4.2 Article

Infective dose of foodborne pathogens in volunteers: A review

Journal

JOURNAL OF FOOD SAFETY
Volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 49-73

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-4565.2001.tb00307.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Risk assessment and impact of foodborne pathogens on the health of different populations was one of the goals identified in the Presidential Food Safety Initiative three-year plan. This entailed estimation of dose-response relationship for foodborne pathogens to humans, either by feeding studies or from outbreak. For certain pathogens, such as Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157. H7, there are no feeding studies due to ethical reasons, and the results from outbreaks are normally used to estimate the infectious dose. The focus of this review is to compile dose-response information in volunteers for several foodborne pathogens including Salmonella, Shigella spp., Campylobacter jejuni, Vibrio spp., Escherichia coli, Cryptosporidium parvum and Entamoeba coli. The infectious dose for different serovars of Salmonella and strains of E. coli was quite large (> 10(5) organisms), while the infectious dose for some Shigella spp. seemed to be as low as less than 10 organisms. Toxigenic V, cholerae (O1 and O139 serotypes) were infective at a dose of 10(4) organisms, a non-O1 strain was infective at a much higher dose (10(6) organisms). C. jejuni, C. parvum and Entamoeba coli appeared to have infectious doses as low as 500 organisms, 10 oocysts, and 1 cyst, respectively. The infectious dose and the dose response are dependent upon the strains used, and the age and physical condition of the individuals, and can therefore show wide variations. In addition, since many of the volunteer studies are carried out by feeding the organisms in a nonfood matrix after neutralizing the stomach acidity, results obtained may not reflect the true dose response.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available