Rapid detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in chicken carcass wash water using an immunoelectrochemical method

49Citations
Citations of this article
26Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

An immunoelectrochemical method coupled with immunomagnetic separation was developed for rapid detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in chicken carcass wash water. Samples of chicken carcass wash water were inoculated with Salmonella Typhimurium at different cell numbers. Possible nonspecified inhibitors in the wash water were minimized by filtration and centrifugation. An approximately 9.4% loss of Salmonella cells was found after filtration (P < 0.01). The samples were mixed with anti-Salmonella-coated magnetic beads (ASCMB) and alkaline phosphatase-labeled anti-Salmonella (APLAS) to form ASCMB-Salmonella-APLAS conjugates. The conjugates were separated from the solution using a magnetic separator and then incubated with phenylphosphate substrate to produce phenol. The number of Salmonella was determined by measuring the phenol concentration using an amperometric tyrosinase carbon paste electrode in a flow injection analysis system. Under optimized parameters (1 mM MgCl2, 0.2 μg/ml APLAS, and 1 mM phenylphosphate in pH 7.0 Tris buffer solution), Salmonella Typhimurium in chicken carcass wash water could be identified and enumerated within 2.5 h with a detection limit of 5 X 103 CFU/ml. A linear relationship on a log-log scale was found between Salmonella cell number and the peak current ratio for Salmonella concentrations ranging from 103 to 107 CFU/ml (R2 = 0.963). The peak currents of multibacteria samples, containing Salmonella Typhimuriun, Listeria monocytogenes, and Campylobacter jejuni, were not significantly different from Salmonella-only samples (P > 0.01).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Che, Y. H., Li, Y., Slavik, M., & Paul, D. (2000). Rapid detection of Salmonella Typhimurium in chicken carcass wash water using an immunoelectrochemical method. Journal of Food Protection, 63(8), 1043–1048. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-63.8.1043

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