| Literature DB >> 30479510 |
Jaewoon Jeong1, Jung-Whan Chon1, Hyunsook Kim2, Kwang-Young Song1, Kun-Ho Seo1.
Abstract
Salmonellosis caused by chicken consumption has been a critical issue in food safety worldwide, including in Korea. The probability of illness from consumption of chicken was simulated in study, based on the recipe of Dakgalbi, a commonly eaten chicken dish in Korea. Additionally, the processing stage at slaughterhouses to decrease Salmonella concentration in broilers was modeled to explore its effect on the likelihood of illness. A Monte Carlo simulation model was created using @RISK. Prevalence of Salmonella in chickens at the retail stage was found to be predominantly important in determining the probability of illness. Other than the prevalence, cooking temperature was found to have the largest impact on the probability of illness. The results also demonstrated that, although chlorination is a powerful tool for decreasing the Salmonella concentration in chicken, this effect did not last long and was negated by the following stages. This study analyzes the effects of variables of the retail-to-table pathway on the likelihood of salmonellosis in broiler consumption, and also evaluates the processing step used to decrease the contamination level of Salmonella in broilers at slaughterhouses. According to the results, we suggest that methods to decrease the contamination level of Salmonella such as chlorination had little effect on decreasing the probability of illness. Overall, these results suggest that preventing contamination of broiler with Salmonella must be a top priority and that methods to reduce the concentration of Salmonella in broilers at slaughterhouses hardly contribute to safe consumption of Salmonella-contaminated chicken.Entities:
Keywords: Salmonella; chicken; predictive microbiology; quantitative microbial risk assessment; risk analysis
Year: 2018 PMID: 30479510 PMCID: PMC6238039 DOI: 10.5851/kosfa.2018.e37
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour ISSN: 1225-8563 Impact factor: 2.622
Parameters used in the baseline model
| Unit operation | Variables | Description | Unit | Formula | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Retail | P | Prevalence of
| Pert(22.4, 31.65, 42.3) | ( | |
| COSC | Contamination of chicken with
| Discrete([0, 1], [100–P, P]) | |||
| TeR | Temperature of chicken at retail | ℃ | 4 | ( | |
| LCSC | Log concentration of
| Log(CFU/g) | Pert(4.3, 5.3, 6.3) | ( | |
| CSC | Concentration of
| CFU/g | 10^LCSC | ||
| CCH | Concentration of chlorination | ppm | 0 | ||
| λ | Parameter of
| 1 | |||
| ORE | Contamination level at retail | CFU/g | IF(COSC=0, 0, CSC×λ) | ||
| Transport | TiT | Transport and shopping time | h | Pert(17/60, 26/60, 35/60)+Pert(0.5, 0.75, 1) | ( |
| TeT | Ambient temperature | ℃ | Pert(min, median, max) | ( | |
| TeTR | Chicken temperature after transport | ℃ | IF(exp(TiT)–1+TeR>TeT, TeT, exp(TiT)–1+TeR) | ||
| AvTeTR | Average temperature between retail and after transport | ℃ | Average(TeR, TeTR) | ||
| TIAMTR | Time when chicken temperature reaches ambient temperature | h | LOG(TeT, exp(1)) | ||
| LT | Lag time of
| h | 1/(0.02082×AvTeTR–0.01235)2 | ( | |
| GRRETR | Growth rate of
| Log(CFU/g/h) | IF(AvTeTR>TeT, 0.0019×(AvTeTR–3.35)^2×(1–exp(0.29×(AvTeTR–48.01))), 0) | ( | |
| GRAMTR | Growth rate of
| Log(CFU/g/h) | 0.0019×(TeT–3.35)^2×(1–exp(0.29× (TeT–48.01))) | ( | |
| MPD | Maximum population density | Log(CFU/g) | 9.5 | ( | |
| GS | Growth of
| Log(CFU/g) | IF(TIT<TIAMTR, GRRETR×TiT, GRRETR×TIAMTR+GRAMTR×(TiT–TIAMTR)) | ||
| OTR | Contamination level after transport | CFU/g | IF(ORE+exp(GS)<exp(MPD), ORE+exp(GS), exp(MPD)) | ||
| Cooking | TeC | Cooking temperature | ℃ | Pert(71×0.8, 71, 71×1.2) | ( |
| TiC | Cooking time | min | Pert(10, 15, 20) | ( | |
| D | D-value | min | 10^(8.7344–(0.1316×TeC)) | ( | |
| LCR | Log cycle reduction | - | TiC/D | ||
| OC | Contamination level after cooking | CFU/g | (10^(–LCR))×OTR | ||
| Consumption | CW | Consumption weight | g | Pert(100, 200, 300) | ( |
| Dose | Amount of
| CFU | OC×CW | ||
| PILL | Probability of illness | IF(P=0, 0, (1– (1+10^Dose/2885)^ (–0.3126))) | ( |
Fig. 1(A) Reciprocal of the square root of Salmonella reduction in chicken versus chlorine concentration. (B) Parameter (λ) of Salmonella reduction depending on chlorination concentration.
The concentration of Salmonella in chicken meat after chlorination was calculated by multiplying λ with the concentration of Salmonella in chicken. Dots represent published data.
Likelihood of illness in each month
| Month | Average likelihood of illness |
|---|---|
| March | 0.0127 |
| April | 0.0112 |
| May | 0.0122 |
| June | 0.0124 |
| July | 0.0111 |
| August | 0.0120 |
| September | 0.0122 |
| October | 0.0120 |
| November | 0.0125 |
Fig. 2Tornado chart of sensitivity analysis for the probability of illness.
(A) Sensitivity analysis for the results of August in the baseline model. (B) Sensitivity analysis for the results of August in the baseline model with the deterministic value of prevalence. (C) Sensitivity analysis for the results of the chlorination model in August.
Fig. 3(A) Reciprocal of the square root of the probability of illness versus chlorine concentration. (B) Probability of illness depending on chlorination concentration.
Dots represent the simulation results of the chlorination model.