4 / 124
Choline 2012-20 MLT YKLP059 & ZNPI092.xls
Blind Duplicates of Powdered Samples -
YKLP059 & ZNPI092
Choline 2012-20 MLT YKLP059 & ZNPI092 -
Remove Labs 9-10-11.xls
Blind Duplicates of Powdered Samples –
YKLP059 & ZNPI092 with data from Labs 9, 10,
and 11 removed
Choline 2012-20 MLT LHTK069 & LKAU043.xls
Blind Duplicates of RTF Samples - LHTK069 &
LKAU043
Choline 2012-20 MLT MOPG098 & SJLQ035.xls Blind Duplicates of RTF Samples - MOPG098 &
SJLQ035
Choline 2012-20 MLT VFJL091 & YATV077.xls
Blind Duplicates of RTF Samples - VFJL091 &
YATV077
Final Results Table.docx
As titled
Here are a few quick observations on the results. Using the data from all eleven labs, with a
few labs that had results that were obviously far off the others, the blind duplicates data sheet
does not require the removal of any of the labs for the RTF samples. While for the powdered
samples, one lab’s data had to be removed for one of the blind duplicates, and same lab’s data
and the data from two additional labs had to be removed for another of the blind duplicates. In
general the study participants did better with the RTF samples, but this may be more related to
analyte concentrations because in the general the lower the sample’s choline concentration
was, the worse the results. Two labs purposely ran a different range of calibration standards.
These were the eleven participating labs.
Please note that the order listed below does not
correspond to the order in Table 2
, which has notes on each lab that are relevant to the study.
In Table 2 the first eight labs had the best data compared to the Single Lab Validation results.
I queried the participating labs if they had any comments on the method, and the comments I
received are in Appendix 2.
1.
Friesland-Campina - Netherlands
2.
GQT - China
3.
Thermo Fisher Scientific European Food Testing Lab - Germany
4.
Mead Johnson – US
5.
Mead Johnson – Singapore
6.
Mead Johnson - Netherlands
7.
Covance Laboratories - US
SUMMARY OF MLT
FOR ERP USE ONLY
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE