4.4 Article

Quantitative Assessment of the Microbial Risk of Leafy Greens from Farm to Consumption: Preliminary Framework, Data, and Risk Estimates

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 74, 期 5, 页码 700-708

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-373

关键词

-

资金

  1. Western Institute for Food Safety and Security, University of California, Davis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This project was undertaken to relate what is known about the behavior of Escherichia coli O157:H7 under laboratory conditions and integrate this information to what is known regarding the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 spinach outbreak in the context of a quantitative microbial risk assessment. The risk model explicitly assumes that all contamination arises from exposure in the field. Extracted data, models, and user inputs were entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and the modeling software @RISK was used to perform Monte Carlo simulations. The model predicts that cut leafy greens that are temperature abused will support the growth of E. coli O157:H7, and populations of the organism may increase by as much a 1 log CFU/day under optimal temperature. conditions. When the risk model used a starting level of -1 log CFU/g, with 0.1% of incoming servings contaminated, the predicted numbers of cells per serving were within the range of best available estimates of pathogen levels during the outbreak. The model predicts that levels in the field of -1 log CFU/g and 0.1% prevalence could have resulted in an outbreak approximately the size of the 2006 E. coli O157:H7 outbreak. This quantitative microbial risk assessment model represents a preliminary framework that identifies available data and provides initial risk estimates for pathogenic E. coli in leafy greens. Data gaps include retail storage times, correlations between storage time and temperature, determining the importance of E. coli O157:H7 in leafy greens lag time models, and validation of the importance of cross-contamination during the washing process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据