Suppr超能文献

来自网络和当地零售市场的碎牛肉及牛肉饼微生物质量比较。

Comparison of the microbial quality of ground beef and ground beef patties from internet and local retail markets.

作者信息

Pao S, Ettinger M R

机构信息

Virginia State University, Agricultural Research Station, P.O. Box 9061, Petersburg, Virginia, USA.

出版信息

J Food Prot. 2009 Aug;72(8):1722-6. doi: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.8.1722.

Abstract

This study evaluated the microbial quality of ground beef and ground beef patties sold at local (Virginia) and Internet (U.S.) retail markets. A total of 152 ground beef products, consisting of locally purchased raw ground beef (LRG) and frozen beef patties (LFP) and Internet-procured frozen ground beef (IFG) and frozen beef patties (IFP), were tested. Results showed that LFP had significantly lower levels of aerobic mesophiles, psychrotrophs, and coliforms than LRG, IFG, and IFP. Furthermore, IFG had greater numbers of Escherichia coli than LRG and LFP. No sample was contaminated with E. coli 0157: H7, but one duplicate set of summer LFP samples contained Salmonella. Listeria spp. were present in 25 and 29% of samples from local and Internet markets, respectively. About 5.0, 11.1, 10.5, and 7.9% of LRG, LFP, IFG, and IFP samples were contaminated with L. monocytogenes. This study identified differences in microbial quality between local and Internet products. Careful handling and thorough cooking of ground beef products, regardless of market source, are recommended to prevent foodborne illness.

摘要

本研究评估了在当地(弗吉尼亚州)和互联网(美国)零售市场销售的碎牛肉和牛肉饼的微生物质量。共测试了152种碎牛肉产品,包括当地购买的生碎牛肉(LRG)、冷冻牛肉饼(LFP)以及通过互联网采购的冷冻碎牛肉(IFG)和冷冻牛肉饼(IFP)。结果显示,LFP的需氧嗜温菌、嗜冷菌和大肠菌群水平显著低于LRG、IFG和IFP。此外,IFG的大肠杆菌数量多于LRG和LFP。没有样本被大肠杆菌O157:H7污染,但一组夏季LFP重复样本中含有沙门氏菌。当地和互联网市场的样本中分别有25%和29%存在李斯特菌属。LRG、LFP、IFG和IFP样本中分别约有5.0%、11.1%、10.5%和7.9%被产单核细胞李斯特菌污染。本研究确定了当地产品和互联网产品在微生物质量上的差异。建议无论市场来源如何,都要谨慎处理并彻底烹饪碎牛肉产品,以预防食源性疾病。

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