4.7 Article

Evaluation of phage-based magnetoelastic biosensors for direct detection of Salmonella Typhimurium on spinach leaves

期刊

SENSORS AND ACTUATORS B-CHEMICAL
卷 176, 期 -, 页码 1134-1140

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.snb.2012.10.084

关键词

Spinach leaves; Phage-based magnetoelastic biosensor; Quantitative PCR; Salmonella Typhimurium; Limit of detection; Repeatability

资金

  1. Auburn University Detection and Food Safety (AUDFS) Center
  2. USDA-CSREES [204327 130851 2000]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

For a phage-based magnetoelastic (ME) biosensor method to become accepted for evaluating foodborne contamination, the method of use must be objectively compared, evaluated and validated against more widely accepted standard methods. In this study, a ME biosensor method was evaluated by comparison with TaqMan-based quantitative PCR (qPCR) for the detection of Salmonella Typhimurium on spinach leaves. Limit of detection (LOD) was determined after serial inoculation of S. Typhimurium on spinach leaves. The LOD for the ME biosensor was 2.17 and 1.94 log CFU/spinach for adaxial and abaxial surface, respectively. The LOD for qPCR was 1.37 log CFU/spinach. The repeatability of both methods was measured over a three day period by inoculation of S. Typhimurium on spinach leaves. The repeatability of the ME biosensor method was determined to be 6.38%, competitive with qPCR at 1.92%. For the direct comparison of both methods, 3 log CFU/spinach of S. Typhimurium was grown on two groups of 25 spinach leaves for 24 h and the number of S. Typhimurium was quantified by both methods. After confirmation of the growth, S. Typhimurium was positively detected and the quantified numbers were 5.79 +/- 0.88 and 6.11 +/- 0.26 log CFU/spinach for the ME biosensor and the qPCR method, respectively. This study demonstrated that the ME biosensor method was competitive and promising as an on-site and in-field detection method for the detection of pathogens. (C) 2012 Elsevier B. V. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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