Before Bonthu's trial, the conversion of a plasma result had been mentioned in California cases (see Hooper, supra, 212 Cal.App.3d at p. 446; Meza, supra, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 608), and out-of-state courts had endorsed the use of varied conversion ratios. (See, e.g., State v. Cardwell (N.C. Ct.App. 1999) 133 N.C.App. 496, 506-507 [516 S.E.2d 388, 396]; Potter v. State (Ga.Ct.App. 2009) 301 Ga.App. 411, 416-418 [687 S.E.2d 653, 658-659] (Potter); see also Kirsch, 820 A.2d at p. 242, fn. 5.)

I could be more specific, but I don't believe I have to.” (Emphasis supplied.) Contrary to counsel's belief, it is necessary that an objection for lack of foundation specify the foundational element that is contended to be lacking. Tolver v. State, 269 Ga. 530, 532(2), 500 S.E.2d 563 (1998); Potter v. State, 301 Ga.App. 411, 414–415(2), 687 S.E.2d 653 (2009). That was not done here, and this issue is not preserved for appeal. Tolver, supra 269 Ga. at 532(2), 500 S.E.2d 563.

(Punctuation and footnote omitted.) Garland v. State, 256 Ga. App. 313, 318 (6) ( 568 SE2d 540) (2002); accord Potter v. State, 301 Ga. App. 411, 416 (2) ( 687 SE2d 653) (2009) (acquiescence in procedure by which document was identified deprived defendant of right to complain on appeal); Hightower v. State, 205 Ga. App. 305, 308 (3) ( 422 SE2d 28) (1992) (acquiescence in voice identification procedure constituted waiver). 4. Brown argues that he was denied the right to fair trial due to prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument, in violation of OCGA § 17-8-75.