2018 Sugar ERP - Method Review Book

3. Are the definitions specified in the SMPR used and applied appropriately in the method? If no, please indicate how the terms are used.

Yes, for the most part, the definitions specified in the SMPR are used and applied appropriately in the method. However, to a large degree, this determination is left to reader inference as the method itself does not clearly define the terms being used. For example, while the method provides recovery data, the authors do not define their usage of percent recovery or establish that the test samples were analyzed using the entire method. Additionally, the four spike levels used for recovery determinations are not provided and the authors do not report the endogenous levels of the various sugars in the spiked matrices, where applicable. Additionally, while the method provides repeatability data, it is never referred to as repeatability data; rather, repeatability data is only referred to as precision data with a reported %RSD (as opposed to %RSDr). No. The method as written provides absolutely no information regarding chemical safety, potential hazards or personal protective equipment. One example of potential wording would be, "See AOAC Official Methods of Analysis (2005), Appendix B: Laboratory Safety. Use appropriate personal protective equipment as necessary, such as lab coats, safety glasses, gloves, and a fume hood. Ensure that all solvents and solutions are disposed of according to federal, state, and local regulations." While most of the definitions specified in the SMPR are used and applied appropriately, the method does not provide clear definitions of the terms used and the reader is left to infer. For example, while the method provides recovery data, the authors do not define their usage of percent recovery or establish that the test samples were analyzed using the entire method. Additionally, the four spike levels used for recovery determinations are not provided and the authors do not report the endogenous levels of the various sugars in the spiked matrices, where applicable. This impacts the method because the reader does not know over which analytical range the samples were tested for recovery. Additionally, while the method provides repeatability data, it is never referred to as repeatability data; rather, repeatability data is only referred to as precision data with a reported %RSD (as opposed to %RSDr). This has the potential to mislead readers of the method as precision data should include both repeatability and reproducibility.

4. Does the method, as written, contain all appropriate precautions and warnings related to the method's reagents, components, instrumentation, or method steps that may be hazardous? If no, please suggest wording or option(s). III. Review of Supporting Information 1. Are the definitions specified in the SMPR used and applied appropriately in the supporting documentation (manuscripts, method studies, etc...)? If not, please explain the differences and if the method is impacted by the difference.