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

Jafar ALHamad

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

Jafar Alhamad * §

Contact

Abdullah Alalyani

Contact

Ali Alzowehry

Contact

§ Saudi Food and Drug Authority

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

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

M23KB

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

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant

This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

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.

References

17 Cites in Article

Reference Format

1. Anonymous (2006). Opinion of the Scientific Panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) related to “Risk assessment and mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production”. Official Journal of the European Communities L, 341, 1-131.
2. Anonymous (2002). Outbreak alert Closing the Gaps in Our Federal Food-Safety Net Updated and Revised – September 2002. Center for Science in the Public Interest, 1-58.
3. E. The (2003). The EC decision of the 8th June 2001 (EC/471/2001): excision versus swabbing. Food Control, 14, 207-209.
4. (2003). Recommended International code of practice general principles of food hygiene. Codex Alimentarius Commission. Recommended International code of practice general principles of food hygiene
5. W. Dorsa,G. Siragusa,C. Cutter,E. Berry,M. Koohmaraie (1997). Efficacy of using a sponge sampling method to recover low levels ofEscherichia coliO157:H7,Salmonella typhimurium, and aerobic bacteria from beef carcass surface tissue. Food Microbiology, 14(1), 63-69.
CrossRef DOI
6. C. Gill,M. Badoni,J. McGinnis (2001). Microbiological Sampling of Meat Cuts and Manufacturing Beef by Excision or Swabbing. Journal of Food Protection, 64(3), 325-334.
CrossRef DOI
7. C. Gill,T. Jones (2000). Microbiological Sampling of Carcasses by Excision or Swabbing. Journal of Food Protection, 63(2), 167-173.
CrossRef DOI
8. J. Greig,A. Ravel (2009). Analysis of foodborne outbreak data reported internationally for source attribution. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 130, 77-78.
9. ISO (2003). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs. Carcass sampling for microbiological analysis. Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs -Carcass Sampling for Microbiological Analysis
10. ISO (2003). Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs —Preparation of Test Samples, Initial Suspension and Decimal Dilutions for Microbiological Examination (ISO 6887-2:2003).
11. ISO (2003). Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs — Protocol for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ISO 16140:2003).
12. ISO (2002). Microbiology of Food and Animal Feeding Stuffs—Horizontal Method for the Detection of Salmonella spp. (ISO 6579:2002).
13. Gregory Orriss,Anthony Whitehead (2000). Hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) as a part of an overall quality assurance system in international food trade. Food Control, 11(5), 345-351.
CrossRef DOI
14. R. Pearce,D. Bolton (2005). Excision vs sponge swabbing - a comparison of methods for the microbiological sampling of beef, pork and lamb carcasses. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 98(4), 896-900.
CrossRef DOI
15. J. Schlundt (2002). New directions in foodborne disease prevention. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 78, 17-25.
16. (2013). USDA, 2013. US Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service. Saudi Arabia: agriculture situation e agricultural economy and policy report, global agriculture information network (GAIN) country report. 20GAIN%20Publications/Exporter%20Guide_Riyadh _Saudi%20Arabia_12-9-2013.pdf.
17. M. Van der Merwe (2013). Jooste, P.J., Hoffman, L.C., Calitz, F.J., 2013. Two sampling techniques for game meat. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association84(1), Art. #536, 6 pages. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association
CrossRef DOI

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Jafar ALHamad, Abdullah Alalyani, Ali Alzowehry. 2014. "Comparison of two Sampling Methods for Salmonella Isolation from Imported Veal Meat Samples of Unknown Infection Status". Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - D: Agriculture & Veterinary GJSFR-D Volume 14 (GJSFR Volume 14 Issue 12 (D3)).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJSFR Volume 14 Issue 12 (D3)

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords

excision microbiological sampling salmonella swabbing veal meat

Classification

GJSFR-D Classification FOR Code: 860109

Submission ReceivedFebruary 26, 2014
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted March 26, 2014
Published April 1, 2014

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

April 1, 2014

Language

English

Order Article Reprint

Experience in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 123

Country: Saudi Arabia

Subject: Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - D: Agriculture & Veterinary

Authors: Jafar ALHamad, Abdullah Alalyani, Ali Alzowehry (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 361

Total Views (Real + Logic): 2067

Total Downloads (simulated): 158

Publish Date: 2014 03, Thu

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 46 views
Month 2: 64 views
Month 3: 17 views
Month 4: 38 views
Month 5: 50 views
Month 6: 40 views
Month 7: 35 views
Month 8: 21 views
Month 9: 45 views
Month 10: 19 views
Month 11: 41 views
Month 12: 41 views
Month 13: 23 views
Month 14: 36 views
Month 15: 40 views
Month 16: 39 views
Month 17: 34 views
Month 18: 20 views
Month 19: 32 views
Month 20: 36 views
Month 21: 28 views
Month 22: 34 views
Month 23: 31 views
Month 24: 25 views
Month 25: 31 views
Month 26: 33 views
Month 27: 30 views
Month 28: 16 views
Month 29: 34 views
Month 30: 22 views
Month 31: 31 views
Month 32: 31 views
Month 33: 31 views
Month 34: 20 views
Month 35: 21 views
Month 36: 33 views
Month 37: 32 views
Month 38: 19 views
Month 39: 25 views
Month 40: 35 views
Month 41: 17 views
Month 42: 49 views
Month 43: 34 views
Month 44: 15 views
Month 45: 37 views
Month 46: 36 views
Month 47: 24 views
Month 48: 37 views
Month 49: 40 views
Month 50: 16 views
Month 51: 33 views
Month 52: 32 views
Month 53: 18 views
Month 54: 28 views
Month 55: 32 views
Month 56: 22 views
Month 57: 37 views
Month 58: 46 views
Month 59: 40 views
Month 60: 49 views
Month 61: 21 views
Month 62: 24 views
Month 63: 48 views
Month 64: 42 views
Month 65: 48 views
Month 66: 21 views
Month 67: 31 views
Month 68: 37 views
Month 69: 40 views
Month 70: 38 views
Month 71: 18 views
Month 72: 20 views
Month 73: 35 views
Month 74: 21 views
Month 75: 26 views
Month 76: 24 views
Month 77: 24 views
Month 78: 43 views
Month 79: 23 views
Month 80: 31 views
Month 81: 16 views
Month 82: 28 views
Month 83: 34 views
Month 84: 15 views
Month 85: 25 views
Month 86: 22 views
Month 87: 38 views
Month 88: 30 views
Month 89: 25 views
Month 90: 37 views
Month 91: 27 views
Month 92: 36 views
Month 93: 37 views
Month 94: 34 views
Month 95: 34 views
Month 96: 15 views
Month 97: 25 views
Month 98: 24 views
Month 99: 40 views
Month 100: 24 views
Month 101: 19 views
Month 102: 43 views
Month 103: 48 views
Month 104: 32 views
Month 105: 25 views
Month 106: 45 views
Month 107: 25 views
Month 108: 25 views
Month 109: 19 views
Month 110: 36 views
Month 111: 40 views
Month 112: 24 views
Month 113: 28 views
Month 114: 13 views
Month 115: 21 views
Month 116: 12 views
Month 117: 35 views
Month 118: 34 views
Month 119: 34 views
Month 120: 45 views
Month 121: 36 views
Month 122: 13 views
Month 123: 43 views
Month 124: 18 views
Month 125: 27 views
Month 126: 37 views
Month 127: 39 views
Month 128: 36 views
Month 129: 25 views
Month 130: 26 views
Month 131: 20 views
Month 132: 44 views
Month 133: 40 views
Month 134: 43 views
Month 135: 20 views
Month 136: 37 views
Month 137: 40 views
Month 138: 19 views
Month 139: 22 views
Month 140: 41 views
Month 141: 80 views
Month 142: 54 views
Month 143: 28 views
Month 144: 45 views
Month 145: 45 views
Month 146: 17 views
Month 147: 37 views
Month 148: 60 views
Month 149: 45 views
Month 150: 27 views
Month 151: 44 views
Month 152: 33 views

Total Views: 2.1K

Total Downloads: 158

All Trends