2018 Sugar ERP - Method Review Book

5. Based on the supporting information, what are the pros/strengths of the method?

• Multi lab validation with Lot of supporting data • Single chromatographic condition for all sample types • Sample preparation suitable for varying protein & sugar contents • Method applicability is checked for various food matrices covering the AOAC food pyramid • Accuracy is within the acceptable limit for majority of the analytes in most of the matrices. • Uses sodium azide, a toxic chemical as the internal standard stabilizer • Uses single gradient/chromatographic conditions for all different sample matrices • Critical pair of Arabinose from glucosamine • Selectivity of Lactose from lactulose and isomaltose • Shoulder peak near Lactose in many cases • Lot of un-identified peaks in Food Matrices • Gradient background influencing quantification at LOD • Lower range RM Range (%) for CRM BCR 644 for Lactose and Sucrose

6. Based on the supporting information, what are the cons/weaknesses of the method?

7. Any general comments about the method?

This method based on Anion exchange and PAD is promising. Author & his team had already worked out the Carrez procedure for protein containing samples is an advantage.

Lot of lab work. Appreciate author and his team's dedicated work to make this method working for several sample matrices.

V. Final Recommendation Do you recommend this method be adopted as a First Action and published in the Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC INTERNATIONAL? Please specify rationale.

This method is very close to be recommended for First Action and published in OMA.

Major concerns are:

1. safety due to sodium azide usage - would like to receive feedback from Safety committee

2. Specificity - what is the acceptable resolution between the critical pairs?. This resolution parameter needs to be addressed to put this method in routine use for all types of sample matrices

3. Feedback from Statistical committee on %RSDi and % RSDr