29. The Committee recalled that it had first considered the concept of recovery factors in analytical work at its 19th Session[22]. The application of recovery can be a factor in obtaining meaningful analytical results. Currently the issue was of concern because the difference between a corrected and uncorrected result could mean that a specification (i.e., a legislative limit) is exceeded or not exceeded.
30. Some delegations considered the use of recovery factors to be routine. However it was pointed out that some methods, such as those for residues of pesticides, did not require correction for recovery. Recoveries had already been considered in setting up the maximum residue limit for the pesticide. The need for recovery should be established as part of method development and validation. The method clearly needs to describe the recovery procedure as part of the method and not as a separate protocol. A few delegations stressed the need to have more time to review the document.
31. The latest revised Harmonized Guidelines for the Use of Recovery Factors in Analytical Measurement (IUPAC) were made available to the Committee and delegations were invited to comment to IUPAC which planned to have the text further revised in June 1997, in light of comments to be received, for adoption in August 1997.
32. The Committee agreed that it be kept informed of progress being made by IUPAC in the development of the harmonized guidelines. Once finalized by IUPAC, the Committee would then consider whether or not to recommend the harmonized guidelines for use for Codex purposes.
