{
  "url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2017-644/annex-III/division-5/division-5.7",
  "json_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2017-644/annex-III/division-5/division-5.7.json",
  "legislation": "eur/2017/644",
  "legislation_title": "Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/644 of 5 April 2017 laying down methods of sampling and analysis for the control of levels of dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and non-dioxin-like PCBs in certain foodstuffs and repealing Regulation (EU) No 589/2014 (Text with EEA relevance)",
  "legislation_url": "https://openlegislation.uk/eu-regulation-2017-644",
  "path": "annex/III/division/5/division/5.7",
  "kind": "division",
  "number": "5.7",
  "heading": "Specific requirements for screening methods",
  "text": "Both GC-MS and bioanalytical methods may be used for screening. For GC-MS methods the requirements as laid down in point 6 are to be used. For cell-based bioanalytical methods specific requirements are laid down in point 7.\nLaboratories applying screening methods for routine control of samples shall establish a close cooperation with laboratories applying the confirmatory method.\nPerformance verification of the screening method is required during routine analysis, by analytical quality control and ongoing method validation. There must be a continuous programme for control of compliant results.\nCheck on possible suppression of the cell response and cytotoxicity.\n20 % of the sample extracts shall be measured in routine screening without and with TCDD added corresponding to the maximum or action level, to check if the response is possibly suppressed by interfering substances present in the sample extract. The measured concentration of the spiked sample is compared to the sum of the concentration of the unspiked extract plus the spiking concentration. If this measured concentration is more than 25 % lower than the calculated (sum) concentration, this is an indication of a potential signal suppression and the respective sample must be submitted to confirmatory analysis. Results shall be monitored in quality control charts.\nQuality control on compliant samples\nApproximately 2 % to 10 % of the compliant samples, depending on sample matrix and laboratory experience, shall be confirmed.\nDetermination of false-compliant rates from QC data\nThe rate of false-compliant results from screening of samples below and above the maximum level or the action level shall be determined. Actual false-compliant rates shall be below 5 %.\nAfter a minimum of 20 confirmed results per matrix/matrix group is available from the quality control of compliant samples, conclusions on the false-compliant rate shall be drawn from this database. The results from samples analysed in ring trials or during contamination incidents, covering a concentration range up to, e.g. 2× the maximum level (ML), may also be included in the minimum of 20 results for evaluation of the false-compliant rate. The samples shall cover most frequent congener patterns, representing various sources.\nAlthough screening assays shall preferentially aim to detect samples exceeding the action level, the criterion for determining false-compliant rates is the maximum level, taking into account the expanded measurement uncertainty of the confirmatory method.\nPotential non-compliant results from screening shall always be verified by a full re-analysis of the original sample by a confirmatory method. These samples may also be used to evaluate the rate of false non-compliant results. For screening methods, the rate of false non-compliant results is the fraction of results confirmed to be compliant from confirmatory analysis, while in previous screening the sample had been declared to be suspected to be non-compliant. However, evaluation of the advantageousness of the screening method shall be based on comparison of false non-compliant samples with the total number of samples checked. This rate shall be low enough to make the use of a screening tool advantageous.\nAt least under validation conditions, bioanalytical methods shall provide a valid indication of the TEQ level, calculated and expressed as BEQ.\nAlso for bioanalytical methods carried out under repeatability conditions, the intra-laboratory RSDr would typically be smaller than the reproducibility RSDR.",
  "extent": "E+W+S+N.I.",
  "status": null,
  "version": "current",
  "annotations": [],
  "outstanding_effects": [],
  "provenance": {
    "source": "legislation.gov.uk",
    "source_url": "https://www.legislation.gov.uk/eur/2017/644/annex/III/division/5/division/5.7",
    "retrieved_at": "2026-11-01T14:45:03.439389+00:00"
  },
  "licence": "Open Government Licence v3.0",
  "licence_url": "https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/",
  "attribution": "Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Source: legislation.gov.uk, The National Archives."
}