Review Book

12. 19(14)-(b)-milk chocolate (25 g) missing in IFU 13. 19(14)-raw ground beef (375 g) is missing here and in table in IFU 14. 19(14)-(k)-garlic powder-temperature of incubation is 35 degrees in IFU instead of 42 degrees in manuscript. 15. 19(14)-(l)-IFU states 1125 mL for creamy peanut butter instead of 3375 shown here. 16. 19(14)-(m)-Alternative method for dark chocolate not in IFU. 17. 19(14)-(n)-milk chocolate (375 g) not in IFU. 18. 20(15)-(p)-environmental samples not in IFU (except in note). 19. 20(15)-note re alternative method-“Extending the enrichment time to 24 hours allows for performance improvement of the alternative method only for large portions of raw meat products.” Was this in previous validations? This should be referred to since that data is not shown in this study. 208. 24(19)-I-add “as appropriate for the matrix” to the sentence. 21. 24(19)-I(a)CHROMID Salmonella is not in IFU (Confirmation of Positive Results Obtained using AOAC RI Approved Protocols) 22. 24(19)-I(b)-VITEK GN and VITEK MS are not in IFU 23. 25(20)-I(g)-ViTEK GN and VITEK MS are not in IFU 24. 25(20)-J(b)-IFU missing +/- 1 degrees 25. 27(22) and 28(23)-It would be good to describe Alternative Confirmation vs. Traditional Confirmation in these sections as a reminder. 26. 29-30(24-25)-Was the benefit of using the alternative method demonstrated, or why a laboratory would use it instead of traditional confirmation method? The GENE-UP® Salmonella (SLM) assay (Performance Tested MethodSM 121802) is a PCR detection method that utilizes Fluorescence Resonance Energy Transfer hybridization probes for the rapid detection of Salmonella species in foods and on environmental surfaces.The method provide with a simplified, rapid and accurate workflow for the detection of Salmonella in a broad range of foods and select environmental surfaces. Multiple food matrices validated providing sufficient data for user consideration.

Reviewer 5

Reviewer 6

8. Pros/Strengths of the Manuscript: Reviewer 1 Clearly written. Reviewer 2 Clearly written Reviewer 3

Very well written manuscript

Reviewer 4

Participating laboratories pointed out its ease of use compared to the reference method with high background microflora.

Reviewer 5 Reviewer 6

It is a rapid and easy to perform method.

Detailed information.

9. Cons/Weaknesses of the Manuscript: Reviewer 1

The approximately 30 fold range of lab. APCs suggests homogenization of the raw ground beef (80% lean) was not perfect. So what was the size of the bulk lot that was homogenized by "hand mixing"?

Reviewer 2 Reviewer 3 Reviewer 4 Reviewer 5

None

None observed

None noted

NO