SPSFAM Allergens ERP

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. 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.

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?

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.

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. 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. 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.

7. Any general comments about the method?

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.