Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
Texto Completo: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2011.0957 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16103 |
Resumo: | Destructive and nondestructive sampling procedures were compared for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection in 60 fresh chicken carcasses, which were submitted to the following sampling procedures: rinsing, skin swabbing, tissue excision, and skin excision; the proximity or not to the cloacae region was also considered. The obtained results were compared to identify significant differences (p<0.05). Forty eight chicken carcasses were positive for E. coli, and five were positive for Salmonella spp. For E. coli, nonsignificant differences were observed between rinsing and tissue excision, rinsing and skin excision, and skin excision and tissue excision (p>0.05), thus indicating equivalencies between these techniques. Skin swabbing produced a statistically significant lower frequency of positive results (p<0.05) than all other techniques for E. coli, thus indicating its inadequacy for detection of this microorganism. For Salmonella spp., no significant differences were observed between the sampling techniques (p>0.05), possibly due to the low overall frequency of positive carcasses. No significant differences in the number of positive samples (E. coli or Salmonella spp.) were observed between samples collected near or far from the cloacae region (p>0.05), regardless of the sampling technique. The obtained results demonstrate that the tested sampling techniques were equivalent for Salmonella spp. detection in chicken carcasses, as observed for E. coli with the exception of skin swabbing. |
id |
UFV_44b6a0da47c508504bc0c052265dda3f |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/16103 |
network_acronym_str |
UFV |
network_name_str |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV |
repository_id_str |
2145 |
spelling |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detectionEscherichia coliSalmonella spp.Destructive and nondestructive sampling procedures were compared for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection in 60 fresh chicken carcasses, which were submitted to the following sampling procedures: rinsing, skin swabbing, tissue excision, and skin excision; the proximity or not to the cloacae region was also considered. The obtained results were compared to identify significant differences (p<0.05). Forty eight chicken carcasses were positive for E. coli, and five were positive for Salmonella spp. For E. coli, nonsignificant differences were observed between rinsing and tissue excision, rinsing and skin excision, and skin excision and tissue excision (p>0.05), thus indicating equivalencies between these techniques. Skin swabbing produced a statistically significant lower frequency of positive results (p<0.05) than all other techniques for E. coli, thus indicating its inadequacy for detection of this microorganism. For Salmonella spp., no significant differences were observed between the sampling techniques (p>0.05), possibly due to the low overall frequency of positive carcasses. No significant differences in the number of positive samples (E. coli or Salmonella spp.) were observed between samples collected near or far from the cloacae region (p>0.05), regardless of the sampling technique. The obtained results demonstrate that the tested sampling techniques were equivalent for Salmonella spp. detection in chicken carcasses, as observed for E. coli with the exception of skin swabbing.Foodborne Pathogens and Disease2018-01-03T10:00:39Z2018-01-03T10:00:39Z2011-11info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlepdfapplication/pdf1556-7125http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2011.0957http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16103engv. 8, n. 12, p. 1303-1308, Nov. 2011Cossi, Marcus Vinícius CoutinhoAlmeida, Michelle Vieira deDias, Mariane RezendePinto, Paulo Sérgio de ArrudaNero, Luís Augustoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFVinstname:Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)instacron:UFV2024-07-12T07:34:50Zoai:locus.ufv.br:123456789/16103Repositório InstitucionalPUBhttps://www.locus.ufv.br/oai/requestfabiojreis@ufv.bropendoar:21452024-07-12T07:34:50LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
title |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
spellingShingle |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho Escherichia coli Salmonella spp. |
title_short |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
title_full |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
title_fullStr |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
title_full_unstemmed |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
title_sort |
Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection |
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.por.fl_str_mv |
Escherichia coli Salmonella spp. |
topic |
Escherichia coli Salmonella spp. |
description |
Destructive and nondestructive sampling procedures were compared for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection in 60 fresh chicken carcasses, which were submitted to the following sampling procedures: rinsing, skin swabbing, tissue excision, and skin excision; the proximity or not to the cloacae region was also considered. The obtained results were compared to identify significant differences (p<0.05). Forty eight chicken carcasses were positive for E. coli, and five were positive for Salmonella spp. For E. coli, nonsignificant differences were observed between rinsing and tissue excision, rinsing and skin excision, and skin excision and tissue excision (p>0.05), thus indicating equivalencies between these techniques. Skin swabbing produced a statistically significant lower frequency of positive results (p<0.05) than all other techniques for E. coli, thus indicating its inadequacy for detection of this microorganism. For Salmonella spp., no significant differences were observed between the sampling techniques (p>0.05), possibly due to the low overall frequency of positive carcasses. No significant differences in the number of positive samples (E. coli or Salmonella spp.) were observed between samples collected near or far from the cloacae region (p>0.05), regardless of the sampling technique. The obtained results demonstrate that the tested sampling techniques were equivalent for Salmonella spp. detection in chicken carcasses, as observed for E. coli with the exception of skin swabbing. |
publishDate |
2011 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2011-11 2018-01-03T10:00:39Z 2018-01-03T10:00:39Z |
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 |
1556-7125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2011.0957 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16103 |
identifier_str_mv |
1556-7125 |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2011.0957 http://www.locus.ufv.br/handle/123456789/16103 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
v. 8, n. 12, p. 1303-1308, Nov. 2011 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
pdf application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Foodborne Pathogens and Disease |
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 |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
LOCUS Repositório Institucional da UFV - Universidade Federal de Viçosa (UFV) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
fabiojreis@ufv.br |
_version_ |
1822610642950946816 |