ERP Micro December 2019

Raw Beef Trim – 375 g Test Portion (Unpaired) Method Comparison

Results for the GDS EHEC analyzing with the HT Amplification tubes, processing by manual and PPMX procedures, were the same as using the standard Amplification tubes for beef trim. The POD analysis between the GDS EHEC presumptive (POD CP ) and confirmed results (POD CC ) indicated that there was no statistically significant difference at the 5% level for both methods at the 8 h of enrichment. The POD analysis between the GDS EHEC methods presumptive (POD C ) and reference method confirmed (POD R ) results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference at the 5% level for both methods.

Frozen Finely Textured Beef – 375 g Test Portion (Unpaired) Method Comparison

Results for the GDS EHEC analyzing with the HT Amplification tubes, processing by manual procedures, were the same as using the standard Amplification tubes for finely textured beef. There was one less presumptive positive result occurring with PPMX sample processing with a HT Amplification tube (compared to PPMX extraction aliquoted into a standard Amplification tube). The POD analysis between the GDS EHEC methods presumptive (POD C ) and reference method confirmed (POD R ) results indicated that there was a statistically significant difference at the 5% level for both methods due to higher recovery by the alternative method (see Discussion , previous section). Carcass Cloths (Unpaired) Method Comparison Results for the GDS EHEC analyzing with the HT Amplification tubes, processing by manual and PPMX procedures, were the same as using the standard Amplification tubes for carcass cloths. The POD analysis between the GDS EHEC methods presumptive (POD C )

Page 31 of 34