1. bookVolume 71 (2021): Issue 2 (June 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Method-Related Impacts on Campylobacter coli Recovery From Sampling Materials And Meat

Published Online: 12 Jul 2021
Page range: 198 - 210
Received: 16 Mar 2021
Accepted: 09 Jun 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Mar 2014
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

A defined Campylobacter coli (C. coli) suspension was inoculated on sterile sampling materials (cotton bud, polyester bud, cellulose sponge) and pieces of lamb meat. Various combinations of diluents (phosphate buffer saline ± Tween®80) and sampling methods (direct homogenization, simulating the excision method for meat, and swabbing) were investigated for the recovery (detachment) of C. coli cells from the inoculated samples. The obtained C. coli bacteria, as quantified by real-time PCR with respect to the dilution factors and the initial inoculum, were used for the calculation of the recovery (%) per sampling material and method. Regarding artificially inoculated sampling materials, the lowest recovery was observed for cotton buds (2.8%) and the highest for cellulose sponge (28.9%), and the differences between the obtained results were statistically significant (P < 0.05). As regards lamb meat, the lowest recovery was observed for swabbing with cotton buds (3.2%) and the highest for direct homogenization (10.7%). The results indicate an overall low rate of bacterial recovery from contaminated samples, with cellulose sponges and polyester buds being significantly superior to cotton buds, and direct homogenization of meat with diluent better than swabbing. The type of sampling materials and methods applied for the quantification of C. coli entails a key impact on determining the actual contamination of the examined samples.

Keywords

1. Capita R, Prieto M, Alonso-Calleja C: Sampling methods for microbiological analysis of red meat and poultry carcasses. J Food Protect 2004, 67(6):1303-1308. Search in Google Scholar

2. Martinez B, Celda MF, Anastasio B, Garcia I, Lopez-Mendoza MC: Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing with three types of sponge or gauze. J Food Protect 2010, 73:81–87. Search in Google Scholar

3. Milios KT, Drosinos EH, Zoiopoulos PE: Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria - A review. Food Control 2014, 43:74-81. Search in Google Scholar

4. Singh PH, Lee C, Chin KB, Ha SD, Kang I: Quantification of loosely associated and tightly associated bacteria on broiler carcass skin using swabbing, stomaching, and grinding methods. Poultry Sci 2015, 94(12):3034–3039. Search in Google Scholar

5. Gallina S, Bianchi DM, Ru G, Maurella C, Barzanti P, Baioni E, Virgilio S, Mioni R, Lanni L, Migliazzo A, Losio MN, Bove D, Scuota S, Goffredo E, Decastelli L: Microbiological recovery from bovine, swine, equine, and ovine carcasses: Comparison of excision, sponge and swab sampling methods. Food Control 2015, 50:919-924. Search in Google Scholar

6. Warnke P, Warning L, Podbielski A: Some are more equal – a comparative study on swab uptake and release of bacterial suspensions. PLoS One 2014, 9:e102215. Search in Google Scholar

7. Ghafir Y, Daube G: Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling. Let Appl Microbiol 2008, 47:322–326. Search in Google Scholar

8. Marinou I, Bersimis S, Ioannidis A, Nicolaou C, Mitroussia-Ziouva A, Legakis NJ: Identification and antimicrobial resistance of Campylobacter species isolated from animal sources. Front Microbiol 2012, 3(58):1-6. Search in Google Scholar

9. Nobile CGA, Costantino R, Bianco A, Pileggi C, Pavia M: Prevalence and pattern of antibiotic resistance of Campylobacter spp. in poultry meat in Southern Italy. Food Control 2013, 32:715–718. Search in Google Scholar

10. Lazou T, Houf K, Soultos N, Dovas C, Iossifidou E: Campylobacter in small ruminants at slaughter: prevalence, pulsotypes and antibiotic resistance. Int J Food Microbiol 2014, 173: 54–61. Search in Google Scholar

11. Lazou T, Dovas C, Houf K, Soultos N, Iossifidou E: Diversity of Campylobacter in retail meat and liver of lambs and goat kids. Foodborne Pathog Dis 2014, 11(4):320–328. Search in Google Scholar

12. Torralbo A, Borge C, García-Bocanegra I, Méric G, Perea A, Carbonero A: Higher resistance of Campylobacter coli compared to Campylobacter jejuni at chicken slaughterhouse. Comp Immunol Microbiol Infect Dis 2015, 39:47-52. Search in Google Scholar

13. Pedonese F, Nuvoloni R, Turchi B, Torracca B, Di Giannatale E, Marotta F, Cerri D: Prevalence, phenotypic and genetic diversity of Campylobacter in poultry fresh meat and poultry products on retail sale in Tuscany (Italy). Vet Ital 2017, 53(1):29–37. Search in Google Scholar

14. EFSA and ECDC (European Food Safety Authority and European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control): The European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J 2021;19(2):6406, 286 pp. Search in Google Scholar

15. Sakaridis I, Papadopoulos T, Boukouvala E, Ekateriniadou L, Samouris G, Zdragas A: Prevalence, Antimicrobial Resistance, and Molecular Typing of Thermophilic Campylobacter Spp. in a Greek Poultry Slaughterhouse. Acta Veterinaria - Beograd 2019, 69(3): 325-339. Search in Google Scholar

16. Lazou TP, Iossifidou EG, Gelasakis AI, Chaintoutis SC, Dovas CI: Viability quantitative PCR utilizing propidium monoazide, spheroplast formation, and Campylobacter coli as a bacterial model. Appl Environ Microbiol 2019, 85:e01499-19. Search in Google Scholar

17. Moore G, Griffith C: Problem associated with traditional hygiene swabbing: The need for in-house standardization. J Appl Microbiol 2007, 103: 1090e1103. Search in Google Scholar

18. Lazou TP, Gelasakis AI, Chaintoutis SC, Iossifidou EG, Dovas CI: Method-Dependent Implications in Foodborne Pathogen Quantification: The Case of Campylobacter coli Survival on Meat as Comparatively Assessed by Colony Count and Viability PCR. Front Microbiol 2021, 12:604933. Search in Google Scholar

19. Zeng D, Chen Z, Jiang Y, Xue F, Li B: Advances and Challenges in Viability Detection of Foodborne Pathogens. Front Microbiol 2016, 7:1833. Search in Google Scholar

20. ISO 10272-2:2017. Microbiology of the food chain—horizontal method for detection and enumeration of Campylobacter spp. — Part 2: colony-count technique. Search in Google Scholar

21. Keeratipibul S, Laovittayanurak T, Pornruangsarp O, Chaturongkasumrit Y, Takahashi H, Techaruvichit P: Effect of swabbing techniques on the efficiency of bacterial recovery from food contact surfaces. Food Control 2017, 77:139-144. Search in Google Scholar

22. Butler JL, Stewart JC, Vanderzant C, Carpenter ZL, Smith GC: Attachment of microorganisms to pork skin and surfaces of beef and lamb carcasses. J Food Protect 1979, 42:401–406. Search in Google Scholar

23. Pepperell R, Reid CA, Solano SN, Hutchison ML, Walters LD, Johnston AM, Buncic S: Experimental comparison of excision and swabbing microbiological sampling methods for carcasses. J Food Protect 2005, 68(10):2163-2168. Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo