ArticleMicroorganisms2022
Evaluation of Various Lactic Acid Bacteria and Generic
Article in Microorganisms, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial Profiling of Biltong Processing Using Culture-Dependent and Culture-Independent Microbiome Analysis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Validation studies conducted within a food processing facility using surrogate organisms could better represent the manufacturing process than controlled laboratory studies with pathogenic bacteria on precision equipment in a BSL-2 lab. The objectives of this project were to examine potential surrogate bacteria during biltong processing, conduct biltong surrogate validation lethality studies, and measure critical factors and intrinsic parameters during processing. Beef pieces (1.9 cm × 5.1 cm × 7.6 cm) were inoculated with four-strain mixtures of Carnobacterium divergens/C. gallinarum, Pediococcus acidilactici/P. pentosaceous, and Biotype 1 E. coli ATCC BAA (-1427, -1428, -1429, and -1430), as well as a two-strain mixture of Latilactobacillus sakei and other commercially available individual bacterial cultures (P. acidilactici Saga200/Kerry Foods; Enterococcus faecium 201224-016/Vivolac Cultures). Inoculated beef was vacuum-tumbled in marinade and dried in a humidity-controlled oven for 8−10 days (24.9 °C; 55% relative humidity). Microbial enumeration of surviving surrogate bacteria and evaluation of intrinsic factors (water activity, pH, and salt concentration) were performed post inoculation, post marination, and after 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 days of drying. Trials were performed in duplicate replication with triplicate samples per sampling time and analyzed by one-way RM-ANOVA. Trials conducted with E. faecium, Pediococcus spp., and L. sakei never demonstrated more than 2 log reduction during the biltong process. However, Carnobacterium achieved a >5 log (5.85 log) reduction over a drying period of 8 days and aligned with the reductions observed in previous trials with pathogenic bacteria (Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes, and S. aureus) in biltong validation studies. Studies comparing resuspended freeze-dried or frozen cells vs. freshly grown cells for beef inoculation showed no significant differences during biltong processing. Carnobacterium spp. would be an effective nonpathogenic in-plant surrogate to monitor microbial safety that mimics the response of pathogenic bacteria to validate biltong processing within a manufacturer’s own facility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.