The Swab, the Drip, or the Meat? Comparison of Microbiological Sampling Methods in Vacuum-Packed Raw Beef

Overview

Journal Microorganisms

Date 2025 Jan 25

PMID 39858928

Authors

Aracely Martinez-Moreno

America Chavez-Martinez

Janet E Corry

Christopher R Helps

Raul A Reyes-Villagrana

Juan M Tirado Gallegos

Eduardo Santellano-Estrada

Ana L Renteria-Monterrubio

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Historically, there has been a concern for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in foods, and numerous methods have been developed to determine their microbiological conditions. The present study aimed to compare the numbers of microbes recovered with three sampling methods: drip, excision, and swabbing in vacuum-packed beef. The sampling methods were evaluated in terms of the viable numbers of , lactic acid bacteria (LAB), , spp., and yeasts and moulds (Y&M). The numbers of , spp., , LAB, and M&Y recovered with the drip method were significantly higher ( < 0.05) than those from the other two methods. Regarding excision and swabbing, the recovery of and was higher ( < 0.05) with the excision method than swabbing, while there were no statistical differences ( > 0.05) between both methods for spp., LAB, and Y&M. In conclusion, the drip method can recover up to two logarithms more than the other techniques in vacuum-packed meat; hence, it should be considered when designing and implementing sampling systems for the meat industry.

References

Cox N, Richardson L, Cason J, Buhr R, Vizzier-Thaxton Y, Smith D . Comparison of neck skin excision and whole carcass rinse sampling methods for microbiological evaluation of broiler carcasses before and after immersion chilling. J Food Prot. 2010; 73(5):976-80. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.5.976. View

Small A, Jenson I, Kiermeier A, Sumner J . Vacuum-packed beef primals with extremely long shelf life have unusual microbiological counts. J Food Prot. 2012; 75(8):1524-7. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-042. View

Capita R, Prieto M, Alonso-Calleja C . Sampling methods for microbiological analysis of red meat and poultry carcasses. J Food Prot. 2004; 67(6):1303-8. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-67.6.1303. View

Blixt Y, Borch E . Comparison of shelf life of vacuum-packed pork and beef. Meat Sci. 2011; 60(4):371-8. DOI: 10.1016/S0309-1740(01)00145-0. View

Hussain M, Dawson C . Economic Impact of Food Safety Outbreaks on Food Businesses. Foods. 2017; 2(4):585-589. PMC: 5302274. DOI: 10.3390/foods2040585. View

Elmadfa I, Meyer A . Animal Proteins as Important Contributors to a Healthy Human Diet. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2016; 5:111-131. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-animal-022516-022943. View

Fung D, Lee C, Kastner C . Adhesive Tape Method for Estimating Microbial Load on Meat Surfaces . J Food Prot. 2019; 43(4):295-297. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-43.4.295. View

Martinez B, Celda M, Anastasio B, Garcia I, Lopez-Mendoza M . Microbiological sampling of carcasses by excision or swabbing with three types of sponge or gauze. J Food Prot. 2010; 73(1):81-7. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-73.1.81. View

Cobbaut K, Berkvens D, Houf K, De Deken R, De Zutter L . Escherichia coli O157 prevalence in different cattle farm types and identification of potential risk factors. J Food Prot. 2009; 72(9):1848-53. DOI: 10.4315/0362-028x-72.9.1848. View

10.

Dorsa W, Cutter C, Siragusa G . Evaluation of six sampling methods for recovery of bacteria from beef carcass surfaces. Lett Appl Microbiol. 1996; 22(1):39-41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765x.1996.tb01104.x. View

11.

Leisner J, Greer G, Dilts B, Stiles M . Effect of growth of selected lactic acid bacteria on storage life of beef stored under vacuum and in air. Int J Food Microbiol. 1995; 26(2):231-43. DOI: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)00133-q. View

12.

Ghafir Y, Daube G . Comparison of swabbing and destructive methods for microbiological pig carcass sampling. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2009; 47(4):322-6. DOI: 10.1111/j.1472-765x.2008.02433.x. View