Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 5, 2026

Microdialysis of Ethanol During Operant Ethanol Self-administration and Ethanol Determination by Gas Chromatography
Published on: September 5, 2012
Detection of diethylene glycol adulteration in propylene glycol--method validation through a multi-instrument
Xiang Li1, Sergey Arzhantsev, John F Kauffman
1Division of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 1114 Market St, Room 1002, Saint Louis, MO 63101, USA.
Abstract:
Four portable NIR instruments from the same manufacturer that were nominally identical were programmed with a PLS model for the detection of diethylene glycol (DEG) contamination in propylene glycol (PG)-water mixtures. The model was developed on one spectrometer and used on other units after a calibration transfer procedure that used piecewise direct standardization. Although quantitative results were produced, in practice the instrument interface was programmed to report in Pass/Fail mode. The Pass/Fail determinations were made within 10s and were based on a threshold that passed a blank sample with 95% confidence. The detection limit was then established as the concentration at which a sample would fail with 95% confidence. For a 1% DEG threshold one false negative (Type II) and eight false positive (Type I) errors were found in over 500 samples measured. A representative test set produced standard errors of less than 2%. Since the range of diethylene glycol for economically motivated adulteration (EMA) is expected to be above 1%, the sensitivity of field calibrated portable NIR instruments is sufficient to rapidly screen out potentially problematic materials. Following method development, the instruments were shipped to different sites around the country for a collaborative study with a fixed protocol to be carried out by different analysts. NIR spectra of replicate sets of calibration transfer, system suitability and test samples were all processed with the same chemometric model on multiple instruments to determine the overall analytical precision of the method. The combined results collected for all participants were statistically analyzed to determine a limit of detection (2.0% DEG) and limit of quantitation (6.5%) that can be expected for a method distributed to multiple field laboratories.
More Related Videos
11:59Extraction and Detection of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol in Water and Fish using High-Capacity Sorptive Extraction Probes and GC-MS
Published on: July 3, 2025
07:29HPLC Coupled with Chemical Fingerprinting for Multi-Pattern Recognition for Identifying the Authenticity of Clematidis Armandii Caulis
Published on: November 11, 2022