Key takeaways
- A Certificate of Analysis (CoA) is a lot-specific laboratory document that confirms whether a dried fruit shipment meets agreed specifications for moisture, contaminants, pesticide residues, microbiological counts, and physical grading. It is the single most important document in B2B dried fruit procurement and the foundation of every lot acceptance decision.
- Aflatoxin limits vary dramatically between markets — the EU enforces 4 ppb for aflatoxin B1 and 10 ppb total in ready-to-eat dried fruit, while the US FDA allows 20 ppb total and Japan applies 10 ppb total. Sourcing for multiple markets from a single lot requires testing against the strictest applicable standard.
- Physical parameters such as moisture content and water activity determine shelf stability and direct commercial value. Dried figs above 24% moisture, dried apricots above 25%, or sultanas above 16% are at elevated risk of mould proliferation during transit and storage, regardless of what the microbiological results show at the time of testing.
- Pesticide residue screening under EU Regulation 396/2005 applies a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg where no crop-specific limit is set. A multi-residue panel covering 500+ compounds is the correct investment for first-time supplier qualification; targeted panels are sufficient for ongoing routine verification of established suppliers.
- Red flags on a CoA — missing lot numbers, labs without ISO 17025 accreditation, identical results across multiple lots, or test dates misaligned with production — should trigger immediate escalation. A CoA that would not survive a regulatory desk audit will not protect your business in an import refusal or recall scenario.
Introduction
Learning how to read a certificate of analysis for dried fruit is a non-negotiable skill for any B2B buyer importing dried figs, apricots, sultanas, raisins, or other dehydrated fruit at commercial volumes. The CoA is not a marketing document. It is an analytical report, generated by a qualified laboratory against defined test methods, confirming that a specific production lot meets — or fails to meet — the purchaser's quality specification.
The consequences of misreading or ignoring CoA data are concrete: import detention at the border, regulatory fines, customer complaints, product recalls, and reputational damage that takes years to repair. EU RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed) notifications for dried fruit — particularly for aflatoxin and ochratoxin A exceedances — are published weekly and are publicly searchable. Your company name on that list is permanent.
This guide walks through every section of a dried fruit CoA in practical detail. It covers the header metadata that establishes document legitimacy, the physical parameters that determine commercial grade, the chemical contaminant thresholds that vary by destination market, the pesticide residue limits that differ between EU, US, and Japanese frameworks, and the microbiological standards that gate food safety release. It also covers how to spot fraudulent or inadequate CoAs and how to request better documentation from your suppliers.
If you are new to dried fruit sourcing from Turkey, our wholesale dried fruit sourcing guide provides the broader procurement context. For a general introduction to CoA interpretation across botanical ingredients, see our CoA guide for botanical ingredients. The present article focuses specifically on dried fruit — the parameters, the limits, and the market-specific regulatory differences that make this category uniquely demanding.
What is a Certificate of Analysis and why it matters for dried fruit
A Certificate of Analysis is a formal analytical report issued by a laboratory — ideally ISO 17025 accredited for the relevant test scope — confirming the results of testing performed on a specific lot of product. For dried fruit, this typically covers physical parameters (moisture, water activity, size grade, colour, defect count), chemical contaminants (aflatoxins, ochratoxin A, heavy metals, sulphite residues where applicable), pesticide residues, and microbiological indicators.
The CoA functions as the primary evidence of due diligence in the event of a regulatory inquiry. When a border inspector in Rotterdam or a FDA examiner in Los Angeles questions the safety of your shipment, the CoA is the first document they request. If it is absent, incomplete, or unconvincing, your shipment is detained — and detention costs compound daily.
Specification sheet vs lot-specific CoA
The most common documentation error in dried fruit procurement is treating a specification sheet as if it were a CoA. These are fundamentally different documents serving different purposes.
A specification sheet is a product-level document. It describes the target quality profile for a product category — typical moisture range, acceptable colour range, defect tolerance, standard packaging. It applies across all lots and does not reference specific laboratory results. It is useful for initial supplier qualification and purchase order alignment but is not evidence of lot-specific quality.
A lot-specific CoA carries the production lot number, the laboratory name and accreditation number, the date the sample was received and analysed, the individual test results against defined methods, and the pass/fail determination against agreed limits. It applies to one lot and one lot only. Every shipped lot must have its own CoA — reuse of a previous lot's CoA is a disqualification event, not a cost-saving shortcut.
When evaluating suppliers, verify early in the qualification process that they understand this distinction. Suppliers who send you a generic specification sheet when you request a lot-specific CoA are either unfamiliar with international buyer expectations or are deliberately avoiding lot-level accountability. Neither scenario inspires confidence. Our ISO/HACCP certification guide explains the broader quality management frameworks that underpin reliable CoA documentation.
When a CoA protects you — and when it does not
A CoA protects you when it is lot-specific, performed by an accredited laboratory, generated within a timeframe consistent with the production and shipment dates, and tested against the correct regulatory limits for your destination market. Under these conditions, the CoA demonstrates due diligence: you took reasonable steps to verify the safety and quality of the product before releasing it into your supply chain.
A CoA does not protect you when it is generic (no lot number), performed by an unaccredited laboratory, dated months before or after the relevant production window, or tested against the wrong standards. A CoA showing US FDA aflatoxin limits is irrelevant if you are importing into the EU, where limits are two to five times stricter. A CoA from a laboratory without ISO 17025 scope for mycotoxin testing carries no regulatory weight in an enforcement action.
A CoA also does not protect you against events that occur after testing. If a lot was tested at the production facility and then stored for three months in a humidity-uncontrolled warehouse before shipment, the microbiological and moisture results on the CoA may no longer reflect the actual condition of the goods at the time of delivery. This is why sampling protocol, storage conditions, and shipment timelines matter alongside the CoA itself.
Anatomy of a dried fruit CoA — section by section
A properly structured dried fruit CoA contains distinct sections, each carrying information that procurement and quality professionals should verify before approving a lot for receipt.
Header and metadata
The header establishes the legitimacy and traceability of the document. Missing header fields are the most common early warning sign of a substandard CoA.
| Field | Description | Pass criteria | Common red flag | |-------|-------------|---------------|-----------------| | Laboratory name | Full legal name of the testing laboratory | Identifiable, verifiable entity | Generic name with no address or registration | | Accreditation number | ISO 17025 accreditation reference and scope | Valid, current accreditation covering the test types listed | Accreditation number absent or expired | | Sample identification | Product name, lot number, supplier reference | Matches your purchase order and shipping documents | Generic product name with no lot number | | Date sample received | Calendar date the laboratory received the sample | Consistent with production and shipment timeline | Date absent or inconsistent with lot production date | | Date of analysis | Calendar date(s) the testing was performed | Within days or weeks of sample receipt | Analysis date months before shipment date | | Method references | Analytical method standards cited for each test | Recognised methods (ISO, AOAC, EN, FDA BAM) | No method reference or "in-house method" with no detail | | Report number | Unique laboratory report identifier | Sequential, traceable numbering system | No report number or unnumbered document | | Analyst / authorised signatory | Name or identifier of the responsible analyst | Required under ISO 17025 | Unsigned or unsigned digital document |
If the header is incomplete — particularly if the accreditation number, lot number, or method references are missing — the CoA fails a basic documentation audit. Do not proceed to evaluating the analytical results until the header passes. A well-structured header is a prerequisite, not an optional detail. Review our certifications page for the standards Arovela applies to its own documentation.
Physical parameters
Physical parameters define the commercial grade and shelf stability of dried fruit. They are the first results most buyers check because they directly impact product usability, shelf life, and value.
| Parameter | Method | Dried fig limit | Dried apricot limit | Raisin / sultana limit | |-----------|--------|-----------------|---------------------|------------------------| | Moisture content (%) | ISO 1026 / AOAC 934.06 | 22 -- 26 | 20 -- 25 | 13 -- 16 | | Water activity (Aw) | ISO 18787 / AOAC 978.18 | ≤ 0.70 | ≤ 0.68 | ≤ 0.60 | | Size grade (mm or count/kg) | Manual grading / EN sorting | Per contract (e.g., 28+ mm) | Per contract (e.g., size 1 -- 4) | Per contract (e.g., 180 -- 220/100 g) | | Colour (L* a* b* or visual) | Colorimeter / visual standard | Amber to dark brown per grade | Bright orange (SO2 treated) or dark brown (organic) | Light golden (sultana) to dark brown (raisin) | | Defect count (%) | Manual inspection per Codex STAN | ≤ 5% by count (insect damage, mould visible, mechanical damage) | ≤ 4% by count | ≤ 5% by count | | Foreign matter (%) | Manual inspection | ≤ 0.5% by mass | ≤ 0.5% by mass | ≤ 0.5% by mass | | SO2 residual (mg/kg) | Monier-Williams / EN 1988-1 | N/A (typically unsulphured) | ≤ 2000 (conventional) / ≤ 100 (organic) | ≤ 1500 (conventional) / ≤ 100 (organic) |
Moisture content is the single most important physical parameter. It directly determines shelf stability (higher moisture accelerates mould growth), weight (and therefore cost per unit of dry matter), and texture (consumer expectation varies by product). A dried fig lot at 26% moisture is at the upper boundary — still within specification but requiring careful monitoring of storage conditions. The same lot stored in a non-climate-controlled warehouse for four weeks could easily tip into mould territory.
Water activity is a more precise predictor of microbial risk than moisture content alone. Aw below 0.65 effectively prevents mould germination in most storage conditions. Aw between 0.65 and 0.70 is a risk zone where temperature excursions during transit can trigger condensation and localised mould. Aw above 0.70 requires cold chain management or short shelf-life designation.
Sulphur dioxide residual is relevant for conventional dried apricots and sultanas, where SO2 is used as a preservative and colour retention agent. EU limits are 2000 mg/kg for dried apricots and 1500 mg/kg for sultanas. Organic certification requires SO2 below the detection limit or below 100 mg/kg depending on the certifying body. If you are sourcing for organic channels, the CoA must explicitly report SO2 residual against the organic threshold — not the conventional limit. For an in-depth look at organic documentation requirements, see our organic certification guide.
Buyers sourcing from Turkey's geothermal drying facilities benefit from a process advantage: geothermal drying achieves target moisture levels through controlled low-temperature dehydration that preserves colour and nutrient profile without chemical intervention. This means lower SO2 residuals in conventionally treated fruit and consistently tight moisture control across lots. See our geothermal-dried fruit range for available products.
Chemical contaminant testing
Mycotoxins — primarily aflatoxins (B1, B2, G1, G2) and ochratoxin A — are the most consequential chemical contaminants in dried fruit. Aflatoxin contamination accounts for the majority of EU RASFF notifications involving dried figs and other tree fruit. The regulatory limits vary substantially between destination markets, and sourcing for multiple geographies from a single lot requires testing against the strictest applicable standard.
| Contaminant | EU (EC 1881/2006, amended) | USA (FDA CPG 555.400) | Codex Alimentarius | GCC / GSO | Japan (MHLW) | |-------------|----------------------------|----------------------|-------------------|-----------|--------------| | Aflatoxin B1 | ≤ 5 ppb (ready to eat) / ≤ 8 ppb (further processing) | No separate B1 limit | ≤ 10 ppb | ≤ 5 ppb (ready to eat) | No separate B1 limit | | Aflatoxin total (B1+B2+G1+G2) | ≤ 10 ppb (ready to eat) / ≤ 15 ppb (further processing) | ≤ 20 ppb | ≤ 15 ppb | ≤ 10 ppb (ready to eat) | ≤ 10 ppb | | Ochratoxin A | ≤ 8 ppb (dried vine fruit) / ≤ 15 ppb (dried figs) | No formal limit (action level varies) | Under review | ≤ 15 ppb | No formal limit | | Fumonisin (B1+B2) | Not applicable for most dried fruit | Not applicable for most dried fruit | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | | Deoxynivalenol (DON) | Not applicable for most dried fruit | Not applicable for most dried fruit | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable | | Patulin | ≤ 50 ppb (applies to apple-derived products) | ≤ 50 ppb (apple juice/products) | ≤ 50 ppb (apple products) | ≤ 50 ppb | ≤ 50 ppb |
Several critical points emerge from this table. First, the EU is the strictest major market for aflatoxin B1, imposing a 5 ppb limit for ready-to-eat dried fruit compared to the US approach of regulating only total aflatoxins at 20 ppb. If you source a lot tested only against US limits and attempt to import it into the EU, the lot may fail at the border even though it was within US compliance.
Second, the EU distinguishes between dried fruit intended for direct consumption (ready to eat) and dried fruit intended for further processing (sorting, cleaning, or use as an ingredient). The processing-grade limits (B1 ≤ 8 ppb, total ≤ 15 ppb) are more permissive than the ready-to-eat limits. Your CoA must reflect the correct end-use designation.
Third, ochratoxin A is a growing regulatory concern for dried vine fruit (raisins, sultanas, currants) and dried figs. The EU limit for dried vine fruit is 8 ppb — stricter than the 15 ppb limit for dried figs. Ensure your CoA includes ochratoxin A testing if your product category is subject to these limits.
For a comprehensive breakdown of aflatoxin and mycotoxin regulations across all major import markets, see our dedicated aflatoxin market guide. The analytical methods for aflatoxin quantification — HPLC with fluorescence detection (AOAC 999.07) and LC-MS/MS — are specified in the method reference column of the CoA. Immunoaffinity column cleanup followed by HPLC-FLD is the reference method cited in EU Commission Regulation EC 1881/2006. ELISA-based rapid screening kits are acceptable for in-house preliminary testing but are not sufficient as the sole method on a CoA intended for regulatory compliance.
Pesticide residue screening
Pesticide maximum residue limits (MRLs) for dried fruit are governed by different regulatory frameworks depending on the destination market. The EU framework under Regulation (EC) 396/2005 is the most comprehensive, setting crop-specific MRLs for hundreds of pesticide-crop combinations and applying a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg where no specific limit has been established.
| Pesticide | EU MRL (mg/kg) | US EPA MRL (mg/kg) | Japan MRL (mg/kg) | Common in | |-----------|----------------|--------------------|--------------------|-----------| | Chlorpyrifos | 0.01 (default, banned in EU since 2020) | 1.0 (figs), 0.01 (raisins) | 0.01 (default) | Figs, citrus-processed fruit | | Acetamiprid | 0.4 (dried grapes), 0.01 (figs) | 1.2 (raisins), 0.5 (figs) | 2.0 (dried grapes) | Sultanas, raisins | | Boscalid | 5.0 (dried grapes), 0.01 (figs) | 7.0 (raisins) | 10.0 (dried grapes) | Sultanas, raisins | | Carbendazim | 0.1 (dried fruit general) | 10.0 (raisins) | 3.0 (dried grapes) | Apricots, sultanas | | Fludioxonil | 5.0 (dried grapes), 0.01 (figs) | 5.0 (raisins), 3.0 (figs) | 7.0 (dried grapes) | Sultanas, raisins | | Metalaxyl / mefenoxam | 1.0 (dried grapes), 0.01 (figs) | 2.0 (raisins) | 1.0 (dried grapes) | Sultanas, raisins | | Iprodione | 0.01 (not approved in EU since 2018) | 10.0 (raisins) | 5.0 (dried grapes) | Sultanas, raisins | | Pyriproxyfen | 0.05 (figs), 1.0 (dried grapes) | 0.2 (figs), 1.0 (raisins) | 0.3 (figs) | Figs, dates | | Cypermethrin | 0.05 (dried fruit), 1.0 (dried grapes specific) | 1.0 (raisins) | 2.0 (dried grapes) | Stored dried fruit (fumigation) |
The concentration factor is a critical consideration for dried fruit that many buyers overlook. When fresh fruit is dried, pesticide residues concentrate in proportion to the water lost. A fresh grape with a residue of 0.5 mg/kg can yield a raisin with a residue of 1.5 to 2.5 mg/kg depending on the drying ratio. EU MRLs for dried fruit account for this concentration factor, but not all regulatory frameworks make the adjustment explicit. When comparing MRL values across markets, verify whether the listed limit applies to the dried product or the fresh equivalent.
Multi-residue screening by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS covering 500+ compounds is the appropriate analytical approach for first-time supplier qualification. The cost ranges from EUR 150 to EUR 300 per sample depending on the laboratory. For ongoing testing of established suppliers with a proven track record, targeted panels covering the 10 to 15 highest-risk compounds for the specific crop type are cost-effective at EUR 50 to EUR 100 per sample.
Turkish dried fruit from geothermal drying facilities benefits from a structurally favourable pesticide profile. Much of Turkey's dried fig, apricot, and sultana production originates from the Aegean and Mediterranean regions where traditional cultivation practices involve lower chemical input than industrialised farming operations. Geothermal drying processes the fruit at controlled temperatures without post-harvest fumigation — unlike some conventional warehouse drying systems that may use methyl bromide or phosphine. The result is that multi-residue screens of Turkish dried fruit routinely return below-LOQ results across the full panel. Independent verification through accredited laboratory data is always required; supplier claims alone are insufficient.
Microbiological limits
Microbiological testing confirms that the dried fruit lot does not carry pathogenic organisms at levels that pose a food safety risk. The relevant parameters, limits, and method references vary by destination market and intended use.
| Parameter | EU guideline (EC 2073/2005, process hygiene) | US standard (FDA guidance) | Internal best practice | Method reference | |-----------|----------------------------------------------|---------------------------|------------------------|-----------------| | Total aerobic plate count (TPC) | ≤ 10^5 CFU/g | ≤ 10^5 CFU/g | ≤ 10^4 CFU/g | ISO 4833 / AOAC 990.12 | | Total yeast and mould | ≤ 10^4 CFU/g | ≤ 10^4 CFU/g | ≤ 10^3 CFU/g | ISO 21527 / AOAC 997.02 | | Enterobacteriaceae | ≤ 10^3 CFU/g | Not specifically required | ≤ 10^2 CFU/g | ISO 21528 | | E. coli | ≤ 100 CFU/g | ≤ 100 CFU/g | ≤ 10 CFU/g | ISO 16649 / AOAC 991.14 | | Salmonella spp. | Absent in 25 g (n=5, c=0) | Absent in 25 g | Absent in 25 g | ISO 6579 / FDA BAM Ch. 5 | | Listeria monocytogenes | Absent in 25 g (for RTE foods) | Zero tolerance for RTE | Absent in 25 g | ISO 11290 / FDA BAM Ch. 10 | | Coliforms | ≤ 10^3 CFU/g | ≤ 10^3 CFU/g | ≤ 10^2 CFU/g | ISO 4832 / AOAC 991.14 |
The "internal best practice" column represents the tighter limits that quality-conscious buyers impose beyond regulatory minimums. Setting your specification at 10^4 CFU/g for total plate count rather than the regulatory 10^5 provides a safety margin against count increases during transit and storage. This margin is particularly important for shipments with long transit times — dried fruit shipped by sea from Turkey to East Asia may be in transit for four to six weeks, during which temperature fluctuations can promote microbial proliferation even in properly dried product.
The root causes of microbiological failures in dried fruit are predictable and largely preventable: inadequate drying (moisture content above the safe threshold at the time of packing), cross-contamination during post-harvest handling (shared equipment, unsanitary packing environments), condensation during transit (temperature cycling events in container shipping), and extended storage in humidity-uncontrolled facilities. A CoA showing acceptable microbial counts at the time of production does not guarantee the same results at the time of delivery if storage and transit conditions were compromised.
For buyers evaluating production facility standards, FSSC 22000 or BRC certification provides system-level assurance that HACCP principles are implemented. But facility certification does not replace lot-specific microbiological testing on the CoA. Both are required — certification as a supplier qualification gate, lot-specific testing as a shipment release gate. Our ISO/HACCP guide covers the relationship between management system certification and analytical testing in detail.
Heavy metals
Heavy metal contamination — lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), mercury (Hg) — in dried fruit originates from soil contamination, irrigation water quality, atmospheric deposition, and occasionally from processing equipment or packaging. The concentration factor that applies to pesticide residues also applies to heavy metals: drying concentrates metals along with all other non-volatile constituents.
| Metal | EU limit (EC 1881/2006, amended) | Codex Alimentarius (GSCTF) | US FDA (guidance/action levels) | Method | |-------|----------------------------------|----------------------------|---------------------------------|--------| | Lead (Pb) | 0.10 mg/kg (dried vine fruit), 0.50 mg/kg (dried fruit general) | 0.10 mg/kg (dried vine fruit) | No formal limit; action level varies | ICP-MS (EN 15763 / AOAC 2015.01) | | Cadmium (Cd) | 0.050 mg/kg (dried fruit, proposed amendment) | 0.05 mg/kg (under review) | No formal limit | ICP-MS (EN 15763 / AOAC 2015.01) | | Arsenic (inorganic As) | No specific limit for dried fruit (general food monitoring) | Not established for dried fruit | No formal limit for dried fruit | ICP-MS with speciation (EN 16802) | | Mercury (Hg) | No specific limit for dried fruit | Not established for dried fruit | No formal limit for dried fruit | ICP-MS (EN 13806 / AOAC 2015.01) | | Tin (Sn) | 200 mg/kg (canned products only) | 250 mg/kg (canned products) | No formal limit | ICP-OES |
The EU framework for heavy metals in dried fruit is evolving. Lead limits for dried vine fruit (raisins, sultanas, currants) were tightened to 0.10 mg/kg, and cadmium limits for dried fruit are under active regulatory amendment. Buyers should monitor EU RASFF notifications and the Codex Alimentarius General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed for updates, as limits have been trending downward over the past decade.
From a practical procurement perspective, lead and cadmium are the two metals most likely to cause compliance issues in dried fruit. Arsenic and mercury are more relevant for seafood and rice products, but best-practice CoAs include a full four-metal panel as a baseline. The analytical method should be ICP-MS (inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry), which provides the sensitivity needed to detect metals at the low mg/kg levels relevant to current regulatory limits. ICP-OES is acceptable for screening but may lack the detection limit precision for the tightest EU thresholds.
How to cross-reference a CoA against your specification
Receiving a CoA is only the first step. The critical skill is cross-referencing the CoA results against your own product specification to make a documented lot acceptance decision.
Building a lot acceptance checklist
A lot acceptance checklist is a systematic tool that maps every parameter on your specification to the corresponding result on the CoA, records the pass/fail status, and documents the overall lot disposition. It should be a standardised document — not a mental exercise — used consistently across all incoming lots and all suppliers.
The checklist should include, at minimum: lot number verification (CoA lot matches shipping documents), header audit (accreditation, dates, methods), physical parameter review (moisture, Aw, grade, defects, SO2 where applicable), aflatoxin results against the correct market limit, pesticide residue results against MRLs for all destination markets, microbiological results against specification, heavy metal results, and an overall lot disposition (accept, conditional accept, reject).
Assign each parameter a criticality tier. Critical parameters — aflatoxin, Salmonella, heavy metals exceeding regulatory limits — trigger automatic rejection with no conditional acceptance option. Major parameters — moisture above specification, elevated yeast and mould, pesticide residue approaching (but below) the MRL — may allow conditional acceptance with documented justification and corrective action. Minor parameters — colour slightly outside target, size grade at the boundary of specification — are disposition decisions based on commercial judgement. For a practical template and additional evaluation criteria, see our sample evaluation checklist.
Reject vs conditional accept vs full accept framework
A three-tier disposition framework provides clarity and consistency:
Full accept — all parameters within specification, header audit complete, no anomalies. The lot is released for receipt, storage, and downstream use. No additional conditions required.
Conditional accept — one or more major parameters outside specification but within regulatory limits, and the deviation is commercially manageable. Examples include moisture at 26.5% against a 26% specification (acceptable with adjusted shelf-life dating), or total plate count at 8 x 10^4 CFU/g against an internal limit of 10^4 (acceptable for a lot destined for a short distribution chain). Conditional acceptance requires documented justification, notification to the quality team, and typically a supplier corrective action request.
Reject — any critical parameter outside regulatory limits, or multiple major parameters outside specification simultaneously, or header audit failures that undermine the reliability of the entire document. Reject dispositions are communicated to the supplier in writing with specific reference to the failed parameters and the applicable regulatory or specification limits.
Document every disposition decision, including full accepts. The documentation trail is your evidence of due diligence in a regulatory investigation or customer complaint. Our quality grades reference provides additional context on how grade designations interact with CoA parameters.
Red flags that signal a weak or fraudulent CoA
Not every CoA is trustworthy. Fraudulent, recycled, or poorly constructed CoAs are a real risk in international dried fruit trade. Recognising the warning signs before you accept a lot prevents costly downstream failures.
Missing or generic lot numbers
A CoA without a specific lot number — or with a vague identifier such as "2026 crop" or "standard production" — is not a lot-specific document. It is a template. Lot numbers should be specific enough to trace the product back to a defined production batch, ideally linking to the production date, processing line, and raw material intake records.
Cross-verify: the lot number on the CoA should match the lot number on the packing list, the shipping documents, and the physical labels on the cartons or bags. Any mismatch is grounds for holding the shipment pending clarification.
Labs without ISO 17025 accreditation
ISO 17025 is the international standard for testing and calibration laboratories. Accreditation under this standard confirms that the laboratory operates a quality management system, uses validated methods, maintains competent staff, and participates in proficiency testing. A CoA from a non-accredited laboratory — or from a laboratory accredited for a different scope (accredited for water testing but reporting aflatoxin results) — carries no regulatory weight.
Verify accreditation by checking the laboratory's accreditation number against the national accreditation body's online register. In Turkey, this is TURKAK; in the EU, each member state has a national body (e.g., DAKKS in Germany, COFRAC in France, UKAS in the UK). If the accreditation number is not verifiable online, treat the CoA as unverified.
Identical results across multiple lots
Natural agricultural products exhibit inherent lot-to-lot variability. Moisture content, aflatoxin levels, microbiological counts, and even physical grade parameters will differ — at least slightly — between lots, even lots produced from the same field in the same harvest. If a supplier provides CoAs for three different lots showing identical analytical results to the decimal point, the documents are almost certainly copied rather than independently tested.
Request the original laboratory reports (not supplier-generated summaries) and compare them. Retain samples from each lot and periodically send retained samples to your own laboratory for independent verification. Discrepancies between the supplier's CoA and your independent results should trigger supplier audit escalation.
Test dates that don't match shipment timeline
A CoA dated six months before the shipment date of the same lot raises obvious questions about the relevance of the results. Microbiological counts can change significantly over weeks or months of storage. Moisture content can increase if storage conditions are not controlled. Even aflatoxin levels can increase if mould proliferation occurs in post-production storage.
Best practice is to require CoA testing within 30 days of shipment for microbiological parameters and within 90 days for chemical parameters (aflatoxins, pesticides, heavy metals) that are less susceptible to change during proper storage. If the CoA predates the shipment by more than these windows, request re-testing or provide documented justification for the gap.
Requesting better CoAs from suppliers
Many CoA quality issues originate not from deliberate fraud but from unclear buyer expectations. If you have not specified what you require, you cannot blame a supplier for providing less.
Sample specification language
Include explicit CoA requirements in your purchase contracts and supplier qualification documents. A sample specification clause:
"Supplier shall provide a lot-specific Certificate of Analysis for each lot shipped, issued by an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory with scope covering mycotoxin, pesticide residue, microbiological, and heavy metal testing for food products. The CoA shall reference the lot number matching shipping documents, cite the analytical method for each test, and report results against the limits specified in Annex A of this agreement. Generic specification sheets, CoAs without lot numbers, or CoAs from non-accredited laboratories are not acceptable and will result in shipment hold pending supplier provision of compliant documentation."
This language is not aggressive — it is precise. It eliminates ambiguity about what constitutes acceptable documentation and establishes the consequence (shipment hold) for non-compliance. Suppliers who operate quality-driven facilities welcome this clarity because it aligns with their own internal standards.
Third-party verification protocol
For high-value lots, new supplier relationships, or products destined for markets with strict enforcement regimes (EU, Japan), implement a third-party verification protocol:
- Pre-shipment sampling — an independent inspection agency draws samples from the production lot according to a defined sampling plan (e.g., Codex CAC/GL 50 guidelines) and submits them to a laboratory of your selection, not the supplier's usual laboratory.
- Independent analysis — the third-party laboratory tests the samples against your full specification. Results are reported directly to you.
- Comparison — cross-reference the third-party results against the supplier's CoA. Acceptable variance for quantitative parameters (moisture, aflatoxin) should be within the analytical method's stated measurement uncertainty. Qualitative parameters (Salmonella absent/present) must match.
- Frequency — every lot for the first three to five shipments from a new supplier; thereafter, risk-based sampling (every third or fifth lot, plus triggered testing for any lot where the supplier's CoA shows parameters near specification limits).
This protocol adds cost — typically EUR 300 to EUR 600 per verification event including inspection, sampling, courier, and laboratory fees. Weigh this against the cost of a failed lot: border detention, disposal, recall, regulatory fine, and reputational damage. For most B2B buyers, the verification cost is negligible insurance. Visit our wholesale options to understand how Arovela structures documentation for volume buyers.
FAQ
How much does dried fruit CoA testing cost?
The cost of a complete dried fruit CoA depends on the scope of testing. A basic panel covering moisture, aflatoxin (B1 and total), and microbiological parameters typically costs EUR 100 to EUR 200 per sample at an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. Adding a multi-residue pesticide screen (500+ compounds by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS) increases the total to EUR 250 to EUR 450. A full panel including heavy metals by ICP-MS brings the comprehensive cost to EUR 350 to EUR 600 per sample. Volume discounts are available from most accredited laboratories for buyers submitting more than ten samples per month. The cost should be evaluated against the value of the lot — for a container of dried figs valued at EUR 25,000 to EUR 40,000, a EUR 500 analytical investment represents a small insurance premium against border detention or recall.
Can a supplier reuse a CoA from a previous lot?
No. A legitimate CoA is lot-specific — it applies to the exact production lot identified by the lot number on the document. Reusing a CoA from a previous lot is a documentation integrity failure that should be treated as a serious supplier quality issue. Natural agricultural products exhibit inherent lot-to-lot variability in moisture, microbiological counts, aflatoxin levels, and other parameters. A CoA from lot 2026-001 provides zero assurance about the quality of lot 2026-002, even if the two lots were produced from the same raw material intake on consecutive days. If a supplier offers a CoA with a lot number that does not match the shipment documentation, place the shipment on hold and request the correct lot-specific CoA before release.
What is the difference between aflatoxin B1 and total aflatoxins?
Aflatoxins are a group of structurally related mycotoxins produced by Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus fungi. The four major aflatoxins are B1, B2, G1, and G2, distinguished by their fluorescence (B for blue, G for green) and chromatographic mobility. Aflatoxin B1 is the most potent carcinogen of the group and is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This is why the EU regulates aflatoxin B1 separately (5 ppb for ready-to-eat dried fruit) in addition to total aflatoxins (10 ppb). The US FDA, by contrast, regulates only total aflatoxins at 20 ppb without a separate B1 limit. When reading a CoA, verify that both B1 and total aflatoxin values are reported if you are shipping to the EU or GCC markets, which enforce separate B1 limits.
How long is a CoA valid?
A CoA does not have a formal expiration date in the way that a product has a shelf-life date. However, a CoA reflects the condition of the lot at the time of sampling and testing. The practical validity depends on the parameter type and the storage conditions between testing and shipment. Chemical parameters (aflatoxins, pesticides, heavy metals) are relatively stable under proper dry storage and remain representative for three to six months after testing. Microbiological parameters are more dynamic — counts can increase over weeks or months if storage conditions allow moisture uptake or temperature excursions. Best practice is to require microbiological testing within 30 days of shipment and chemical testing within 90 days. If a CoA is older than these windows, request retesting of the lot or provide documented evidence that storage conditions have maintained the lot within specification since the original test date.
Should organic dried fruit have a separate CoA?
Yes. Organic dried fruit requires a CoA that addresses all the same parameters as conventional product — plus additional organic-specific documentation. The CoA should explicitly reference the organic certification body, the certificate number, and confirm that the analysed sample is from certified organic production. Sulphur dioxide residual must be reported against the organic limit (typically below detection limit or below 100 mg/kg, depending on the certifier), not the conventional limit. Pesticide residue results take on heightened significance for organic product — any detection above 0.01 mg/kg may trigger decertification investigation by the organic control body, depending on jurisdiction. The organic transaction certificate (TC) that accompanies every organic shipment is a separate document from the CoA and does not replace it. Both are required. See our organic certification guide for the full documentation framework governing organic dried fruit exports.
Protect your next purchase
Reading a dried fruit CoA with analytical precision is the skill that separates reactive buyers — who discover quality problems after the container arrives — from proactive buyers who prevent those problems at the documentation stage. Every section of the CoA, from the header metadata to the aflatoxin results to the microbiological counts, carries information that directly impacts your regulatory compliance, product quality, and commercial risk.
The framework in this guide — header audit, physical parameter verification, contaminant limit cross-referencing, red flag identification, and structured lot disposition — is the same framework used by the most quality-rigorous importers and retailers in the EU, North America, and East Asia. It is not reserved for companies with dedicated food safety laboratories. It requires only a specification document, a systematic checklist, and the discipline to apply both consistently.
At Arovela, every dried fruit lot ships with a lot-specific CoA from an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory, covering the full analytical panel described in this guide. Our geothermal-dried fruit range is produced under controlled conditions that deliver consistently tight moisture, low contaminant, and clean pesticide profiles — documented on every CoA.
Explore our geothermal-dried fruit products, review our certifications, or request a quote with full CoA documentation included for every lot.