猪肉经乳酸和过氧乙酸处理后沙门氏菌血清反应的差异。

IF 2.1 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Mariana Fernandez, Alexandra Calle
{"title":"猪肉经乳酸和过氧乙酸处理后沙门氏菌血清反应的差异。","authors":"Mariana Fernandez, Alexandra Calle","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100403","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Pathogen control in the meat industry relies on the effectiveness of post-harvest interventions in reducing microbial populations. This study investigated differences in the survival of Salmonella serovars when exposed to organic acids used as antimicrobials on raw pork meat. Seven serovars were included in this study (S. Newport, S. Kentucky, S. Typhimurium, S. Dublin, S. Heidelberg, S. Infantis, and S. Enteritidis).Multi-strain serovar cocktails were prepared and tested against lactic acid (LA) and peracetic acid PAA at two concentrations, LA 2 and 4% and PAA 200 and 400 ppm. Pork samples were assigned to each serovar, inoculated with 6.0 Log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>Salmonella (one serovar at a time), and treated with the corresponding antimicrobials. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the effects of serovar and antimicrobial concentrations on Salmonella survival. A significant main effect of serovar was identified, indicating that Salmonella concentration and reduction rate were significantly affected by serovar. Similarly, a significant main effect of antimicrobials was observed, suggesting that the treatment types impacted Salmonella concentration and reduction rate. However, the interaction effect between serovar and antimicrobial was not significant. Post-hoc comparisons indicate that PAA 400 ppm is more effective at reducing Salmonella concentrations and that S. Dublin may be more susceptible than S. Newport to antimicrobial sprays. Additionally, under PAA exposure, only S. Dublin, S. Kentucky, and S. Heidelberg showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) compared with the control, indicating that these three serovars are more susceptible to PAA treatments than the rest. The behavior of different Salmonella serovars under stress conditions can give us an insight into how these pathogens survive processing.</p>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":" ","pages":"100403"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in Salmonella serovars response to Lactic Acid and Peracetic Acid treatment applied to pork.\",\"authors\":\"Mariana Fernandez, Alexandra Calle\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100403\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Pathogen control in the meat industry relies on the effectiveness of post-harvest interventions in reducing microbial populations. This study investigated differences in the survival of Salmonella serovars when exposed to organic acids used as antimicrobials on raw pork meat. Seven serovars were included in this study (S. Newport, S. Kentucky, S. Typhimurium, S. Dublin, S. Heidelberg, S. Infantis, and S. Enteritidis).Multi-strain serovar cocktails were prepared and tested against lactic acid (LA) and peracetic acid PAA at two concentrations, LA 2 and 4% and PAA 200 and 400 ppm. Pork samples were assigned to each serovar, inoculated with 6.0 Log CFU/cm<sup>2</sup>Salmonella (one serovar at a time), and treated with the corresponding antimicrobials. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the effects of serovar and antimicrobial concentrations on Salmonella survival. A significant main effect of serovar was identified, indicating that Salmonella concentration and reduction rate were significantly affected by serovar. Similarly, a significant main effect of antimicrobials was observed, suggesting that the treatment types impacted Salmonella concentration and reduction rate. However, the interaction effect between serovar and antimicrobial was not significant. Post-hoc comparisons indicate that PAA 400 ppm is more effective at reducing Salmonella concentrations and that S. Dublin may be more susceptible than S. Newport to antimicrobial sprays. Additionally, under PAA exposure, only S. Dublin, S. Kentucky, and S. Heidelberg showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) compared with the control, indicating that these three serovars are more susceptible to PAA treatments than the rest. The behavior of different Salmonella serovars under stress conditions can give us an insight into how these pathogens survive processing.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"100403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"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.2024.100403\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100403","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

摘要

肉类行业的病原体控制依赖于收获后干预措施在减少微生物数量方面的有效性。本研究调查了生猪肉接触用作抗菌剂的有机酸后沙门氏菌血清存活率的差异。制备了多菌株血清混合物,并针对两种浓度的乳酸(LA)和过乙酸(PAA)进行了测试:LA 浓度分别为 2% 和 4%,PAA 浓度分别为 200 ppm 和 400 ppm。将猪肉样品分配给每种血清,接种 6.0 Log CFU/cm2 的沙门氏菌(每次一个血清),并用相应的抗菌剂处理。进行了双向方差分析,以研究血清型和抗菌剂浓度对沙门氏菌存活率的影响。结果表明,血清型的主效应很明显,这表明沙门氏菌的浓度和减少率受血清型的影响很大。同样,抗菌剂也有明显的主效应,表明处理类型对沙门氏菌浓度和减少率有影响。不过,血清型和抗菌剂之间的交互效应并不明显。事后比较表明,PAA 400 ppm 能更有效地降低沙门氏菌浓度,都柏林沙门氏菌可能比新港沙门氏菌更容易受到抗菌喷雾的影响。此外,在暴露于 PAA 的情况下,只有都柏林沙门氏菌、肯塔基沙门氏菌和海德堡沙门氏菌显示出显著的统计学差异(P<0.05)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in Salmonella serovars response to Lactic Acid and Peracetic Acid treatment applied to pork.

Pathogen control in the meat industry relies on the effectiveness of post-harvest interventions in reducing microbial populations. This study investigated differences in the survival of Salmonella serovars when exposed to organic acids used as antimicrobials on raw pork meat. Seven serovars were included in this study (S. Newport, S. Kentucky, S. Typhimurium, S. Dublin, S. Heidelberg, S. Infantis, and S. Enteritidis).Multi-strain serovar cocktails were prepared and tested against lactic acid (LA) and peracetic acid PAA at two concentrations, LA 2 and 4% and PAA 200 and 400 ppm. Pork samples were assigned to each serovar, inoculated with 6.0 Log CFU/cm2Salmonella (one serovar at a time), and treated with the corresponding antimicrobials. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted to examine the effects of serovar and antimicrobial concentrations on Salmonella survival. A significant main effect of serovar was identified, indicating that Salmonella concentration and reduction rate were significantly affected by serovar. Similarly, a significant main effect of antimicrobials was observed, suggesting that the treatment types impacted Salmonella concentration and reduction rate. However, the interaction effect between serovar and antimicrobial was not significant. Post-hoc comparisons indicate that PAA 400 ppm is more effective at reducing Salmonella concentrations and that S. Dublin may be more susceptible than S. Newport to antimicrobial sprays. Additionally, under PAA exposure, only S. Dublin, S. Kentucky, and S. Heidelberg showed statistically significant differences (P<0.05) compared with the control, indicating that these three serovars are more susceptible to PAA treatments than the rest. The behavior of different Salmonella serovars under stress conditions can give us an insight into how these pathogens survive processing.

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
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
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.
×
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