The Swab, the Drip, or the Meat? Comparison of Microbiological Sampling Methods in Vacuum-Packed Raw Beef.

IF 4.2 2区 生物学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY Microorganisms Pub Date : 2025-01-14 DOI:10.3390/microorganisms13010159
Aracely Martínez-Moreno, America Chávez-Martínez, Janet E Corry, Christopher R Helps, Raúl A Reyes-Villagrana, Juan M Tirado Gallegos, Eduardo Santellano-Estrada, Ana L Rentería-Monterrubio
{"title":"The Swab, the Drip, or the Meat? Comparison of Microbiological Sampling Methods in Vacuum-Packed Raw Beef.","authors":"Aracely Martínez-Moreno, America Chávez-Martínez, Janet E Corry, Christopher R Helps, Raúl A Reyes-Villagrana, Juan M Tirado Gallegos, Eduardo Santellano-Estrada, Ana L Rentería-Monterrubio","doi":"10.3390/microorganisms13010159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Historically, there has been a concern for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in foods, and numerous methods have been developed to determine their microbiological conditions. The present study aimed to compare the numbers of microbes recovered with three sampling methods: drip, excision, and swabbing in vacuum-packed beef. The sampling methods were evaluated in terms of the viable numbers of <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), <i>Brochrothrix thermosphacta</i>, <i>Salmonella</i> spp., and yeasts and moulds (Y&M). The numbers of <i>B. thermosphacta</i>, <i>Salmonella</i> spp., <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>, LAB, and M&Y recovered with the drip method were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than those from the other two methods. Regarding excision and swabbing, the recovery of <i>B. thermosphacta</i> and <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i> was higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) with the excision method than swabbing, while there were no statistical differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05) between both methods for <i>Salmonella</i> spp., LAB, and Y&M. In conclusion, the drip method can recover up to two logarithms more than the other techniques in vacuum-packed meat; hence, it should be considered when designing and implementing sampling systems for the meat industry.</p>","PeriodicalId":18667,"journal":{"name":"Microorganisms","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11767850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microorganisms","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13010159","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Historically, there has been a concern for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in foods, and numerous methods have been developed to determine their microbiological conditions. The present study aimed to compare the numbers of microbes recovered with three sampling methods: drip, excision, and swabbing in vacuum-packed beef. The sampling methods were evaluated in terms of the viable numbers of Enterobacteriaceae, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), Brochrothrix thermosphacta, Salmonella spp., and yeasts and moulds (Y&M). The numbers of B. thermosphacta, Salmonella spp., Enterobacteriaceae, LAB, and M&Y recovered with the drip method were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than those from the other two methods. Regarding excision and swabbing, the recovery of B. thermosphacta and Enterobacteriaceae was higher (p < 0.05) with the excision method than swabbing, while there were no statistical differences (p > 0.05) between both methods for Salmonella spp., LAB, and Y&M. In conclusion, the drip method can recover up to two logarithms more than the other techniques in vacuum-packed meat; hence, it should be considered when designing and implementing sampling systems for the meat industry.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
棉签,点滴,还是肉?真空包装生牛肉微生物取样方法的比较。
从历史上看,人们一直关注食品中微生物的检测和枚举,并开发了许多方法来确定其微生物状况。本研究旨在比较真空包装牛肉中三种采样方法:滴注、切除和抽拭所回收的微生物数量。以肠杆菌科(enterobacteraceae)、乳酸菌(乳酸菌)、热嗜肉菌(Brochrothrix thermosphaacta)、沙门氏菌(Salmonella)、酵母和霉菌(Y&M)的活菌数为指标,对采样方法进行了评价。滴注法回收的热嗜热杆菌、沙门氏菌、肠杆菌科、LAB和M&Y菌数量显著高于其他两种方法(p < 0.05)。在切除和抽拭法中,热嗜杆菌和肠杆菌科细菌的回收率高于抽拭法(p < 0.05),而沙门氏菌、LAB和Y&M的回收率两种方法比较差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。总之,在真空包装的肉类中,滴灌法的回收率比其他技术高出两个对数;因此,在设计和实施肉类行业的采样系统时应考虑到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Microorganisms
Microorganisms Medicine-Microbiology (medical)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
6.70%
发文量
2168
审稿时长
20.03 days
期刊介绍: Microorganisms (ISSN 2076-2607) is an international, peer-reviewed open access journal which provides an advanced forum for studies related to prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms, viruses and prions. It publishes reviews, research papers and communications. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical results in as much detail as possible. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. The full experimental details must be provided so that the results can be reproduced. Electronic files and software regarding the full details of the calculation or experimental procedure, if unable to be published in a normal way, can be deposited as supplementary electronic material.
期刊最新文献
Strain Diversity in the Human Microbiome: Personal Variation, Pathobionts, Therapeutics, and Methodological Challenges. Editorial for "Gut Microbiota, Diet, and Gastrointestinal Cancer". Effects of Microbial Inoculants from Three Nutrient-Poor Environments on Soil Improvement and Plant Growth Promotion in Sandy Soil. Editorial for Special Issue "Animal Viral Infectious Diseases". Association of TLR4 Polymorphisms with Increased Susceptibility to Recurrent Vulvovaginal Candidiasis in Greek Women.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1