174 / 328
ER 7
In Table 2014.1 for the RYM method it is not clear what data from Tables 2, 3, 4 & 5 is used to get the SD
values for repeatability and reproducibility. In Table 2014.2 for the RYM method it is not clear what data
from Tables 6 7, 8 & 9 is used to get the SD values presented for repeatability and reproducibility.
Typically the SD for reproducibility is noticeably larger than that for repeatability. This is true for the
2014.2 (almond) results by the RYM and the FDA/ISO methods. However, it is not so for the 2014.1 (beef)
results by the RYM or reference method. So perhaps the calculations and data inputs should be checked.
[Continued] In many cases, especially in Table 2014.1 the mean RYM and reference methods' mean
counts are not significantly different and yet the differences, although not very different, are often
significantly different. In Table 2014.1 perhaps this is related to the fact that only 11 collaborators
provided valid results.
ER 8
None.
General Comments (2)
ER 1
ER 2
NA
ER 3
NA
ER 4
No additional comments
ER 5
ER 6
ER 7
None
ER 8
Tables 2014.1 & 2014.2. It should be footnoted that the BAM and ISO methods are identical when using
0.1 % peptone water. as was done in this collaborative study.
EDITORIAL EVALUATION CRITERIA
Is the Validation Study Manuscript in a format acceptable to AOAC?
ER 1
Yes
ER 2
Yes
ER 3
Yes
ER 4
Yes
ER 5
Yes
ER 6
Yes
ER 7
Yes
ER 8
Yes
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
No
ER 8
Yes
Are the figures and tables sufficiently explanatory without the need to refer to the text?
ER 1
Yes
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
138