Comparison of the agar contact method and the wet-dry double swabbing method for determining the total viable bacterial count on pig carcass surfaces

IF 1.4 3区 农林科学 Q4 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Roland Fürstenberg, Diana Meemken, Susann Langforth, Julia Grosse-Kleimann, Lothar Kreienbrock, Nina Langkabel
{"title":"Comparison of the agar contact method and the wet-dry double swabbing method for determining the total viable bacterial count on pig carcass surfaces","authors":"Roland Fürstenberg,&nbsp;Diana Meemken,&nbsp;Susann Langforth,&nbsp;Julia Grosse-Kleimann,&nbsp;Lothar Kreienbrock,&nbsp;Nina Langkabel","doi":"10.1007/s00003-023-01473-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A practical and representative sampling method for microbiological examination of the slaughter process is useful for identifying abattoir-specific risk factors within the pig slaughter line. The aim of this study was to examine the suitability of an agar contact method (ACM), where the agar was homogenized before the microbiological processing, in comparison with the wet-dry double swabbing method (WDSM) for quantitative determination of total viable counts (TVC) on pig skin surfaces. In our experimental trial, pig skin pieces were artificially contaminated at 2 levels (3 log and 7 log cfu/ml) with a suspension of bacteria species commonly found on pig skin and cultivated in vitro. Within our field trial, pig carcasses were investigated at pre-chilling in an abattoir under standard processing conditions. For both sampling methods, TVC was determined, and statistical equivalence tests were calculated. Linear regression models showed the similarity of the sampling methods, with coefficient of determination (R<sup>2</sup>) &gt; 90% and slope parameters of nearly 1 for both trials separately. Statistically significant equivalence between the 2 sampling methods was proven in both trials (with <i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001 within an equivalence range of ± 0.5 log cfu/ml, respectively). The field trial revealed TVC on carcass surfaces sometimes at or below the lower detection limit for the ACM, while TVC from all carcasses were able to be determined by WDSM. Overall, low contamination levels were less reliably detectable by ACM than by WDSM. The ACM can be seen as an additional and suitable sampling procedure for pig skin and can contribute to the identification of abattoir specific risk factors for investigations of the hygienic status at process stages along the pig slaughter line.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":622,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety","volume":"19 1","pages":"41 - 48"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00003-023-01473-6.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00003-023-01473-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A practical and representative sampling method for microbiological examination of the slaughter process is useful for identifying abattoir-specific risk factors within the pig slaughter line. The aim of this study was to examine the suitability of an agar contact method (ACM), where the agar was homogenized before the microbiological processing, in comparison with the wet-dry double swabbing method (WDSM) for quantitative determination of total viable counts (TVC) on pig skin surfaces. In our experimental trial, pig skin pieces were artificially contaminated at 2 levels (3 log and 7 log cfu/ml) with a suspension of bacteria species commonly found on pig skin and cultivated in vitro. Within our field trial, pig carcasses were investigated at pre-chilling in an abattoir under standard processing conditions. For both sampling methods, TVC was determined, and statistical equivalence tests were calculated. Linear regression models showed the similarity of the sampling methods, with coefficient of determination (R2) > 90% and slope parameters of nearly 1 for both trials separately. Statistically significant equivalence between the 2 sampling methods was proven in both trials (with p < 0.0001 within an equivalence range of ± 0.5 log cfu/ml, respectively). The field trial revealed TVC on carcass surfaces sometimes at or below the lower detection limit for the ACM, while TVC from all carcasses were able to be determined by WDSM. Overall, low contamination levels were less reliably detectable by ACM than by WDSM. The ACM can be seen as an additional and suitable sampling procedure for pig skin and can contribute to the identification of abattoir specific risk factors for investigations of the hygienic status at process stages along the pig slaughter line.

Abstract Image

比较琼脂接触法和干湿双拭抹法测定猪屠体表面的细菌总数
对屠宰过程进行微生物检测的实用且具有代表性的取样方法有助于确定生猪屠宰线中屠宰场特有的风险因素。本研究的目的是检验琼脂接触法(ACM)与干湿双拭子法(WDSM)在定量测定猪皮表面总存活数(TVC)方面的适用性,前者是在微生物处理之前将琼脂匀浆化。在我们的实验中,猪皮片被猪皮上常见的细菌悬浮液人为污染了两个水平(3 log 和 7 log cfu/ml),并在体外进行了培养。在我们的现场试验中,猪屠体是在标准加工条件下在屠宰场预冷时进行调查的。两种取样方法都测定了 TVC,并计算了统计等效性检验。线性回归模型显示了两种采样方法的相似性,两种试验的决定系数(R2)均为 90%,斜率参数均接近 1。在这两项试验中,两种取样方法之间的统计学等效性均得到了证实(在 ± 0.5 log cfu/ml 的等效范围内,p 分别为 0.0001)。现场试验发现,有时胴体表面的 TVC 为 ACM 的检测下限或低于该检测下限,而所有胴体的 TVC 均可通过 WDSM 测定。总体而言,与 WDSM 相比,ACM 检测低污染水平的可靠性较低。ACM 可被视为猪皮的一种额外且合适的采样程序,有助于确定屠宰场的特定风险因素,以调查生猪屠宰线各加工阶段的卫生状况。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.20%
发文量
46
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The JCF publishes peer-reviewed original Research Articles and Opinions that are of direct importance to Food and Feed Safety. This includes Food Packaging, Consumer Products as well as Plant Protection Products, Food Microbiology, Veterinary Drugs, Animal Welfare and Genetic Engineering. All peer-reviewed articles that are published should be devoted to improve Consumer Health Protection. Reviews and discussions are welcomed that address legal and/or regulatory decisions with respect to risk assessment and management of Food and Feed Safety issues on a scientific basis. It addresses an international readership of scientists, risk assessors and managers, and other professionals active in the field of Food and Feed Safety and Consumer Health Protection. Manuscripts – preferably written in English but also in German – are published as Research Articles, Reviews, Methods and Short Communications and should cover aspects including, but not limited to: · Factors influencing Food and Feed Safety · Factors influencing Consumer Health Protection · Factors influencing Consumer Behavior · Exposure science related to Risk Assessment and Risk Management · Regulatory aspects related to Food and Feed Safety, Food Packaging, Consumer Products, Plant Protection Products, Food Microbiology, Veterinary Drugs, Animal Welfare and Genetic Engineering · Analytical methods and method validation related to food control and food processing. The JCF also presents important News, as well as Announcements and Reports about administrative surveillance.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信