4.7 Article

Microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed vegetables marketed in Campinas, SP-Brazil, as assessed by traditional and alternative methods

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 258-264

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.05.021

关键词

Ready-to-eat vegetables; Rapid methods; Salmonella; Listeria monocytogenes; Microbiological quality; Food safety

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)
  3. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a total of 172 samples of minimally processed vegetables (MPV) were collected from supermarkets in the city of Campinas, Brazil. The MPV were analyzed using traditional and/or alternative methods for total aerobic mesophilic bacteria, total coliforms, Escherichia coli, coagulase positive staphylococci, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes. All the MPV analyzed presented populations of aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and total coliforms were >4 log(10) CFU/g and 1.0-3.4 log(10) CFU/g, respectively. E. coli was enumerated in only 10 samples out of 172 collected, while none of the 172 samples of MPV presented contamination by coagulase positive Staphylococcus (<10(1) CFU/g). Among the four methods used for detection of Salmonella in MPV (Vidas, 1,2 Test, Reveal, and Traditional), when Reveal was used a total of 29 positive samples were reported. For L monocytogenes, the four methods tested (Vidas, Vip, Reveal, and traditional) performed similarly. The presence of Salmonella and L monocytogenes in MPV was confirmed in one (watercress) and two samples (watercress and escarole), respectively. In conclusion, it has been observed that the microbiological quality of MPV commercialized in Campinas is generally satisfactory. Besides, the choice of microbiological method should be based not only on resource and time issues, but also on parameters such as sensitivity and specificity for the specific foods under ahalysis. (C) 2012 Elsevier 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