农业土壤取样中拖带和靴拭子湿润剂的比较。

IF 2.8 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Jiaying Wu, Gabriella Pinto, Erin Kealey, Cecil Barnett-Neefs, Matthew J. Stasiewicz
{"title":"农业土壤取样中拖带和靴拭子湿润剂的比较。","authors":"Jiaying Wu,&nbsp;Gabriella Pinto,&nbsp;Erin Kealey,&nbsp;Cecil Barnett-Neefs,&nbsp;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> &lt; 0.001) and sampling methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 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":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Alternative Wetting Agents for Drag and Bootie Swabs for Agricultural Soil Sampling\",\"authors\":\"Jiaying Wu,&nbsp;Gabriella Pinto,&nbsp;Erin Kealey,&nbsp;Cecil Barnett-Neefs,&nbsp;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> &lt; 0.001) and sampling methods (<em>p</em> &lt; 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}","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

摘要

为了食品安全目的,已在动物(如家禽粪便)和农产品(如土壤)生产中使用拖拭子和靴拭子来代替抓斗。脱脂牛奶是拖曳和靴子的工业标准润湿剂,由于其致敏性和动物来源,以及(取决于制备)低货架稳定性,它不是农产品土壤取样的理想选择。本研究评估了可选择的湿润剂——色氨酸大豆肉汤、缓冲蛋白胨水、磷酸盐缓冲盐水或去离子水——用于水化拖曳物和靴。在有未经处理的猪粪和奶牛粪的田地中进行采样,沿着100米的路径共收集了220个拖拽、220个战利品和44个抓取物。指示生物包括好氧平板计数(APCs)、总大肠菌群和大肠杆菌。湿润剂(p < 0.001)和采样方法(p < 0.001)对指示生物的回收率均有显著影响。在猪粪田,不同润湿剂对apc和总大肠菌群的平均回收率差异分别为0.1 ~ 0.2 log(CFU/g)和0.1 ~ 0.6 log(CFU/g)。在牛粪田,不同润湿剂对APCs的平均回收率差异为0.0 ~ 0.2 log(CFU/g),对总大肠菌的平均回收率差异为0.1 ~ 0.4 log(CFU/g),对大肠杆菌的平均回收率差异为0.1 ~ 0.4 log(CFU/g)。总的来说,润湿剂之间的差异很小,这表明人们可以根据在生产安全中最实际的使用来选择润湿剂,例如最稳定的货架和非动物来源。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of Alternative Wetting Agents for Drag and Bootie Swabs for Agricultural Soil Sampling
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.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信