The 3M™ Petrifilm™ Staph Express Count plate method was compared with AOAC Official Method 975.55 for the enumeration of Staphylococcus aureus in selected foods. Five foods—ice cream, raw milk, yogurt, whey powder, and cheese—were analyzed for S. aureus by 12 collaborating laboratories. For each food tested, the collaborators received 8 blind test samples consisting of a control sample, a low inoculation level, a medium inoculation level, and a medium inoculation level with background flora, each in duplicate. The mean log10 counts for the methods were comparable for all 5 foods. The repeatability and reproducibility variances of the 24 h Petrifilm Staph Express Count plate method were similar to those of the 72 h standard method.
A multilaboratory study was conducted to compare the automated BAX® System to the standard cultural methods for detection of Salmonella in selected foods. Five food types—frankfurters, raw ground beef, mozzarella cheese, raw frozen tilapia fish, and orange juice—at 3 inoculation levels, were analyzed by each method. A sixth food type, raw ground chicken, was tested using 3 naturally contaminated lots. A total of 16 laboratories representing government and industry participated. In this study, 1386 samples were analyzed, of which 1188 were paired samples and 198 were unpaired samples. Of the 1188 paired samples, 461 were positive by both methods and 404 were negative by both methods. Thirty-seven samples were positive by the BAX System but negative by the standard reference method, and 11 samples were positive by standard cultural method and negative by the BAX System. Of the 198 unpaired samples, 106 were positive by the BAX System and 60 were positive by the standard cultural method. A Chi square analysis of each of the 6 food types, at the 3 inoculation levels tested, was performed. For all foods, the BAX System demonstrated results comparable to those of the standard reference methods based on the Chi square results.
A multilaboratory study was conducted to compare the VIDAS®Listeria monocytogenes II (LMO2) immunoassay and the standard cultural methods for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in foods. Five food types—vanilla ice cream, brie cheese, cooked roast beef, frozen green beans, and frozen tilapia fish—at 3 levels were analyzed by each method. A total of 26 laboratories representing government and industry participated. In this study, 1404 test portions were analyzed of which 1152 were used in the statistical analysis. There were 448 positive by the VIDAS LMO2 assay and 457 positive by the standard culture methods. A χ2 analysis of each of the 5 food types, at the 3 inoculation levels tested, was performed. The resulting χ2 value, 0.36, indicates that overall, there are no statistical differences between the VIDAS LMO2 assay and the standard methods at the 5% level of significance.
A collaborative study was conducted to validate new enrichment methods for the TECRA Listeria Visual Immunoassay (TLVIA). These new methods incorporate a newly formulated medium, TECRA Listeria Enrichment Broth, which does not contain the highly toxic antifungal agent, cycloheximide. The new procedures will provide an alternative to the enrichment procedures described in AOAC Method 995.22. Three food types (raw ground beef, lettuce, and ice cream) were analyzed in the United States, and 2 food types (cooked turkey and cooked fish fillets) were analyzed in Australasia. Thirty collaborators participated in the study, 16 in Australasia and 14 in the United States. With the exception of one batch of ground beef, comparison of the proportion of positive test portions (p ≥ 0.05) showed no significant difference between the TLVIA and the reference method for the 5 foods at 3 inoculation levels. For the one batch of naturally contaminated raw ground beef, the TLVIA gave significantly more confirmed positive results than the reference method.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.