AOAC ERP MICRO AUGUST 2018

AOAC EXPERT REVIEW PANEL FOR MICROBIOLOGY FOR FOODS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SURFACES Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript:

ER 1 none ER 2 N/A

ER 3 Not all lab data is usable (laboratory 2) data was inconsistent.  Testing cereals will be a challenge on  practical level.   ER 4 No ER 5 The authors should remember verb tenses.   ER 6 None ER 7 Hybrid pre‐collab‐collab format unusual. Is the Validation Study Manuscript in a format acceptable to AOAC?

ER 1 Yes ER 2 Yes ER 3 Yes

No, 1. On page 67 line 25 : omit the C or add ° C 2. On page 70 line 87; on page 73 line 154 and line 166 and on page 75 line 209: it is confusing how the accurate quantitative range is defined. The numerical range does not match  and it is not clear if it is by plate or by quantity of food (liquid or solid).

3. On page 75 line 201 : the dilution factor is the reciprocal of the dilution

4. On page 79 line 292 add n to nonselect

ER 4 5. On page 80 lines 328‐329: colonies from Enterobacteriaceae have precipitation halos. ER 5 Yes ER 6 Yes ER 7 No, The hybrid pre‐collab and collab manuscript presentation is unorthodox by normal Journal  standards. Can be discussed by the ER panel though, since it was admitted to the review process,  presumably the format was not considered unacceptable. Is the method described in sufficient detail so that it is relatively easy to understand, including  equations and procedures for calculation of results (are all terms explained)?

ER 1 Yes ER 2 Yes ER 3 Yes ER 4 Yes ER 5 Yes ER 6 Yes ER 7 Yes

3 of 6