AOAC ERP MICRO AUGUST 2018

OMAMAN-44 A: Collaborative Study Manuscript Expert Review Panel Use Only August 2018

for a LAB test, following procedures outlined in the Compendium of Methods for the Microbiological 480

Examination of Foods (16), to determine the total microbial load of the test matrix. The average LAB 481

result obtained by the collaborators was 4.1 x 10 6 CFU/g (1.7 x 10 5 CFU/g to 8.9 x 10 6 CFU/g). Appendix 482

483

Table 3 presents the results of the LAB for each collaborator.

484

Charm Peel Plate EB 24 Hours - Difference of means values (0.00, -0.16, 0.15 and 0.18) for the un-

inoculated, low, medium and high contamination levels, indicated that no statistical significant 485

difference existed between the candidate and alternative method. Repeatability (0.00, 0.33, 0.20 and 486

0.12) and reproducibility (0.00, 0.45, 0.26 and 0.18) values for each contamination level indicate that the 487

method performed similarly within sample replicates and between laboratories throughout the range of 488

489

contamination levels.

490

Charm Peel Plate EB 48 Hours - Difference of means values (0.00, -0.15, 0.16 and 0.18) for the

uninoculated, low, medium and high contamination levels, indicated that no statistical significant 491

difference existed between the candidate and alternative method. Repeatability (0.00, 0.34, 0.25 and 492

0.11) and reproducibility (0.00, 0.45, 0.25 and 0.17) values for each contamination level indicate that the 493

method performed similarly within sample replicates and between laboratories throughout the range of 494

495

contamination levels.

496

497

Collaborative Study Powdered Infant Formula with Probiotics Discussion

498

No negative feedback was reported to the study directors from the collaborating laboratories ERP Use Only regarding the performance of the candidate method. A few collaborators indicated that the Peel Plate 500 EB method produced distinct colonies and were very easy to read. 501 499

502

No statistically significant difference was observed between the candidate method, at both 24 and

48 h, and the ISO reference methods when compared using the difference of means of < 0.5. Difference 503

21