Journal of Protein Research & Bioinformatics Category: Biotechnology Type: Research Article

Bacteriological Examination of Cooked Meat and Chicken Meals

Fahim A Shaltout1*, Hanan M Lamada2 and Ehsan A M Edris2
1 Department Food Hygiene, Faculty Of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Egypt
2 Animal Health Research Tanta, Tanta University Hospitals, Egypt

*Corresponding Author(s):
Fahim A Shaltout
Department Food Hygiene, Faculty Of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Egypt
Tel:+20 00201006576059,
Email:fahim.shaltout@fvtm.bu.edu.eg

Received Date: Mar 13, 2020
Accepted Date: Apr 09, 2020
Published Date: Apr 20, 2020

Abstract

Sixty random samples (15 of each) were collected from different restaurants to evaluate their bacteriological quality.

The mean values of APC, Enterobacteriacae, coliform counts (cfu/g) were 6.03×103 ± 1.45×103, 3.16×103 ± 0.72×103, 7.43×102 ± 1.05×102 for meat, 8.58×103 ± 1.65×103, 6.53×103 ± 1.24×103, 9.18×102 ± 2.07×103 for chicken, 9.91×103 ± 2.18×103, 5.25×103 ± 0.86×103, 1.06×103 ± 0.19×102 for beef kofta and 2.03×104 ± 0.43×104, 9.14×103 ± 2.06×103, 3.32×103 ± 0.45×103 for chicken kofta, respectively.

The results showed that 12 isolates of E.coli were identified from examined ready to eat chicken and meat meals with different percentages (O26 : H11, O111 : H4, O124, O78, O91 : H21, O121 : H7, O127 : H6, O146 : H21) E.coli strains were serologically identified from such examined meals, there are 6 isolates of Salmonella were identified from examined samples. Also, there are 21 isolates of Staph aureus were isolated from examined samples represented as 20% from meat, 40% from beef kofta, 33.33% from chicken and 46.67% from chicken kofta.

Keywords

APC; Coliforms; E. coli; Meat meals; Staph.aureus.

INTRODUCTION

Cooked meat and chicken meals due to their high nutritive value and agreeable taste. Meat meals have an excellent source of high-quality protein, vitamin and mineral [1,2]. 

Raw materials of bad microbial quality, bad personal hygiene and consumption at room temperature lead to contamination of foods with pathogenic bacteria especially Salmonellae and coliforms, causing potential risk to human [3].

Incorrect habits responsible for microbial food borne illness reported [4] and typically involve cross contamination of raw and cooked foods, poor cooking and storage at unsuitable temperature. 

Staphylococcal food poisoning has rapid onset and its symptoms include nausea and strong vomiting with or without diarrhea [5].

Salmonella spp can persist on final raw products. Disease can result when these products are handled without good hygienic practices, not properly cooked and/or subjected to temperature abuse [6]. It is considered that the presence of Salmonella spp in products makes it unsafe for human consumption [7,8]. 

E.coli is an important organism involved in food – borne disease, it is considered as a good indicator of possible fecal contamination [9].

Therefore, the present study was planned out for determination of APC, Enterobacteriaceae & coliforms counts, isolation and identification of E. coli, Salmonella and Staph.aureus for ready to eat meat and chicken meals including meat, chicken, beef kofta and chicken kofta.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Collection of samples:

 

Sixty random samples of cooked chicken and meat meals including meat, chicken, beef kofta and chicken kofta (15 of each) were collected from different restaurants. Each sample was kept in a separate sterile plastic bag, put in an ice box then transferred to the laboratory under complete aseptic condition without any regard for the examination bacteriologically.

Preparation of samples [10]:

To 25 grams of the sample, 225 ml of sterile peptone water were added thoroughly mixed sterile blender for 2.5 minutes, from which tenth fold serial dilution was prepared. The prepared samples were subjected to the following bacteriological investigations: 

  1. Determination of APC [10].
  2. Determination of total Enterobacteriaceae count [11] using Violet Red Bile Glucose agar.
  3. Determination of total coliform count [10] using Violet Red Bile agar medium.
  4. Isolation and identification of Enteropathogenic coli. [12] it was applied by using MacConkey broth as enriched broth and EMB as plating media.
  5. Isolation and Identification of Salmonellae [13].
  6. Isolation and identification of Staph.aureus [10].

RESULTS

The results of bacteriological examination of cooked chicken and meat meals samples revealed that APC and coliform were highest in chicken kofta followed by beef kofta then chicken then meat. While, enterobacteriaceae was highest in chicken kofta followed by chicken then beef kofta then meat.

Isolation and identification of E.coli in the examined samples revealed that the incidence of E.coli was 26.67% in chicken , 20% in both of beef kofta and 13.33 in meat,12 isolates of E.coli represented as 13.33% from meat with serotypes O26 : H11 (6.67%) and O111 : H4 (6.67) 20% from beef kofta with serotypes O26 : H11 (13.33%) and O124 (6.67%) 20% from chicken with serotypes O78 (6.67%), O127 : H6 (6.67%) and O146 : H21 (6.67%) 26.67% from chicken kofta with serotypes O26 : H11 (13.33%), O91 : H21 (6.67%) and O121 : H7 (6.67%).

Isolation and identification of Salmonella in the examined samples revealed that the incidence of salmonella was equal in meat, beef kofta and chicken (6.67%) while in chicken kofta was the highest (20%).

6.67%from meat with serotype S. Heidelberg

6.67% from beef kofta with serotype S. Montevideo

6.67% from chicken with serotype S. Kentuckey

20%from chicken kofta with serotypes S. Anatum (6.67%), S. Infantis (6.67%) and S. Typhimurium (6.67%). 

Isolation and identification of Staphylococcus aureus revealed that there are 21 isolates of Staph.aureus were isolated from examined samples represented as 20% from meat, 40% from beef kofta, 33.33% from chicken and 46.67% from chicken kofta.

DISCUSSION

APC is very important for evaluation of sanitary condition of cooked meat meals. Limit is suggested for total aerobic bacterial count I in various foods range from105 to 107 microbes /g. [14].

It is evident from the results recorded in (Table 1) that the APC/g of the examined samples of cooked chicken and meat meals ranged from 2.1×103 to 1.7×104 with an average of 6.03×103 ± 1.45×103/(cfu/g) for meat, 4.6×103 to 2.9×104 with an average 9.91×103 ± 2.18×103/(cfu/g) for meat kofta, 3.5×103 to 3.9×104 with an average 8.58×103 ± 1.65×103/(cfu/g) for chicken and 6.0×103 to 7.7×104 with an average 2.03×104 ± 0.43×104 (cfu/g) for chicken kofta. The current results nearly similar to the results recorded by [15] found that the mean value of RTE kofta was 1.83×104cfu/gm, while higher results was recorded by [16] who found that the mean value of APC of RTE kofta was 8.51×105 cfu/g, also higher results was recorded by [17] found that the mean APC of RTE chicken meals was 1.9×104 cfu/g and in RTE meat meals was 1.2×104 cfu/g. High incidence of APC , may indicate that the cooking process was inadequate, or post cooking contamination had occurred, or the length of time and temperature control in storage or display facilities was inadequate to prevent bacterial contamination or that a combination of these factors was involved [18]. 

Meals

Min

Max

Mean ± S.E*

Meat meals:

     

Meat

2.1×103

1.7×104

6.03×103 ± 1.45×103

Kofta

4.6×103

2.9×104

9.91×103 ± 2.18×103

Chicken meat meals:

     

Chicken meat

3.5×103

3.9×104

8.58×103 ± 1.65×103

Kofta

6.0×103

7.7×104

2.03×104 ± 0.43×104

Table 1: Analytical results of Aerobic plate counts/g (APC) in the examined samples of cooked meat and chicken meals (n=15). 

Results given in (Table2) revealed that the Acceptability of the examined samples of cooked meat and chicken meals based on their APC was (86.67%) of meat samples were accepted samples but (13.33%) of meat samples were unaccepted, (73.33%) of beef kofta samples were accepted but (26.67%) of beef kofta samples were unaccepted, (80%) of chicken samples were accepted but (20%) of chicken samples were unaccepted and (60%) of chicken kofta were accepted but (40 %) of chicken kofta were unaccepted.

Meals

APC /g

Accepted Samples

Unaccepted Samples

No.

%

No.

%

Meat meals *

         

Meat

104

13

86.67

2

13.33

Kofta

11

73.33

4

26.67

Chicken meat meals **

         

Chicken

104

12

80

3

20

Kofta

9

60

6

40

Table 2: Acceptability of the examined samples of cooked meat and chicken meals based on their APC (n=15).

*? Center for Food Safety (2014) for cooked meat meals

**?EOS (2005) for heat treated poultry meat. 

Results achieved in (Table 3) showed that the mean values of total enterobacteriaceae counts/g in the examined samples of cooked chicken and meat meals were 3.16×103 ± 0.72×103/(cfu/g) for meat, 5.25×103 ± 0.86×103/(cfu/g) for meat kofta, 6.53×103 ± 1.24×103/(cfu/g) for chicken and 9.14×103 ± 2.06×103/(cfu/g) for chicken kofta. the current results was nearly similar to recorded by [16] who found that the mean values of enterobacteriacea of RTE kofta was 7.15×103/(cfu/g), while higher results recorded by [19] who found the mean value of enterobacteriacae of street vended kofta samples was 1.5×107cfu/g.

Meals

Min

Max

Mean ± S.E*

Meat meals:

     

Meat

2.2×102

8.1×103

3.16×103 ± 0.72×103

Kofta

5.7×102

1.5×104

5.25×103 ± 0.86×103

Chicken meat meals:

     

Chicken

4.5×102

1.6×104

6.53×103 ± 1.24×103

Kofta

7.8×102

2.8×104

9.14×103 ± 2.06×103

Table 3: Analytical results of Enterobacteriaceae counts/g in the examined samples of cooked meat and chicken meals (n=15). 

From the results in (Table 4), it is obvious that the mean values of total coliform counts/(cfu/g) in the examined samples of cooked chicken and meat meals were 7.43×102 ± 1.05×102/(cfu/g) for meat, 1.06×103 ± 0.19×102/(cfu/g) for meat kofta, 9.18×102 ± 2.07×103/(cfu/g) for chicken and 3.32×103 ± 0.45×103/(cfu/g) for chicken kofta. the current results was nearly similar to the results recorded by [20] who found that the mean values of coliform was 5.17×102 ± 1.2×102/cfu/g. while higher results was recorded by [21] who found the mean value of coliform count of kofta sandwiches was 1.8×105/(cfu/g).

Meals

+ve samples

Min

Max

Mean ± S.E*

 
 

No.

%

 

Meat meals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Meat

7

46.67

1.0×102

2.3×103

7.43×102 ± 1.05×102

 

Kofta

8

53.33

1.0×102

4.9×103

1.06×103 ± 0.19×102

 

Chicken meat meals:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chicken

8

53.33

1.0×102

3.7×103

9.18×102 ± 2.07×103

 

Kofta

9

60

1.0×102

7.0×103

3.32×103 ± 0.45×103

 

Table 4: Analytical results of coliform counts/g in the examined samples of cooed meat and chicken meals (n=15) 

From the results in (Tables 5 & 6) showed that there are 12 isolates of E.coli represented as 13.33% from meat with serotypes O26 : H11 (6.67%) and O111 : H4 (6.67) 20% from beef kofta with serotypes O26 : H11(13.33%) and O124 (6.67%) 20% from chicken with serotypes O78 (6.67%), O127 : H6 (6.67%) and O146 : H21 (6.67%) 26.67% from chicken kofta with serotypes O26 : H11 (13.33%), O91 : H21 (6.67%) and O121 : H7 (6.67%).

Meat meals

Meat

Kofta

Strain Characteristics

 
 

E. coli strains

No.

%

No.

%

 

O26: H11

1

6.67

2

13.33

EHEC

 

O111: H4

1

6.67

-

-

EHEC

 

O124

-

-

1

6.67

EIEC

 

Total

2

13.33

3

20

 

 

EIEC = Enteroinvasive E. coli EHEC= Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli 

Table 5: Incidence and serotyping of Enteropathogenic E. coli isolated from the examined samples of cooked meat meals (n=15).

Chicken meals

Chicken

Kofta

Strain Characteristics

 
 

E. coli strains

No.

%

No.

%

 

O26: H11

-

-

2

13.33

EHEC

 

O78

1

6.67

-

-

EPEC

 

O91: H21

-

-

1

6.67

EHEC

 

O121: H7

-

-

1

6.67

EHEC

 

O127: H6

1

6.67

-

-

ETEC

 

O146: H21

1

6.67

-

-

EPEC

 

Total

3

20

4

26.67

   

EPEC = Enteropathogenic E. coli ETEC = Enterotoxigenic E. coli EHEC= Enterohaemorrhagic E. coli 

Table 6: Incidence and serotyping of Enteropathogenic E. coli isolated from the examined samples of cooked chicken meals (n=15).

From (Tables 7 & 8) showed the incidence and serotyping of Salmonella isolated from cooked meat and chicken meals is 6.67% from meat identified serologically as S. Heidelberg O4,5,12 : Hr:1,2 6.67% from beef kofta identified serologically as S. Montevideo O6,7,14 : Hg,m,s:1,7,2 6.67% from chicken identified serologically as S. Kentucky O8,20 : Hi:Z6 20% from chicken kofta identified serologically as S. Anatum O1,9,12 : Hg,m:1,7 (6.67%), S. Infant is O6,7,14 : Hr:1,5 (6.67%) and S. Typhimurium O1,4,5,12 : Hi:1,2 (6.67%). Salmonella microorganisms were previously isolated from cooked meat meals by [22,23] also salmonella failed to be isolated from cooked meat meals by [24] the symptoms the symptoms of salmonellosis include diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fever and abdominal cramps [25].

Salmonella serotypes

Meat

Kofta

Group

Antigenic Structure

No.

No.

No.

%

O

H

S. Heidelberg

1

6.67

-

-

B

4,5,12

r: 1,2

S. Montevideo

-

-

-

6.67

C1

6,7,14

g,m,s : 1,2,7

Total

1

6.67

-

6.67

 

Table 7: Incidence and serotyping of Salmonellae isolated from the examined samples of cooked meat meals (n=15).

Salmonella serotypes

Chicken

Kofta

Group

Antigenic Structure

No.

No.

No.

%

O

H

S. Anatum

-

-

1

6.67

D1

1,9,12

g,m : 1,7

S. Kentuckey

1

6.67

-

-

C3

8,20

i: Z6

S. Infantis

-

-

1

6.67

C1

6,7,14

r: 1,5

S. Typhimurium

-

-

1

6.67

B

1,4,5,12

i: 1,2

Total

1

6.67

3

20

 

Table 8: Incidence and serotyping of Salmonellae isolated from the examined samples of cooked chicken meals (n=15).

The results in (Tables 9 & 10) reported that Staph.aureus was isolated from 20% of meat, 40% of meat kofta, 33.33% of chicken and 46.67% of chicken kofta. Such organism was isolated previously from ready to eat meat meals by [22,24] who isolated Staph aureus from cooked samples. The presence of Staph.aureus in RTE meat meals may be due to their contamination from food handlers, bad cleaned equipment’s or post processing contamination [26].

CONCLUSION

The current results in this study allowing concluding that all examined samples were contaminated with different bacteria as E. coliSalmonella and Staph.aureus and the highest APC was in chicken kofta followed with beef kofta, chicken and meat.

Meat meals Positive samples
No. %
Meat 3 20
Kofta 6 40
Total (30) 9 30

Table 9: Incidence of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the examined samples of cooked meat meals (n=15).

Meat meals Positive samples
No. %
Chicken 5 33.33
Kofta 7 46.67
Total (30) 12 40

Table 10: Incidence of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from the examined samples of cooked chicken meals (n=15).

REFERENCES

  1. World Health Organization 'WHO' (1984) The role of food safety in health development. Report of Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Safety, Geneva.
  2. Mosupy FM, Arntzen L, Von Holy A (1998) Microbiological survey of street-vended food in the Johannesburg metropolitan area of South Africa. Food Sci 63: 842-
  3. Kiipliilii B, Sarimehmetoglu B, Oral N (2003) The microbiological quality of Cig kofta sold in Ankara. Turk J Vet Anim Sci 27: 325-329.
  4. Egan MB, Raats MM, Grubb SM, Eves A, Lumbers ML, et al. (2007) A review of food safety and food hygiene training studies in the commercial sector. food control 18: 1180-1190.
  5. Argudin MA, Mendoza MC, Rodico MR (2010) Food poisoning and staphylococcus aureus Toxins 2: 1751-1773.
  6. Zhang I, Davis MA, Conner DE (2001) Poultry-borne
    pathogens: plant considerations. Poultry Meat processing chap.9. ISBN 0 -8493-0120 -3, CRC Press LLC, New York, USA.
  7. Agunos A (2007) Effect of dietary beta 1-4 mannobiose in the prevention of Salmonella enteritidis infection in broilers. Br Poult Sci 48: 331-341.
  8. Muth MK (2009) Analysis of Salmonella control performance in US. young chicken slaughter and pork slaughter establishments. J Food Prot 72: 6-13.
  9. Synge BA (2000) Verocytotoxin Producing coli a veterinary review.
    Symp Ser Soc Appl Microbiol 88: 315-375.
  10. "ICMSF" (1996) International commission of Microbiological Specification for Foods Microorganisms in Food. I-Their Significance and methods of enumeration. 3rd Ed. Univ. of Toronto, Canada.
  11. Gork EP (1976) Uber die Ursachen von Qualitatstmangelnbeitiefgeforenen Fertiggerichten auf fleischbasis in der Fluggastverpflegung. Vet. Med. Diss., tech. Univ. Berlin.
  12. "ISO" (2001) International Organization of Standardization. Microbiology of food, animal feeding stuffs.Horizontal method for the enumeration of β- glucuronidas- Positive E-Coli. Part 2: Colony-Count technique at 44 ? c using 5 bromo-4-chloro-3- indolyl β-D-glucuronide. 16649-2.
  13. ''ISO" (2002) International organization of standardization. No.6579.Microbiogy of food and animal feeding stuffs. Horizontal Methods for detection of Salmonellae
  14. EEC (2005) Commission regulation (EC) No.2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Council of the European Communities (EEC). Off. J Eur Commu 1.338:22.
  15. Sobieh AS (2014) Fast meat meals at restaurant level in Cairo Governorate M. V. Sc.Thesis, Meat Hygiene, Fac of Vet Med Benha Univ.
  16. Shaltout FA, El-Shater MAH, El-Aziz WMA (2015) Bacteriological assessment of Street Vended Meat Products sandwiches in kalyobia Governorate. J Benha vet Med 28: 58?66.
  17. Shaltout FA, Zakaria IM, Eltanani J, Elmelegy AS (2015) Microbiological status of meat and chicken received to University student hostel. J Benha vet Med 29: 187?192.
  18. Khater- Dalia F, Heikal GE, Shehata AA, El-Hofy FI (2013) The Microbiological Assessment of Ready-To-Eat-Food (Liver and Kofta Sandwiches) In Tanta City, Egypt. Benha Vet Med J 25:187-197.
  19. Shaltout FA, Amani MS, Mahmoud AH, AbdElraheem KA (2013) Bacterial aspect of cooked meat and edible offal at street vendors level. J Benha vet Med 24: 320-328.
  20. Saad MS, Hemat MI, Enas AMA (2011) Microbial and chemical evaluation of fast foods. J Benha vet.
  21. Hussein MI (1996) Microbial evaluation of some meat meals of Assiut restaurants.M.V.Sc. Thesis, Fac. Of Vet.Medicine Assiut University. International commission of Med 1: 44-51.
  22. Soliman MR, Abd El-Monem KM, Saad SM (2002) Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat meat product and fishes in Urban and rural areas. J Egypt Vet Med Assoc 62:39-51.
  23. Richardson IR, Stevens AM (2003) Microbiological examination of ready-to-eat stuffing from retail premises in the north-east of England. The "Get Staffed" survey. J Appl Microbiol 94: 733-737.
  24. Kirralla GA (2007) Sanitary status of meat meals of students of Tanta University.M.V. Sc. Thesis meat hygiene, Fac. Vet.Med., kafr El Shickh University.
  25. Cui S (2004) Detection and characterization of Escherichia coli O 157: H7 and Salmonella in food. Ph. D. Thesis, Fac. Graduate School, Univ. Maryland, College Park. USA.
  26. Duffy G, Kilbride B, Sherdian JJ, Blair IS, McDowell DA (2000) A membrane–immune-fluorescet validity staining technique for the detection of Salmonella species from fresh and processed meat samples. J appl Microbiol 89: 587-594.

Citation: Shaltout FA, Lamada HM, Edris EAM (2020) Bacteriological examination of cooked meat and chicken meals. J Protein Res Bioinform 2: 005.

Copyright: © 2020  Fahim A Shaltout, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

© 2021, Copyrights Herald Scholarly Open Access. All Rights Reserved!