4.7 Article

Efficacy of Vibrio parahaemolyticus depuration in oysters (Crassostrea gigas)

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 79, 期 -, 页码 35-40

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2018.10.005

关键词

Vibrio parahaemolyticus; Oysters; Post-harvest process; Depuration; Seafood safety

资金

  1. Oregon State University Agricultural Research Foundation [ARF8314A]
  2. Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station Competitive Grant [MAES2955340]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the influences of seawater to oyster ratio on depuration for decontaminating V. parahaemolyticus in raw oysters with a goal of identifying the proper ratio of oyster to seawater capable of improving the efficacy of the depuration process. The water to oyster ratios tested in this study ranged from 1.0 to 2.5 L of artificial seawater (ASW) per oyster (40 oysters in 40, 60, 80 and 100 L ASW). The depuration efficacy for purging V. parahaemolyticus from oysters was highest when we applied a 2:1, followed by 1.5:1, 2.5:1, and 1:1 L of ASW/oyster. Further studies of depuration with 2:1 L of ASW/oyster found that the concentration of V. parahaemolyticus in oysters decreased in a nonlinear manner. The depuration curve was fitted to a one phase decay model with a coefficient of determination (R-2) of 0.933. The time for a 3 log reduction was 1.75 days with a 95% confidence interval from 1.65 to 1.85 days, which meets the FDA's requirement of larger than a 3.0 log (MPN/g) reduction as a post-harvest process for V. parahaemolyticus control. After 4 days levels in all trials were < 100 MPN/g meeting performance standards established by Japan and Canada. Furthermore, the time for a 3.52 log reduction was 3.17 days with a 95% confidence interval from 2.92 to 3.54 days but it took 5 days to reduce levels to < 30 MPN/g, which satisfies FDA's requirement as a post-harvest control process (> 3.52 log MPN/g reduction) for the purpose of making safety added labeling claims for V. parahaemolyticus.

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