| Literature DB >> 23066386 |
Mirriam E Nyenje1, Collins E Odjadjare, Nicoline F Tanih, Ezekiel Green, Roland N Ndip.
Abstract
This study assessed the microbiological quality of various ready-to-eat foods sold in Alice, South Africa. Microbiological analysis was conducted on 252 samples which included vegetables, potatoes, rice, pies, beef and chicken stew. The isolates were identified using biochemical tests and the API 20E, API 20NE and API Listeria kits; results were analyzed using the one-way-ANOVA test. Bacterial growth was present in all the food types tested; high levels of total aerobic count were observed in vegetables, 6.8 ± 0.07 followed by rice, 6.7 ± 1.7 while pies had the lowest count (2.58 ± 0.24). Organisms isolated included: Listeria spp. (22%), Enterobacter spp. (18%), Aeromonas hydrophila (12%), Klebsiella oxytoca (8%), Proteus mirabilis (6.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (3.2%) and Pseudomonas luteola (2.4%). Interestingly, Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli were not isolated in any of the samples. There was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the prevalence of foodborne pathogens from hygienic and unhygienic cafeterias. The results indicated that most of the ready-to-eat food samples examined in this study did not meet bacteriological quality standards, therefore posing potential risks to consumers. This should draw the attention of the relevant authorities to ensure that hygienic standards are improved to curtain foodborne infections.Entities:
Keywords: South Africa; bacterial count; foodborne pathogens; microbial quality; street foods
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23066386 PMCID: PMC3447576 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph9082608
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Mean bacterial counts of the food samples examined.
| Food types | Bacterial count range (log 10 CFU g−1) | Mean bacterial count (log 10 CFU g−1) ± SD | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V | R | C | B | PT | P | |||
| Vegetables (n = 42) | 6.3–6.8 | 6.8 ± 0.07 | - | 0.235 | 0.913 | 0.001 | 0.585 | 0.000 |
| Rice (n = 42) | 4.3–6.7 | 6.7 ± 1.7 | 0.235 | - | 0.196 | 0.000 | 0.513 | 0.000 |
| Chicken stew (n = 42) | 5.9–6.2 | 6.05 ± 0.12 | 0.913 | 0.196 | - | 0.001 | 0.513 | 0.000 |
| Beef stew (n = 42) | 3.9–6.15 | 5.32 ± 3.14 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.001 | - | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Potatoes (n = 42) | 6.0–6.4 | 6.27 ± 0.18 | 0.585 | 0.513 | 0.513 | 0.000 | - | 0.000 |
| Pies (n = 42) | 2.30–2.81 | 2.58 ± 0. 24 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | - |
CFU g−1, colony forming units per gram; SD, standard deviation; R, rice; C, chicken stew; B, beef stew; PT, potatoes; P, pies; -, no comparison done.
The mean difference is considered significant at p < 0.05.
Mean bacterial counts of food obtained from hygienic and unhygienic cafeterias.
| Food types | Bacterial count (log 10 cfu/g) ± Standard deviation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unhygienic | Hygienic | |||
| Vegetables (n = 42) | 6.8 ± 0.07 | 6.4 ±0.7 | 0.128 (>0.05) | |
| Rice (n = 42) | 6.7 ± 1.7 | 6.35 ± 0.07 | 0.000 (<0.05) | |
| Chicken stew (n = 42) | 6.05 ± 0.12 | 5.95 ± 0.07 | 0.122 (>0.05) | |
| Beef stew (n = 42) | 5.32 ± 3.14 | 4.32 ±3.01 | 0.002 (<0.05) | |
| Potatoes (n = 42) | 6.27 ± 0.18 | 6.15 ± 0.21 | 0.171 (>0.05) | |
| Pies (n = 42) | ND | 3.9 ± 0.7 | ND | |
CFU g−1, colony forming units per gram; ND, not determined; unhygienic cafeterias, vending sites without running water, toilets, fridges to store food and dirt environment; hygienic cafeterias, vending sites with running water, clean food preparation surfaces, toilets, clean environment and food handlers who comply with food hygienic standards. The mean difference is considered significant at p < 0.05.
Bacteria distribution in the various food samples examined.
| Bacteria isolates | Chicken stew (n = 42) | Beef stew (n = 42) | Vegetables (n = 42) | Rice (n = 42) | Potatoes (n = 42) | Pies (n = 42) | Number (%) occurrence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 14 | 51/252 (20%) | |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5/252 (2%) | |
| 7 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 7 | 35/252 (14%) | |
| 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 6/252 (2.4) | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2/252 (1%) | |
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3/252 (1.2%) | |
| 4 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 16/252 (6.3%) | |
| 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 21/252 (8.3%) | |
| 2 | 4 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 30/252 (12%) | |
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8/252 (3.2%) | |
| 0 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 7/252 (2.8%) | |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 6/252 (2.4%) | |
| Other Gram positive Bacilli | 54 | 62 | 70 | 77 | 64 | 66 | 267/588 (45%) |
Figure 1Bacterial contamination of food from hygienic and unhygienic cafeterias.