| Literature DB >> 24228223 |
Abstract
Foodborne illnesses resulting from the consumption of produce commodities contaminated with enteric pathogens continue to be a significant public health issue. Lytic bacteriophages may provide an effective and natural intervention to reduce bacterial pathogens on fresh and fresh-cut produce commodities. The use of multi-phage cocktails specific for a single pathogen has been most frequently assessed on produce commodities to minimize the development of bacteriophage insensitive mutants (BIM) in target pathogen populations. Regulatory approval for the use of several lytic phage products specific for bacterial pathogens such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes in foods and on food processing surfaces has been granted by various agencies in the US and other countries, possibly allowing for the more widespread use of bacteriophages in the decontamination of fresh and minimally processed produce. Research studies have shown lytic bacteriophages specific for E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes have been effective in reducing pathogen populations on leafy greens, sprouts and tomatoes.Entities:
Keywords: Escherichia coli O157:H7; Listeria monocytogenes; Salmonella; bacteriophages; leafy greens; lytic; melons; produce; sprouts; vegetables
Year: 2013 PMID: 24228223 PMCID: PMC3821672 DOI: 10.4161/bact.25518
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Bacteriophage ISSN: 2159-7073
Table 1. Summary of studies cited examining effectiveness of lytic bacteriophages on produce commodities
| Commodity | Pathogen | MOI | Method of application of phages to produce commodity | Pathogen reduction | Ref. |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | |
| Lettuce (green leaf) | 100 | Spray | 3.5 log CFU/cm2 | Boyacioglu et al. | |
| Lettuce (Iceberg) | 1000 | Spray | 1.9 log CFU/cm2 | Sharma et al. | |
| Lettuce (Iceberg) | 10000 | Immersion in solution before bacterial inoculation | 1.9 log CFU/cm2 (after 72 h) | Ferguson et al. | |
| Lettuce (Romaine) | 1 | Spot | 0.7–3.7 log CFU/leaf | Viazis et al. | |
| 10 | Spot | 1.8–3.2 log CFU/leaf | |||
| 100 | Spot | 2.0–3.6 log CFU/leaf | |||
| Lettuce (Romaine) | 100 | Spray | 3.5 log CFU/cm2 | Boyacioglu et al. | |
| Spinach | 1000 | Spray | 99–100% | Abuladze et al. | |
| Spinach | 1 | Spot | 0.4–2.9 log CFU/leaf | Viazis et al. | |
| 10 | Spot | 1.7–3.0 log CFU/leaf | |||
| 100 | Spot | 1.5–3.1 log CFU/leaf | |||
| Spinach | 100 | Spray | 2.2 log CFU/cm2 | Boyacioglu et al. | |
| | | | | | |
| Tomato (fresh cut) | 10000 | Spray | 94–99% | Abuladze et al. | |
| Tomato (whole) | ND1 | Dip in combination with E. absuriae | 2.26 log CFU/ml (internalized populations) | Ye et al. | |
| | | | | | |
| Brocoli sprouts (seeds) | < 1 | Dip (soak) | 1.5 log CFU/ml | Pao et al. | |
| Mung bean sprouts | 1 | Dip (soak) | 3.4 log CFU/g | Yet et al. | |
| | | | | | |
| Cantaloupe | 100 | Spot | 2.5 log CFU/ml | Sharma et al. | |
| Honeydew | < 100 | Spot | 3.5 log CFU | Leverentz et al. | |
| Honeydew | Spray | 3.9 log CFU | Leverentz et al. |