稀释瓶混合法对生乳细菌平板计数的影响

C. N. Huhtanen, A. R. Brazis, W. Arledge, E. W. Cook, C. B. Donnelly, R. Ginn, J. Murphy, H. E. Randolph, E. L. Sing, D. I. Thompson
{"title":"稀释瓶混合法对生乳细菌平板计数的影响","authors":"C. N. Huhtanen, A. R. Brazis, W. Arledge, E. W. Cook, C. B. Donnelly, R. Ginn, J. Murphy, H. E. Randolph, E. L. Sing, D. I. Thompson","doi":"10.4315/0022-2747-33.7.269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Forty-six raw milk samples were analyzed for plate counts at 32 C by eight different laboratories; each using three mixing procedures for the initial dilution. These were: five inversions in a 5 sec period, 15 inversions in a 15 sec period, and the “standard” method of twenty-five, 1 ft long, vertical cycles in a 7 sec period. The standard method gave the highest bacterial counts (71.1 × 103/ml average) the 15-15 method was second highest (60.4 × 103/ml average) and the 5-5 method was lowest (57.8 × 103/ml average). The standard method gave significantly higher (P<0.01) bacterial counts than the other two. The inversion methods were not significantly different from each other. Tests of reproducibility (pooled average variances for each method) did not show any significant differences between mixing methods. There were significant differences in reproducibility between laboratories. There was evidence of interaction between mixing methods by samples and mixing methods by investigators.","PeriodicalId":16561,"journal":{"name":"Journal of milk and food technology","volume":"7a 1","pages":"269-273"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1970-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"EFFECT OF DILUTION BOTTLE MIXING METHODS ON PLATE COUNTS OF RAW-MILK BACTERIA\",\"authors\":\"C. N. Huhtanen, A. R. Brazis, W. Arledge, E. W. Cook, C. B. Donnelly, R. Ginn, J. Murphy, H. E. Randolph, E. L. Sing, D. I. Thompson\",\"doi\":\"10.4315/0022-2747-33.7.269\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Forty-six raw milk samples were analyzed for plate counts at 32 C by eight different laboratories; each using three mixing procedures for the initial dilution. These were: five inversions in a 5 sec period, 15 inversions in a 15 sec period, and the “standard” method of twenty-five, 1 ft long, vertical cycles in a 7 sec period. The standard method gave the highest bacterial counts (71.1 × 103/ml average) the 15-15 method was second highest (60.4 × 103/ml average) and the 5-5 method was lowest (57.8 × 103/ml average). The standard method gave significantly higher (P<0.01) bacterial counts than the other two. The inversion methods were not significantly different from each other. Tests of reproducibility (pooled average variances for each method) did not show any significant differences between mixing methods. There were significant differences in reproducibility between laboratories. There was evidence of interaction between mixing methods by samples and mixing methods by investigators.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16561,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of milk and food technology\",\"volume\":\"7a 1\",\"pages\":\"269-273\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1970-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of milk and food technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4315/0022-2747-33.7.269\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of milk and food technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4315/0022-2747-33.7.269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

8个不同的实验室对46份原料奶样品进行了32℃平板计数分析;每次使用三种混合程序进行初始稀释。这三种方法分别是:在5秒内进行5次反转,在15秒内进行15次反转,以及在7秒内进行25次1英尺长的垂直循环的“标准”方法。标准法细菌计数最高(平均71.1 × 103/ml), 15-15法次之(平均60.4 × 103/ml), 5-5法最低(平均57.8 × 103/ml)。标准法的细菌计数显著高于其他两种方法(P<0.01)。反演方法间差异不显著。可重复性试验(每种方法的汇总平均方差)未显示混合方法之间有任何显著差异。实验室间的重复性有显著差异。有证据表明,样品混合方法和调查人员混合方法之间存在相互作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
EFFECT OF DILUTION BOTTLE MIXING METHODS ON PLATE COUNTS OF RAW-MILK BACTERIA
Forty-six raw milk samples were analyzed for plate counts at 32 C by eight different laboratories; each using three mixing procedures for the initial dilution. These were: five inversions in a 5 sec period, 15 inversions in a 15 sec period, and the “standard” method of twenty-five, 1 ft long, vertical cycles in a 7 sec period. The standard method gave the highest bacterial counts (71.1 × 103/ml average) the 15-15 method was second highest (60.4 × 103/ml average) and the 5-5 method was lowest (57.8 × 103/ml average). The standard method gave significantly higher (P<0.01) bacterial counts than the other two. The inversion methods were not significantly different from each other. Tests of reproducibility (pooled average variances for each method) did not show any significant differences between mixing methods. There were significant differences in reproducibility between laboratories. There was evidence of interaction between mixing methods by samples and mixing methods by investigators.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Coagulation of Milk with Immobilized Proteases: A Review A Strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa Resistant to a Quaternary Ammonium Compound: III. Electron Microscopy Integrating Food Production into Nature's Biogeochemical Cycles Classification by Numerical Taxonomy of Staphylococci Isolated From the Bovine Udder Assurance of Microbiological Safety in a University Feeding System
×
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:481959085
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