4.7 Article

Incidence of pathogenic psychrotrophs in ice creams sold in some retail outlets in Mumbai, India

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 77-83

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0956-7135(99)00027-4

关键词

ice cream; food safety; pathogens; psychrotrops

向作者/读者索取更多资源

With a view to determine the microbial quality of ice creams, 30 samples of commercial brands of three flavours sold in the 'open' and 'packaged, (cone, cup)' forms were analyzed for their total bacterial counts (TBC), yeast and mold counts (YMC), coliforms and pathogenic psychrotrophs; Bacillus cereus, Staphylococcus aureus, Lister-in monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica and Salmonella spp. In general in both the types of ice creams bacterial load (2.3 x 10(4)-8.5 x 10(6) cfu/ml) was higher; particularly coliform levels were 10-100 fold higher (3.0 x 10(2)-5.8 x 10(4) cfu/ml)than the safety limits prescribed by Indian Standards Institute (ISI). Staph. aureus was detected in both the types of ice creams but occurrence of B. cereus was more frequent in open samples (40%) than in packed ones (26.6%). Salmonella was not detected in any of the 30 samples tested. While 53% of the packed and 100% of the open ice creams exhibited Listeria contamination, Yersinia were detected in 33% of packed and 40% of open ones. L. monocytogenes and/or Y. enterocolitica was detected only in one of the open ice cream samples. Growth profile of Y. enterocolitica 5692 and L. monocytogenes 036 at simulated temperature abuse conditions during commercial frozen storage showed that after 10 days L. monocytogenes could grow to >1 log and 1 log cycle at 8-10 degrees C and 2-4 degrees C, respectively and Y. enterocolitica grew 2 log cycles at both the temperatures. Results are discussed in the context of present microbiological specifications and the need for its implementation by regulatory agencies to ward off possible health hazards arising from pathogens. (C) 2000 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. 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