4.4 Article

Field Evidence Supporting Conventional Onion Curing Practices as a Strategy To Mitigate Escherichia coli Contamination from Irrigation Water

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
Volume 81, Issue 3, Pages 369-376

Publisher

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-231

Keywords

Agricultural water; Escherichia coli; Field study; Irrigation water; Onions; Produce Safety Rule

Funding

  1. Oregon Department of Agriculture Specialty Crop Block Grant Program [ODA-3518-GR]
  2. Idaho-Eastern Oregon Committee

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Produce Safety Rule of the U.S. Food Safety Modernization Act includes restrictions on the use of agricultural water of poor microbiological quality. Mitigation options for poor water quality include the application of an irrigation-to-harvest interval of,4 days; however, dry bulb onion production includes an extended irrigation-to-harvest interval (<30 days). This study evaluated conventional curing practices for mitigating Escherichia coli contamination in a field setting. Well water inoculated with rifampin-resistant E. coli (1, 2, or 3 log CFU/mL) was applied to onion fields (randomized block design; n = 5) via drip tape on the final day of irrigation. Onions remained undisturbed for 7 days and were then lifted to the surface to cure for an additional 21 days before harvest. Water, onions, and soil were tested for presence of rifampin-resistant E. coli. One day after irrigation, 13.3% of onions (20 of 150) receiving the poorest quality water (3 log CFU/mL) tested positive for E. coli; this prevalence was reduced to 4% (6 of 150 onions) after 7 days. Regardless of inoculum level, E. coli was not detected on any onions beyond 15 days postirrigation. These results support conventional dry bulb onion curing practices as an effective strategy to mitigate microbiological concerns associated with poor quality irrigation water.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available