54 / 154
5. Based on the supporting
information, what are the
pros/strenghts of the method?
The method is straightforward and relatively simple. It has been tested on a number
of matrices (as suggested in Table 3 of SMPR) and in the presence of numerous
other botanicals (including 2 from Table 2 of SMPR). The validation is solid and the
method performance meets nearly every aspect of the SMPR.
6. Based on the supporting
information, what are the cons
/weaknesses of the method?
Would prefer an internal standard approach to the external standard approach
presented here.
LC method has a very minor gradient step (28‐30%); is this necessary? Seems that
an isocratic method with a wash step might be more robust.
Not all dietary ingredients from Table 2 in SMPR were included in testing (e.g.,
cayenne, carotenoids, Ca2+). Would like to see demonstration of method on
products including these to meet SMPR.
7 . Any general comments about
the method?
Very strong method, well validated!
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.
Yes, I would support this method for First Action status, but would recommend
additional work on investigation of remaining dietary ingredients listed in SMPR
before MLT (and also include a mixed product containing these in the MLT).
V. Recommendation for the Method