Comparison of Destructive and Nondestructive Sampling Techniques of Retail Chicken Carcasses for Enumeration of Hygiene Indicator Microorganisms

Abstract

The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.

Escherichia coli and E nterobacteriaceae counts on poultry carcasses along the slaughterline: A systematic review and meta-analysis

“…As regards sampling method it has been demonstrated that, although tissue excision (both skin and meat) provided the highest counts of indicator microorganisms, the rinsing method is fully comparable with tissue excision, when used for process hygiene assessment purpose (Cox et al, 2010;Gill, Badoni, Moza, Barbut, & Griffiths, 2005), while the swabbing method is less effective (Cossi, de Almeida, Dias, de Arruda Pinto, & Nero, 2012;Zhang, Ye, Xu, Zhou, & Cao, 2012). However, when bacteria such as E. coli are present at low levels on poultry carcass portions, rinsing is the most effective technique compared with excision sampling and swabbing represents a valid alternative.…”

“…However, when bacteria such as E. coli are present at low levels on poultry carcass portions, rinsing is the most effective technique compared with excision sampling and swabbing represents a valid alternative. One of the reasons that could explain the variability across the different sampling methods is the homogenization step (Cossi et al, 2012). Hutchison, Walters, Mead, Howell, & Allen (2006) demonstrated that neck excision seems to be more reproducible than rinsing (Hutchison et al, 2006), probably because of the manual shaking procedure used to detach bacteria into the diluents for the rinsing method.…”

Escherichia coli and Enterobacteriaceae counts on poultry carcasses along the slaughter processing line, factors influencing the counts and relationship between visual faecal contamination of carcasses and counts: a review

“…Cossi et al (2012) compared skin and tissue excision, rinse and skin swab methods and evidenced that, although tissue excision (both skin and meat) provided the highest counts of indicator microorganisms, the rinsing method is fully comparable with tissue excision. Cossi et al (2012) compared skin and tissue excision, rinse and skin swab methods and evidenced that, although tissue excision (both skin and meat) provided the highest counts of indicator microorganisms, the rinsing method is fully comparable with tissue excision.…”

Sampling by Sponge Wipe or Skin Excision for Recovery of Inoculated Salmonella and Campylobacter from Defeathered Broiler Carcasses

“…Cossi et al (10) reported that, when used to test retail carcasses for preexisting indicator organisms, a swab sample was equally efficient as skin excision. However, Cossi et al (10) used different areas of the skin for each analysis and did not test for recovery of known numbers of specific pathogens.…”

“…However, Cossi et al (10) used different areas of the skin for each analysis and did not test for recovery of known numbers of specific pathogens. The current data indicate that, for recent contamination, sponge sampling is not quite as effective for enumeration of Campylobacter or Salmonella as skin excision and stomaching.…”