Suppr超能文献

一种用于比较牛肉胴体微生物采样的切除法和湿-干擦拭法的体外系统。

An in vitro system for the comparison of excision and wet-dry swabbing for microbiological sampling of beef carcasses.

作者信息

Cenci-Goga B T, Miraglia D, Ranucci D, Branciari R, Budelli L, McCrindle C M, Cioffi A, Mammoli R

机构信息

Dipartimento di Scienze Biopatologiche, Laboratorio di Ispezione degli Alimenti di Origine Animale, Facoltà di Medicina Veterinaria, Università degli Studi di Perugia, 06126 Perugia, Italy.

出版信息

J Food Prot. 2007 Apr;70(4):930-6. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-70.4.930.

Abstract

An in vitro system for the comparison of wet-dry swabbing and surface tissue excision was developed to ascertain whether the commonly accepted statement of the advantage (in terms of bacterial recovery) of the tissue excision method is also legitimate when different kinds of bacteria are used. A total of 1,770 sections (2.5 by 10 cm) of bovine skin were individually inoculated on the subcutaneous fat side by spreading various suspensions of marker organisms (nalidixic acid-resistant Escherichia coli, vancomycin-resistant Enterococcus faecalis, and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) at different concentrations and sampled by two standard methods: cotton wet-dry swabbing and excision. Most counts from cuts sampled by excision were significantly (P < 0.05) higher than the wet-dry swabs; however, no differences were observed between the control and the sampling method when sections were inoculated with bacterial solutions at a concentration of 10(3) CFU/ml and sampled by excision. For sections inoculated with bacterial solutions at a concentration of 10(3) CFU/ml, counts given as log CFU/25 cm2 ranged from 1.97 (S. aureus sampled by wet-dry swab) to 3.06 (S. aureus sampled by excision). For sections inoculated at a concentration of 10(4), counts given as log CFU/25 cm(2) ranged from 2.15 (E. faecalis sampled by wet-dry swab) to 3.19 (S. aureus sampled by excision). For sections inoculated at 10(5), counts given as log CFU/25 cm(2) ranged from 2.94 (E. faecalis, wet-dry swab) to 3.98 (S. aureus, excision), and for sections inoculated at 106, counts given as log CFU/25 cm(2) ranged from 3.53 (E. coli, wet-dry swab) to 4.69 (S. aureus, excision). The proposed system, which enabled a considerable amount of samples to be analyzed under controlled experimental conditions and a large number of data to be generated in a short time, demonstrated among the tested microorganisms that whereas the excision method recovered the highest number of bacteria, control means were always (with the exception of an inoculum of 10(3)/ml) significantly higher than means from either of the sampling methods. Our results indicate that particular attention should be paid to the diverse microflora that can contaminate carcasses in a given slaughterhouse and that it is not appropriate to generalize by saying that the destructive method is the reference technique for the bacteriological sampling of carcasses in slaughterhouses, especially when the contamination is higher than 10(3) CFU/25 cm(2).

摘要

开发了一种用于比较湿-干擦拭法和表面组织切除法的体外系统,以确定在使用不同种类细菌时,组织切除法(在细菌回收方面)的公认优势是否也合理。总共1770块(2.5×10厘米)牛皮在皮下脂肪一侧分别接种不同浓度的标记微生物(耐萘啶酸大肠杆菌、耐万古霉素粪肠球菌和耐甲氧西林金黄色葡萄球菌)悬浮液,并通过两种标准方法取样:棉拭子湿-干擦拭法和切除法。切除取样的切口处的大多数计数显著高于(P<0.05)湿-干擦拭法;然而,当以10³CFU/ml的浓度接种细菌溶液并通过切除法取样时,对照组和取样方法之间未观察到差异。对于以10³CFU/ml浓度接种细菌溶液的切片,以log CFU/25 cm²表示的计数范围为1.97(湿-干擦拭法取样的金黄色葡萄球菌)至3.06(切除法取样的金黄色葡萄球菌)。对于以10⁴浓度接种的切片,以log CFU/25 cm²表示的计数范围为2.15(湿-干擦拭法取样的粪肠球菌)至3.19(切除法取样的金黄色葡萄球菌)。对于以10⁵接种的切片,以log CFU/25 cm²表示的计数范围为2.94(粪肠球菌,湿-干擦拭法)至3.98(金黄色葡萄球菌,切除法),对于以10⁶接种的切片,以log CFU/25 cm²表示的计数范围为3.53(大肠杆菌,湿-干擦拭法)至4.69(金黄色葡萄球菌,切除法)。所提出的系统能够在受控实验条件下分析大量样本,并在短时间内生成大量数据,在测试的微生物中表明,虽然切除法回收的细菌数量最多,但对照组的均值总是(除了接种量为10³/ml的情况)显著高于两种取样方法的均值。我们的结果表明应特别关注给定屠宰场中可能污染胴体的各种微生物群落,并且笼统地说破坏性方法是屠宰场胴体细菌学取样的参考技术是不合适的,尤其是当污染高于10³CFU/25 cm²时。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验