4.4 Article

Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes in Leafy Green Vegetables Consumed at Salad Bars

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 73, 期 2, 页码 274-285

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-73.2.274

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fresh vegetables are increasingly recognized as a source of foodborne outbreaks in many parts of the world. The purpose of this study was to conduct a quantitative microbial risk assessment for Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and and Listeria monocytogenes infection from consumption of leafy green vegetables in salad bars in The Netherlands. Pathogen growth was modeled in Aladin (Agro Logistics Analysis and Design Instrument) using time-temperature profiles in the chilled supply chain and one particular restaurant with a salad bar. A second-order Monte Carlo risk assessment model was constructed (using @Risk) to estimate the public health effects. The temperature in the studied cold chain as well controlled below 5 degrees C. Growth of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella was minimal (17 and 15%, respectively). Growth of L. monocytogenes was considerably greater (194%). Based on first-order Monte Carlo simulations, the average number of cases per year in The Netherlands associated the consumption leafy greens in salads from salad bars was 166, 187. and 0.3 for E. coli 01 57:H7, Salmonella. and L. monocytogenes, respectively. The ranges of the average number of annual cases as estimated by second-order Monte Carlo simulation (with prevalence and number of visitors as uncertain variables) were 42 to 551 for E. coli O157:H7, 81 to 281 for Salmonella, and 0.1 to 0.9 for L. monocytogenes. This study included an integration of modeling pathogen growth in the supply chain of fresh leafy vegetables destined for restaurant salad bars using software designed to model and design logistics and modeling file Public health effects using probabilistic risk assessment software.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据