Jorge Quintanilla Portillo, Rachel J Gathman, Jiaying Wu, Eric Wilhelmsen, Matthew J Stasiewicz
{"title":"Aggregative sampling performs similar to composite produce samples to recover quality and safety indicators throughout romaine lettuce production.","authors":"Jorge Quintanilla Portillo, Rachel J Gathman, Jiaying Wu, Eric Wilhelmsen, Matthew J Stasiewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Aggregative sampling using polymer cloth swabs is a non-destructive, potentially more representative food safety sampling alternative for leafy greens. This study compared aggregative and produce tissue grab sampling to recover aerobic bacteria, total coliforms, and generic Escherichia coli, from commercial romaine grown in 120 m fields, with 5-36 samples at various stages. Aggregative swabs and grab samples were collected preharvest. During harvest, aggregative swabs were collected from romaine exiting the harvester chute, transport bin tops, and as gloves worn by harvesters. Romaine grabs were collected from transport bin tops and trim leftover on the ground. During post-harvest, gloves, swabs, and grabs were collected from romaine exteriors, and swabs and grabs from head interiors. In preharvest, swabs had 1.2 log(CFU/g) higher means of aerobic bacteria than romaine tissue grab samples (p<0.001), but 1.7 log(CFU/g) lower coliforms (p<0.001). In-harvest, aerobic bacteria means from gloves worn by harvesters and swabs from harvester chute were 0.5 log(CFU/g) higher than romaine samples from leftover trims (p<0.001) and bin tops (p=0.01), respectively. Coliform recovery means from gloves was not significantly different from romaine leftover trims (p=0.99). Swabs from harvester chute and bin tops recovered 1.6 and 1.4 log(CFU/g) lower coliforms means (p<0.001) than romaine from bin tops, respectively. Generic E. coli was only recovered from one romaine leftover trim grab sample. During post-harvest processing, aerobic bacteria (p=0.25) and total coliforms (p=0.16) recovery from the exterior of heads was not significantly different between gloves and romaine samples, nor was aerobic bacteria (p=0.17) and total coliform (p=0.86) recovery from head interiors. These results suggest that aggregative sampling performs similar to produce grab sampling to recover quality and safety indicators and justifies testing these methods for pathogen sampling in leafy greens.</p>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":" ","pages":"100481"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100481","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aggregative sampling using polymer cloth swabs is a non-destructive, potentially more representative food safety sampling alternative for leafy greens. This study compared aggregative and produce tissue grab sampling to recover aerobic bacteria, total coliforms, and generic Escherichia coli, from commercial romaine grown in 120 m fields, with 5-36 samples at various stages. Aggregative swabs and grab samples were collected preharvest. During harvest, aggregative swabs were collected from romaine exiting the harvester chute, transport bin tops, and as gloves worn by harvesters. Romaine grabs were collected from transport bin tops and trim leftover on the ground. During post-harvest, gloves, swabs, and grabs were collected from romaine exteriors, and swabs and grabs from head interiors. In preharvest, swabs had 1.2 log(CFU/g) higher means of aerobic bacteria than romaine tissue grab samples (p<0.001), but 1.7 log(CFU/g) lower coliforms (p<0.001). In-harvest, aerobic bacteria means from gloves worn by harvesters and swabs from harvester chute were 0.5 log(CFU/g) higher than romaine samples from leftover trims (p<0.001) and bin tops (p=0.01), respectively. Coliform recovery means from gloves was not significantly different from romaine leftover trims (p=0.99). Swabs from harvester chute and bin tops recovered 1.6 and 1.4 log(CFU/g) lower coliforms means (p<0.001) than romaine from bin tops, respectively. Generic E. coli was only recovered from one romaine leftover trim grab sample. During post-harvest processing, aerobic bacteria (p=0.25) and total coliforms (p=0.16) recovery from the exterior of heads was not significantly different between gloves and romaine samples, nor was aerobic bacteria (p=0.17) and total coliform (p=0.86) recovery from head interiors. These results suggest that aggregative sampling performs similar to produce grab sampling to recover quality and safety indicators and justifies testing these methods for pathogen sampling in leafy greens.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with:
Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain;
Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality;
Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation;
Food fermentations and food-related probiotics;
Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers;
Risk assessments for food-related hazards;
Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods;
Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.