Evaluation of Risks of Microbiological Origin Associated with Food Consumption, Third Edition

A special issue of Microorganisms (ISSN 2076-2607). This special issue belongs to the section "Food Microbiology".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: 30 November 2024 | Viewed by 2826

Special Issue Editor


E-Mail Website
Guest Editor

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue is the continuation of our previous Special Issues, Evaluation of Risks of Microbiological Origin Associated with Food Consumption" and “Evaluation of Risks of Microbiological Origin Associated with Food Consumption 2.0”.

To evaluate microbiological risk, knowledge of food consumption patterns is essential. Food consumption data are often collected through food consumption surveys designed to obtain epidemiological data on risk factors for chronic diseases or nutritional intake. In the last several years, changes in food consumption patterns have been observed (a preference for raw foods, RTE foods, etc.). It is of great interest to obtain data on the consumption of ready-to-eat foods (RTE) and raw milk or raw fish, among others, especially in high-risk populations. On other hand, storage time, temperature, cooking preferences, and handling and preparation of foods play an important role in food safety.

The aim of this Special Issue is to present research on the effect of food consumption patterns and food handling and preparation at the consumer level on microbiological food safety. Original research articles, as well as review articles, are invited.

Prof. Dr. Elena González-Fandos
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Microorganisms is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2700 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • food safety
  • food consumption
  • food preparation
  • food handling
  • microbiological risk assessment
  • predictive microbiology

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Related Special Issue

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

20 pages, 1585 KiB  
Article
Microbiological Analysis of Wild Lowbush Blueberries Harvested in Nova Scotia, Canada for the Fresh Produce Market
by Timothy Ells, Nancy Tregunno, Lihua Fan, Michele Elliot, Craig Doucette, Hugh Lyu and Alexa Jollimore
Microorganisms 2024, 12(11), 2251; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12112251 - 7 Nov 2024
Viewed by 555
Abstract
Canada is a leading producer of wild lowbush blueberries, most of which are mechanically harvested, washed, individually quick frozen (IQF), and bulk packaged. Still, some berries are harvested by more gentle methods and sold as fresh-packed products. These berries do not undergo a [...] Read more.
Canada is a leading producer of wild lowbush blueberries, most of which are mechanically harvested, washed, individually quick frozen (IQF), and bulk packaged. Still, some berries are harvested by more gentle methods and sold as fresh-packed products. These berries do not undergo a wash step, nor are subjected to antimicrobial treatments. The purpose of this study was to conduct a microbiological survey of berries harvested in the province of Nova Scotia to assess their potential for harborage of bacterial foodborne pathogens. A combination of standardized plate count methods and 3M-Petrifilm protocols were used to enumerate total aerobic mesophilic bacteria (APC), yeasts and molds (YMC), coliforms, and generic E. coli, the latter being an indicator of fecal contamination. Overall, APC and YMC levels were 1.2 and 0.5 log greater, respectively, for berries collected early in the harvest season versus those acquired late season and varied significantly (p < 0.05) between farm (location) and harvest practices used. Berries harvested by our team using sanitized hand rakes (SH) had consistently lower APC and YMC levels than those harvested by farm crews. Yet, when gentle harvesting (GH) methods (hand-raking, walk-behind or modified mechanical harvesters) were employed on farms, lower numbers were generally observed compared to berries harvested by traditional tractor-mounted mechanized harvesters (MH). The presence of coliforms (and their levels) was also impacted by the harvest method, with detection rates of ~29%, 73%, and 92% in SH, GH, and MH samples, respectively. Mean counts were < 2.5 log10 CFU/g for both SH and GH berries, but significantly higher (p < 0.05) on MH berries (3.6 log10 CFU/g). Although ~56% of all berry samples collected (n = 350) contained coliforms, only 12 were positive for E. coli, 9 of which were MH samples. Only the latter had numbers > 2 log10 CFU/g, but none tested positive for Shiga toxin-producing serotype O157 (STEC O157) or Salmonella spp. when using internationally recognized selective enrichment and plating methods. ATP luminescence was used to assess the general hygiene of processing lines, whereby “hot spots” for microbial activity were identified, even after cleaning., Standard selective enrichment and plating methods were used for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes on 61 swab samples taken from berry totes or conveyor belts at different times during processing; 4 swabs tested positive for L. monocytogenes. However, the pathogen could not be detected by direct plating on selective agar without prior enrichment; this indicated its numbers were low. The results from this work demonstrated that alternative gentle harvest methods can reduce microbial numbers on wild blueberries. Although the frequency of fecal contamination in berry samples appeared to be low and targeted human pathogens were not detected; this represents a single study conducted over one harvest season. Therefore, it would be prudent for processors to seek effective antimicrobial technologies prior to packaging, while consumers should use caution and thoroughly wash produce before consumption. Where sporadic detection of L. monocytogenes was observed on environmental samples from the processing line, processors must ensure that effective sanitation programs are implemented to avoid potential food safety risks. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

15 pages, 1585 KiB  
Article
Microbiological Quality and Antibiotic Resistance of Relevant Bacteria from Horsemeat
by Elena Gonzalez-Fandos and Jessica da Silva Guedes
Microorganisms 2024, 12(9), 1775; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12091775 - 28 Aug 2024
Viewed by 727
Abstract
The aim of this work was to assess the microbiological safety and quality of horsemeat. A total of 19 fresh horsemeat samples were analysed. Mesophile counts were 4.89 ± 1.08 log CFU/g, and Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus spp., and enterococci were only isolated from [...] Read more.
The aim of this work was to assess the microbiological safety and quality of horsemeat. A total of 19 fresh horsemeat samples were analysed. Mesophile counts were 4.89 ± 1.08 log CFU/g, and Enterobacteriaceae, Staphylococcus spp., and enterococci were only isolated from 36.84%, 21.05%, and 15.79% of the samples, respectively. Neither Staphylococcus aureus nor Escherichia coli were found in any sample. Listeria spp. and Listeria monocytogenes were detected in 31.58% and 21.05% of the samples, respectively. Campylobacter jejuni was not detected in any sample. The dominant bacteria were lactic acid bacteria. Seven different Staphylococcus spp. were identified, the most common being S. delphini, S. saprophyticus, and S. warneri. S. delphini showed resistance against mupirocin and cefoxitin. All the L. monocytogenes strains showed resistance against ampicillin, cefotaxime, and oxacillin. Multi-resistant Yersinia enterocolitica, Stenotrophomonas maltophilia, and Vagococcus. fluvialis strains were found, with resistance to 11, 7, and 8 antibiotics, respectively, causing significant concern. Therefore, specific actions should be taken to decrease the contamination of horsemeat. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

19 pages, 2460 KiB  
Article
Exploring Propolis as a Sustainable Bio-Preservative Agent to Control Foodborne Pathogens in Vacuum-Packed Cooked Ham
by Eugenia Rendueles, Elba Mauriz, Javier Sanz-Gómez, Ana M. González-Paramás, Félix Adanero-Jorge and Camino García-Fernández
Microorganisms 2024, 12(5), 914; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12050914 - 30 Apr 2024
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 1032
Abstract
The search for natural food additives makes propolis an exciting alternative due to its known antimicrobial activity. This work aims to investigate propolis’ behavior as a nitrite substitute ingredient in cooked ham (a ready-to-eat product) when confronted with pathogenic microorganisms of food interest. [...] Read more.
The search for natural food additives makes propolis an exciting alternative due to its known antimicrobial activity. This work aims to investigate propolis’ behavior as a nitrite substitute ingredient in cooked ham (a ready-to-eat product) when confronted with pathogenic microorganisms of food interest. The microbial evolution of Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, and Clostridium sporogenes inoculated at known doses was examined in different batches of cooked ham. The design of a challenge test according to their shelf life (45 days), pH values, and water activity allowed the determination of the mesophilic aerobic flora, psychotropic, and acid lactic bacteria viability. The test was completed with an organoleptic analysis of the samples, considering possible alterations in color and texture. The cooked ham formulation containing propolis instead of nitrites limited the potential growth (δ < 0.5 log10) of all the inoculated microorganisms until day 45, except for L. monocytogenes, which in turn exhibited a bacteriostatic effect between day 7 and 30 of the storage time. The sensory analysis revealed the consumer’s acceptance of cooked ham batches including propolis as a natural additive. These findings suggest the functionality of propolis as a promising alternative to artificial preservatives for ensuring food safety and reducing the proliferation risk of foodborne pathogens in ready-to-eat products. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop