180 / 328
Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript:
ER 1
Some editorial suggestions are made below.
ER 2
NA
ER 3
Need to elaborate on the issues and possible causes of those issues of laboratories whose data were not
used in the study.
ER 4
• Correction on table 2 page 17, AOAC OMA 993.12, lab 6 is excluded in the analysis and should have a
superscript b. • It is unclear as to why the reference method chosen is not the BAM reference method
which would be in this reviewer’s opinion a better and more comprehensive method to use. While the
reference method used is an OMA method, the use of the BAM method would have given more
confidence to regulatory bodies reviewing this method. • The uses of positive and negative controls are
not well defined. • There may be some value in stating the ISO status of the testing labs to add more
confidence on the results. • The reasons for the exclusion of labs 6 and 13 may need more detail. In both
cases the data set suggests that these labs were simply excluded since they detected false negative
results which I am sure is not the case; however, no detail scientific explanation is provided. • While
many of the acronyms used in the data and statistical tables are well known and are described in the
Appendix J of the AOAC method validation guidelines, it may be beneficial to include a section on the
explanation of these terms. Since this is my first time reviewing such a manuscript, I am not sure if these
were included in the past but they may help some understand the tables.
ER 5
The manuscript does not discuss the reasons behind the selection of DF broth enrichment protocol for
the collaborative study: mLRB vs DF? 1 step enrichment vs 2 step enrichment? There are very few
mistakes in the report among which one is more relevant: table 2 presenting individual collaborator
results seem wrong for the low level test portion results as the total from the table give 67 positive when
the report mentions 73. Comparing data with table 2014.2A (p21), it seems that numbers for labs 2 and 8
are wrong in table 2: is that right? Please advise.
ER 6
NO
ER 7
None observed.
ER 8
None
Supporting Data and Information: Does data from collaborative study support the method as written?
ER 1
Yes.
ER 2
Yes
ER 3
Yes
ER 4
Since the cottage cheese is a posturized product, a heat stress inoculum would have been more
appropriate; however, this was also not done during the pre-collaborative study.
ER 5
Yes & No. Yes when it relates to the DF-1 step enrichment protocol. No because mLRB and DF-2 step
enrichment protocols have not been evaluated during this collaborative study. That is my understanding
that each of the different enrichment protocols must be evaluated during a collaborative study to be
submitted to OMA first action: am I mistaken? Some of the claimed matrices require a 2-step enrichment
protocol (bagged raw spinach and whole cantaloupe)
ER 6
yes
ER 7
I marked "no" for questions 3 - 6 above, because Tables A and B make "claims" that are not supported by
the PTM or collaborative studies. Both tables have a section for "other matrices" that include dairy,
vegetables, meat, poultry, seafood, and fruit, but none of these categories have been fully validated (only
1 or 2 matrices per category; traditionally, you need at least 3 matrices to claim a category). Please
remove the "For Other Matrices" sections from both Tables A and B, so that the Tables will be aligned
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
144