首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Microbiological Methods >Performance of two commercial rapid methods for sampling and detection of Listeria in small-scale cheese producing and salmon processing environments.
【24h】

Performance of two commercial rapid methods for sampling and detection of Listeria in small-scale cheese producing and salmon processing environments.

机译:在小规模奶酪生产和鲑鱼加工环境中两种用于李斯特菌取样和检测的商业快速方法的性能。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Two commercially available all-in-one swab rapid detection systems for Listeria spp. (InSite Listeria Test and Path-Chek hygiene Listeria) were tested for performance in cheese production environments and salmon processing facilities. Sampling was conducted both on clean surfaces and during production. A total of 338 samples were taken using the swabs (175 in cheese environments, 163 in salmon environments). Conventional sampling using sterile cloths and standardized qualitative detection of Listeria spp. according to NMKL method no. 136 was performed in parallel from 64 sampling sites in the salmon processing facilities and 40 sampling sites in the cheese production facilities. Results showed that both rapid swab tests detected Listeria spp.; however, they returned significant amounts of false positives. Presence of Listeria spp. was indicated in 47% and 41% of all swabs in the cheese and salmon environments, respectively. Enrichment followed by selective plating and Listeria specific PCR confirmed none of the 82 presumptive positive swabs from the cheese environment and 16 of 67 presumptive positive swabs from the salmon environments, respectively. Further analysis showed that several other bacteria, including Enterococcus spp. and Carnobacteriummaltaromaticum, were the source of false positive swab results. From salmon processing facilities, using cloth sampling and standard analyses, 22% Listeria positive sampling sites were confirmed compared to 9% and 11% positives obtained using InSite or Path-Chek detection systems. From the cheese production environments, no Listeria positive sites were confirmed using either swab or cloth sampling. In conclusion, the use of these rapid detection methods was not suited in the selected environments due to large numbers of false positives, caused by the background flora. All rights reserved, Elsevier.
机译:两个用于李斯特菌属的市售多合一拭子快速检测系统。 (InSite李斯特菌测试和Path-Chek卫生李斯特菌)已在奶酪生产环境和鲑鱼加工设施中进行了性能测试。在干净的表面和生产过程中都进行了采样。使用棉签共采集了338个样品(奶酪环境下为175个,鲑鱼环境下为163个)。使用无菌布的常规采样和李斯特菌属物种的标准化定性检测。根据NMKL方法No.从鲑鱼加工设施的64个采样点和奶酪生产设施的40个采样点并行执行136个。结果表明,两种快速拭子测试均检测到李斯特菌。但是,他们返回了大量误报。李斯特菌属的存在。在奶酪和鲑鱼环境中分别有47%和41%的棉签被标明。富集,然后进行选择性平板接种和李斯特菌特异性PCR,分别确认了干酪环境中的82种推定阳性拭子和鲑鱼环境中的67种推定阳性拭子中的16种。进一步的分析表明,还有其他几种细菌,包括肠球菌。假阳性拭子结果的来源是食管和嗜麦芽杆菌。在鲑鱼加工设施中,使用布采样和标准分析,确认了22%的李斯特菌阳性采样点,而使用InSite或Path-Chek检测系统获得的阳性率为9%和11%。在奶酪生产环境中,使用棉签或布取样均未确认到李斯特菌阳性部位。总之,由于背景菌群引起的大量假阳性,因此不适用于所选环境的这些快速检测方法。保留所有权利,Elsevier。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号