A collaborative study was conducted to determine the insoluble dietary fiber (IDF), soluble dietary fiber (SDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF) content of food and food products by using a combination of enzymatic and gravimetric procedures. The method was basically the same as that developed for TDF only, which was adopted official final action by AOAC, except for changing the concentration of buffer and base and substituting hydrochloric acid for phosphoric acid. These changes were made to improve the robustness of the method. Duplicate blind samples of soy isolate, white wheat flour, rye bread, potatoes, rice, corn bran, oats, Fabulous Fiber, wheat bran, and a high fiber cereal were analyzed by 13 collaborators. Dietary fiber values (IDF, SDF, and TDF) were calculated as the weight of residue minus the weight of protein and ash. The coefficients of variation (CVs) of both the independent TDF determination and the sum of IDF and SDF were better than 15 and 18%, respectively, with the exception of rice and soy isolate. These 2 foods, however, contained only about 1% TDF. The CVs of the IDF were equally good, except for Fabulous Fiber, for which filtration problems occurred. The CVs for the SDF were somewhat high, but these products had very low SDF content. There was excellent agreement between the TDF determined independently and the TDF determined by summing the IDF and SDF. The method for separate determination of IDF and SDF requires further study. The modifications (changes in concentration of buffer and base and the use of hydrochloric acid instead of phosphoric acid) to the official final action method for TDF have been adopted.

A collaborative study was conducted to determine the total dietary fiber (TDF) content of food and food products, using a combination of enzymatic and gravimetric procedures. The method was basically the same as published earlier (/. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. (1984) 67,1044- 1052), with changes in the concentration of alcohol and buffers, time of incubation, sample preparation, and some explanatory notes, all with the intent of decreasing the coefficient of variation (CV) of the method. Duplicate blind samples of soy isolate, white wheat flour, rye i bread, potatoes, rice, wheat bran, oats, corn bran, and whole wheat Sour were analyzed by 9 collaborators. TDF was calculated as the weight of the residue minus the weight of protein and ash. CV values of the data from all laboratories for 7 of the samples ranged from 1.56 to 9.80%. The rice and soy isolate samples had CV values of 53.71% and66.25%, respectively; however, each sample contained only about 1% TDF. The enzymatic-gravimetric method for determining TDF has been adopted official first action.

A method for the determination of insoluble (IDF), soluble (SDF), and total dietary fiber (TDF), as defined by the CODEX Alimentarius, was validated in foods. Based upon the principles of AOAC Official Methods 985.29, 991.43, 2001.03, and 2002.02, the method quantitates water-insoluble and water-soluble dietary fiber. This method extends the capabilities of the previously adopted AOAC Official Method 2009.01, Total Dietary Fiber in Foods, Enzymatic-Gravimetric-Liquid Chromatographic Method, applicable to plant material, foods, and food ingredients consistent with CODEX Definition 2009, including naturally occurring, isolated, modified, and synthetic polymers meeting that definition. The method was evaluated through an AOAC/AACC collaborative study. Twenty-two laboratories participated, with 19 laboratories returning valid assay data for 16 test portions (eight blind duplicates) consisting of samples with a range of traditional dietary fiber, resistant starch, and nondigestible oligosaccharides. The dietary fiber content of the eight test pairs ranged from 10.45 to 29.90%. Digestion of samples under the conditions of AOAC 2002.02 followed by the isolation, fractionation, and gravimetric procedures of AOAC 985.29 (and its extensions 991.42 and 993.19) and 991.43 results in quantitation of IDF and soluble dietary fiber that precipitates (SDFP). The filtrate from the quantitation of water-alcohol-insoluble dietary fiber is concentrated, deionized, concentrated again, and analyzed by LC to determine the SDF that remains soluble (SDFS), i.e., all dietary fiber polymers of degree of polymerization = 3 and higher, consisting primarily, but not exclusively, of oligosaccharides. SDF is calculated as the sum of SDFP and SDFS. TDF is calculated as the sum of IDF and SDF. The within-laboratory variability, repeatability SD (Sr), for IDF ranged from 0.13 to 0.71, and the between-laboratory variability, reproducibility SD (SR), for IDF ranged from 0.42 to 2.24. The within-laboratory variability Sr for SDF ranged from 0.28 to 1.03, and the between-laboratory variability SR for SDF ranged from 0.85 to 1.66. The within-laboratory variability Sr for TDF ranged from 0.47 to 1.41, and the between-laboratory variability SR for TDF ranged from 0.95 to 3.14. This is comparable to other official and approved dietary fiber methods, and the method is recommended for adoption as Official First Action.

Kjeldahl and combustion (Dumas) methods are widely accepted for total protein determination but lack analytical selectivity for protein because they measure protein on the basis of sample nitrogen content. Adulteration incidents exploiting this analytical vulnerability (for example, melamine) demonstrate that these methods are no longer sufficient to protect the public health. This article explores the challenges and opportunities to move beyond total nitrogen based methods for total protein measurement. First, it explores the early history of protein measurement science, complexities of current global protein measurement activities, and ideal analytical performance characteristics for new methods. Second, it comprehensively reviews the pros and cons of current and emerging approaches for protein measurement, including their selectivity for protein, ability to detect adulteration, and practicality for routine use throughout the supply chain. It concludes that some existing highly selective methods for food protein measurement have potential for routine quality control. It also concludes that their successful implementation will require matrix-specific validation and the use of supporting reference materials. These methods may be suitable only for food ingredients that have a low degree of compositional variability and are not complex finished food products.

A collaborative study was conducted to validate a method to determine the Insoluble dietary fiber (IDF) and soluble dietary fiber (SDF) contents of foods and food products by using a combination of enzymatic and gravimetric procedures. The method was basically the same as that for determining total dietary fiber, which was adopted as final action by AOAC and further modified to Include changes in the concentration of buffer and base and substitution of hydrochloric acid for phosphoric acid. Thirty-nine collaborators were each sent 7 test samples In a staggered design for duplicate blind analysis. They were also sent a standard containing 4.3-5.4% IDF and 1.5-2.7% SDF. The 22 foods that were analyzed for IDF and SDF were cabbage, carrots, French beans, kidney beans, butter beans, okra, onions, parsley, chick peas, brussels sprouts, barley, rye flour, turnips, soy bran, wheat germ, raisins, Callmyrna figs, prune powder, Black Mission figs, apple powder, peach powder, and apricot powder. Both IDF and SDF values were calculated as the weight of residue minus the weight of protein and ash reported on a dry weight basis. The reproducibility relative standard deviation (RSDR) of the IDF results ranged from 3.68 to 19.44% for the foods analyzed; almost half the test samples had an RSDR <10%. The RSDR values for the SDF results were somewhat higher. Approximately 50% of the foods analyzed had an RSDR >20%, and 45% had an RSDR between 10 and 20%. An RSDR approaching 45% was calculated for the 2 test samples with the lowest SDF content, 1.35 and 1.90%. Raisins and prune powder had high RSDR values for both SDF and IDF. A major reason for high RSDR values seems to be filtration problems, which are avoidable by analyzing 0.5-0.25 g test samples. The method for the determination of SDF requires further study, but the method for the determination of IDF was adopted first action by AOAC International.