219 / 328
AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Expert Review Panel Chair Report for Microbiology for Foods and Environmental Surfaces
Page 5 of 8
MEETING MINUTES
I.
Welcome and Introductions
The Expert Review Panel Co‐chairs, Michael Brodsky and Wendy McMahon, welcomed Expert Review Panel
(ERP) members, initiated introductions, and discussed with the panel the goal of the meeting.
II.
Review of AOAC Volunteer Policies & Expert Review Panel Process Overview and Guidelines
Deborah McKenzie presented a brief overview of AOAC Volunteer Policies, Volunteer Acceptance
Agreement and Expert Review Panel Policies and Procedures which included Volunteer Conflicts of Interest,
Policy on the Use of the Association, Name, Initials, Identifying Insignia, Letterhead, and Business Cards,
Antitrust Policy Statement and Guidelines, and the Volunteer Acceptance Form (VAF). All members of the
ERP were required to submit and sign the Volunteer Acceptance Form. In addition, she also presented an
overview of the ERP process including meeting logistics, consensus, First Action to Final Action
requirements, and documentation.
III.
Review of Methods
All ERP members presented a review and discussed OMAMAN‐25: Evaluation of the 3M™Petrifilm™Rapid
Aerobic Count Plate for the Enumeration of Aerobic Bacteria: Collaborative Study
.
The method author,
Robert Jechorek of 3M Food Safety, was present and able to address the questions and concerns of the ERP
members. A summary of comments was provided to the ERP and the method author.
1
By consensus the
ERP presented the following motions for OMAMAN‐23
.
Motion by Brodsky; Second by Arbault,
to move OMAMAN‐25 to AOAC First Action Official Methods
status.
Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions.
Motion Passed.
Motion by Brodsky; Second by Arbault,
to request statistical advisors to come to an agreement on how
quantitative microbiological methods are reviewed and to amend the workbooks accordingly
.
Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions.
Motion Passed.
Motion by McMahon; Second by Brodsky,
method feedback must be submitted during the 2‐year
tracking period.
Consensus demonstrated by: 8 in favor, 0 opposed, and 0 abstentions.
Motion Passed.
IV.
REVIEW OF AOAC RESEARCH INSTITUTE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The ERP reviewed and discussed the responses to the technical consultant questions to assist the AOAC
Research Institute Technical Consultants in the development of protocols and studies for independent
laboratory testing for the AOAC
Performance Tested Methods
SM
(PTM) program and Consulting Services. The
Expert Review Panel members previously submitted their feedback regarding specific questions as provided
by the AOAC Technical Consultant. The Expert Review Panel discussed the following areas of interest
regarding unique test portion sizes, use of expensive equipment for alternative collaborative study design
and the use of the new
Listeria
species in the inclusivity studies.
1
Attachment 1: Summary of Expert Reviewer Comments for OMAMOD‐03 (AOAC 2009.03)
ERP PROFILE SUMMARIES
183