19 / 151
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.
No. There is almost no data to assess whether system suitability tests and controls
worked in accordance with the SMPR. Also, see previous answer regarding lack of
information about how the system suitability tests were performed.
4. Based on the supporting
information, is the method
written clearly and concisely?
If no, please specify the
needed revisions.
While the initial part of the method is written clearly and concisely, once it comes to the
critical point of data analysis, the method provides no information. The authors must
provide information about how they conducted the quantification. Did they use external
calibration curves of the food allergen? If so, how were these prepared? Did they use
all transition peak areas for calculating the quantification data? If so, how was this
done? If not, how was the quantification data calculated?
5. Based on the supporting
information, what are the
pros/strengths of the
method?
The sample preparation descriptions for the method are by and large written in a clear,
stepwise format that could be followed by an end user.
6. Based on the supporting
information, what are the
cons/weaknesses of the
method?
The supporting information is inadequate in its description of how the method
performance was evaluated. What food allergen materials were used for spiking? What
was the formulation/composition/preparation of the food matrices? How were the
spiking procedures performed? The authors also provide some protein conversion
factors but give no indication of when and how those were used by the authors or how
and when they would be implemented by an end user.
7. Any general comments
about the method?
The presentation of the method and supporting information are insufficient to
adequately evaluate the performance of the method. In addition, the decision of the
authors to not include the peptide sequences in the method makes it difficult for
reviewers, as well as end users, to determine whether there is any potential for lack of
specificity when analyzing specific foods for the presence of the target peptides. The
target peptide sequences used are critical pieces of information for the user and should
not be considered proprietary information. Overall, this method requires significant
revision and additional information before its suitability can be determined.
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. As indicated throughout this review, the presentation of information about the
method and the performance evaluation is lacking in key information needed in order
to determine whether the method performs adequately.