Comparative Study of Alternative Methods for Food Safety Control in Poultry Slaughterhouses

Abstract

The sensitivity of different methods for the isolation and identification of Campylobacter, Listeria and Salmonella was compared, and their application in food safety control in a poultry slaughterhouse was evaluated. The VIDAS, SimPlate, Reveal and VIP systems were used, together with traditional microbiological methods. The study was carried out in a slaughterhouse and in the poultry carving room. One hundred and twenty samples (40 per microorganism) obtained from carcasses, viscera, different chicken parts, water and the environment were evaluated. For Campylobacter, the VIDAS system performed better than plate confirmation. The traditional method yielded results similar to those obtained with the SimPlate method. For Listeria, the plate count method proved less sensitive than the VIDAS, VIP and Reveal systems, which yielded similar results. For Salmonella, the VIDAS system displayed a detection rate comparable to that of traditional methods, while the Reveal system detected twice as many positive samples (16 in total). The Reveal method performed significantly better than either the plate count method or the VIDAS system. The alternative methods used here could be successfully applied in food safety control in poultry slaughterhouses, providing similar or better results and taking less time to perform. The VIDAS system, in general, and the Reveal system in the case of Listeria and Salmonella, appear to be effective alternatives to traditional methods.

Microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed vegetables marketed in Campinas, SP – Brazil, as assessed by traditional and alternative methods

“…The compliance of the criteria is checked by industries and public health authorities through microbiological tests that must have an adequate cost-effectiveness, which is driven by good sensitivity, specificity, rapidness, and low cost. Although traditional methods present a well-documented sensitivity, the time needed to obtain results is most of times too long (Reiter et al, 2010). Rapidness is particularly more important when the target foods present a short shelf-life such as MPV.…”

“…All the four tests used herein for the detection of Salmonella and L. monocytogenes are immunoassays, with Reveal and Vidas being based on enzyme-Linked immunoabsorbent assay (ELISA), while VIP and 1,2 Test are immunoprecipitation and antigeneantibodybased reactions, respectively (Jasson et al, 2010). The higher rates of positivity (29 and 18% for MPV packaged in perforated films and under modified atmosphere, respectively) when using Reveal in comparison to other alternative methods such as Vidas, VIP, traditional methods, and Reveal for detection of Salmonella in poultry slaughter houses have been reported by Reiter et al (2010). According to these authors Reveal system detected twice more positive samples than the other methods which might be due to false-positive results.…”

“…Among 18 samples of minimally processed watercress packaged under modified atmosphere, 9 were positive for the presence of Salmonella according to Reveal, while only one sample was confirmed by the traditional method and Vidas. Although Vidas is an automated method, a major attention must be paid when using Vidas, because it detects antigens rather than viable cells (Reiter et al, 2010). Therefore, there is the risk of rejecting lots of products that do not carry live cells of foodborne pathogens and that will not pose risks to food safety.…”

“…These advantages make modified or automated plating and immunological-based techniques very acceptable by food microbiologists. Although several studies have been carried out to compare the rapid methods for enumeration and/or detection of indicator microorganisms and foodborne pathogens in several foods (Feldsine, Kerr, Shen, & Lienau, 2009;Oktay & Heperkan, 2006;Reiter, López, Jordano, & Medina, 2010;Silbernagel, Jechorek, Carver, Barbour, & Mrozinski, 2003;Silbernagel, Jechorek, Carver, Horter, & Lindberg, 2003;Yeh, Tsai, Chen, & Liao, 2002), research focusing on the use of rapid methods in vegetables are rare. Due to its background microbiota (Shi et al, 2009), naturally occurring inhibitors such as proteins presenting antimicrobial activity (Noriega et al, 2010;Sitohy & Osman, 2010), residuals of pre and/or post-harvest treatments such as pesticides (Cengiz, Certel, Karakaş , & Göçmen, 2007;Zhang, Liu, Yu, Zhang, & Hong, 2007), these studies are very relevant.…”

Evaluation of the PetrifilmTM and TEMPO® systems and the conventional method for counting microorganisms in pasteurized milk

“…Although conventional methods for detection and enumeration of microorganisms are well-documented, the time required to obtain the results is often too long for the requirements of the industry (REITER et al, 2010). As a result, new methods have been developed as an alternative to conventional methods in order to provide faster results and simplify the analytical process (LOSS et al, 2012).…”