| Literature DB >> 22783456 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The significant rise in food borne infections is mainly caused by Campylobacter spp., Salmonella serovars and Verotoxigenic Escherichia coli. As the emerging food borne pathogens cause disease, more studies have been conducted for rapid detection of these pathogens. The combination of immunomagnetic separation and polymerase chain reaction (IMS-PCR) is the most accurate and rapid test preferred by almost every researcher. Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR) is preferred for being a new, user friendly and rapid technique in microbiological analyses. The main aim of this study is to detect application of IMS-FTIR for Salmonella identification from foods in a short time with a higher sensitivity.Entities:
Keywords: FTIR; IMS; Meat; PCR; Salmonella
Year: 2012 PMID: 22783456 PMCID: PMC3391555
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Iran J Microbiol ISSN: 2008-3289
Fig. 1Peaks observed around bonds which are claimed to affect the spectrum (Naumann et al., 2006).
Strains used in artificial contaminations.
|
|
|
| (ATCC 14028, Oxoid, England) | (ATCC 13883, Oxoid, England) |
|
|
|
| (ATCC 10145, Oxoid, England) | (ATCC 10536, Oxoid, England) |
|
|
|
| (ATCC 43864, Oxoid, England) | (ATCC 43071,RSHS Cultural collection, Turkey) |
Fig. 2Implementation diagram pertaining to process flow.
Validation study matrices and contamination levels.
| Matrices | Number of samples spiked | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||
| Low (8×101 cfu/ml) | Mid (1.1×102 cfu/ml) | High (4.3×103 cfu/ml) | |
| Powdered infant formula (PIF) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Milk (MI) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Minced Beef (MB) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Cheddar Cheese (CH) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Lettuce leaves (LT) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Mayonnaise (MY) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Ice cream (IC) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Chicken Schnitzels (CS) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Salami (SL) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| Black pepper (BP) | 10 | 10 | 10 |
|
|
|
|
|
Fig. 3Time-dependant change in contamination level in Salmonella and other microflora.
Fig. 4S. Typhimurium recovery ratios with different methods used in the study.
Fig. 5Recovery success determined by sampling time.
Fig. 6Change depending on elapsed time for each analysis type.
Fig. 7Comparison of all methods in terms of time and number of samples.
Validating study results.
| Matrices | Positive results | Negative results | Recovery (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Powdered infant formula (PIF) | 29 | 1 | 96.66 |
| Milk (MI) | 28 | 2 | 93.33 |
| Minced Beef (MB) | 28 | 2 | 93.33 |
| Cheddar Cheese (CH) | 30 | 0 | 100 |
| Lettuce leaves (LT) | 29 | 1 | 96.66 |
| Mayonnaise (MY) | 27 | 3 | 90 |
| Ice cream (IC) | 28 | 2 | 93.33 |
| Chicken Schnitzels (CS) | 29 | 1 | 96.66 |
| Salami (SL) | 29 | 1 | 96.66 |
| Black pepper (BP) | 30 | 0 | 100 |
|
|
|
|
|