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

IF 4.1 2区 生物学 Q2 MICROBIOLOGY
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":4.1000,"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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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