Comparison of sponging and excising as sampling procedures for microbiological analysis of fresh beef-carcass tissue

被引:28
作者
Ware, LM [1 ]
Kain, ML [1 ]
Sofos, JN [1 ]
Belk, KE [1 ]
Smith, GC [1 ]
机构
[1] Colorado State Univ, Dept Anim Sci, Ctr Red Meat Safety, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
关键词
D O I
10.4315/0362-028X-62.11.1255
中图分类号
Q81 [生物工程学(生物技术)]; Q93 [微生物学];
学科分类号
071005 ; 0836 ; 090102 ; 100705 ;
摘要
Sponging and excising were evaluated as sampling procedures for microbiological analysis of beef-carcass tissue. Brisket tissue portions (10 X 10 cm) were inoculated with 2 ml of an Escherichia coli ATCC 25922 cell suspension (3 X 10(8) CFU/ml). After 30 min, the portions were sampled by excising (EX) or swabbing (SP) with a sterile sponge and were analyzed for aerobic plate counts on tryptic soy agar and for total coliform counts and E. coli counts on Petrifilm E. coli count plates. Another set of inoculated samples was analyzed after being spray washed, in sequence, with water (6 s, 35 degrees C, 3.4 bar), acetic acid (2%, 6 s, 35 degrees C, 2.1 bar), water (20 s, 42 degrees C, 20.7 bar), and acetic acid (2%, 6 s, 35 degrees C, 2.1 bar). Additional samples were sampled for analysis after chilling at 7 degrees C for 24 h. Bacterial counts recovered were influenced (P less than or equal to 0.05) by procedure of sampling (EX versus SP), time of sampling (0.5 versus 24 h), and by their interactions. Counts recovered 0.5 h after inoculation from unwashed or spray-washed samples were similar between the two sampling procedures (EX and SP). However, counts recovered after 24 h of sample storage were significantly (P less than or equal to 0.05) lower for the SP compared with the EX procedure. The results indicated that as the carcass tissue was stored, recovery of bacteria by SP was less efficient than was recovery by EX.
引用
收藏
页码:1255 / 1259
页数:5
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] EVALUATION OF SWAB AND TISSUE EXCISION METHODS FOR RECOVERING MICROORGANISMS FROM WASHED AND SANITIZED BEEF CARCASSES
    ANDERSON, ME
    HUFF, HE
    NAUMANN, HD
    MARSHALL, RT
    DAMARE, J
    JOHNSTON, R
    PRATT, M
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION, 1987, 50 (09) : 741 - 743
  • [2] AVENS JS, 1970, APPL MICROBIOL, V20, P129, DOI 10.1108/10650740310455586
  • [3] COMPARISON OF 3 METHODS FOR ESTIMATING SURFACE BACTERIA ON PORK CARCASSES
    CORDRAY, JC
    HUFFMAN, DL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION, 1985, 48 (07) : 582 - 584
  • [4] Decontamination of inoculated beef with sequential spraying treatments
    Delmore, LRG
    Sofos, JN
    Schmidt, GR
    Smith, GC
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, 1998, 63 (05) : 890 - 893
  • [5] Efficacy of using a sponge sampling method to recover low levels of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella typhimurium, and aerobic bacteria from beef carcass surface tissue
    Dorsa, WJ
    Siragusa, GR
    Cutter, CN
    Berry, ED
    Koohmaraie, M
    [J]. FOOD MICROBIOLOGY, 1997, 14 (01) : 63 - 69
  • [6] Evaluation of six sampling methods for recovery of bacteria from beef carcass surfaces
    Dorsa, WJ
    Cutter, CN
    Siragusa, GR
    [J]. LETTERS IN APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY, 1996, 22 (01) : 39 - 41
  • [7] EMSWILLER MS, 1978, J FOOD PROTECT, V41, P546
  • [8] COMPARISON OF 3 SAMPLING TECHNIQUES FOR MICROBIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS OF MEAT SURFACES
    FLISS, I
    SIMARD, RE
    ETTRIKI, A
    [J]. JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE, 1991, 56 (01) : 249 - +
  • [9] *FOOD SAF INSP SER, 1996, RED REG, V61, P38805
  • [10] GANTS R, 1997, MEAT POULT MAG OCT, P44