Date post: | 20-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Recovery, detection and sanitizer susceptibility of Listeria spp. from
meat processing environments
-by--by-Jovana KovaJovana Kovačevićčević
June 15June 15thth 2010 2010
Outline
Listeria Listeria spp. backgroundspp. background Project OverviewProject Overview
Comparison of sampling methodsComparison of sampling methods Evaluation of detection methodsEvaluation of detection methods Occurrence and distribution of Occurrence and distribution of Listeria Listeria spp. in meat spp. in meat
processing environmentsprocessing environments Sanitizer susceptibility Sanitizer susceptibility
Summary Summary
22
3
Project Members Food Safety Division, Alberta Agriculture, Food Food Safety Division, Alberta Agriculture, Food
and Rural Developmentand Rural Development Dr. Valerie Bohaychuk – Project ManagerDr. Valerie Bohaychuk – Project Manager Gary Gensler – Supervisor (Food Microbiology)Gary Gensler – Supervisor (Food Microbiology) Robin King – Supervisor (Molecular Biology)Robin King – Supervisor (Molecular Biology) Deana Rolheiser – Technician (Food Microbiology) Deana Rolheiser – Technician (Food Microbiology) Sonja Marshall – Technician (PFGE)Sonja Marshall – Technician (PFGE) Dr. Pablo Romero Barrios – EpidemiologistDr. Pablo Romero Barrios – Epidemiologist
University of Alberta, Department of Agricultural, University of Alberta, Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, University of AlbertaFood and Nutritional Science, University of Alberta Dr. Lynn McMullen – Food Microbiology Professor, Graduate Dr. Lynn McMullen – Food Microbiology Professor, Graduate
Student SupervisorStudent Supervisor Jovana Kovacevic – Graduate StudentJovana Kovacevic – Graduate Student
Six species:Six species:• L. monocytogenesL. monocytogenes• L. ivanoviiL. ivanovii• L. seeligeriL. seeligeri• L. innocuaL. innocua• L. welshimeriL. welshimeri• L. grayiL. grayi
–Subspecies Subspecies L. murrayL. murray
Genus Listeria
44
Genus Listeria
Gram positive, facultative anaerobic rodsGram positive, facultative anaerobic rods Motile at 10 to 25Motile at 10 to 25°C°C Grow Grow between -0.4ºC and 50ºCbetween -0.4ºC and 50ºC Isolated from:Isolated from:
Environmental sources: soil, water, effluentsEnvironmental sources: soil, water, effluents Food processing environments Food processing environments Variety of foodsVariety of foods Feces of humans and animalsFeces of humans and animals
55Clin. Micorbiol. Rev. 14(3):584-640.Clin. Micorbiol. Rev. 14(3):584-640.
Project GoalsPhase 1: Phase 1: To compare 3 methods for recovery of To compare 3 methods for recovery of
Listeria Listeria spp. in the environment of meat processing spp. in the environment of meat processing facilitiesfacilities
Phase 2:Phase 2: To evaluate 4 methods for detection of To evaluate 4 methods for detection of Listeria Listeria spp.spp.
Phase 3:Phase 3: To assess the occurrence and distribution To assess the occurrence and distribution of of ListeriaListeria spp. in meat processing environments spp. in meat processing environments
Phase 4:Phase 4: To determine the susceptibility to sanitizers To determine the susceptibility to sanitizers of persistent and nonpersistent strains of of persistent and nonpersistent strains of L. L. monocytogenesmonocytogenes
66
7
Project Overview • Two Federally inspected meat processing facilities
• Edmonton, Alberta• Two time points:
• After cleaning and sanitation but prior to processing (ACS)
• During or after processing but before sanitation (PRO)
• Sampling in 2005 and 2006 for 19 months, 3 week intervals1) Comparison of environmental sampling
methods: – 5 months – Ten sampling locations:
* 5 where RAW meat was processed
* 5 where COOKED meat was handled
– Total of 720 samples
8
Project Overview 2) Comparison of detection methods:
– Until 100 positive and 100 negative samples collected per method
– 14 sampling locations: *7 where RAW meat was
processed*7 where COOKED meat
was handled
– Criteria for 3 methods reached after 11 samplings; 1 method required 14 samplings
3) Occurrence and Distribution of Listeria spp.– All the samples collected by SS method and
analyzed by culture method (n=820)– 19 months period
Phase 1: Comparison of Environmental Sampling Methods
99
soaked in 1 ml of soaked in 1 ml of neutralizing neutralizing
bufferbuffer
pre-wettedpre-wetted soaked in 10 ml of soaked in 10 ml of neutralizing bufferneutralizing buffer
1)1) Cotton Swab (CS) Cotton Swab (CS) 2)2) Sterile Sponge (SS)Sterile Sponge (SS) 3)3) Composite tissue (CT)Composite tissue (CT)
Phase 1: Sample Collection
• Sampling every 3 weeks, for 5 months in 2005/2006:
• 6 visits • 120 samples / method / facility
• 240 samples for each method
Total = 720 samples collected
1010
11
Phase 1: Sample Collection Table 1. Areas sampled for recovery of Listeria spp. in two federally inspected meat processing facilities.
a Sampling locations added for the comparison of detection methods.
Sample Processing: ISO 11290-1
Confirmation
Environmental Sample
+Demi-Fraser Broth
PALCAM OxfordFB Confirmation
35°C for 24 to 48 h
35°C for 24 to 48 h
PALCAM Oxford
1212
Phase 1: Results
1313
Figure 1. Number of samples that tested positive for presence of Listeria spp. obtained using a cotton swab (CS), a sterile sponge (SS) and a composite tissue (CT) sampling method.
*Represents the total number of times samples were positive for Listeria spp.
Evaluated Evaluated sensitivitysensitivity and and specificityspecificity of detection methods of detection methods using culture method as “gold standard”using culture method as “gold standard”
PetrifilmPetrifilm™ Environmental ™ Environmental ListeriaListeria Plates (EL Petrifilm Plates (EL Petrifilm™™)) Lateral flow immunoprecipitation (LFI) device - Lateral flow immunoprecipitation (LFI) device -
RevealReveal®® Listeria Listeria Test SystemTest System Automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR) Automated polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
BAXBAX® ®
Conventional culture ISO 11290-1Conventional culture ISO 11290-1
Samples collected until 100 positive100 positive and 100 negative100 negative samples were obtained
Phase 2: Detection Methods
1414
Phase 2: Materials and Methods1)1) PetrifilmPetrifilmTMTM Environmental Environmental Listeria Listeria Plates (3MPlates (3M™ Microbiology, London, ON)™ Microbiology, London, ON)
Tests were performed according to the Health Canada MFLP-11 method
1515
Listeria spp.
A
2) Lateral flow immunoprecipitation - Reveal® Listeria Test System (Neogen Corporation, Lansing, Mich.)
Lateral flow device combining immunoassay with chromatography (45 h)
1616
1717
3)3) Polymerase chain reaction (BAXPolymerase chain reaction (BAX®®, DuPont , DuPont Qualicon, Wilmington, DE)Qualicon, Wilmington, DE)
Tests were performed according to the Health Canada MFLP-15 method
http://www2.dupont.com/Qualicon/en_US/assets/downloads/baxproc.pdf
Phase 2: Results
Table 3. Sensitivity, specificity, and kappa values of the EL Petrifilm™, LFI and PCR methods relative to the culture method for identification of Listeria spp. in samples obtained from the environment of two federally inspected meat processing facilities.
EL Petrifilm™
LFI PCR
Sensitivity (%) 50.6 95.5 99.1
Specificity (%) 91.5 100 100
Kappa 0.457 0.958 0.993
Kappa (95% CI) 0.370 – 0.544 0.935 – 0.995 0.980 – 1.00
19
21
Phase 3: Occurrence and Distribution
Environmental samples collected for 19 Environmental samples collected for 19 months in 2005 and 2006months in 2005 and 2006
Sampling method: SS onlySampling method: SS only Detection method: ISO culture Detection method: ISO culture
method onlymethod onlyTotal: 820 samples testedTotal: 820 samples tested 249 249
(30.4%) positive for (30.4%) positive for Listeria Listeria spp. spp.
22
Phase 3: Results Table 4. The number of samples collected from two meat processing facilities either ACS or PRO from either an area where raw meat was processed or an area where cooked products were handled that tested positive for Listeria spp.
No. of positive samples/total number collected
ACS* PRO†
Raw Product
Area
Cooked Product
Area
Raw Product
Area
Cooked Product
Area
Facility A (n=652)
95/163 22/163 117/163 14/163
Facility B (n=168)
0/42 0/42 1/42 0/42
Total 95/205 22/205 118/205 14/205*ACS, After Cleaning and Sanitation and prior to processing†PRO, During or after Processing
23
Phase 3: Results
Figure 2. The number of samples that tested positive for different species of Listeria collected either after cleaning and sanitation (ACS) or during or after processing (PRO), from the areas where raw and cooked products were processed in two meat processing facilities.*Represents the total number of times samples were positive for Listeria spp.
n= 410 n= 410
24
Figure 3. The distribution and number of the samples that tested positive for species of Listeria and the total number of times samples were positive for Listeria spp. in meat processing Facility A.
Raw food areas Cooked food areas
25
Phase 3: Results
Facility AFacility A Overall contamination with Overall contamination with Listeria Listeria spp. was spp. was
38.0% (248/652)38.0% (248/652) L. monocytogenesL. monocytogenes recovered from an area recovered from an area
where raw meat was processed where raw meat was processed (157/326)(157/326) and and an area where cooked products were handled an area where cooked products were handled (25/326)(25/326)
Facility BFacility B Only one sample (n=168) was positive for Only one sample (n=168) was positive for
L. innocuaL. innocua
Phase 4: Susceptibility to Sanitizers
Persistent and nonpersistent strains identified using Persistent and nonpersistent strains identified using Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) as part of a Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis (PFGE) as part of a concurrent studyconcurrent study
Sanitizer susceptibility of Sanitizer susceptibility of L. monocytogenesL. monocytogenes Planktonic cells in tryptic soy broth (24 h)Planktonic cells in tryptic soy broth (24 h) Growth on stainless steel (48 h)Growth on stainless steel (48 h) Growth in the MBECGrowth in the MBEC™ HTP assay (4 days)™ HTP assay (4 days)
SanitizersSanitizers E-SanE-San®® 10% 10% (5% N-alkyl dimethyl benzyl (5% N-alkyl dimethyl benzyl
ammonium chloride and 5% N-alkyl dimethyl ethyl ammonium chloride and 5% N-alkyl dimethyl ethyl benzyl ammonium chloride)benzyl ammonium chloride)
Perox-EPerox-E®® (hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid) (hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid)
2626
27
Phase 4: Materials and Methods
L. monocytogenesL. monocytogenes strains strains
Two persistentTwo persistent Two nonpersistentTwo nonpersistent L. monocytogenesL. monocytogenes ATCC 19115 (American Type ATCC 19115 (American Type
Culture Collection, Manassas, VA)Culture Collection, Manassas, VA) Stainless steel couponsStainless steel coupons
Type 304, No. 4 finish, 12 mm diameterType 304, No. 4 finish, 12 mm diameter MBEC™ assayMBEC™ assay
High-throughput device (Innovotech High-throughput device (Innovotech Incorporated, Edmonton, AB)Incorporated, Edmonton, AB)
28
1) Susceptibility to Sanitizers: Planktonic Cells
Centrifuged and decanted
1.9 ml of sanitizer or 0.85% saline for controls in each well
1 x 109 CFU/ml
30 s exposure time
Serially dilutedTSB
100 µlDEB
100 µl
35°C for 24 – 48 h
Resuspended in10 ml of saline 1 x 107 CFU/ml
Sanitizer concentrations: • E-San®: 50, 100, 200, 300, 400, 800 ppm• Perox-E®: 70, 200, 500, 800, 1100 ppm
29
2) Susceptibility to Sanitizers: Cells Grown on Stainless Steel Coupons
1 x 109 CFU/ml
Sanitizer concentrations: • E-San®: 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600 ppm• Perox-E®: 900, 1100, 1300 ppm
5 min exposure time
DEB
35°C for 48 h
TSB
2 ml into each well
Serially diluted
1 x 105 CFU/ml
TSB
2 ml of sanitizer or 0.85% saline for controls in each well
35°C for 24 – 48 h
30
3) Susceptibility to Sanitizers: Biofilms Grown on MBEC™ Devices
Sanitizer concentrations:
• E-San®: 5,000 39 ppm• Perox-E®: 19,200 150 ppm
Two-fold dilution series
Set up the sanitizer challenge
plate
Expose biofilms to sanitizers (10 min)
Use challenge plates to obtain MIC (planktonic cultures) streak contents of each well onto TSA
Incubate recovery plate (DEB) at 35°C for 24 – 48 h
31
Phase 4: Results
Planktonic cells in TSB
Cells adhered to SS coupons (48 h)
Planktonic cells -MBEC™
Biofilms cells -MBEC™
Perox-E® (ppm)
50 100 200200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 5,000
70
100 300 500 700 1,300900 1,1001,100 19,200
E-San® (ppm)
1,500
800
>
4,800
150
39
>
MRC*
MRC*
*MRC, manufacturer recommended concentration for sanitation
Planktonic cells in TSB
Cells adhered to SS coupons (48 h)
Planktonic cells -MBEC™
Biofilms cells -MBEC™
Perox-E® (ppm)
50 100 200200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 5,000
70
100 300 500 700 1,300900 1,1001,100 19,200
E-San® (ppm)
1,500
800
>
4,800
150
39
>
MRC*
MRC*
50 100 200200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 5,000
70
100 300 500 700 1,300900 1,1001,100 19,200
E-San® (ppm)
1,500
800
>
4,800
150
39
>
MRC*
MRC*
*MRC, manufacturer recommended concentration for sanitation
32
Summary Sterile sponge and composite tissue superior Sterile sponge and composite tissue superior
environmental sampling methods than cotton swabenvironmental sampling methods than cotton swab LFI and PCR-based methods excellent alternatives to LFI and PCR-based methods excellent alternatives to
conventional culture method for detection of conventional culture method for detection of ListeriaListeria spp., spp., while EL Petrifilmwhile EL Petrifilm™ is easy to use but less efficient ™ is easy to use but less efficient
Perox-EPerox-E®® is more efficient in inactivation of cells of is more efficient in inactivation of cells of L. L. monocytogenesmonocytogenes adhered to stainless steel than E-San adhered to stainless steel than E-San®®
Concentrations far greater than the MRC for both E-SanConcentrations far greater than the MRC for both E-San®® and Perox-Eand Perox-E®® required for inactivation of biofilms grown for required for inactivation of biofilms grown for four days on MBEC™ devicesfour days on MBEC™ devices
NO DIFFERENCENO DIFFERENCE in susceptibility to sanitizers among in susceptibility to sanitizers among persistent, nonpersistent and control strains of persistent, nonpersistent and control strains of L. L. monocytogenesmonocytogenes
33
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Lynn McMullenDr. Lynn McMullen
• Dr. Valerie Bohaychuk and Dr. Valerie Bohaychuk and Listeria Listeria in Meat Plants (LMP) teamin Meat Plants (LMP) team
• The financial support fromThe financial support from• The Alberta Agricultural Research Institute, The Alberta Agricultural Research Institute, • The Alberta Chicken Producers, and The Alberta Chicken Producers, and • The Food Safety Division, Alberta Agriculture and FoodThe Food Safety Division, Alberta Agriculture and Food
• The participation of two meat processing facilitiesThe participation of two meat processing facilities
• Phases 1 and 2 of the project were published in the Journal of Food Phases 1 and 2 of the project were published in the Journal of Food Protection: Protection:
Kovačević, J., V. M. Bohaychuk, P. Romero Barrios, G. E. Gensler, D. L. Rolheiser and L. Kovačević, J., V. M. Bohaychuk, P. Romero Barrios, G. E. Gensler, D. L. Rolheiser and L. M. McMullen. 2009. Evaluation of environmental sampling methods and rapid detection M. McMullen. 2009. Evaluation of environmental sampling methods and rapid detection assays for recovery and identification of assays for recovery and identification of ListeriaListeria spp. from meat processing facilities. spp. from meat processing facilities. J. J. Food Prot.Food Prot. 72(4): 696-701. 72(4): 696-701.
34http://www.umanitoba.ca/faculties/afs/soil_science/MSSS/Ecology/Cartoons/Cartoons%20Images/Microbes%20multiplying.jpg