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: Comparison of destructive and nondestructive sampling techniques of retail chicken carcasses for enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms.
    Author: Cossi MV, de Almeida MV, Dias MR, de Arruda Pinto PS, Nero LA.
    Journal: J Food Prot; 2012 Jan; 75(1):29-33. PubMed ID: 22221352.
    Abstract:
    The type of sampling technique used to obtain food samples is fundamental to the success of microbiological analysis. Destructive and nondestructive techniques, such as tissue excision and rinsing, respectively, are widely employed in obtaining samples from chicken carcasses. In this study, four sampling techniques used for chicken carcasses were compared to evaluate their performances in the enumeration of hygiene indicator microorganisms. Sixty fresh chicken carcasses were sampled by rinsing, tissue excision, superficial swabbing, and skin excision. All samples were submitted for enumeration of mesophilic aerobes, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, and Escherichia coli. The results were compared to determine the statistical significance of differences and correlation (P < 0.05). Tissue excision provided the highest microbial counts compared with the other procedures, with significant differences obtained only for coliforms and E. coli (P < 0.05). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed for all the sampling techniques evaluated for most of the hygiene indicators. Despite presenting a higher recovery ability, tissue excision did not present significant differences for microorganism enumeration compared with other nondestructive techniques, such as rinsing, indicating its adequacy for microbiological analysis of chicken carcasses.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]