Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7 during Fermentation of Apple Cider

Semanchek, Jeffrey J.; Golden, David A.

doi:10.4315/0362-028x-59.12.1256

Cited by 51 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are studies claiming that the increased ability to resist acidic pH is a characteristic of 0157:H7 that distinguishes this serovar from other E. coli (e.g. Miller and Kaspar 1994) and other studies referring to the so-called unusual tolerance to low pH (Semanchek and Golden 1996). Outbreaks offoodborne disease associated with acidic products and caused by other members of the Enterobacteriaceae suggest that the ability to survive at low pH's is not necessarily unusual and should not be unexpected.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Survival of Escherichia coli in foods

McClure

Hall

2000

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY Studies describing the survival of Escherichia coli in foods, more often than not use the O157:H7 serovar as the target organism. Whilst E. coli O157:H7 is undoubtedly the predominant agent of concern for foodborne disease caused by enterohaemorrhagic E. coli (EHEC), a consequence of this concern is the commonly held view that this one serovar is ‘atypical’ in its response to stress conditions and therefore better able to survive adverse environments. Many of the studies published do not make comparisons with other E. coli (either commensal organisms or other pathogenic types) or other members of the Enterobacteriaceae, that would justify this view. Nevertheless, there has been a great deal of valuable data and information generated describing the fate of E. coli O157:H7 in a range of foods stored under various conditions. In many respects, the results of these studies are not surprising considering the survivability of other closely related pathogens, such as Shigella spp. This ability to survive in foods for long periods of time confirms the need for reliable control measures where contamination is possible or likely, e.g. proper handling and thorough cooking of beefburgers. The factors that may influence survival in different foods are described, with the intention of providing an insight in this area of food safety. Key considerations for carrying out survival studies are identified, with particular reference to methodologies used.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Survival of Escherichia coli in foods

McClure

Hall

2000

Journal of Applied Microbiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, other factors may also work to suppress growth of this bacterium in cider. Cider fermentation effectively destroys E. coli (25).…”

Section: Vol 66 2000 Factors Affecting Growth Of E Coli In Bruisedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Growth of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Bruised Apple ( Malus domestica ) Tissue as Influenced by Cultivar, Date of Harvest, and Source

Dingman

2000

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four of five apple cultivars (Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, McIntosh, Macoun, and Melrose) inoculated with Escherichia coli O157:H7 promoted growth of the bacterium in bruised tissue independent of the date of harvest (i.e., degree of apple ripening) or the source of the apple (i.e., tree-picked or dropped fruit). Apple harvest for this study began 4 September 1998 and ended 9 October, with weekly sampling. Throughout this study, freshly picked (<2 days after harvest) McIntosh apples usually prevented the growth of E. coli O157:H7 for 2 days. Growth of E. coli O157:H7 did occur following 6 days of incubation in bruised McIntosh apple tissue. However, the maximum total cell number was approximately 80-fold less than the maximum total cell number recovered from Red Delicious apples. When fruit was stored for 1 month at 4°C prior to inoculation with E. coli O157:H7, all five cultivars supported growth of the bacterium. For each apple cultivar, the pH of bruised tissue was significantly higher and°Brix was significantly lower than the pH and°Brix of undamaged tissue regardless of the source. In freshly picked apples, changes in the pH did not occur over the harvest season. Bruised Golden Delicious, McIntosh, and Melrose apple tissue pHs were not significantly different (tree-picked or dropped), and the°Brix values of McIntosh, Macoun, and Melrose apple tissue were not significantly different. Single-cultivar preparations of cider did not support growth of E. coli, and the cell concentration of inoculated cider declined over an 11-day test period. The rate of decline in E. coli cell concentration in the McIntosh cider was greater than those in the other ciders tested. The findings of this study suggested that the presence of some factor besides, or in addition to, pH inhibited E. coli growth in McIntosh apples.

show abstract

“…These include the use of preservatives (6,18,26,41), irradiation (8), heating (23,36), fermentation (34), and pulsed electric fields (16). Cultures of Pseudomonas syringae help to control outgrowth of STEC O157:H7 in apple wounds before processing (25).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%