Comparison of membrane filtration rates and hydrophobic grid membrane filter coliform and Escherichia coli counts in food suspensions using paddle-type and pulsifier sample preparation procedures

25Citations
Citations of this article
34Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Food suspensions prepared by Pulsifier contained less debris and filtered 1.3 X to 12x faster through hydrophobic grid membrane filters (HGMFs) than those prepared by Stomacher 400. Coliform and Escherichia coli counts made by an HGMF method yielded 84 and 36 paired samples, respectively, positive by both suspending methods. Overall counts of pulsificates and stomachates did not differ significantly for either analysis, though coliform counts by Pulsifier were significantly higher in mushrooms and significantly lower in ground pork (P = 0.05). Regression equations for log10 counts of coliform and E. coli by Pulsifier and Stomacher were: Pulsifier = 0.12 + 0.97 X Stomacher, and Pulsifier = 0.01 + 1.01 X Stomacher, respectively.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Sharpe, A. N., Hearn, E. M., & Kovacs-Nolan, J. (2000). Comparison of membrane filtration rates and hydrophobic grid membrane filter coliform and Escherichia coli counts in food suspensions using paddle-type and pulsifier sample preparation procedures. Journal of Food Protection, 63(1), 126–130. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-63.1.126

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free