ISPAM September 6 2014 Meeting

Comments on the Detection of Salmonella SMPR

Agreed that verification and validation are different which is the reason the different types of evaluations are identified. The document does not make any inference that verification and validation are equivalent, only that information from the SMPR can be used if applicable.

This sentence seems to suggest that verification data and validation data are equivalent, but this is not the case.

7

No change proposed.

It remains unclear how this document outlines specific requirements for method for field use.

Agreed. The "Intended User" sattement is not quite right.

19

Revised in version 14.

All of the performance parameters were based on "pre-harvest" samples. This was a primary consideration through out the deliberation of the SMPR. For example, the inclusivity panel included serovars known to occur in leafy greens. However, suggestions to improve the document are welcomed.

Although pre-harvest field samples appear to be the impetus for this document, this is the only time it is mentioned. It is unclear how the pre-harvest perspective has influenced the requirements as set out in this document.

21-22

No change proposed.

Suggest deleting the footnote. All of the text is present in the text below. Delete sentence since already covered in footnote 1.

28

Agreed the text is redundant.

Revised in version 14

37-38

Agreed.

Revised in version 14

Footnote 2 correct 'mircobiology' typo.

Agreed.

Revised in version 14

Shouldn't the harvesting time period of Romaine be indicated for completeness?

49

Agreed.

Revised in version 14

56

Suggest to include a reference to Annex III

Agreed. Add reference to Annex III.

Revised in version 14

Significance of LPOD(o) in context of text not clear. Why not LPOD(c) where c = concentration?

Agreed. Use "LPOD" and designate concentration.

72-73

Revised in version 14

"AOAC" was a place-holder to remind us to include a reference.

73

"AOAC" - Is this a reference?

Revised in version 14

75-76 LCL usually means lower confidence limit.

Agreed.

Revised in version 14

Technicians go out to the fields to take "pre- harvest" samples which are brought back to a laboratory for testing. The term is common and understood by the leafy green community. No change proposed, but suggestions are welcomed.

Additional precision may be required. If you haven’t harvested anything, how is there sample available for testing?

No change proposed.

79

88

double periods

Agreed.

Revised in version 14

2