Taking the Mystery out of Enzyme Blends

Enzyme blends are complicated to understand, but appropriate testing can help solve the mystery that is often associated with these. There are several recommended tests for enzyme products that are identified by Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs). These include: identity, potency, contamination and/or adulteration
It is possible to identify enzymes in a blend with mini-assays for many of the common enzymes on the market. These ID tests are not FTIR fingerprint tests, but instead show that the enzyme is still working and has not been deactivated by heat or humidity. If the enzyme in the blend does not have this wet chemistry identity test available, then the full potency assay could be completed with the ID listed as “positive per assay.”
For enzyme potency claims, most manufacturers measure enzyme activity units, “by input.” This is applicable because enzymes have interactions that are unique to each blend. When trying to follow GMP’s and FDA regulations, it’s important to test your finished products to meet all label claims. Testing of the blend is possible, but your results may differ from the “input” activities on the label because by definition, enzymes are proteins that act as catalyst for biochemical reactions. Testing the blends is the only way to fully understand these interactions. Some of the common interactions can be read here.
Since contamination can come from several sources, it is recommended to test enzyme products for common culprits such as heavy metal or microbial contamination. Heavy metal contamination could be introduced with tainted water that is used in the fermentation process or with carriers used in the drying process. Microbial contamination may come from improper handling, dirty equipment or other surfaces that have not been cleaned properly that the material touches.
Product adulteration, often the result of supplier mistakes or dishonest practices, may be difficult to identify. Research should be done to determine if there are any known adulterants for that specific material. While it’s impossible to test for every adulterant known for each ingredient, we can certainly test for specific ones that have been found to be an issue in the past. One known adulterant affecting the enzyme market is chloramphenicol. Chloramphenicol is an antibiotic that was used overseas to clean equipment or control microbial growth and consequently became a residue in finished material. With chloramphenicol being a known issue, material screening can effectively identify the presence of chloramphenicol residue. SORA Labs developed an in-house validated chloramphenicol testing method based on the FDA LIB4306. This in-house method specifically detects chloramphenicol in the enzyme matrix using the HPLC MS/MS. A proud accomplishment, SORA was recognized at the NA Residue Conference for outstanding development. More information on chloramphenicol testing can be found here.
Enzyme blends are complex, but choosing the right testing lab will go a long way in demystifying what testing is needed to ensure your products are safe and of the highest quality. SORA Labs has the enzyme expertise with this matrix and many other enzyme activity methods on their ISO 17025:2005 scope of accreditation. Let SORA Labs solve your enzyme testing mystery today!

What went wrong?

In the wake of the CBC retraction of the November 2015 dietary supplement report due to testing inaccuracy, questions are being asked about the function and processes of third party laboratory With so many different labs offering testing, how is one to know if the accepted practices are being followed? What makes a lab trustworthy in their methods? What could have happened that caused the tests to go wrong?
What is required of a lab to receive their accreditation? There are many factors that go into receiving an ISO 17025 accreditation. These are just a few examples of some practices that must be followed for a lab to be accredited:
For a lab to be ISO 17025 accredited, they are required to do proficiency testing, which means testing the same sample by multiple analysts, preferably between different labs and comparing the RSD% (Relative Standard Deviation) of the results. There are tight ranges for these results that show proficiency.
ISO 17025 accreditation is specific to certain lab tests and not all tests that a lab runs are within their ISO 17025 scope of accreditation. The ISO 17025 certificate for each lab lists the accredited tests. This accreditation is considered to be the lab’s expertise.
The Preventive/Corrective Action system (PCAR or CAPA) is used for any lab issue to improve all company practices. ISO 17025 accreditation requires continual improvement, so when a lab error is found, a PCAR is then generated to solve the problem for future
Out of Specification (OOS) results require a lab investigation as part of the ISO 17025 guidelines and Good Lab Practices (GLP). Each lab is responsible for accuracy, so when results are out-of-spec, the lab will double-check many things including: sample handling practices; reagent expiration dates; if equipment calibration is up-to-date; dilution factors; and testing calculations. In addition, the lab should verify that the method was followed as written and if it was valid for the sample matrix. Along with other considerations, it is important to ask if the sample appeared to go fully into the solution? If a lab error is found, retesting and retraining should be conducted. Since this investigation takes additional time, samples that are OOS will be delayed due to this process.
What steps should a lab take to make sure that their results are accurate? What are some suggestions for avoiding mistakes?
SORA double-checks the results of each testing run against a known “known or reference standard.” For enzyme activity assays, this standard is just an extra sample of “known value” included the run to ensure that it is being performed according to procedural guidelines. This result is recorded and the RSD% is calculated. The result must fall within a range set by the validating method for the entire run. If the known or reference standard falls outside of the given range, the run is considered invalid and all results are thrown out—invalid results are not reported to the customer.
Labs should follow the practice of validating the method on a new sample matrix. This can be a long expensive process, with testing often expected on a fast turn-around time, so this process is rarely done. A quick check for method performance can be done on the new sample matrix using “spike recovery”  Spike recoverytesting involves adding a known amount of the chemical you are looking for in the sample matrix and then seeing what your method recovers on the matrix. The results can help you decide if the method will work on the new sample matrix.
Issues can also occur during testing if the wrong method was used to run the sample. There may be several potential methods of testing for the same compound so it is always a best practice to ensure that the correct testing method is being used before beginning.
As Stuart Phillips, a scientist at McMaster University who studies the effects of protein supplements on humans, says: “Like anything else in life, I think when a lab gets something wrong, [it can happen for a number of reasons like] human error, contaminated dirty glassware, [or] machine malfunction.” Though things could potentially go wrong, taking the proper precautions and following the accredited procedures will help keep mistakes to a minimum and help ensure correct testing results.