Advertisement

Impact of Sampling Concepts on the Effectiveness of Microbiological Methodologies

  • International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF)
Chapter

Abstract

As discussed in Chap.  6, there are a number of underlying assumptions that are typically made when developing microbiological sampling plans. For example, it is generally recognized that a basic statistical assumption used for lot evaluations is that the samples are taken randomly to minimize sampling biases. However, there are number of other methodological assumptions that are often made for which there is less understanding in relation to their impact on the effectiveness of microbiological detection. For example, it is commonly assumed in selecting sampling plans that the microbiological methods used are fully effective at recovering the target organism if it is present in a food sample. However, in reality one often has to deal with type I errors (true negatives testing positive) and type II errors (true positives testing negative (AOAC 2006). While great efforts are made to develop and employ methods that meet these methodological assumptions, there are a number of conditions where deviation from these assumptions could have a significant impact on the ability of sample plans to achieve the desired level of confidence. The current chapter will explore several of the methodological factors that could impact the effectiveness of sampling plans, and approaches for quantitatively estimating the decrease or increase in the level of confidence provided by the sampling plan under those circumstances.

References

  1. AOAC International. (2006). Final report from presidential task force on best practices in microbiological methodology. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodScienceResearch/UCM088702.pdf. Accessed 15 Nov 2015.
  2. Buchanan, R. L., & Bagi, L. K. (1999). Microbial competition: Effect of Pseudomonas fluorescens on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Microbiology, 16, 523–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buchanan, R. L., & Edelson, S. G. (1999). pH-dependent stationary-phase acid resistance response of enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli in the presence of various acidulants. Journal of Food Protection, 62, 211–218.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chawla, C. S., Chen, H., & Donnelly, C. W. (1996). Mathematically modeling the repair of heat-injured Listeria monocytogenes as affected by temperature, pH, and salt concentration. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 30, 231–241.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Converse, R. R., Wymer, L. J., Dufour, A. P., & Wade, T. J. (2012). Comparison of the multiple-sample means with composite sample results for fecal indicator bacteria by quantitative PCR and culture. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 78, 7166–7169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Copin, S., Robert-Pillot, A., Malle, P., Quilici, M. L., et al. (2012). Evaluation of most-probable-number-PCR method with internal amplification control for the counting of total and pathogenic Vibrio parahaemolyticus in frozen shrimps. Journal of Food Protection, 75, 150–153.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornu, M., Kalmokoff, M., & Flandrois, J. P. (2002). Modelling the competitive growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua in enrichment broths. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 73, 261–274.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Curiale, M. S., & Lewus, C. (1994). Detection of Listeria monocytogenes in samples containing Listeria innocua. Journal of Food Protection, 57, 1048–1051.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dailey, R. C., Martin, K. G., & Smiley, R. D. (2014). The effects of competition from non-pathogenic foodborne bacteria during the selective enrichment of Listeria monocytogenes using buffered Listeria enrichment broth. Food Microbiology, 44, 173–179.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Jarvis, B. (2008). Statistical aspects of the microbiological examination of foods (2nd ed.pp. 172–175). Amsterdam: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  11. MacDonald, F., & Sutherland, A. D. (1994). Important differences between the generation times of Listeria monocytogenes and List. innocua in two Listeria enrichment broths. The Journal of Dairy Research, 61, 433–436.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Petran, R. L., & Swanson, K. M. J. (1993). Simultaneous growth of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua. Journal of Food Protection, 56, 616–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zwietering, M. H., & den Besten, H. M. W. (2016). Microbial testing in food safety: effect of specificity and sensitivity on sampling plans — How does the OC curve move. Current Opinion in Food Science, 12, 42–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods (ICMSF)
    • 1
  1. 1.Robert L. Buchanan, editorial committee chairRiverside Corporate Park CSIRONorth RydeAustralia

Personalised recommendations