AOAC SPIFAN Nutrients ERP Reviewer Forms (December 7, 2022)

FOR EXPERT REVIEW PANEL USE ONLY NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION

1. Is the Validation Study Report in a format acceptable to AOAC? Seems to be quite close. Maybe missing a “scope” statement at the start of the method

2. 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)? The method is described in sufficient detail and is easy to understand (could improve calculation, and perhaps a scope statement). The design of the VALIDATION experiments could be described in a little more detail.

3. Are the figures and tables sufficiently explanatory without the need to refer to the text? Table 1 - Yes Table 2 – Yes

Table 3 – not so much. The title could be improved to note that this is a range of r 2 values. Table 4 – improve title, as far as I understand there were no spike experiments involved here. As I understand it is the estimated LoQ based on the signal/noise in the different matrices ? Table 5 – yes Table 6 – could be improved Table 7 – I do not believe these are “mean” results. Are they not the range of results vs criteria ? I think this title could also be improved Table 8 – This table also mentions “mean” recoveries per lab, but then ranges are reported, so I guess some additional clarification could be given. In this table the number of replicates by lab have been reported as a footnote. That kind of information should be included in all the supplementary tables, and included in the description of the validation experiments Table 9 – this is clear. Suggest to add a footnote to mention the number of replicates per lab (similar to Table 8). Tables in supplementary data: • Add table numbers, • make sure reference code matches code in matrix list in table 2 • add information on number of days / replicates.

6