| Literature DB >> 28391475 |
Sujeet Kumar Mritunjay1, Vipin Kumar2.
Abstract
The present work evaluates the microbiological quality of raw salad vegetables (RSV) consumed in Dhanbad city, India. A total of 480 samples of 8 different raw salad vegetables from local market were examined for overall microbial quality in terms of aerobic mesophilic, psychrotrophic counts, yeast, mould and total coliform levels. E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella sp. were detected by real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) subsequent to isolation. Results showed that all the samples were found positive for total coliform; however, E. coli was detected in 16.7% of the total samples. Pathogenic microorganisms such as E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. were detected in 1.3, 3.5 and 4.0%, respectively, of the total samples. However, pathogens were not detected in any of the cabbage samples. The Exiguobacterium sp. (Strain ISM SP 2014) was detected in the spinach sample while studying the bacterial contamination, reported for the first time on the surface of RSV. The 16S rRNA gene sequencing showed less than 92% similarity with sequences available in the public domain.Entities:
Keywords: E. coli O157:H7; Exiguobacterium sp.; L. monocytogenes; Raw salad vegetables; Salmonella sp.
Year: 2017 PMID: 28391475 PMCID: PMC5385173 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-016-0585-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.893
Population of the aerobic mesophilic microorganisms
| Sample |
| <105a | 105–106 | 106–107 | 107–108 | >108 | Rangea | Meana ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 11 (18.3%) | 17 (28.3%) | 22 (36.7%) | 05 (8.3%) | 05 (8.3%) | 4.0–8.8 | 5.9 ± 1.2 |
| Cucumber | 60 | 07 (11.7%) | 12 (20.0%) | 25 (41.7%) | 11 (18.3%) | 05 (8.3%) | 4.3–8.7 | 6.3 ± 1.1 |
| Carrot | 60 | 15 (25.0%) | 16 (26.7%) | 18 (30.0%) | 06 (10.0%) | 05 (8.3%) | 4.3–8.7 | 5.9 ± 1.2 |
| Radish | 60 | 04 (6.7%) | 26 (43.3%) | 17 (28.3%) | 12 (20.0%) | 01 (1.7%) | 4.0–8.3 | 6.0 ± 0.9 |
| Coriander | 60 | 08 (13.3%) | 29 (48.3%) | 14 (23.3%) | 04 (6.7%) | 05 (8.3%) | 4.0–8.7 | 5.8 ± 1.2 |
| Beet-root | 60 | 07 (11.7%) | 22 (36.7%) | 16 (26.7%) | 11 (18.3%) | 04 (6.7%) | 4.0–8.9 | 6.1 ± 1.3 |
| Cabbage | 60 | 18 (30.0%) | 42 (70.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 2.0–5.8 | 5.1 ± 0.6 |
| Spinach | 60 | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 23 (38.3%) | 27 (45.0%) | 10 (16.7%) | 6.1–9.6 | 7.3 ± 0.8 |
| Total | 480 | 70 (14.6%) | 164 (34.2%) | 135 (28.1%) | 76 (15.8%) | 35 (7.3%) | 2.0–9.6 | 6.1 ± 1.2 |
n number of samples, SD standard deviation
aThe unit of number is log cfu/g
Population of the aerobic psychrotrophic microorganisms
| Sample |
| <105a | 105–106 | 106–107 | 107–108 | >108 | Rangea | Meana ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 10 (16.7%) | 38 (63.3%) | 02 (3.3%) | 09 (15.0%) | 01 (1.7%) | 3.9–8.0 | 5.6 ± 1.0 |
| Cucumber | 60 | 14 (23.3%) | 22 (36.7%) | 15 (25.0%) | 08 (13.3%) | 01 (1.7%) | 3.6–8.0 | 5.7 ± 1.0 |
| Carrot | 60 | 11 (18.3%) | 10 (16.7%) | 28 (46.7%) | 11 (18.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 4.0–8.0 | 6.1 ± 1.0 |
| Radish | 60 | 12 (20.0%) | 23 (38.3%) | 21 (35.0%) | 04 (6.7%) | 00 (0.0%) | 4.1–7.8 | 5.7 ± 0.8 |
| Coriander | 60 | 19 (31.7%) | 22 (36.7%) | 11 (18.3%) | 06 (10.0%) | 02 (3.3%) | 3.2–8.5 | 5.5 ± 1.1 |
| Beet-root | 60 | 10 (16.7%) | 16 (26.7%) | 20 (33.3%) | 12 (20.0%) | 02 (3.3%) | 3.0–8.5 | 6.1 ± 1.2 |
| Cabbage | 60 | 05 (8.3%) | 52 (86.7%) | 03 (5.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 4.1–6.0 | 5.3 ± 0.4 |
| Spinach | 60 | 03 (5.0%) | 04 (6.7%) | 25 (41.7%) | 18 (30.0%) | 10 (16.7%) | 4.4–8.8 | 7.0 ± 1.0 |
| Total | 480 | 84 (17.5%) | 187 (39.0%) | 125 (26.0%) | 68 (14.2%) | 16 (3.3%) | 3.0–8.5 | 5.9 ± 1.0 |
n number of samples, SD standard deviation
aThe unit of number is log cfu/g
Population of the total coliforms
| Sample |
| <104a | 104–105 | 105–106 | 106–107 | <107 | Rangea | Meana ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 05 (8.3%) | 21 (35.0%) | 23 (38.3%) | 10 (16.7%) | 01 (1.7%) | 3.0–7.3 | 5.1 ± 0.9 |
| Cucumber | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 31 (51.7%) | 18 (30.0%) | 10 (16.7%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.0–6.6 | 4.9 ± 0.8 |
| Carrot | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 20 (33.3%) | 25 (41.7%) | 13 (21.7%) | 01 (1.7%) | 3.3–7.0 | 5.3 ± 0.8 |
| Radish | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 14 (23.3%) | 39 (65.0%) | 06 (10.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.1–7.0 | 5.2 ± 0.7 |
| Coriander | 60 | 07 (11.7%) | 36 (60.0%) | 08 (13.3%) | 09 (15.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.0–6.8 | 4.7 ± 0.9 |
| Beet-root | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 30 (50.0%) | 11 (18.3%) | 14 (23.3%) | 04 (6.7%) | 3.3–7.8 | 5.1 ± 1.1 |
| Cabbage | 60 | 35 (58.3%) | 11 (18.3%) | 14 (23.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.0–5.3 | 4.0 ± 0.8 |
| Spinach | 60 | 00 (0.0%) | 07 (11.7%) | 33 (55.0%) | 18 (30.0%) | 02 (3.3%) | 4.3–7.7 | 5.8 ± 0.8 |
| Total | 480 | 51 (10.6%) | 170 (35.4%) | 171 (35.6%) | 80 (16.7%) | 08 (1.7%) | 3.0–7.8 | 5.0 ± 0.9 |
n number of samples, SD standard deviation
aThe unit of number is log10 cfu/g
Population of the yeast and mould
| Sample |
| <104a | 104–105 | 105–106 | 106–107 | >107 | Rangea | Meana ± SD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 17 (28.3%) | 39 (65.0%) | 03 (5.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.0–6.2 | 5.1 ± 0.7 |
| Cucumber | 60 | 03 (5.0%) | 45 (75.0%) | 10 (16.7%) | 02 (3.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.2–6.7 | 4.6 ± 0.7 |
| Carrot | 60 | 00 (0.0%) | 22 (36.7%) | 21 (35.0%) | 17 (28.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 4.0–7.0 | 5.4 ± 0.7 |
| Radish | 60 | 00 (0.0%) | 24 (40.0%) | 21 (35.0%) | 13 (21.7%) | 02 (3.3%) | 4.0–7.0 | 5.2 ± 0.8 |
| Coriander | 60 | 01 (1.7%) | 29 (48.3%) | 29 (48.3%) | 01 (1.7%) | 00 (0.0%) | 3.2–6.3 | 4.7 ± 0.6 |
| Beet-root | 60 | 00 (0.0%) | 22 (36.7%) | 18 (30.0%) | 20 (33.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 4.1–6.3 | 5.3 ± 0.7 |
| Cabbage | 60 | 32 (53.3%) | 26 (43.3%) | 02 (3.3%) | 00 (0.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 2.8–5.3 | 3.9 ± 0.7 |
| Spinach | 60 | 20 (33.3%) | 24 (40.0%) | 10 (16.7%) | 06 (10.0%) | 00 (0.0%) | 2.5–6.4 | 4.3 ± 1.0 |
| Total | 480 | 57 (11.9%) | 209 (43.5%) | 150 (31.3%) | 62 (12.9%) | 02 (0.4%) | 2.8–7.0 | 4.8 ± 0.8 |
n number of samples, SD standard deviation
aThe unit of number is log cfu/g
Fig. 1Box and whisker diagrams of a aerobic mesophilic count, b aerobic psychrotrophic count, c total coliforms count and d yeast and mould count. Horizontal bars indicate mean values, boxes show the standard deviation, whisker lines indicate the ranges and box shows median values
Mean comparisons between different microbiological analyses
| Sample |
| AMCa | APCa | Total coliformsa | Yeast and mould counta |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 5.9A | 5.6B | 5.1C | 5.1C |
| Cucumber | 60 | 6.3A | 5.7B | 4.9C | 4.6C |
| Carrot | 60 | 5.9A | 6.1A | 5.3B | 5.4B |
| Radish | 60 | 6.0A | 5.7B | 5.2C | 5.2C |
| Coriander | 60 | 5.8A | 5.5A | 4.7B | 4.7B |
| Beet-root | 60 | 6.1A | 6.1A | 5.1B | 5.3B |
| Cabbage | 60 | 5.1A | 5.3A | 4.0B | 3.9B |
| Spinach | 60 | 7.3A | 7.0A | 5.8B | 4.3C |
n Number of samples
Means having different letters (A–C) are significantly different (p < 0.05)
aThe unit of number is log cfu/g
Detection of E. coli, E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella sp. and Exiguobacterium sp. (ISM SP 2014)
| Sample |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tomato | 60 | 09 (15.0%) | ND | 04 (6.7%) | 03 (5.0%) | ND |
| Cucumber | 60 | 09 (15.0%) | ND | 03 (5.0%) | 03 (5.0%) | ND |
| Carrot | 60 | 12 (20.0%) | ND | 01 (1.7%) | 02 (3.3%) | ND |
| Radish | 60 | 12 (20.0%) | ND | 01 (1.7%) | 01 (1.7%) | ND |
| Coriander | 60 | 03 (5.0%) | ND | ND | 01 (1.7%) | ND |
| Beet-root | 60 | 11 (18.3%) | 02 (3.3%) | ND | 02 (3.3%) | ND |
| Cabbage | 60 | 03 (5.0%) | ND | ND | ND | ND |
| Spinach | 60 | 21 (35.0%) | 04 (6.7%) | 08 (13.3%) | 07 (11.7%) | 02 (3.3) |
| Total | 480 | 80 (16.7%) | 06 (1.3%) | 17 (3.5%) | 19 (4.0%) | 02 (0.4) |
n number of samples; ND not detected
Fig. 2Phylogenetic tree showing relationships between Exiguobacterium sp. (ISM SP 2014) and other Exiguobacterium sp. (bootstrap = 1000)