A new enzyme immunoassay (EIA) method for detection of motile and non-motile Salmonella was examined in a comparative study. This method uses a proprietary formulation of polyclonal antibodies to Salmonella and is controlled to maintain specificity. Sensitivity is enhanced with an additional antibody reaction designed to minimize false-negative reactions attributable to steric interference that can occur during conjugate binding in immunoassay procedures. Twenty food types representative of a wide variety of food products were analyzed by both the EIA method and the AOAC/Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) method, 967.26. Of the 1000 samples analyzed, there was a 95.6% agreement rate between the EIA method and the AOAC/BAM method. False-negative rates for the 2 methods were comparable for all foods and all Salmonella levels except ground poultry, where the EIA method detected significantly more confirmed positive samples than did the AOAC/BAM method. Twenty-seven samples were positive by EIA but negative by the culture method, and 17 samples were negative by EIA but positive by the culture method. There were no false-positive isolates detected in the comparative study.

A wide variety of food products, with emphasis on raw meat products, were analyzed simultaneously by 3 methods: the Assurance Escherichia coli 0157:H7 (EHEC) enzyme immunosorbent assay (EIA), the EHEC visual immunoprecipitate assay (VIP), and a modified Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) culture method. This paper reports results of a comparative study of the Assurance and modified BAM methods. In this comparative study, 1050 samples and controls gave false-negative rates of 1.0 and 0%, respectively, for the Assurance EIA and the modified BAM culture methods. The overall agreement between the 2 methods was 99.4%. Cultural confirmation of presumptive positive samples was problematic because competitive flora were present in higher levels than EHEC in the enrichment broth after incubation and the target organism had nondescript characteristics on the primary selective agar, hemorrhagic coli agar, which necessitated picking of additional colonies in many instances.

The ColiComplete® substrate-supporting disc (SSD) method for simultaneous confirmed total coliform count and Escherichia coli determination in all foods was compared with the AOAC most probable number (MPN) methods 966.23 and 966.24. In this comparative study, 20 water and food types were analyzed; 7 of these foods were naturally contaminated with coliform bacteria, 6 food types were naturally contaminated with E. coli, and the remaining foods were inoculated with coliform bacteria and/or E. coli. Data were analyzed separately for total coliform bacteria and for E. coli. Mean log MPN counts were determined by the SSD method and the appropriate AOAC MPN procedure. Results were then analyzed for mean log MPN differences and variance, according to methods described by AOAC INTERNATIONAL Results for both total conforms and E. coli indicate that the SSD method is equivalent to or better than AOAC MPN methods 966.23 and 966.24.

Five foods types were analyzed by the Assurance EHEC (Escherichia coli 0157:H7) enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and by the Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM) culture method. Each sample of each food type at each inoculation level was simultaneously analyzed by both methods. A total of 21 laboratories representing state and federal government agencies and private industry in the United States and Canada participated. Samples were inoculated with E. coli 0157:H7, except for one lot of poultry that was naturally contaminated. A total of 1304 samples and controls were analyzed and confirmed, of which 473 were positive and 818 were negative by both methods. Thirteen samples were positive by BAM but negative by EIA. Because of the study design, it was not possible for the BAM method to produce false-negative or falsepositive results. The Assurance method for detection of E. coli OI57:H7 in selected foods has been adopted first action by AOAC INTERNATIONAL.

A total of 19 government and private industry laboratories in Canada and the United States participated in the collaborative study. Naturally contaminated ground poultry and animal meals, as well as inoculated raw shrimp, were examined for presence of Salmonella by both the modified immunodiffusion method and the Bacteriological Analytical Manual culture method, resulting in an agreement rate of 93.1%. The 2 methods are statistically equivalent for all food types at each inoculation level and for all lots of naturally contaminated foods evaluated in this study. The modification of the AOAC Official Method 989.13, immunodiffusion (1–2 TEST) method for detection of motile Salmonella in all foods, has been adopted revised first action by AOAC INTERNATIONAL.