Branck Tobyn A, Hurley Matthew J, Prata Gianna N, Crivello Christina A, Marek Patrick J
Biological Science and Technology Team, Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, USA.
Design, Engineering, and Fabrication Team, Engineering Cell, Natick Soldier Research, Development and Engineering Center, Natick, Massachusetts, USA.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 2017 May 17;83(11). doi: 10.1128/AEM.00109-17. Print 2017 Jun 1.
is of great concern in food processing facilities because it persists in biofilms, facilitating biotransfer. Stainless steel is commonly used for food contact surfaces and transport containers. biofilms on stainless steel served as a model system for surface sampling, to test the performance of a sonicating swab in comparison with a standard cotton swab. Swab performance and consistency were determined using total viable counts. Stainless steel coupons sampled with both types of swabs were examined using scanning electron microscopy, to visualize biofilms and surface structures (i.e., polishing grooves and scratches). Laser scanning confocal microscopy was used to image and to quantitate the biofilms remaining after sampling with each swab type. The total viable counts were significantly higher ( ≤ 0.05) with the sonicating swab than with the standard swab in each trial. The sonicating swab was more consistent in cell recovery than was the standard swab, with coefficients of variation ranging from 8.9% to 12.3% and from 7.1% to 37.6%, respectively. Scanning electron microscopic imaging showed that biofilms remained in the polished grooves of the coupons sampled with the standard swab but were noticeably absent with the sonicating swab. Percent area measurements of biofilms remaining on the stainless steel coupons showed significantly ( ≤ 0.05) less biofilm remaining when the sonicating swab was used (median, 1.1%), compared with the standard swab (median, 70.4%). The sonicating swab provided greater recovery of cells, with more consistency, than did the standard swab, and it is employs sonication, suction, and scrubbing. Inadequate surface sampling can result in foodborne illness outbreaks from biotransfer, since verification of sanitization protocols relies on surface sampling and recovery of microorganisms for detection and enumeration. Swabbing is a standard method for microbiological sampling of surfaces. Although swabbing offers portability and ease of use, there are limitations, such as high user variability and low recovery rates, which can be attributed to many different causes. This study demonstrates some benefits that a sonicating swab has over a standard swab for removal and collection of microbiological samples from a surface, to provide better verification of surface cleanliness and to help decrease the potential for biotransfer of pathogens into foods.
在食品加工设施中是一个重大问题,因为它会在生物膜中持续存在,促进生物转移。不锈钢常用于食品接触表面和运输容器。不锈钢表面的生物膜用作表面采样的模型系统,以测试超声擦拭棒与标准棉拭子相比的性能。使用总活菌数来确定拭子的性能和一致性。用两种拭子采样的不锈钢试片通过扫描电子显微镜进行检查,以观察生物膜和表面结构(即抛光凹槽和划痕)。激光扫描共聚焦显微镜用于对每种拭子采样后残留的生物膜进行成像和定量。在每个试验中,超声擦拭棒的总活菌数显著高于(≤0.05)标准拭子。超声擦拭棒在细胞回收方面比标准拭子更一致,变异系数分别为8.9%至12.3%和7.1%至37.6%。扫描电子显微镜成像显示,用标准拭子采样的试片抛光凹槽中仍有生物膜,但超声擦拭棒采样的试片明显没有。不锈钢试片上残留生物膜的面积百分比测量显示,使用超声擦拭棒时残留的生物膜显著(≤0.05)少于标准拭子(中位数分别为1.1%和70.4%)。与标准拭子相比,超声擦拭棒能更一致地回收更多细胞,并且它采用了超声、抽吸和擦洗。由于卫生规程的验证依赖于表面采样和微生物的回收以进行检测和计数,表面采样不足可能导致生物转移引发食源性疾病暴发。擦拭是表面微生物采样的标准方法。尽管擦拭具有便携性和易用性,但也存在局限性,如用户变异性高和回收率低,这可归因于许多不同原因。本研究证明了超声擦拭棒相对于标准拭子在从表面去除和收集微生物样本方面的一些优势,以更好地验证表面清洁度并有助于降低病原体向食品生物转移的可能性。