Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
Data de Publicação: 2012
Outros Autores: Almeida, Michelle Vieira de, Dias, Mariane Rezende, Pinto, Paulo Sérgio de Arruda, Nero, Luís Augusto
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-247
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16072
Resumo: The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.
id UFV_d38aade35c1f3afc062463cc3dec01fe
oai_identifier_str oai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/16072
network_acronym_str UFV
network_name_str LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
repository_id_str 2145
spelling Cossi, Marcus Vinícius CoutinhoAlmeida, Michelle Vieira deDias, Mariane RezendePinto, Paulo Sérgio de ArrudaNero, Luís Augusto2018-01-02T13:26:38Z2018-01-02T13:26:38Z2012-011944-9097http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-247http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16072The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.engJournal of Food Protectionv. 75, n. 1, p. 29–33, Jan. 2012Chicken carcassesIndicator microorganismsComparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganismsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFVinstname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)instacron:UFVORIGINAL0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdftexto completoapplication/pdf125251https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/1/0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf95de8a0bd94237b34ab19c2281faf62aMD51LICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/2/license.txt8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD52THUMBNAIL0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf.jpg0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf.jpgIM Thumbnailimage/jpeg4545https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/3/0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf.jpg8df18c226e1021fb7178905dd0f4a4a7MD53123456789/160722018-01-02 22:01:07.771oai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/16072Tk9URTogUExBQ0UgWU9VUiBPV04gTElDRU5TRSBIRVJFClRoaXMgc2FtcGxlIGxpY2Vuc2UgaXMgcHJvdmlkZWQgZm9yIGluZm9ybWF0aW9uYWwgcHVycG9zZXMgb25seS4KCk5PTi1FWENMVVNJVkUgRElTVFJJQlVUSU9OIExJQ0VOU0UKCkJ5IHNpZ25pbmcgYW5kIHN1Ym1pdHRpbmcgdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLCB5b3UgKHRoZSBhdXRob3Iocykgb3IgY29weXJpZ2h0Cm93bmVyKSBncmFudHMgdG8gRFNwYWNlIFVuaXZlcnNpdHkgKERTVSkgdGhlIG5vbi1leGNsdXNpdmUgcmlnaHQgdG8gcmVwcm9kdWNlLAp0cmFuc2xhdGUgKGFzIGRlZmluZWQgYmVsb3cpLCBhbmQvb3IgZGlzdHJpYnV0ZSB5b3VyIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gKGluY2x1ZGluZwp0aGUgYWJzdHJhY3QpIHdvcmxkd2lkZSBpbiBwcmludCBhbmQgZWxlY3Ryb25pYyBmb3JtYXQgYW5kIGluIGFueSBtZWRpdW0sCmluY2x1ZGluZyBidXQgbm90IGxpbWl0ZWQgdG8gYXVkaW8gb3IgdmlkZW8uCgpZb3UgYWdyZWUgdGhhdCBEU1UgbWF5LCB3aXRob3V0IGNoYW5naW5nIHRoZSBjb250ZW50LCB0cmFuc2xhdGUgdGhlCnN1Ym1pc3Npb24gdG8gYW55IG1lZGl1bSBvciBmb3JtYXQgZm9yIHRoZSBwdXJwb3NlIG9mIHByZXNlcnZhdGlvbi4KCllvdSBhbHNvIGFncmVlIHRoYXQgRFNVIG1heSBrZWVwIG1vcmUgdGhhbiBvbmUgY29weSBvZiB0aGlzIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gZm9yCnB1cnBvc2VzIG9mIHNlY3VyaXR5LCBiYWNrLXVwIGFuZCBwcmVzZXJ2YXRpb24uCgpZb3UgcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoYXQgdGhlIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gaXMgeW91ciBvcmlnaW5hbCB3b3JrLCBhbmQgdGhhdCB5b3UgaGF2ZQp0aGUgcmlnaHQgdG8gZ3JhbnQgdGhlIHJpZ2h0cyBjb250YWluZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLiBZb3UgYWxzbyByZXByZXNlbnQKdGhhdCB5b3VyIHN1Ym1pc3Npb24gZG9lcyBub3QsIHRvIHRoZSBiZXN0IG9mIHlvdXIga25vd2xlZGdlLCBpbmZyaW5nZSB1cG9uCmFueW9uZSdzIGNvcHlyaWdodC4KCklmIHRoZSBzdWJtaXNzaW9uIGNvbnRhaW5zIG1hdGVyaWFsIGZvciB3aGljaCB5b3UgZG8gbm90IGhvbGQgY29weXJpZ2h0LAp5b3UgcmVwcmVzZW50IHRoYXQgeW91IGhhdmUgb2J0YWluZWQgdGhlIHVucmVzdHJpY3RlZCBwZXJtaXNzaW9uIG9mIHRoZQpjb3B5cmlnaHQgb3duZXIgdG8gZ3JhbnQgRFNVIHRoZSByaWdodHMgcmVxdWlyZWQgYnkgdGhpcyBsaWNlbnNlLCBhbmQgdGhhdApzdWNoIHRoaXJkLXBhcnR5IG93bmVkIG1hdGVyaWFsIGlzIGNsZWFybHkgaWRlbnRpZmllZCBhbmQgYWNrbm93bGVkZ2VkCndpdGhpbiB0aGUgdGV4dCBvciBjb250ZW50IG9mIHRoZSBzdWJtaXNzaW9uLgoKSUYgVEhFIFNVQk1JU1NJT04gSVMgQkFTRUQgVVBPTiBXT1JLIFRIQVQgSEFTIEJFRU4gU1BPTlNPUkVEIE9SIFNVUFBPUlRFRApCWSBBTiBBR0VOQ1kgT1IgT1JHQU5JWkFUSU9OIE9USEVSIFRIQU4gRFNVLCBZT1UgUkVQUkVTRU5UIFRIQVQgWU9VIEhBVkUKRlVMRklMTEVEIEFOWSBSSUdIVCBPRiBSRVZJRVcgT1IgT1RIRVIgT0JMSUdBVElPTlMgUkVRVUlSRUQgQlkgU1VDSApDT05UUkFDVCBPUiBBR1JFRU1FTlQuCgpEU1Ugd2lsbCBjbGVhcmx5IGlkZW50aWZ5IHlvdXIgbmFtZShzKSBhcyB0aGUgYXV0aG9yKHMpIG9yIG93bmVyKHMpIG9mIHRoZQpzdWJtaXNzaW9uLCBhbmQgd2lsbCBub3QgbWFrZSBhbnkgYWx0ZXJhdGlvbiwgb3RoZXIgdGhhbiBhcyBhbGxvd2VkIGJ5IHRoaXMKbGljZW5zZSwgdG8geW91ciBzdWJtaXNzaW9uLgo=Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.locus.ufv.br/oai/requestfabiojreis@ufv.bropendoar:21452018-01-03T01:01:07LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)false
dc.title.en.fl_str_mv Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
title Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
spellingShingle Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
Chicken carcasses
Indicator microorganisms
title_short Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
title_full Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
title_fullStr Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
title_sort Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
author Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
author_facet Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
Almeida, Michelle Vieira de
Dias, Mariane Rezende
Pinto, Paulo Sérgio de Arruda
Nero, Luís Augusto
author_role author
author2 Almeida, Michelle Vieira de
Dias, Mariane Rezende
Pinto, Paulo Sérgio de Arruda
Nero, Luís Augusto
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
Almeida, Michelle Vieira de
Dias, Mariane Rezende
Pinto, Paulo Sérgio de Arruda
Nero, Luís Augusto
dc.subject.pt-BR.fl_str_mv Chicken carcasses
Indicator microorganisms
topic Chicken carcasses
Indicator microorganisms
description The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.
publishDate 2012
dc.date.issued.fl_str_mv 2012-01
dc.date.accessioned.fl_str_mv 2018-01-02T13:26:38Z
dc.date.available.fl_str_mv 2018-01-02T13:26:38Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-247
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16072
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 1944-9097
identifier_str_mv 1944-9097
url http://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-247
http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16072
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartofseries.pt-BR.fl_str_mv v. 75, n. 1, p. 29–33, Jan. 2012
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Food Protection
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Journal of Food Protection
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
instname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
instacron:UFV
instname_str Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
instacron_str UFV
institution UFV
reponame_str LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
collection LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/1/0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf
https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/2/license.txt
https://locus.ufv.br//bitstream/123456789/16072/3/0362-028x.jfp-11-247.pdf.jpg
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv 95de8a0bd94237b34ab19c2281faf62a
8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33
8df18c226e1021fb7178905dd0f4a4a7
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv fabiojreis@ufv.br
_version_ 1794528216734498816