HOW TO AVOID PUTANICS DURING THE QUALITY OF TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION OF THE CONFORMITY OF TEST METHODS WHEN PERFORMING THE REQUIREMENTS OF ISO/IEC 17025: 2017 STANDARD IN ACCREDITED LABORATORY

Authors

  • V. Shaposhnik National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine image/svg+xml
  • Т. Kolesnikova National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine image/svg+xml
  • K. Sorokoletova National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine image/svg+xml
  • O. Blokhin National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine image/svg+xml

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31548/dopovidi2018.02.008

Keywords:

Standard, management, quality, evaluation, laboratory, fitness, result, tests

Abstract

This article objectively analyzes the problems that arise in the process of the activity of a modern accredited laboratory when implementing the requirements of ISO / IEC 17025: 2017 in terms of ensuring the quality of test results and validating test methods. The characteristic features of these elements of the control system are considered, their main differences, as well as errors, are most often encountered when applying these quality tools in practice. The need for a clear delineation of concepts and criteria for evaluation in the implementation of paragraphs 7.2, 7.6 and 7.7 of ISO/IEC 17025:2017 is described. Among the most influential components that make it possible to achieve this goal, it is possible to rightfully consider such quality management tools as an assessment of the suitability of test methods and the quality assurance of test results. To help specialists of the laboratory practical materials are given - examples of specific requirements of international and European legislative documents, comparative tables, samples of internal documents of the laboratory, etc. It should also be noted that it is necessary to distinguish the criteria for the effectiveness of the method from the tools by which these criteria are established and verified. So, the methods should be effective, their characteristics - relevant, and the test results - guaranteed accurate and reliable.
A quality assurance plan can not be universal, because the same test quality and control tools can not be applied to all test methods. What is suitable for chromatography does not apply to atomic absorption, and that which is suitable for radiological methods is excluded for methods, say, immunoassay. For example, for a radiological test, the "return" tool will not be used, and such tool as "additive test" can not be used for physico-chemical methods such as acidity, mass fraction of protein and fat.
 

References

ДСТУ ГОСТ ISO 5725-1:2005 Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results — Part 1: General principles and definitions (ГОСТ ISO 5725-1-2003, IDT).

ДСТУ ISO/IEC 17025:2017 General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories (ISO/IEC 17025:2017, IDT).

EU Commission Decision on 12.08.2002 № 2002/657/EU On the effectiveness of analytical methods and interpretation of results.

Regulation of the Commission EU № 333/2007 on 28.03.2007, which approves sampling methods and analytical methods for official control of levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, inorganic tin, 3-MCDD and benzapyrene in food products.

Regulation of the Commission EU № 401/2006 on 23.02.2006, which approves sampling methods and methods of analysis for official control of levels of mycotoxins in food products.

Document SANTE/11813/2017 Guidance document on analytical quality ontrol and method validation procedures for pesticide residues and analisys in food and feed.

Hamide Z. SENYUVA&John GILBERT A (2006) sSimple users guide to method development and validation./Copyright/. Science,62006.

ISO Guide 80:2014 Guidance for the in-house preparation of quality control materials (QCMs).

Published

2018-05-14

Issue

Section

Biology, biotechnology, ecology