4.3 Article

Collaborative Survey on the Colonization of Different Types of Cheese-Processing Facilities with Listeria monocytogenes

期刊

FOODBORNE PATHOGENS AND DISEASE
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 8-14

出版社

MARY ANN LIEBERT, INC
DOI: 10.1089/fpd.2013.1578

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [036272]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cross-contamination via equipment and the food-processing environment has been implicated as the main cause of Listeria monocytogenes transmission. The aim of this study, therefore, was to determine the occurrence and potential persistence of L. monocytogenes in 19 European cheese-processing facilities. A sampling approach in 2007-2008 included, respectively, 11 and two industrial cheese producers in Austria and the Czech Republic, as well as six Irish on-farm cheese producers. From some of the producers, isolates were available from sampling before 2007. All isolates from both periods were included in a strain collection consisting of 226 L. monocytogenes isolates, which were then typed by serotyping and pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). In addition, metabolic fingerprints from a subset of isolates were obtained by means of Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. PFGE typing showed that six processing environments were colonized with seven persistent PFGE types of L. monocytogenes. Multilocus sequence typing undertaken on representatives of the seven persisting PFGE types grouped them into distinct clades on the basis of country and origin; however, two persistent strains from an Austrian and an Irish food processor were shown to be clonal. It was concluded that despite the fact that elaborate Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point concepts and cleaning programs are applied, persistent occurrence of L. monocytogenes can take place during cheese making. L. monocytogenes sanitation programs could be strengthened by including rapid analytical tools, such as FTIR, which allow prescreening of potentially persistent L. monocytogenes contaminants.

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

4.3
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