4.4 Article

Microbiological Assessment of Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Sold for Consumption in Ghana

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD QUALITY
卷 2023, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1155/2023/7836774

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study examined microbial pathogens contaminating groundnuts after harvesting, revealing that samples from Bolgatanga were the most contaminated while Chiana had the least contamination. Several bacterial and fungal genera were isolated as the main microbial pathogens contaminating the produce. Proper hygiene standards must be adopted during postharvest handling to avoid microbial contamination.
The postharvest processes of groundnuts often become sources of microbial contamination leading to infections and intoxication. Hence, this study examined the microbial pathogens contaminating groundnuts after harvesting. About 50 samples were randomly collected from four major groundnut-producing towns: Bolgatanga, Chiana, Navrongo, and Bongo, all in the Upper East Region of Northern Ghana, and microbiologically examined using Analytical Profile Index (API & REG; 20E). The results revealed that samples from Bolgatanga were the most contaminated, while Chiana has the least contaminated samples. Several species of bacterial genera such as Staphylococcus, Proteus, Escherichia, Bacillus, and Micrococcus, and fungal genera including Aspergillus, Fusarium, Rhizopus, Mucor, Saccharomyces, and Eurotium were isolated as the main microbial pathogens contaminating the produce. Navrongo and Bolgatanga recorded the highest rate of bacterial species for unshelled (29.5%) and shelled (30.4%) groundnuts, respectively, while Bongo and Bolgatanga registered the highest rate of fungal species under unshelled (32.8%) and shelled (32.6%) groundnuts, respectively. Due to the high levels of microbial contamination of most of the samples and the kind of microbial species involved, proper hygiene standards must be adopted during the postharvest handling of the shelled and unshelled groundnuts.

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