4. AOACRIMicroMethods-2018Awards

52

B ird et al .: J ournal of AOAC I nternational V ol . 100, N o . 2, 2017  467

Figure 1. (A) LPOD and (B) dLPOD values of candidate method versus reference method for deli turkey (125 g).

the same strain as the inoculating organism, indicating that cross-contamination of the sample had occurred. Due to the cross-contamination, just-cause for removal of the data was established and, therefore, the data generated by Laboratory 10 were not included in the statistical analysis. Overall, the data generated during this evaluation demonstrated low reproducibility values, indicating that the method was highly reproducible between laboratories. The within-laboratory repeatability values indicated that the candidate method was comparable to the reference method in terms of repeatability. For the deli turkey analysis, the LPOD statistical analysis indicated that the difference between the candidate and reference methods and the difference between the presumptive and confirmed candidate results were not statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level. For raw

between presumptive and confirmed results, indicating that the difference between presumptive and confirmed methods was not statistically significant at the 0.05 probability level. Detailed results of the LPOD statistical analysis are presented in Table 2016.08D and Figure 2.

Discussion

No negative feedback was provided by the collaborating laboratories with regard to the performance of the 3M MDA 2 – Listeria monocytogenes method. For the raw chicken breast fillet, Laboratory 10 reported isolating L. monocytogenes from two uninoculated control samples. The isolates were sent for further identification, and it was determined that they were

03/10/2019