Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Food Prot ; 82(12): 2023-2037, 2019 Dec.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31692392

ABSTRACT

Nearly one-half of foodborne illnesses in the United States can be attributed to fresh produce consumption. The preharvest stage of production presents a critical opportunity to prevent produce contamination in the field from contaminating postharvest operations and exposing consumers to foodborne pathogens. One produce-contamination route that is not often explored is the transfer of pathogens in the soil to edible portions of crops via splash water. We report here on the results from multiple field and microcosm experiments examining the potential for Salmonella contamination of produce crops via splash water, and the effect of soil moisture content on Salmonella survival in soil and concentration in splash water. In field and microcosm experiments, we detected Salmonella for up to 8 to 10 days after inoculation in soil and on produce. Salmonella and suspended solids were detected in splash water at heights of up to 80 cm from the soil surface. Soil-moisture conditions before the splash event influenced the detection of Salmonella on crops after the splash events-Salmonella concentrations on produce after rainfall were significantly higher in wet plots than in dry plots (geometric mean difference = 0.43 CFU/g; P = 0.03). Similarly, concentrations of Salmonella in splash water in wet plots trended higher than concentrations from dry plots (geometric mean difference = 0.67 CFU/100 mL; P = 0.04). These results indicate that splash transfer of Salmonella from soil onto crops can occur and that antecedent soil-moisture content may mediate the efficiency of microbial transfer. Splash transfer of Salmonella may, therefore, pose a hazard to produce safety. The potential for the risk of splash should be further explored in agricultural regions in which Salmonella and other pathogens are present in soil. These results will help inform the assessment of produce safety risk and the development of management practices for the mitigation of produce contamination.


Subject(s)
Food Microbiology , Salmonella , Soil Microbiology , Soil , Vegetables , Crops, Agricultural/microbiology , Microbial Viability , Salmonella/isolation & purification , Soil/chemistry , Vegetables/microbiology , Water Movements
2.
Foodborne Pathog Dis ; 15(10): 627-636, 2018 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30334659

ABSTRACT

The recognition that irrigation water sources contribute to preharvest contamination of produce has led to new regulations on testing microbial water quality. To best identify contamination problems, growers who depend on irrigation ponds need guidance on how and where to collect water samples for testing. In this study, we evaluated several sampling strategies to identify Salmonella and Escherichia coli contamination in five ponds used for irrigation on produce farms in southern Georgia. Both Salmonella and E. coli were detected regularly in all the ponds over the 19-month study period, with overall prevalence and concentrations increasing in late summer and early fall. Of 507 water samples, 217 (42.8%) were positive for Salmonella, with a very low geometric mean (GM) concentration of 0.06 most probable number (MPN)/100 mL, and 442 (87.1%) tested positive for E. coli, with a GM of 6.40 MPN/100 mL. We found no significant differences in Salmonella or E. coli detection rates or concentrations between sampling at the bank closest to the pump intake versus sampling from the bank around the pond perimeter, when comparing with results from the pump intake, which we considered our gold standard. However, samples collected from the bank closest to the intake had a greater level of agreement with the intake (Cohen's kappa statistic = 0.53; p < 0.001) than the samples collected around the pond perimeter (kappa = 0.34; p = 0.009). E. coli concentrations were associated with increased odds of Salmonella detection (odds ratio = 1.31; 95% confidence interval = 1.10-1.56). All the ponds would have met the Produce Safety Rule standards for E. coli, although Salmonella was also detected. Results from this study provide important information to growers and regulators about pathogen detection in irrigation ponds and inform best practices for surface water sampling.


Subject(s)
Agricultural Irrigation , Escherichia coli/isolation & purification , Ponds/microbiology , Salmonella/isolation & purification , Water Microbiology , Crops, Agricultural/growth & development , Crops, Agricultural/microbiology , Escherichia coli/growth & development , Farms , Food Safety , Georgia , Groundwater/microbiology , Logistic Models , Salmonella/growth & development , Sample Size , Seasons , Spatio-Temporal Analysis , Water Quality
3.
J Forensic Sci ; 50(5): 1187-90, 2005 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16225227

ABSTRACT

We examined the ability of M. croceipes to learn, detect, and respond to 2,4-DNT, which is a volatile discriminator of trinitrotoluene (TNT). The percentage of conditioned wasps to detect and respond to the various concentrations of 2,4-DNT for > or = 15 sec was measured. Significantly more of the conditioned wasps responded to the concentration of 2,4-DNT used for conditioning than other concentrations examined. Accordingly, percent conditioned wasps to respond > or = 15 sec could be used as a suitable measure to screen air samples and distinguish between samples with or without the target odorant. The data recorded in this study indicate the measured behavior could be used to estimate the concentration of target odorants. Data in this study indicate M. croceipes can detect and respond to this compound, which provide further support for its development as a biological sensor.


Subject(s)
Carcinogens/analysis , Conditioning, Psychological , Dinitrobenzenes/analysis , Forensic Medicine/methods , Wasps , Animals , Behavior, Animal , Odorants , Smell
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...