The Swab, the Drip, or the Meat? Comparison of Microbiological Sampling Methods in Vacuum-Packed Raw Beef
Historically, there has been a concern for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in foods, and numerous methods have been developed to determine their microbiological conditions. The present study aimed to compare the numbers of microbes recovered with three sampling methods: drip, excisio...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | Microorganisms |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2607/13/1/159 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Historically, there has been a concern for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in foods, and numerous methods have been developed to determine their microbiological conditions. The present study aimed to compare the numbers of microbes recovered with three sampling methods: drip, excision, and swabbing in vacuum-packed beef. The sampling methods were evaluated in terms of the viable numbers of <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>, lactic acid bacteria (LAB), <i>Brochrothrix thermosphacta</i>, <i>Salmonella</i> spp., and yeasts and moulds (Y&M). The numbers of <i>B. thermosphacta</i>, <i>Salmonella</i> spp., <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i>, LAB, and M&Y recovered with the drip method were significantly higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) than those from the other two methods. Regarding excision and swabbing, the recovery of <i>B. thermosphacta</i> and <i>Enterobacteriaceae</i> was higher (<i>p</i> < 0.05) with the excision method than swabbing, while there were no statistical differences (<i>p</i> > 0.05) between both methods for <i>Salmonella</i> spp., LAB, and Y&M. In conclusion, the drip method can recover up to two logarithms more than the other techniques in vacuum-packed meat; hence, it should be considered when designing and implementing sampling systems for the meat industry. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2076-2607 |