error — when we are simply trying to figure out the “actual” composition of a material. Another source of error arises from the calculation of the results; for example, moisture can account for a certain amount of the measured weight of both samples and standards, which is often simply estimated, even if it is accounted for.

What more does supplement testing and Star Wars have in common?

Other sources of error in testing can be chalked up to incomplete extraction and isolation during the sample preparation.  The subject of dissolution is an interesting one. For example, it is a common assumption that when a sample “dissolves” during HPLC sample prep, then it is fully “ionized” and thus is not strongly bonded to any solid particles (which then often get caught on the filter and not pass into the detector).

If both standard and sample dissolve to the same degree, no problem!  But (unknown unknown) error due to lower than expected ‘percent recovery’  creeps in when your sample is prepared with heat and time, becoming different compounds and binding differently to the protein-fat-and-sugar matrix of a biological product.  So the analyte that you are trying to extract into another phase is often a lot easier using the pure, unbound. chemical reference standard — leading to a difference in percent recovery.  So chemical reference standards are best complemented in testing with an additional control being the original, authentic botanical reference — yes a whole plant part, taken from the same source as the raw material in question.  Sounds easy, but its actually not for a lot of people. 

Then compound the sample preparation challenges with the high heat and pressure applied by an analytical instrument like HPLC, where more chemical reactions can happen in the complex sample to degrade what you are measuring, all while your pure reference standard survives nicely to the detector. (Theoretically, this scenario can also happen the other way around, where the matrix stabilizes the analyte better than the standard solution under the HPLC conditions.)

Exciting stuff, all this mystery, which we eventually find answers to through validation and repetitious testing.  While it’s difficult to predict analytical uncertainty, the point is to control it to the extent possible, hopefully to within 5-10% of your expected result — not bad compared to the 20% tolerance limit required by pharmaceuticals.

The practical question facing suppliers and manufacturers is how to ensure your specification accounts for testing variance?  One solution commonly opted for in the short term is surprisingly simple: add the testing variance to the label or spec requirement, to ensure a high statistical probability that the material won’t fail due to inherent imprecision of the test.

The implications of an imprecise test often means that manufacturers are forced to add an ‘overage’ of material, which essentially makes the cost of the material 10% more expensive for every 10% difference in test results. 

Scientific validity in QC testing for supplement all too often is discussed not on a daily basis, but when the cost of “mistakes” has finally sunk in.  Many a product formulator saw hours and months of work go down the drain due to quality testing failures, and everyone involved in product development can testify to the measurable waste of time and resources that result from testing failures, which can include both the approval of bad material, as well as the rejection of good material.

Five ways NaturPro helps to ensure scientific validity…

Here is a short list of some practices that QC units can perform to achieve scientific validity as per GMPs:

–Review your lab’s methods for their suitability for the intended purpose. There are good independent labs out there that will share method information, and answer your questions. Always ask whether the sample is being tested in triplicate and request to receive the individual values.

–Review the documentation on the reference standard, specifically the methods and results of the testing used to determine its purity. When was the standard made, when was its purity last tested, and how was it stored in between?

–Blind your sample so your lab does not know what value to expect.

–Test control samples (samples that do not contain the suspected analyte, OR samples that you previously sent to the same lab).

–Work with labs that can demonstrate having worked to some basic degree to optimize/validate the method.

Sounds like costly work, but not so much when put in perspective of the potential costs. With transparency among customer, supplier, and lab together, a little teamwork goes a long way to reduce the costs and maximize the benefits of quality systems.

By: Blake Ebersole

This article was first published in Natural Products Insider in June 2013