Kombucha ERP

Does the available documentation demonstrate Reproducibility/Uncertainty and Probability of Detection? If yes, please specify the information provided to support the reproducibility of this method as written.

1. No. 2. A collaborative study of a method involves practical testing of the written version of the method, in its specific style and format, by a number of laboratories on identical materials. The collaborative study prtocoils were not made available before the study. 3. Concentration Range Choose analyte levels to cover concentration range of interest, the study director has done a good job in selecting samples for the study but test Sample Coding Code was not done test samples at random so that there is no pre-selection from order of presentation. 4. The AOAC protocol (appendix D) require a minimum number of laboratories. —Eight reporting valid data for each collaboratively studied material. The MLT study could provide 4 valid data for every studied samples. Not enough to conclusively decide reproducibility performance oif the metrhod. 5. Two of the six collaboratvely studied samples provided RSDR values considerably higher than the SMPR requirements.

7. FINAL ACTION REQUIREMENTS

Has the method author addressed Final Action requirements as noted by the ERP Report, if any?

Not applicable

8. RECOMMENDED CHANGES (If any)

Are there any recommended changes to the AOAC First Action method as written?

No

9. END USER FEEDBACK:

Document positive and negative feedback from users of the method during the trial period. Feedback from users demonstrating method ruggedness should be documented. Assess the future availability of vital equipment, reference materials, and supplies.

Have you run this method? If yes, please provide details (pros, cons, general feedback) of your experience running this method. To your knowledge, has this method received any awards or recognition?

Not available

No

FINAL ACTION RECOMMENDATION