| Literature DB >> 35783559 |
Ângela Alves1, Nânci Santos-Ferreira1, Rui Magalhães1, Vânia Ferreira1, Paula Teixeira1.
Abstract
Epidemiological studies show that improper food handling practices at home account for a significant portion of foodborne illness cases. Mishandling of raw meat during meal preparation is one of the most frequent hazardous behaviours reported in observational research studies that potentially contributes to illness occurrence, particularly through the transfer of microbial pathogens from the raw meat to ready-to-eat (RTE) foods. This study evaluated the transfer of two major foodborne pathogens, Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes, from artificially contaminated chicken meat to lettuce via cooking salt (used for seasoning) during simulated domestic handling practices. Pieces of chicken breast fillets were spiked with five different loads (from ca. 1 to 5 Log CFU/g) of a multi-strain cocktail of either S. enterica or L. monocytogenes. Hands of volunteers (gloved) contaminated by handling the chicken, stirred the cooking salt that was further used to season lettuce leaves. A total of 15 events of cross-contamination (three volunteers and five bacterial loads) were tested for each pathogen. Immediately after the events, S. enterica was isolated from all the cooking salt samples (n = 15) and from 12 samples of seasoned lettuce; whereas L. monocytogenes was isolated from 13 salt samples and from all the seasoned lettuce samples (n = 15). In addition, S. enterica and L. monocytogenes were able to survive in artificially contaminated salt (with a water activity of 0.49) for, at least, 146 days and 126 days, respectively. The ability of these foodborne pathogens to survive for a long time in cooking salt, make it a good vehicle for transmission and cross-contamination if consumers do not adopt good hygiene practices when preparing meals.Entities:
Keywords: Consumer practices; Cross-contamination; Foodborne; Low-water activity; Raw meat; Read-to-eat; Survival
Year: 2022 PMID: 35783559 PMCID: PMC9025383 DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2022.108959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Food Control ISSN: 0956-7135 Impact factor: 6.652
Strains used in this study.
| Isolate code | Origin | Sample | Serotype | Isolation year | Geographic Isolation | Reference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lm 2542 | Human | Placenta | 4b | 2010 | Portugal | |||
| FSL J1-177 | Human | NA | 1/2b | 1997 | USA | |||
| FSL J1-031 | Human | Blood | 4a | 1991 | Canada | |||
| FSL N3-013 | Food | Pate | 4b | 1988–99 | UK | |||
| FSL R2-499 | Human | NA | 1/2a | 2000 | USA | |||
| FSL N1-227 | Food | NA | 4b | 1988–99 | USA | |||
| MF4077 | Food-associated Environment | NA | 1/2a | NA | Norway | |||
| Salmonella | ||||||||
| SLM 27C | Food | Egg shell | Typhimurium | 2017 | Portugal | |||
| M2016 ETBI | Broiler | NA | Infantis | 2016 | Hungary | NA | ||
| 775W | NA | NA | Seftenberg | NA | NA | NA | ||
| INSA | Human | NA | Enteriditidis | 2017 | Portugal | NA | ||
NA – Not available.
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the transmission model of L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. from artificially contaminated raw chicken meat samples to lettuce seasoned with salt.
Difference between initial L. monocytogenes levels on the raw chicken and final levels in cooking salt and lettuce.
| Experiments | Raw chicken | Cooking salt | Lettuce | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Counts (CFU/g) | Counts (CFU/g) | Detection (in 10 g) | Counts (CFU/g) | Detection (in 50 g) | |
| I | 2.0 × 101 | <10 | Negative | 7.0 × 101 | Positive |
| 3.9 × 102 | <10 | Positive | 1.5 × 102 | Positive | |
| 1.1 × 103 | 7.0 × 101 | Positive | 2.4 × 102 | Positive | |
| 1.4 × 104 | 5.2 × 102 | Positive | 3.4 × 102 | Positive | |
| 4.8 × 104 | 2.6 × 103 | Positive | 5.1 × 102 | Positive | |
| II | 1.1 × 102 | <10 | Positive | 9.0 × 101 | Positive |
| 5.0 × 102 | 1.0 × 101 | Positive | 6.5 × 102 | Positive | |
| 1.8 × 103 | 9.0 × 101 | Positive | 6.4 × 102 | Positive | |
| 8.0 × 103 | 4.9 × 102 | Positive | 5.1 × 102 | Positive | |
| 2.9 × 105 | 2.0 × 103 | Positive | 1.3 × 103 | Positive | |
| III | 3.0 × 101 | <10 | Negative | <10 | Positive |
| 1.6 × 102 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Positive | |
| 8.3 × 102 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Positive | |
| 8.7 × 103 | 2.0 × 102 | Positive | 7.0 × 101 | Positive | |
| 2.8 × 105 | 1.6 × 103 | Positive | 4.0 × 102 | Positive | |
Difference between initial S. enterica levels on the raw chicken and final levels in cooking salt and lettuce.
| Experiments | Raw Chicken | Cooking salt | Lettuce | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Counts (CFU/g) | Counts (CFU/g) | Detection (in 10 g) | Counts (CFU/g) | Detection (in 50 g) | ||
| I | 9.0 × 101 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Negative | |
| 5.2 × 102 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 2.7 × 103 | 4.0 × 101 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 3.3 × 104 | 3.3 × 102 | Positive | 2.8 × 102 | Positive | ||
| 2.3 × 105 | 4.7 × 103 | Positive | 2.4 × 103 | Positive | ||
| II | 8.0 × 101 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Negative | |
| 1.9 × 102 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 3.1 × 103 | 1.0 × 101 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 1.9 × 104 | 3.1 × 102 | Positive | 2.1 × 103 | Positive | ||
| 1.5 × 105 | 1.5 × 103 | Positive | 4.1 × 103 | Positive | ||
| III | 1.9 × 102 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Negative | |
| 1.6 × 103 | <10 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 8.3 × 103 | 4.0 × 101 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 3.4 × 104 | 4.3 × 102 | Positive | <10 | Positive | ||
| 2.6 × 105 | 1.2 × 103 | Positive | 2.0 × 103 | Positive | ||
Fig. 2Survival of L. monocytogenes (A) and S. enterica (B) in cooking salt stored at room-temperature in selective (---) and non-selective (−) media. Values represent the mean Log CFU/g of three independent replicates. The error bars show the standard deviation.
Fig. 3Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) types obtained with restriction enzyme XbaI of S. enterica isolates collected from cooking salt samples.
Fig. 4Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) types obtained with restriction enzyme AscI of L. monocytogenes isolates collected from cooking salt samples.