Jiaying Wu, Gabriella Pinto, Erin Kealey, Cecil Barnett-Neefs, Matthew J. Stasiewicz
{"title":"Comparison of Alternative Wetting Agents for Drag and Bootie Swabs for Agricultural Soil Sampling","authors":"Jiaying Wu, Gabriella Pinto, Erin Kealey, Cecil Barnett-Neefs, Matthew J. Stasiewicz","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Drag and bootie swabs have been used in animal (e.g., poultry litter) and produce (e.g., soil) production for food safety purposes in place of grabs. Skim milk, the industry standard wetting agent for drags and booties, is not ideal for produce soil sampling due to its allergenic properties and animal-based origin, and (depending on preparation) low shelf stability. This study evaluated alternative wetting agents – tryptic soy broth, buffered peptone water, phosphate buffered saline, or deionized water – for hydrating drags and booties. Sampling was performed in fields with untreated swine manure and untreated dairy manure, with a total of 220 drags, 220 booties, and 44 grabs collected along 100 m paths. Indicator organisms including aerobic plate counts (APCs), total coliforms, and <em>Escherichia coli</em> were enumerated. Both wetting agents (<em>p</em> < 0.001) and sampling methods (<em>p</em> < 0.001) significantly affected the recovery of indicator organisms. In the field with swine manure, mean recovery differences between wetting agents ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 log(CFU/g) for APCs and 0.1 to 0.6 log(CFU/g) for total coliforms. In the field with dairy manure, mean recovery differences between wetting agents ranged from 0.0 to 0.2 log(CFU/g) for APCs, 0.1 to 0.4 log(CFU/g) for total coliforms, and 0.1 to 0.4 log(CFU/g) for <em>E. coli</em>. Overall, differences between wetting agents were small and suggest one could select wetting agents for future method development and industry use based on which are most practical for use in produce safety, such as most shelf stable and not animal sourced.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 9","pages":"Article 100573"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-30","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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X25001255","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
Drag and bootie swabs have been used in animal (e.g., poultry litter) and produce (e.g., soil) production for food safety purposes in place of grabs. Skim milk, the industry standard wetting agent for drags and booties, is not ideal for produce soil sampling due to its allergenic properties and animal-based origin, and (depending on preparation) low shelf stability. This study evaluated alternative wetting agents – tryptic soy broth, buffered peptone water, phosphate buffered saline, or deionized water – for hydrating drags and booties. Sampling was performed in fields with untreated swine manure and untreated dairy manure, with a total of 220 drags, 220 booties, and 44 grabs collected along 100 m paths. Indicator organisms including aerobic plate counts (APCs), total coliforms, and Escherichia coli were enumerated. Both wetting agents (p < 0.001) and sampling methods (p < 0.001) significantly affected the recovery of indicator organisms. In the field with swine manure, mean recovery differences between wetting agents ranged from 0.1 to 0.2 log(CFU/g) for APCs and 0.1 to 0.6 log(CFU/g) for total coliforms. In the field with dairy manure, mean recovery differences between wetting agents ranged from 0.0 to 0.2 log(CFU/g) for APCs, 0.1 to 0.4 log(CFU/g) for total coliforms, and 0.1 to 0.4 log(CFU/g) for E. coli. Overall, differences between wetting agents were small and suggest one could select wetting agents for future method development and industry use based on which are most practical for use in produce safety, such as most shelf stable and not animal sourced.
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.