Comparison of Different Most-Probable-Number Methods for Enumeration of Listeria in Poultry
Source: Journal of Food Protection®, Number 1, January 2003, pp. 3-161 , pp. 65-71(7)
Abstract:To estimate levels of Listeria spp. in poultry and to select the most appropriate enumeration method for routine analysis, 40 naturally contaminated retail chicken carcasses were tested in Ponferrada (León, N.W. Spain) using the direct plate count technique and various most-probable-number (MPN) designs (UVM I [University of Vermont modified Listeria enrichment broth], Fraser enrichment broth, or both were used in 3-, 5-, and 10-tube MPN techniques). MPN estimation was obtained from the number of tubes with Listeria confirmed (after streaking on PALCAM and modified Oxford agars: ''true'' MPN) and from the number of dark Fraser broth tubes (''predictive'' MPN). Samples were analyzed in duplicate. Low levels of Listeria were found (<110 CFU/g). The direct plate count technique was totally ineffective for enumerating Listeria in poultry. The single-step (UVM I) and the two-step (UVM I-Fraser) MPN methods gave comparable estimations and a low number of significantly discrepant predictions. Using a single-step method with Fraser broth, lower true MPNs were obtained. The number of tubes used (3, 5, or 10) did not have a substantial influence on the results. Similar estimations, highly correlated (r = 0.538 to 0.968; P < 0.001), were found with (true MPN) and without (predictive MPN) plating confirmation when using the twostep MPN method. The statistical evaluation of the differential character of Fraser broth as part of the two-step MPN method showed high sensitivity (87.5 to 92.5%), specificity (95.2 to 98.6%), efficiency (94.2 to 97.6%), and predictive values (73.6 to 89.9% for a positive test and 98.0 to 98.9% for a negative test). Taking into account these results, we suggest the convenience of using a 3- or 5-tube two-step (UVM I-Fraser) MPN method with estimations obtained from the number of tubes with darkening, without confirmation, in order to achieve great savings in time and money.
Document Type: Research Article
Affiliations: 1: Área de Nutrición y Bromatología, Escuela Superior y Técnica de Ingeniería Agraria (ESTIA), Universidad de León (Campus de Ponferrada), Avda. Astorga, s/n, 24400-Ponferrada (León), Spain 2: Área de Nutrición y Bromatología, Escuela Superior y Técnica de Ingeniería Agraria (ESTIA), Universidad de León (Campus de Ponferrada), Avda. Astorga, s/n, 24400-Ponferrada (León), Spain
Publication date: January 1, 2003
- IAFP members must first sign in on the right to access full text articles of JFP First published in 1937, the Journal of Food Protection®, is a refereed monthly publication. Each issue contains scientific research and authoritative review articles reporting on a variety of topics in food science pertaining to food safety and quality. The Journal is internationally recognized as the leading publication in the field of food microbiology with a readership exceeding 11,000 scientists from 70 countries. The Journal of Food Protection® is indexed in Index Medicus, Current Contents, BIOSIS, PubMed, Medline, and many others.
Print and online subscriptions are available to Members and Institutional subscribers. Online visitors who are not IAFP Members or journal subscribers will be charged on a pay-per-view basis. Information can be obtained by calling +1 800.369.6337; +1 515.276.3344; fax: +1 515.276.8655, E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org or Web site: www.foodprotection.org
- Information for Authors
- Submit a Paper
- Subscribe to this Title
- Membership Information
- Information for Advertisers
- ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites