Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  918-919 / 1195 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 918-919 / 1195 Next Page
Page Background

14

1

Ruggedness Study

2

3

Methodology

4

Three parameters were examined to determine the ruggedness of the VIDAS LMX assay: sample boiling time, sample temperature

5

after boiling and time of temperature equilibration of reagents.

6

7

Two

Listeria monocytogenes

strains,

Listeria monocytogenes

ATCC 19115 and

Listeria monocytogenes

ATCC 19117 were used as

8

positive strains and

Bacillus cereus

ATCC 27522 was used as a non-target strain.

9

10

The two

Listeria monocytogenes

strains were cultivated in LMX broth for 24 hours at 37°C and were diluted to within one log of the

11

limit of detection of the kit. The non-target strain was analyzed at the growth level achieved in TSBYE after 24 hours at 37°C

.

12

13

For each method variation, five replicates of each culture were tested simultaneously. This was repeated on 2 occasions over 2 days.

14

Sample boiling time

15

Replicate samples were placed in boiling water bath for 4 minutes, 5 minutes and 6 minutes then cooled to room temperature.

16

17

Sample temperature

18

After boiling replicate samples were placed in a water bath at 10°C, 25°C and 50°C to allow temperature equilibration before

19

performing the assay.

20

21

Time of temperature equilibration of reagents at room temperature after pulling from refrigeration

22

Reagents were removed from refrigeration and allowed to equilibrate during 0, 30, 60 and 120 minutes at room temperature prior to

23

performing the VIDAS assay.

24

25

Results

26

Results are presented as Test values and are summarized in Tables 5-7.

27

Both

Listeria monocytogenes

strains were positive for all replicates and method variations. The

Bacillus

strain was negative for all

28

replicates and method variations. The method variations for all 3 factors showed exact agreement in the number of positive and

29

negative results generated. In addition, there was close agreement between the mean test values generated with each method variation.

30

31

32

PTM Certification Report