188 / 328
General comments about the method:
ER 1
None.
ER 2
The inter-laboratory reproducibility of the method is evaluated in two foods, cottage cheese
and deli turkey. Heat stressed cells of L. monocytogenes were used for the latter matrix.
ER 3
Page 3, row 27-28, Remove shipped to collaborators as it is described at page 4 row 1 along
with randomizing and blind coding.
ER 4
No additional comments
ER 5
The method appears to be a very rapid method with a simple work flow that allows for the rapid
detection of Listeria monocytogenes.
ER 6
The method is very well described in the various documents , and the various steps of the
sample preparation and MDA assay are exhaustively presented, including the ciritical steps. The
method can be applied to a large variety of matrices covering different food categories and
environmental surfaces. Enrichment protocol may vary according to the matrix, and therefore,
users shall be clearly informed about the enrichment conditions for given matrices. Enrichment
times usually mention a upper limit of incubation: what does happen if the user exceeds this
upper value?
ER 7
This is a method very useful for the industry and it allows more short times for detection of
Listeria than with culture methods . So, this is very useful for facilitate regional trade.
ER 8
Well conceived and scientifically sound
Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript:
ER 1
Well written.
ER 2
The validation is generally clearly described.
ER 3
Very well written.
ER 4
Generally well written.
ER 5
Manuscript is well written and the information flow is in an understandable order.
ER 6
Exhaustive presentation of the various AOAC-PTM validations/extensions. Complete description
of the sample preparation protocols. Efficient description of the collab study workflow and
organization. Tables are very useful for summarizing the various enrichment protocols of the
method, for presenting the results.
ER 7
The method has a high sensitivity and specificity.
ER 8
Clearly written and explained
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
152