The effect of different washing or sanitizing agents was compared for preventing or reducing surface and internal contamination of tomatoes by Salmonella Typhimurium and Escherichia coli O157:H7. The tomatoes were inoculated by dipping them in a bacterial suspension containing approximately 6.0 log CFU/ml of each pathogen and then rinsing them with tap water, hypochlorite solution (250 mg/liter), or lactic acid solution (2%, wt/vol). All treatments were applied by dipping or spraying, and solutions were applied at 5, 25, 35, and 55 degrees C. With the exception of the lactic acid dip at 5 degrees C, all treatments reduced both pathogens on the surfaces of the tomatoes by at least 2.9 cycles. No significantly different results were obtained (P > 0.05) with the dipping and spraying techniques. For internalized pathogens, the mean counts for tomatoes treated with water alone or with chlorine ranged from 0.8 to 2.1 log CFU/g. In contrast, after lactic acid spray treatment, all core samples of tomatoes tested negative for Salmonella Typhimurium and, except for one sample with a low but detectable count, all samples tested negative for E. coli O157:H7 with a plate count method. When the absence of pathogens was verified by an enrichment method, Salmonella was not recovered from any samples, whereas two of four samples tested positive for E. coli O157:H7 even though the counts were negative. Few cells of internalized pathogens were able to survive in the center of the tomato during storage at room temperature (25 to 28 degrees C). The average superficial pH of tomatoes treated with tap water, chlorine, or lactic acid was 4.9 to 5.2, 4.1 to 4.3, and 2.5, respectively (P < 0.05), whereas no differences were observed in the internal pH (3.6 to 3.7) of the tomatoes treated with different sanitizers. The general practice in the tomato industry is to wash the tomatoes in chlorinated water. However, chlorine is rapidly degraded by organic matter usually present in produce. Therefore, lactic acid sprays may be a more effective alternative for decontaminating tomato surfaces. The use of warm (55 degrees C) sprays could reduce pathogen internalization during washing.
Increased consumption of fruits and vegetables is linked to health benefits but also to an increase in the number of outbreaks of foodborne illness. To determine the effectiveness of different sanitizing treatments for reducing bacterial pathogens on fresh produce, fresh cantaloupes and bell peppers were harvested and inoculated with suspensions of Salmonella Typhimurium and Escherichia coli O157:H7. The inoculated fruits were treated with water wash alone or were washed and then waxed or rinsed with 200 mg/liter hypochlorite, 10% Ca(OH)2, or 2% lactic acid solutions applied by dipping for 15 s or spraying for 15 s. Preliminary experiments with chlorine treatments indicated that spraying with a 200, 600, or 1,000 mg/liter hypochlorite solution reduced populations of both pathogens by 2.1 to 2.6 and 1.5 to 2.1 log CFU for Salmonella Typhimurium and E. coli O157:H7, respectively. In general, no differences were observed between chlorine solutions without pH adjustment (pH 9.2) and those with pH adjusted to 6.0. When different wash regimes were applied to inoculated cantaloupes or bell peppers, water wash alone produced significantly lower counts of both pathogens on bell peppers in comparison to untreated controls. However, this reduction was not observed on cantaloupes, indicating a possible surface effect. Application of 2% L-lactic acid by spray was the treatment that resulted in the lowest bacterial counts on both cantaloupes and bell peppers. This treatment did not produce any deleterious change in the sensorial characteristics of the products tested. None of the pathogens studied was able to grow during refrigerated storage (5 degrees C for cantaloupes and 10 degrees C for bell peppers), although numbers close to the detection limit of the counting method were found in randomly tested individual samples at days 14 and 28 of storage, indicating that these pathogens can survive for long periods on the produce surface. These results indicate that selected produce commodities could be sanitized at the packing facility. However, these interventions should not be applied as a replacement for but only as a complement to good hygiene practices.
The objectives of this study were to compare the effectiveness of various washing treatments for reducing Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella sp., and Listeria monocytogenes populations on orange surfaces and to measure the effect of some of these treatments in preventing the transfer of pathogens during juice extraction. Orange surfaces inoculated with L. monocytogenes or a mixture of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium were washed by water spray and then sprayed with or dipped in water at 80°C for 1 min, 70% ethanol for 15, 30, or 45 s or 1, 2, or 4 min, 2 or 4% lactic acid solution at 55°C for 15, 30, or 45 s or 1, 2, or 4 min, or 200 mg/liter hypochlorite at pH 6.5 or 10 for 15 s. The surviving populations of these pathogens on the oranges were enumerated after each treatment. In a further stage, the ability of these pathogens to be transferred to the juice during extraction was tested. Juice was obtained from inoculated oranges that were subjected to selected treatments using chlorine, lactic acid, ethanol, and hot water as described above, and then bacterial counts in orange juice were determined. The application of these treatments reduced the populations of pathogens on orange surfaces by 1.9 to >4.9 log, 1.9 to >4.6 log, and 1.4 to 3.1 log cycles for E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, and L. monocytogenes, respectively. The treatments using hot water or lactic acid showed greater reductions than other treatments. The time, antimicrobial concentration, and form of application affected the bacterial reduction. All treatments resulted in undetectable counts in the juice. Nevertheless, pathogens were recovered by the enrichment-plating method. Treatment of oranges before juice extraction may reduce the risk associated with consuming orange juice.
To study the potential of three bacterial pathogens to cross-contaminate orange juice during extraction, normal operation conditions during juice preparation at food service establishments were simulated. The spread of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes from inoculated oranges to work surfaces and to the final product was determined. The transference of these three bacterial pathogens to orange juice made from uninoculated oranges with the use of contaminated utensils was also studied. Fresh oranges were inoculated with a marker strain of rifampicin-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium, E. coli O157:H7, or L. monocytogenes. Final pathogen levels in juice were compared as a function of the use of electric or mechanical juice extractors to squeeze orange juice from inoculated oranges. Pathogen populations on different contact surfaces during orange juice extraction were determined on sulfite-phenol red-rifampicin plates for Salmonella Typhimurium and E. coli O157:H7 and on tryptic soy agar supplemented with 0.1 g of rifampicin per liter for L. monocytogenes. After inoculation, the average pathogen counts for the orange rind surface were 2.3 log10 CFU/cm2 for Salmonella Typhimurium, 3.6 log10 CFU/cm2 for E. coli O157:H7, and 4.4 log10 CFU/cm2 for L. monocytogenes. This contamination was spread over all utensils used in orange juice squeezing. Mean pathogen counts for the cutting board, the knife, and the extractor ranged from -0.3 to 2.1 log10 CFU/cm2, and the juice contained 1.0 log10 CFU of Salmonella Typhimurium per ml, 2.3 log10 CFU of E. coli O157:H7 per ml, and 2.7 log10 CFU of L. monocytogenes per ml. Contact with contaminated surfaces resulted in the presence of all pathogens in orange juice made from uninoculated oranges. These results give emphasis to the importance of fresh oranges as a source of pathogens in orange juice.
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.