Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line
Hamdy, B., Said, M., Ebeid, H., El-Nawawy, M. (2022). Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line. EKB Journal Management System, 60(2), 82-96. doi: 10.21608/bnni.2022.271845
Bassem A Hamdy; Mayar M Said; Hamdy M Ebeid; Mohamed A El-Nawawy. "Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line". EKB Journal Management System, 60, 2, 2022, 82-96. doi: 10.21608/bnni.2022.271845
Hamdy, B., Said, M., Ebeid, H., El-Nawawy, M. (2022). 'Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line', EKB Journal Management System, 60(2), pp. 82-96. doi: 10.21608/bnni.2022.271845
Hamdy, B., Said, M., Ebeid, H., El-Nawawy, M. Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line. EKB Journal Management System, 2022; 60(2): 82-96. doi: 10.21608/bnni.2022.271845

Evaluation of Detection Tool for Some Bacterial Pathogens from Chicken Meat Production Line

Bulletin of the National Nutrition Institute of the Arab Republic of Egypt
Volume 60, Issue 2, December 2022, Page 82-96  XML PDF (483.11 K)
Document Type: Original Article
DOI: 10.21608/bnni.2022.271845
View on SCiNiTO View on SCiNiTO
Authors
Bassem A Hamdy* 1; Mayar M Said2; Hamdy M Ebeid3; Mohamed A El-Nawawy3
11- United States Naval Medical Research Unit-3
2United States Naval Medical Research Unit-3
3Food Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ain Shams University
Abstract
foodborne microorganisms can trigger severe outbreaks. Rapid detection is essential for preventing the spread of disease before it causes an outbreak. This study investigates various laboratory techniques, including conventional detection, immunoassay using VIDAS, and automated identification systems using BD Phoenix M50. It targets the four most prevalent foodborne pathogens: Staphylococcus aureus, Shigella spp., and Salmonella spp., along with Campylobacter spp., by analyzing 174 samples of poultry. The SPSS statistical analysis system was used for every study. Staphylococcus aureus was found in 20.7% of samples using conventional detection and automated system, whereas it was presented in 25.3% of samples using the immunoassay technique. For Shigella spp. Shigella flexneri was identified by Phoenix M50 in 4% of samples similarly it was detected using conventional methods. In contrast, 33.3% of Salmonella spp. were detected using VIDAS, 28.7% were detected using the conventional method, 70% were confirmed to be Salmonella enterica, and 30% were confirmed to be other Salmonella spp. For Campylobacter spp. Campylobacter jejuni was identified in 9.8% of samples by conventional detection and 29.3% by immunoassay. The turn-around time for Shigella and Salmonella spp. was decreased by BD Phoenix M50 in comparison to conventional methods, whereas it was shorter for Staphylococcus aureus detection using a conventional method.
Keywords
Conventional detection; Poultry slaughterhouse; Staphylococcus; Salmonella; Shigella; Campylobacter
Statistics
Article View: 100
PDF Download: 89