Destructive and nondestructive procedures to obtain chicken carcass samples for Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. detection

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Cossi, Marcus Vinícius Coutinho
Data de Publicação: 2011
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/10.1089/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