Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
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: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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_ |
1801212930393374720 |