Gathman Rachel J, Quintanilla Portillo Jorge, Reyes Gustavo A, Sullivan Genevieve, Stasiewicz Matthew J
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
SmartWash Solutions, LLC, Salinas, CA 93908, USA.
Foods. 2024 Sep 27;13(19):3080. doi: 10.3390/foods13193080.
Composite produce leaf samples from commercial production rarely test positive for pathogens, potentially due to low pathogen prevalence or the relatively small number of plants sampled. Aggregative sampling may offer a more representative alternative. This pilot study investigated whether aggregative swab samples performed similarly to produce leaf samples in their ability to recover quality indicators (APCs and coliforms), detect , and recover representative microbial profiles. Aggregative swabs of the outer leaves of romaine plants ( = 12) and composite samples consisting of various grabs of produce leaves ( = 14) were collected from 60 by 28 ft sections of a one-acre commercial romaine lettuce field. Aerobic plate counts were 9.17 ± 0.43 and 9.21 ± 0.42 log(CFU/g) for produce leaf samples and swabs, respectively. Means and variance were not significantly different ( = 0.38 and = 0.92, respectively). Coliform recoveries were 3.80 ± 0.76 and 4.19 ± 1.15 log(CFU/g) for produce leaf and swabs, respectively. Means and variances were not significantly different ( = 0.30 and = 0.16, respectively). Swabs detected generic in 8 of 12 samples, more often than produce leaf samples (3 of 14 positive, Fisher's = 0.045). Full-length 16S rRNA microbial profiling revealed that swab and produce leaf samples did not show significantly different alpha diversities ( = 0.75) and had many of the most prevalent bacterial taxa in common and in similar abundances. These data suggest that aggregative swabs perform similarly to, if not better than, produce leaf samples in recovering indicators of quality (aerobic and coliform bacteria) and food safety (), justifying further method development and validation.
来自商业生产的复合农产品叶片样本很少检测出病原体呈阳性,这可能是由于病原体流行率低或所采集的植物数量相对较少。聚集抽样可能提供一种更具代表性的替代方法。这项初步研究调查了聚集拭子样本在恢复质量指标(需氧平板计数和大肠菌群)、检测和恢复代表性微生物谱方面的能力是否与农产品叶片样本相似。从一英亩商业生菜田的60×28英尺区域采集了长叶生菜植株外叶的聚集拭子样本(n = 12)和由各种采集的农产品叶片组成的复合样本(n = 14)。农产品叶片样本和拭子样本的需氧平板计数分别为9.17±0.43和9.21±0.42 log(CFU/g)。均值和方差无显著差异(分别为P = 0.38和P = 0.92)。农产品叶片和拭子样本的大肠菌群回收率分别为3.80±0.76和4.19±1.15 log(CFU/g)。均值和方差无显著差异(分别为P = 0.30和P = 0.16)。拭子在12个样本中的8个中检测到了大肠杆菌属,比农产品叶片样本更常见(14个样本中有3个呈阳性,Fisher检验P = 0.045)。全长16S rRNA微生物谱分析表明,拭子样本和农产品叶片样本的α多样性没有显著差异(P = 0.75),并且有许多最常见的细菌分类群相同且丰度相似。这些数据表明,聚集拭子在恢复质量指标(需氧菌和大肠菌群)和食品安全指标(大肠杆菌属)方面的表现与农产品叶片样本相似,甚至可能更好,这为进一步的方法开发和验证提供了依据。