3.9 Article

Listeria monocytogenes detection on food contact surfaces: suitability of different swab materials

出版社

SPRINGER INT PUBL AG
DOI: 10.1007/s00003-023-01454-9

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; Food contact surfaces; Food processing; Swab materials; Surface sampling; Recovery methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The high binding capacity of Listeria monocytogenes to food contact surfaces increases the risk of cross-contamination in food. A suitable sampling plan and technique for the earliest possible detection are necessary for prevention. This study evaluates the sensitivity of 3 swab materials for the detection of L. monocytogenes on food contact surfaces and suggests that using the most suitable swab can increase the detection rate.
The high binding capacity of Listeria monocytogenes to food contact surfaces increases the risk of cross-contamination in food. In addition to appropriate cleaning and disinfection procedures, a suitable sampling plan and technique for the earliest possible detection are necessary for prevention. This paper evaluates the sensitivity of 3 swab materials (cotton, viscose and nylon-flocked) for the qualitative and quantitative detection of L. monocytogenes on food contact surfaces (100 cm2). A L. monocytogenes cocktail of 3 serotypes (IIa, IIb and IVb) was applied to stainless steel, polyvinyl chloride, polytetrafluoroethylene and high-density polyethylene surfaces at a concentration of approx. 1.0 x 10(1)-1.0 x 10(2) CFU/100 cm2 and approx. 4.0 x 10(4) CFU/100 cm(2). The surfaces were sampled after 15 min of incubation by 3 different swabs using the double-swab technique, and then stored for 4 and 24 h until processing. The results of the qualitative and quantitative tests showed a few statistically significant differences in the detectability of L. monocytogenes by different swab materials, which implies that the detection rate of L. monocytogenes on a certain food contact surfaces can be increased by using the respective most suitable swab.

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

3.9
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