5 / 124
8.
Merieux - US
9.
Abbott - US
10. Aquanal - France
11. Ministry of Agriculture - China
Table 2: Notes on the Eleven Participating Labs
Lab #
Notes
1
Received the protocol with the mistakes, used the manual sample prep (no microwave)
2
Received the protocol with the mistakes and thus used the incorrect lower calibration point.
3
Received the corrected protocol. Did not run prequalification samples first. Results good
4
Received the protocol with the mistakes. They did not run the same calibration curve.
Based on the samples they decided to run 0.1, 0.5, 2.5, 5.0, 10, 25, and 45 mg/L (Protocol
was 0.6, 5, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 75). The highest concentration in their curve was lower than 4
of the 12 samples.
5
Received the protocol with the mistakes, but used the correct lower calibration point.
Passed the practice samples, but both failed when they reran them with the full set of
samples. Paradoxically to that result, this lab had some of the best results in the study
relative to the SLV, especially for the powdered samples which proved to me more difficult
than the RTF samples.
6
Received the protocol with the mistakes, but did not use the incorrect lower calibration
point. They did use their own calibration curve which was 0.5, 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, and 20. The
highest concentration in their curve was lower than 4 of the 12 samples and 2 were right at
the highest concentration standard.
7
Received the protocol with the mistakes, were loaned equipment for the study. Did not run
prequalification samples first.
8
Received the corrected protocol, but still followed the original protocol. Had them
recalculate their results without the lower concentration standard. That had little impact on
the results. Did not run prequalification samples first. One of the two prequalification
samples passed when run with the full set of samples.
9
Received the protocol with the mistakes, though it appears the correct lower calibration
point was used. Despite that the peak area values for that standard appear low. I tried to
contact to recalculate without the lower calibration point, but was unsuccessful with
multiple attempts.
10
Received the protocol with the mistakes, were loaned equipment for the study. Did not use
the incorrect lower concentration standard in their calculations. Passed the practice
samples, but failed (too high) when they reran them with the full set of samples. Overall all
their results were high. Removing this lab from two additional sets of duplicates (data for
this removal was not included reduced one HorRat from 1.97 to 1.64 and other from 2.11 to
1.86.
11
Received the corrected protocol. Did not run prequalification samples first but both samples
passed when run with the full set of samples.
SUMMARY OF MLT
FOR ERP USE ONLY
DO NOT DISTRIBUTE