These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Excision vs sponge swabbing - a comparison of methods for the microbiological sampling of beef, pork and lamb carcasses.
    Author: Pearce RA, Bolton DJ.
    Journal: J Appl Microbiol; 2005; 98(4):896-900. PubMed ID: 15752336.
    Abstract:
    AIMS: The aim of this research was to compare excision sampling with polyurethane and cellulose acetate sponge swabbing for the recovery of total viable counts and Enterobacteriaceae on meat carcasses. METHODS AND RESULTS: Two sample types were used to compare the methods: (i) individual samples, taken from four sites on each carcass and (ii) composite samples, created by pooling the samples from four sites from an additional set of carcasses. When the polyurethane sponge and excision method were compared for individual sites, there were no significant differences in bacterial recovery on beef and pork carcasses and on two of four sites on lamb carcasses. However, when samples from each site were pooled, the excision method was more efficient than either swabbing method across the three animal species. CONCLUSIONS: Sampling using the polyurethane sponge represents an equivalent alternative method to excision for the bacteriological sampling of carcass surfaces which is nondestructive and less labour intensive. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This study provides the scientific basis for using sponge swabbing instead of excision in compliance with 2001/471/EC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]