SPSFAM EXPERT REVIEW PANEL

3. Is there information demonstrating that the method system suitability tests and controls as specified in the SMPR worked appropriately and as expected? If no, please specify. 4. Based on the supporting information, is the method written clearly and concisely? If no, please specify the needed revisions. 5. Based on the supporting information, what are the pros/strengths of the method? 6. Based on the supporting information, what are the cons/weaknesses of the method?

No. None were conducted.

It is concise. Overly concise. Much more detail is needed about nearly every aspect of the method. Especially on calibrant, mobile phase, and control (blank and positive control) preparation, as well as data handling and quantification.

It might be sensitive and reproducible enough for packaged water.

It is totally unclear if the method works reliably and whether it works in any other beverage besides water and whether it really is sensitive enough or reproducible enough, especially across the concentration range and sample types.

7. Any general comments about the method?

The method submitted is an application note that wasnt even adapted to meet SMPR requirements. Only the absolute simplest application within the SMPR was attempted (only water, only repeatability, only on standards, no accuracy, no real LOD) and as such to the extent the few method performance numbers do fall within SMPR ranges they are VERY unlikely to remain within ranges if this method was evaluated more thoroughly, correctly, and across the concentration/sample ranges specified in the SMPR.

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.

No. There is no demonstration of the method being capable of meeting SMPR requirements.