AOAC ERP for Acrylamide Meeting Book

how this method takes these issues into account. Samples used for validation are spelled out plainly and cover all matrix groups mentioned in the SMPR. Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript: Everything is organized in an easy to read manner. All performance criteria discussed in the SMPR is addressed in the manuscript and compared back to the limits set in the SMPR showing that it meets all requirements. Representative chromatograms from each matrix type is nice to see, as well as the mix containing known interferences which shows the complete baseline separation of acrylamide from these known interferences. The data is very well organized in table 5 making it easy to see the performance characteristics and how they compare to the targets. Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript: one small typo in Figure 3- pet food chromatogram is labelled as (15) but labelled as (10) in the explanation below the figure. I would have liked to see more chromatograms that are closer to the QL to see sensitivity closer to QL (ie pet food as is, the manuscript only shows the spiked pet food sample). I would also like a little more clarification on the data in table 5c- are these average recoveries and basal levels since the analysis was carried out on 6 different days? this is spelled out more clearly in table 5d and I would just want the same clarity in 5c EDITORIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

Is the Validation Study Manuscript in a format discernable to you as an ERP member? Is the method described in sufficient detail so that it is relatively easy to understand, including equations and procedures for calculation of results (are all terms explained)? Are the figures and tables sufficiently explanatory without the need to refer to the text? Could some be omitted and covered by a simple statement? Are the references complete and correctly annotated? Does the method contain adequate safety precaution reference and/or statements? Are all the figures and tables pertinent?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Supporting Data and Information (General comments and method optimization/precollaborative/single laboratory validation): Does the data from the collaborative study support the method as written?

2