Comparison of Two Sampling Methods for Salmonella Isolation from Imported Veal Meat Samples of Unknown Infection Status

Authors

  • Jafar ALHamad

veal meat; salmonella; microbiological sampling; excision; swabbing

Abstract

The current study was conducted on a deboned veal meat imported to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and analyzed at Jeddah Food Control Laboratory (JFCL). The samples were collected routinely during 2013. The aim of this trial is to compare between effects of two sampling techniques; sponge swabbing and excision, on the capability of Salmonella recovery. A total of 900 samples of unknown infection status (150 individual samples × 3 analysts × 2 sampling methods) were examined for salmonella. Simultaneously, an artificial inoculation experiments of veal meat (n=120) were conducted. The international standard procedure for the detection of Salmonella (ISO 6579:2002) was the reference. Results show that the swab sampling technique was more representative, it resulted in higher isolation mean percentage of salmonella (97.8%) and (100%) of spiked samples, compared to excision percentage (86.7%) and (95%) of spiked samples. Percentages of swab and excision techniques of natural contaminated samples were positive for salmonella from the different analysts and ranged from 93.3% to 100% and from 70% to 100%, respectively. The average time for sampling by excision was significantly higher (5:10 minutes) than the corresponding time by swabbing technique (1:10 minute). Taking on consideration the daily workload pressure and the time required for sampling, the results illustrate that swabbing is superior to excision. This study suggests that swab sampling could be an alternative method for the detection of salmonella in meat on the basis of better recovery rate, accuracy, sensitivity and repeatability.

Downloads

How to Cite

Comparison of Two Sampling Methods for Salmonella Isolation from Imported Veal Meat Samples of Unknown Infection Status. (2014). Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 14(D3), 11-14. https://www.journalofscience.org/index.php/GJSFR/article/view/1148

References

Anonymous (2006) Opinion of the scientific panel on biological hazards on "risk assessment and mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production. 341, 1-131.

Anonymous (2002) Outbreak alert. Closing the Gaps in Our Federal Food-Safety Net. 1-58.

D Bolton (2003) The EC decision of the 8th of June 2001 (2001/471/EC): excision versus swabbing. 14, 207-209.

Sander Gerald G (1969) Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC).

W Dorsa, G Siragusa, C Cutter, E Berry, M Koohmaraie (1997) Efficacy of using a sponge sampling method to recover low levels of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella typhimurium and aerobic bacteria from beef carcass surface tissue. 14(1), 63-69.

C Gill, M Badoni, J Mcginnis (2001) Microbiological Sampling of Meat Cuts and Manufacturing Beef by Excision or Swabbing. 64(3), 325-334.

C Gill, T Jones (2000) Microbiological Sampling of Carcasses by Excision or Swabbing. 63(2), 167-173.

J Greig, A Ravel (2009) Analysis of foodborne outbreak data reported internationally for source attribution. 130(2), 77-87.

Comparison of Two Sampling Methods for Salmonella Isolation from Imported Veal Meat Samples of Unknown Infection Status

Published

2014-06-11

How to Cite

Comparison of Two Sampling Methods for Salmonella Isolation from Imported Veal Meat Samples of Unknown Infection Status. (2014). Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 14(D3), 11-14. https://www.journalofscience.org/index.php/GJSFR/article/view/1148