Keywords
Petrifilm®
Compact dry®
standard method
How to Cite
Abstract
Rapid techniques for microbiological analysis of foods show advantages when compared with the conventional methods, as the former are easy-to-performer and no time-consuming assays in getting the results. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of the rapid techniques Petrifilm® EC and Compact dry® EC and CF with the standard method for counting the coliform group in bovine raw minced meat samples. The performances of rapid tests were compared for quantifying Escherichia coli at 35°C and 45°C. Simple regression analysis of data showed a strong correlation between Petrifilm® and Compact dry® for determining the number of coliforms, as well as for quantifying E. coli. However, when the results of E. coli counting at 35ºC and 45°C by means of the same technique were compared, the correlation factors were lower. This analysis suggests that rapid techniques are suitable to be employed as alternative techniques for microorganisms counting in raw minced meat.References
1. Silva CA, Sousa CP. Estudo da qualidade sanitária da carne moída comercializada na cidade de João Pessoa, PB. Hig Aliment. 2004; 18(121): 90-4.
2. Suwansonthichai S, Rengpipat S. Enumeration of coliforms and Escherichia coli in frozen black tiger shrimp Penaeus monodon by conventional and rapidmethods. Int J Food Microbiol. 2003, 81(2): 113-21.
3. Loguercio AP, Aleixo JAG. Microbiolgy of homemadeMinas Frescal cheese. Ciênc Rural. 2001; 31: 1063-67.
4. Silva N, Junqueira VCA, Silveira NFA. Manual demétodos de análise microbiológica de alimentos. SãoPaulo (BR): Varela, 1996.
5. Franco BDGM, Landgraf M. Microbiologia dos alimentos. 2ed. São Paulo (BR): Atheneu, 1996.
6. Barancelli GV, Sarkis F, Gallo CR, Oliveira AJ. Avaliação de métodos para e numeração de microrganismos aeróbios mesofilos e coliformes em leitecru. Hig Aliment. 2004;18(120): 70-84.
7. Bugno A, Almodovar AAB, Pereira TC, Pinto TJA. Aplicabilidade de Petrifilm® na enumeração de bactériase fungos em drogas vegetais. Rev Inst Adolfo Lutz. 2005;64(1): 20-4.
8. Kodaka H, Mizuochi S, Teramura H, Nirazuka T, GoinsD, Odumeru J. et al. Comparison of the Compact DryEC with the most probable number method (AOAC Official Method 966.24) for enumeration of Escherichia coli and coliform bacteria in raw meats. JAOAC Int.2006; 89(1): 100-14.
9. Brasil. Instrução Normativa DAS n°62 de 26 de agosto de 2003 do Ministério da Agricultura. Métodos Analíticos Oficiais para Controle de Produtos de Origem Animal e Água. Diário Oficial da República Federativa do Brasil, Brasília, 26 ago. 2003.
10. Fonseca JS, Martins GA. Curso de Estatística. São Paulo (BR): Atlas, 1993.
11. Mizuochi S, Kamiya H, Kodaka H, Sengoku H, Horigome K. Compact dry for the enumeration ofbacteria in food. 1999. In: 99th ASM General Meeting,Chicago. 30pp.
12. Kodaka H, Mizuochi S, Teramura H, Nirazuka T, GoinsD, Odumeru J. et al. Comparison of the Compact DryCF with the most probable number method (AOACOfficial Method 966.24) for enumeration ofcoliform bacteria in raw meats.J AOAC Int. 2006;89(1):115-26.
13. Beloti V, Souza JA, Barros MAF, Nero LA, Mattos MR, Gusmão VV, et al. Evaluation of Petrifilm EC and HSfor total coliforms and Escherichia coli enumeration inwater. Braz J Microbiol. 2003;34:301-4.
14. Park YH, Seo KS, Ahn JS, Yoo HS, Kim SP. Evaluationof Petrifilm plate method for the enumeration of aerobic microrganisms and coliforms in retailed meat samples. J Food Prot. 2001;64(11):1841-3.Figura 14. Regressão linear das contagens de E. coli obtidas no sistema Petrifilm® EC nas diferentes temperaturas de incubação em 17 amostras de carne bovina moída.
15. Carvalho CM, Oliveira AJ, Gallo CR. O sistemapetrifilm como alternativa aos métodos tradicionais para contagem total de microrganismos aeróbios e coliformes totais em leite cru refrigerado. Hig Aliment. 2002;16(100):116-26.
16. Restaino L; Lyon HR. Efficacy of Petrifilm for enumeration of coliforms and Escherichia coliform frozen raw beef. J Food Prot. 1987; 50(12):1017-22.
17. Muratori MCS, Oliveira AL, Ribeiro LP, Costa APR, Fernandes SH, Leite RC. Comparación entre el método estándar sugerido por APHA y los métodos Simplate y Petrifilm, para la identificación del grupo coliforme yde Escherichia coli em tilapia (Oreochromis sp)procedente de psicultura de agua dulce. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2000;32(1):15-9.
18. Ferreira FC. Comparação de diferentes métodos para isolamento de coliformes totais e Escherichiacoli em cortes de frango. [Tese de Especializaçãoem Biotecnologia e Qualidade de Alimentos]. Minas Gerais: União Educacional Minas Gerais,2006. 25pp.
19. 3M Company.3M™ Petrifilm™ Plates. Folheto teórico, USA, 2004. 4pp.
20. Nissui Co. Simple and Easy Dry Media for MicrobialCount and Detection – Compact Dry “Nissui” TC/CF/EC/SA/VP/YM/SL. Folheto teórico, USA, 2006. 8pp.
21. Ortiz MC, Ríos M. Comparación de los métodos Petrifilmy Número Mas Probable (NMP) para La determinación de coliformes fecales em muestras de queso blanco. RevInst Nac Hig Rafael Rangel 2006; 37(2):15-8.
22. Blackburn CW, Baylis CL, Pettit SB. Evaluation of Petrifilm methods for enumeration of aerobic flora and coliforms in wide range of foods. Lett Appl Microbiol.1996; 22(2):137-40.
23. Schraft H; Watterworth LA. Enumeration ofheterotrophs, fecal coliforms and Escherichia coli inwater: comparison of 3M Petrifilm plates withstandard plating procedures. J Microbiol Methods. 2005; 60(3):335-42.
24. Priego R, Medina L, Jordano R. Evaluation of Petrifilm series 2000 as a possible Rapid Method to count coliforms in foods. J Food Prot. 2000;63(8):1137-40.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2007 Instituto Adolfo Lutz Journal