Next Article in Journal
Improvements in Visual Aspects and Chemical, Techno-Functional and Rheological Characteristics of Cricket Powder (Gryllus bimaculatus) by Solvent Treatment for Food Utilization
Next Article in Special Issue
A Ratiometric Fluorescent Sensor Based on Silicon Quantum Dots and Silver Nanoclusters for Beef Freshness Monitoring
Previous Article in Journal
Bacterial Communities Found in Pit-Wall Mud and Factors Driving Their Evolution
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 7
10.3390/foods12071420
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in Normal and DFD Beef of an Autochthonous Portuguese Breed

by
Cristina Saraiva
1,2,3,*,
Sónia Saraiva
1,3,
Luis Patarata
1,2,3,
Maria da Conceição Fontes
1,2,3 and
Conceição Martins
1,2
1
Animal and Veterinary Science Center (CECAV), University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
2
Department of Veterinary Sciences, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, UTAD, 5000-801 Vila Real, Portugal
3
Associate Laboratory for Animal and Veterinary Science (AL4AnimalS), 1300-477 Lisboa, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(7), 1420; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12071420
Submission received: 28 January 2023 / Revised: 5 March 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 27 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Meat Preservation and Intelligent Packaging)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study was carried out to identify the behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and of Listeria monocytogenes inoculated in Maronesa breed beef with different ultimate pH (pHu) (Normal and DFD), and stored at two different temperatures (4 and 9 °C), during 28 days post mortem (pm). The main objective was to illustrate the problematic feature of dealing with beef showing high pHu and stored at mild abusive temperatures (9 °C). Beef steaks (ms. longissimus dorsi) were inoculated with low levels (2–3 log CFU/g) of those both pathogens and packed in air, vacuum and three gaseous mixtures with decreasing O2 and increasing CO2 concentrations (MAP70/20, MAP50/40 and MAP30/60). At 4 °C, the growth of E. coli O157:H7 presented the same pattern on Normal and DFD meat. On the contrary, the growth of L. monocytogenes was higher in DFD meat, revealing the effect of the pHu and its psychotropic character. At abusive temperatures, both pathogens grew, achieving high levels in DFD meat. In these cases, the MAP with the highest CO2 concentration (60%) was revealed to be more effective against the development of E. coli O157:H7, therefore, not exceeding levels of 5 log CFU/g at the end of storage, while in L. monocytogenes, it reaches 8 log CFU/g under the same conditions.

1. Introduction

Beef from the Maronesa cattle has high commercial value due to its autochthonous breed, environmentally sustainable production system, and it has Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) [1,2]. However, in order to exploit the full potential of meat products, it is important to ensure that products reach the consumer in the best condition [3]. The quality of the meat can be affected by intrinsic and extrinsic parameters, such as age, sex, breed [4], feeding [5], enzyme activity [6], meat-modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) [7], or meat contamination [8]. The hygienic quality, which is a result of beef processing and handling, is particularly important because it has direct implications for consumer confidence [9]. Contamination of beef occurs throughout slaughtering, deboning, cutting, packaging, and storage, during which time temperature and hygiene are important parameters affecting the shelf-life of fresh meat for industrial use or retail [10,11].
Microbial pathogens are usually associated with the most serious meat safety issues in product recalls and foodborne diseases [12,13,14]. Nowadays, besides the considerable knowledge about the microbiota responsible for foodborne diseases, a high number of outbreaks and incidents keep occurring, many of them associated with meat and meat products which in 2021 represented 11.9% of positive units reported by the MS of EU [15]. Beef, in particular, has been associated with foodborne diseases, causing tragic outcomes involving death in some cases. An aiding fact of foodborne infections due to beef consumption may be related to its preparation methods, in which these meats are many times only subjected to mild heat treatments, commonly referred to as undercooked or rare [16]. Enterohemorrhagic E. coli O157:H7 is a highly pathogenic subset of Shiga toxin-producing E. coli [17]. E. coli belongs to the enteric microflora of many healthy animals, with cattle being the main reservoirs of E. coli O157:H7 [18,19]. E. coli O157:H7 has emerged as an important foodborne pathogen that causes diarrhoea, hemorrhagic colitis, and hemolytic-uremic syndrome in humans [17] and, in severe cases, can cause death [20]. On the other hand, L. monocytogenes has a ubiquitous distribution and a great ability to grow in a wide range of conditions, such as refrigeration [21,22] and has been regarded as the pathogen of concern in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat [23]. L. monocytogenes is also one of the most serious agents of foodborne diseases under EU surveillance, and infection in humans is still high, some of them with death [15]. Unsafe practices, including long storage duration and abusive temperatures, have a potential impact on human listeriosis risk [24]. The temperature of domestic refrigerators was shown to be very variable through a review of survey studies from 1991 to 2016. It was observed that mean temperatures ranged from <5 to 8.1 °C, the minimum temperatures from −7.9 to 3.8 °C and the maximum from 11.4 to 20.7 °C [24].
The gaseous composition of the packaging and pHu values are parameters that can affect the growth of microorganisms in meat [25,26]. In red meat products, one of the most common methods of packaging is the use of MAP, usually through mixtures of CO2, O2 and N2, each one with a specific function. The MAP generally inhibits microbial spoilage of fresh meat, minimising the loss of products and maintaining a higher quality in perishable food during its normal shelf-life or extending it [27]. Nevertheless, MAP should be associated with strict temperature control to achieve maximum microbial inhibition [11,28]. The pHu of meat higher than the normal values (pHu: 5.5–5.8), as in dark, firm and dry (DFD) (pHu: >6.1) or moderate DFD (pHu: 5.9–6.1) meat, can be responsible for the meat spoilage [29,30]. The production system of Maronesa beef is known for the occurrence of DFD conditions [31]. Consequently to the DFD condition, a reducing of the product’s shelf-life can occur and it is also less acceptable to the consumer [31,32]. According to Silva et al. [31], during two years of measurements of pHu, it was noticed that in longissimus dorsi, about 25% of the cases had a final pH equal or superior to 6.2 and were classified as DFD. Thus, the results revealed that the occurrence of high-pH meat is dependent on the muscle. Other muscles, such as gracillis (8%) and psoas major (≤2%) muscles, presented with a lower percentage of DFD condition. DFD meat is related to animal stress and transport with multifactorial origins. It has been reported in many countries, with variable occurrence rates of 1.3% in Canada, 3.2% in the USA, 4.5% in Brazil and 13.45% in Mexico [29,33,34,35]. The incidence of DFD cases was also dependent on the sex of the animal, with a higher occurrence of DFD cases observed in males [31].
Considering the lack of studies related to the quality of autochthonous breeds meat associated with the occurrence of DFD beef in the Maronesa breed, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of pHu (Normal and High) and meat packaging (air, vacuum and three MAP with gas) on the behaviour of E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes inoculated on beef of Maronesa breed and stored at 4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C, during 28 days of storage.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

2.1.1. Sampling

Beef longissimus dorsi muscle was obtained from eight Portuguese autochthonous Maronesa, 9 to 11-month-old bulls whose carcasses weighed from 90 to 150 kg. Longissimus dorsi was excised from the carcasses between the sixth thoracic and the second lumbar vertebra at 24 h post-mortem (pm). Based on pHu measured at 24 h pm directly in the muscle using a combined glass electrode with a pH meter Crison 2002, muscles were divided into two pH groups: Normal (pH ≤ 5.8, n = 4) and DFD (pH ≥ 6.2, n = 4). After that, muscles were cut into pieces of approximately 200 g, packed in a vacuum and stored at −80 °C until the beginning of the experiment. On day 1 of the experiment, cuts of muscles were kept at 2 °C for 2 h. After this time, approximately 1 cm of the external surface of the meat was aseptically removed, and cuts were sliced. At the end of this process, pieces of meat (0.5 cm thick, surface 2 × 2.5 cm, ≈5 g) were obtained. Immediately after this preparation, meat samples were analysed (24 h pm) for meat characterisation and discarded L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 contamination prior to inoculation. Experiments were performed using four animals in each experimental unit per each pH group, and a control sample was prepared in all conditions of the experimental design.

2.1.2. Microorganisms and Growth Conditions

Pieces of meat were inoculated with 20 µL of a suspension of E. coli O157:H7 (NCTC 12900) and L. monocytogenes (ATCC 7973) for an inoculation level of 2–3 log (CFU/g) per strain and package.
Inoculates used in this study were prepared at growth suspension of L. monocytogenes (30 °C, 24 h) and E. coli O157:H7 (37 °C, 24 h) in brain heart infusion broth (Oxoid CM225). Cells were centrifugated (5000× g, 15 min, 4 °C) and washed three times in 0.85% sterile physiologic saline and compared to a 0.5 McFarland turbidity standard. Serial (10-fold) dilutions were performed to yield approximately 1 × 103 cells/cm2. To verify the number of viable L. monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 in the suspension, dilutions were spread on Compass L. monocytogenes Agar (Biokar BM06508) and CT-SMAC (Biokar BK147 + BS037), respectively.

2.1.3. Packaging

Inoculated and control samples were packed in five different types of packaging, namely: air; vacuum; 70%O2/20%CO2/10%N2 (MAP70/20); 50%O2/40%CO2/10%N2 (MAP50/40); and 30%O2/60%CO2/10%N2 (MAP30/60).
In air packaging, meat pieces were tray-packaged in air overwrapped with polyethylene film and in a vacuum: they were individually vacuum packaged in COMBITHERM bags (WIPAK Walsrode, HAFRI) which have an oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of 63 cm3 m−2d−1atm−1 at 23 °C, 0% RH and water vapour transmission (WVT) of 1 g m−2d−1 at 23 °C, 85% RH. For MAP, pieces of meat were individually placed in COMBITHERM XX bags (WIPAK Walsrode, HAFRI) 0.115 mm thick and OTR of 1 cm3 m−2d−1atm−1 at 23 °C, 0% RH and WVT of 1 g m−2d−1 at 23 °C, 85% RH. The atmosphere in the MAP was first removed and then flushed with the appropriate gas mixture (Praxair, Portugal) using a SAMMIC V-420 SGA. The final ratio between gas and meat was approximately 3:1.
Samples were stored at 4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C and examined for microbiological counts on days 1 (2 h after packaging), 3, 7, 10, and 14 pm. For air packaging, microbiological counts were not carried out at 14 days pm. On the contrary, on vacuum packaging, microbiological counts were also carried out at 21 and 28 days pm.

2.2. Microbial Analysis

Meat pieces were aseptically collected at each interval. Samples were homogenized with sterile buffered peptone water for 90 s in a Stomacher (IUL, Barcelona, Spain). Serial decimal dilutions were prepared in the same solution and were plated on CT-SMAC (Biokar BK147 + BS037) for E. coli O157:H7 counts (37 °C for 24 h) and Compass L. mono agar (Biokar BM06508) in case of L. monocytogenes (37 °C for 24–48 h). After incubation, typical colonies were counted, and results were expressed in log CFU/g.

2.3. Data Analysis

One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to test the effect of pHu (Normal and DFD) and of the temperature of storage (4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C), for each day of microbiological counts (1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, 28 days pm) using the SPSS 22.0 software (SPSS, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) at 5% level of probability.

3. Results

3.1. Behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7

The results of counts of E. coli O157:H7 in inoculated beef samples, according to pHu (Normal and DFD) and the type of packaging for each storage temperature, are presented in Table 1. Two hours after inoculation, the Normal and DFD samples had a similar count for E. coli O157:H7. These counts were slightly greater than the programmed level of inoculation, though this was a very slight excess and never attained a logarithmic unit. The final pH of the meat was not decisive on the growth of E. coli O157:H7 in beef stored at 4 ± 0.5 °C. The highest E. coli O157:H7 counts for DFD meat and temperature of 9 °C were observed in vacuum packaging for all storage times (4.39 ± 0.65 log CFU/g at 3 days pm; 6.57 ± 0.26 log CFU/g at 7 days pm; 7.77 ± 0.32 log CFU/g at 10 days pm and 8.35 ± 0.21 log CFU/g at 21 days pm). However, no significant differences were observed between Normal and DFD pHu at 3 days pm. At 10 days pm, the largest difference between the DFD and Normal meat was observed in the vacuum atmosphere (4.05 log CFU/g; p < 0.001) followed by the air atmosphere (3.61 log CFU/g; p < 0.01). In the MAP70/20, differences between the DFD and Normal meat reached 3.04 log CFU/g (p < 0.001). The MAP packaging with more concentration of CO2, namely MAP30/60, showed the lowest counts with no significant differences between pH groups at 10 and 14 days pm.
The counts of E. coli O157:H7 on Normal and DFD beef were similar at a temperature of 4 °C during the storage period, maintaining the initial levels. However, at 9 °C, growth levels were achieved for DFD meat of ~8 log CFU/g in vacuum from day 10 pm, reaching the highest value of 8.76 ± 0.64 log CFU/g at day 28 pm. In the MAP with the high CO2 concentration (MAP30/60), counts were not higher than 5 log CFU/g, which appears to reveal the inhibitory effect of CO2 in the development of E. coli O157:H7 (Figure 1). The pathogen E. coli O157:H7 packed in MAP70/40 and MAP30/60 and stored at mild abusive temperature (9 °C) followed the same pattern and showed similar counts over time.

3.2. Behaviour of Listeria Monocytogenes

The results of counts of L. monocytogenes in inoculated beef samples, according to pHu (Normal and DFD) and the type of packaging for each storage temperature, are presented in Table 2. At 1 day pm, in the five packagings, DFD and Normal samples had a similar count for L. monocytogenes with a score closer to that desired in all packaging. Two more days after storage, the consequences of temperature started to show that L. monocytogenes increased considerably in DFD compared to Normal meat, and these differences were more pronounced, particularly in MAP70/20 compared to the other two MAP. L. monocytogenes achieved at 3 days pm and 7 days pm average counts of 3.41 ± 0.92 log CFU/g and 6.49 ± 0.83 log CFU/g in DFD meat and 2.61 ± 0.65 log CFU/g and 1.74 ± 0.76 log CFU/g in Normal meat, which generally maintained the same pattern during the remaining storage time.
In Normal pH, the effect of abusive storage temperature was not noticed in the development of L. monocytogenes, contrarily to DFD meat which presented very significant differences in most situations in which the meat was in abusive temperatures.
The MAP30/60, with the higher content of CO2, seems to inhibit this microorganism a little more, showing inferior counts for all storage times when compared with MAP70/20 and MAP50/40.
At a temperature of storage of 4 °C, the growth of L. monocytogenes was not observed for Normal meat. On DFD meat, the counts achieved levels of 6 log CFU/g, 7 log CFU/g and 8 log CFU/g in vacuum at day 14 pm, 21 pm and 28 pm, respectively. The lowest counts were obtained on meat packaged in the MAP30/60 for a long time.
At abusive temperature (9 °C) and Normal pHu, L. monocytogenes presented similar counts during the storage period. On the contrary, for DFD meat, L. monocytogenes developed very quickly after day 3 pm, achieving values higher than 8 log CFU/g in air and vacuum at day 10 pm. These levels were attained in MAPs later at day 14 pm.

4. Discussion

The pHu and storage temperature significantly influenced the growth of both E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes.
At 4 °C of storage, the counts of L. monocytogenes for all packages in DFD beef were below 5 log CFU/g (10 days pm), with the higher counts observed in the air (4.47 log CFU/g; p < 0.05) and vacuum (4.55 log CFU/g; p < 0.05) packages (Table 2). On the contrary, at 4 °C the counts of E. coli H157:H7 were about 3 log CFU/g during all times of storage (3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 days pm) in all types of packaging, showing no significant differences (Table 1). Thus, the low storage temperature (4 °C) associated with the DFD condition was not enough to produce an extensive inhibition of L. monocytogenes as observed in E. coli O157:H7. These results can be justified by the fact that L. monocytogenes is a psychrotrophic bacterium, capable of surviving and multiplying at low temperatures, both under aerobic and anaerobic conditions and adhering to various surfaces [36]. Moreover, L. monocytogenes has the ability to grow at a pH of 6 or higher, as observed in DFD meat [37] and has a high tolerance to low pH and high salt concentration [38]. According to Nissen et al. [39], at 4 °C, L. monocytogenes and Y. enterocolitica are considered the most serious pathogens in meat. Low temperatures induce enzymes such as RNA helicase, which improves the activity of L. monocytogenes, as well as replication at low temperatures. Moreover, the capacity to produce biofilms enhances L. monocytogenes’ ability to survive harsh environments and also use flagella at lower temperatures which enables the ability to propel itself [40]. Elevated CO2 and reduced O2 levels are commonly used to extend the shelf-life of food products through the inhibition of microbial growth and oxidative changes [41]. The use of O2-free atmospheres in packages has been suggested for different meat products [42]. In the present study, MAPs inhibited, compared to the air and vacuum atmospheres, the development of L. monocytogenes mainly in the MAP with the highest concentration of CO2. The lower OTR (1.0 cm3m−2day−1) of the packaging film used in this experiment for MAP, in comparison to films of greater O2 permeability (OTR = 4.5 cm3m2day−1) used in the study conducted by Tsigarida et al. [43] can justify these results. Saraiva et al. [41], using the same packaging film as the present study, found that L. monocytogenes in beef may be reduced by ~1.0 log in vacuum packaging and by ~1.5 log on average in the MAPs. Generally, under an anaerobic-modified atmosphere, the LAB compete with the support microflora and have shown to be effective in inhibiting the growth of pathogenic bacteria such as L. monocytogenes in meat products [44]. The combination of selected LAB strains with antimicrobial compounds, for instance, acid and sodium lactate or the use of active packaging, could be the next step strategy for eliminating the risk of L. monocytogenes in meat and dairy-ripened products [45]. Many food-spoiling LABs are facultative aerobic and quite resistant to CO2. This contributes to the fact that LABs can be found as the main spoilers on high-oxygen packaged meat [41]. Therefore, L. monocytogenes can represent a risk when stored at temperatures higher than 0 °C, and the efficacy of thermal treatments is limited by the ability to survive and actively replicate at temperatures between −0.4 and 45 °C [46]. Air and vacuum atmospheres had similar counts for this pathogen (Figure 2), which could be related to the O2 permeability rate of the packaging film used for the vacuum atmosphere (OTR = 63 cm3m−2day−1), not so efficient in inhibiting the L. monocytogenes [41].
A higher proportion of CO2 in MAP50/40 and even more in MAP30/60 have led to lower growth of L. monocytogenes compared to other types of packaging. This result is consistent with other research whose results confirmed that the growth of L. monocytogenes was inhibited with increasing concentrations of CO2 [39,47]. According to Saraiva et al., [41] L. monocytogenes requires CO2 levels of 40% v/v or higher for effective inhibition. In view of maintaining the cytoplasmic pH within a range that is consistent with growth and survival, the decarboxylation reaction needs to occur to help maintain the cytoplasmic pH, though a high concentration of CO2 can inhibit the decarboxylation reaction by which CO2 is released through feedback mechanisms [41,48].
At a temperature of storage of 4 °C, the counts of E. coli O157:H7 on Normal and DFD, as well as for abusive temperature on Normal beef, were similar during the storage period, maintaining the initial levels (Figure 1). Regarding DFD meat and temperature of storage of 9 °C, the E. coli O157:H7 achieved the highest growth levels in a vacuum atmosphere (~8 log CFU/g), showing statist differences from Normal meat (p < 0.001) and from a temperature of storage of 4 °C (p < 0.001) at 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 days pm.
The pathogen E. coli O157:H7 in air packaging multiplied rapidly; however, MAP30/60 showed lower growth levels during the storage period. In this study, this was the atmosphere with high CO2 content (60%), and E. coli O157:H7 counts did not attain 5 log CFU/g at 14 days pm. These results can be due to the inhibitory effect of CO2. In previous experiments, E. coli O157:H7 in atmospheres with high concentrations of CO2 (ratio of 30%CO2:70%O2 or 0.4%CO:60%CO2:39.6%N2) have been reported as being inhibitory to the multiplication of E. coli O157:H7 at an abusive storage temperature of 10 °C [38]. As mentioned above, for L. monocytogenes, E. coli uses the same mechanism of decarboxylation systems to protect the cell from a precipitous drop in pH. These systems depend on the activity of cytoplasmic pyridoxal-5′-phosphate (PLP)-containing amino acid decarboxylases, which consume one proton and release one CO2 for every molecule of substrate amino acid, thus helping maintain the cytoplasmic pH [49]. At refrigeration temperatures from 0 to 2 °C, high concentrations of CO2 (ratio of 20%CO2:80%O2 or 0.4%CO:30%CO2:69.6%N2) can lead to a reduction of one logarithmic unit in the levels from E. coli O157:H7 [50]. In accordance with the present study, Nissen et al. [39] reported that E. coli O157:H7 could be inhibited at 10 °C at high CO2 concentration and pHu inferior to 6. Moreover, even in MAP with a high CO2 and low CO mixture, meat acquires a stable colour, and the shelf-life can be extended.
The behaviour of L. monocytogenes in abusive temperatures differed between DFD and Normal pHu meats for all types of packaging after 7 days pm. For instance, at 10 day pm, Normal and DFD meat showed, respectively, counts of 2.07 log CFU/g and 8.25 log CFU/g in the air (p < 0.001); 2.54 log CFU/g and 8.24 log CFU/g (p < 0.001) on Vacuum; 1.69 log CFU/g and 7.91 log CFU/g in MAP70/20 (p < 0.001); 1.37 log CFU/g and 7.79 log CFU/g in MAP50/40 (p < 0.001); and 1.42 log CFU/g and 7.01 log CFU/g in MAP30/60 (p < 0.001). However, regarding the stored temperatures, for instance, at 14 day pm, count obtained at 4 °C and 9 °C of storage for DFD meat were respectively 5.71 log CFU/g and 8.33 log CFU/g (p < 0.001) in Vacuum; 4.82 log CFU/g and 8.55 log CFU/g in MAP70/20 (p < 0.001); and 4.07 log CFU/g and 8.53 log CFU/g in MAP50/40 (p < 0.001). Thus, even with meat stored at temperatures within recommended limits, the development of L. monocytogenes occurred markedly in meat with a high pHu, though when comparing both temperatures, the effect was not as intense as was the effect of pHu. However, unlike E. coli O157:H7, the effect of pH was not felt when storage was carried out at the appropriate temperature. Also, in this pathogen, at 9 ± 0.5 °C of storage, significantly greater growth was noted in the DFD meat samples.

5. Conclusions

The present study highlights the importance of maintaining the cold chain under strict surveillance conditions is confirmed to avoid abuses, which can have even more serious consequences in the case of DFD meat. As referred to above, the occurrence of DFD condition was more frequently observed in the L. dorsi muscle of the Maronesa breed, mainly in males. The results revealed that this condition associated with abusive storage temperatures allowed the growth of E. coli O157:H7 at higher levels, which is especially more evident in air and vacuum packages. For L. monocytogenes, the low storage temperature (4 °C) associated with the DFD condition was not enough to inhibit the growth of L. monocytogenes, as observed in E. coli O157:H7. This is due to the characteristic psychotropic of L. monocytogenes.
The use of special packing conditions, such as vacuum or MAP, in order to increase the shelf-life of meat or for technological and sensorial reasons can have consequences in terms of the development of some of the pathogens present in meat. Overall, the MAP were the most effective in controlling the development of E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes. In MAP, the effect of the CO2 level was observed, being even more noticeable in pH that better supported microbial growth.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization C.S. and M.d.C.F.; methodology C.S. and M.d.C.F.; software C.S. and L.P.; validation C.S. and M.d.C.F.; formal analysis C.S., S.S. and L.P.; investigation C.S., S.S. and M.d.C.F.; resources C.S. and C.M.; data curation C.S.; writing—original draft preparation C.S., S.S. and M.d.C.F.; writing—review and editing C.S. and S.S.; visualization C.S.; supervision C.S. and C.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by national funds by FCT: Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology, under the PEst-OE/AGR/UI0772/2014 and UIDB/CVT/00772/2020 projects.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank CECAV-UTAD.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. FAO. The State of Food and Agriculture 2019. Moving forward on Food Loss and Waste Reduction; FAO: Italy, Rome, 2019; pp. 1–182. [Google Scholar]
  2. Coutinho, P.; Simões, M.; Pereira, C.; Paiva, T. Sustainable Local Exploitation and Innovation on Meat Products Based on the Autochthonous Bovine Breed Jarmelista. Sustainability 2021, 13, 2515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Pethick, D.; Hocquette, J.-F.; Scollan, N.; Dunshea, F. Review: Improving the nutritional, sensory and market value of meat products from sheep and cattle. Animal 2021, 15, 100356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Guillemin, N.; Meunier, B.; Jurie, C.; Cassar-Malek, I.; Hocquette, J.F.; Leveziel, H.; Picard, B. Validation of a Dot-Blot quantitative technique for large scale analysis of beef tenderness biomarkers. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2009, 60, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Gracey, J.; Collins, D.S.; Huey, R. Meat Hygiene, 10th ed.; W.B. Saunders Co. Ltd.: New York, NY, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  6. Chulayo, A.-Y.; Muchenje, V. Activities of some stress enzymes as indicators of slaughter cattle welfare and their relationship with physico-chemical characteristics of beef. Animal 2017, 11, 1645–1652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kandeepan, G.; Tahseen, A. Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) of Meat and Meat Products: A Review. J. Package Technol. Res. 2022, 6, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Geletu, U.S.; Usmael, M.A.; Mummed, Y.Y.; Ibrahim, A.M. Quality of Cattle Meat and Its Compositional Constituents. Vet. Med. Int. 2021, 2021, 7340495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gutema, F.D.; Agga, G.E.; Abdi, R.D.; Jufare, A.; Duchateau, L.; De Zutter, L.; Gabriël, S. Assessment of Hygienic Practices in Beef Cattle Slaughterhouses and Retail Shops in Bishoftu, Ethiopia: Implications for Public Health. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chai, C.; Lee, S.-Y.; Oh, S.-W. Shelf-life charts of beef according to level of bacterial contamination and storage temperature. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 81, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, X.; Zhu, L.; Zhang, Y.; Liang, R.; Lu, X. Microbial community dynamics analysis by high-throughput sequencing in chilled beef longissimus steaks packaged under modified atmospheres. Meat Sci. 2018, 141, 94–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sofos, J.N. Challenges to meat safety in the 21st century. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Lianou, A.; Panagou, E.Z.; Nychas, G.J.E. Meat Safety—I Foodborne Pathogens and Other Biological Issues. Lawrie’s Meat Sci. 2017, 2017, 521–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Desai, A.N.; Anyoha, A.; Madoff, L.C.; Lassmann, B. Changing epidemiology of Listeria monocytogenes outbreaks, sporadic cases, and recalls globally: A review of ProMED reports from 1996 to 2018. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2019, 84, 48–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. EFSA; ECDC. The European Union One Health 2021 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2022, 20, e07666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lien, K.W.; Yang, M.X.; Ling, M.P. Microbial Risk Assessment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Beef Imported from the United States of America to Taiwan. Microorganisms 2020, 8, 676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Chekabab, S.M.; Daigle, F.; Charette, S.J.; Dozois, C.M.; Harel, J. Shiga toxins decrease enterohaemorrhagic Escherichia coli survival within Acanthamoeba castellanii. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2013, 344, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Bacon, R.T.; Sofos, J.N. Food hazards: Biological food, characteristics of biological hazards in foods. In Food Safety Handbook; Schmidt, R.H., Rodrick, G.E., Eds.; Wiley Interscience: New York, NY, USA, 2003; pp. 157–195. [Google Scholar]
  19. Bekele, T.; Zewde, G.; Tefera, G.; Feleke, A.; Zerom, K. Escherichia coli O157:H7 in Raw Meat in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Prevalence at an Abattoir and Retailers and Antimicrobial Susceptibility. Int. J. Food Contam. 2014, 1, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bedasa, S.; Shiferaw, D.; Abraha, A.; Moges, T. Occurrence and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from food of animal origin in Bishoftu town, Central Ethiopia. Int. J. Food Contam. 2018, 5, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Ryser, E.T.; Marth, E.H. Listeria, Listeriosis and Food Safety, 3rd ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Buchanan, R.L.; Gorris, L.G.M.; Hayman, M.M.; Jackson, T.C.; Whiting, R.C. A review of Listeria monocytogenes: An update on outbreaks, virulence, dose-response, ecology, and risk assessments. Food Control 2017, 75, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gómez, D.; Iguácel, L.P.; Rota, M.C.; Carramiñana, J.J.; Ariño, A.; Yangüela, J. Occurrence of Listeria monocytogenes in Ready-to-Eat Meat Products and Meat Processing Plants in Spain. Foods 2015, 4, 271–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. EFSA. Listeria monocytogenes contamination of ready-to-eat foods and the risk for human health in the EU. EFSA J. 2018, 16, 5134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zakrys, P.I.; Hogan, S.A.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; Allen, P.; Kerry, J.P. Effects of oxygen concentration on the sensory evaluation and quality indicators of beef muscle packed under modified atmosphere. Meat Sci. 2008, 79, 648–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Yang, X.; Wang, J.; Holman, B.W.B.; Liang, R.; Chen, X.; Luo, X.; Zhu, L.; Hopkins, D.L.; Zhang, Y. Investigation of the physicochemical, bacteriological, and sensory quality of beef steaks held under modified atmosphere packaging and representative of different ultimate pH values. Meat Sci. 2021, 174, 108416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Conte-Junior, C.A.; Monteiro, M.L.G.; Patrícia, R.; Mársico, E.T.; Lopes, M.M.; Alvares, T.S.; Mano, S.B. The Effect of Different Packaging Systems on the Shelf Life of Refrigerated Ground Beef. Foods 2020, 9, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. McMillin, K.W. Where is MAP Going? A review and future potential of modified atmosphere packaging for meat. Meat Sci. 2008, 80, 43–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Loredo-Osti, J.; Sánchez-López, E.; Barreras-Serrano, A.; Figueroa-Saavedra, F.; Pérez-Linares, C.; Ruiz-Albarrán, M.; Domínguez-Muñoz, M.A. An evaluation of environmental, intrinsic and pre- and post-slaughter risk factors associated to dark-cutting beef in a Federal Inspected Type slaughter plant. Meat Sci. 2019, 150, 85–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ijaz, M.; Li, X.; Zhang, D.; Hussain, Z.; Ren, C.; Bai, Y.; Zheng, X. Association between meat color of DFD beef and other quality attributes. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 107954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Silva, J.A.; Saraiva, C.; Payan, R.; Alves, V.; Bruno Soares, A.; Martins, C. Incidência e Causas De Carnes DFD Em Bovinos Autóctones Da Raça Maronesa. Influência na Tenrura e Na Qualidade Higiénica Da Carne; Final Report of AGRO 165; UTAD, ISA—UTL, DRATM, ACM and CA of Vila Real –Producers “Carne Maronesa—DOP”: Vila Real, Portugal, 2005; 140p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hughes, J.; Clarke, F.; Purslow, P.; Warner, R. High pH in beef longissimus thoracis reduces muscle fibre transverse shrinkage and light scattering which contributes to the dark colour. Food Res. Int. 2017, 101, 228–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Moore, M.C.; Gray, G.D.; Hale, D.S.; Kerth, C.R.; Griffin, D.B.; Savell, J.W.; Raines, C.R.; Belk, K.E.; Woerner, D.R.; Tatum, J.D.; et al. National Beef Quality Audit–2011: In-plant survey of targeted carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, value, and marketing of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 2012, 90, 5143–5151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Holdstock, J.; Aalhus, J.L.; Uttaro, B.A.; López-Campos, Ó.; Larsen, I.L.; Bruce, H.L. The impact of ultimate pH on muscle characteristics and sensory attributes of the longissimus thoracis within the dark cutting (Canada B4) beef carcass grade. Meat Sci. 2014, 98, 842–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rosa, A.; Fonseca, R.; Balieiro, J.C.; Poleti, M.D.; Domenech-Pérez, K.; Farnetani, B.; Eler, J. Incidence of DFD meat on Brazilian beef cuts. Meat Sci. 2016, 112, 132–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Arevalos-Sánchez, M.; Regalado, C.; Martin, S.E.; Domínguez-Domínguez, J.; García-Almendárez, B.E. Effect of neutral electrolyzed water and nisin on Listeria monocytogenes biofilms, and on listeriolysin O activity. Food Control 2012, 24, 116–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Grau, F.H.; Vanderlinde, P.B. Growth of Listeria monocytogenes on Vacuum-packaged Beef. J. Food Prot. 1990, 53, 739–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Meloni, D. Presence of Listeria monocytogenes in Mediterranean-Style Dry Fermented Sausages. Foods. 2015, 4, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Nissen, H.; Alvseike, O.; Bredholt, S.; Holck, A.; Nesbakken, T. Comparison between the growth of Yersinia enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. in ground beef packed by three commercially used packaging techniques. Int. J. Food Microb. 2000, 59, 211–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, X.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, P.; Niu, Y.; Chen, Q.; Ma, X. Genomic Characterization of Clinical Listeria monocytogenes Isolates in Beijing, China. Front. Microbial. 2021, 12, 751003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Saraiva, C.; Fontes, M.C.; Patarata, L.; Martins, C.; Cadavez, V.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Modelling the kinetics of Listeria monocytogenes in refrigerated fresh beef under different packaging atmospheres. LWT—Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 66, 664–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Narasimha Rao, D.N.; Sachindra, N.M. Modified atmosphere and vacuum packaging of meat and poultry products. Food Rev. Int. 2002, 18, 263–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tsigarida, E.; Skandamis, P.; Nychas, G.-J.E. Behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes and autochthonous flora on meat stored under aerobic, vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging conditions with or without the presence of oregano essential oil at 5 ºC. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 901–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Egan, K.; Field, D.; Rea, M.C.; Ross, R.P.; Hill, C.; Cotter, P.D. Bacteriocins: Novel solutions to age old spore-related problems? Front. Microbiol. 2016, 7, 461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Martín, I.; Rodríguez, A.; Delgado, J.; Córdoba, J.J. Strategies for Biocontrol of Listeria monocytogenes Using Lactic Acid Bacteria and Their Metabolites in Ready-to-Eat Meat and Dairy-Ripened Products. Foods 2022, 11, 542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Chan, Y.C.; Wiedmann, M. Physiology and genetics of Listeria monocytogenes survival and growth at cold temperatures. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2009, 49, 237–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yin, X.; Zhang, Y.; Tu, S.; Huang, Y.; Tu, K. Model for the Effect of Carbon Dioxide on Listeria Monocytogenes in Fresh-cut Iceberg Lettuce Packaged Under Modified Atmosphere. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2018, 24, 1021–1027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Arcari, T.; Feger, M.-L.; Guerreiro, D.N.; Wu, J.; O’Byrne, C.P. Comparative Review of the Responses of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli to Low pH Stress. Genes 2020, 11, 1330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Feehily, C.; Karatzas, K.A. Role of glutamate metabolism in bacterial responses towards acid and other stresses. J. Appl. Microbial. 2013, 114, 11–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Brooks, J.C.; Alvarado, M.; Stephens, T.P.; Kellermeier, J.D.; Tittor, A.W.; Miller, M.F.; Brashears, M.M. Spoilage and Safety Characteristics of Ground Beef Packaged in Traditional and Modified Atmosphere Packages. J. Food Protect. 2008, 71, 293–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 01420 g001 550
Figure 1. Evolution of E. coli O157:H7 levels (log UFC/g) on DFD (left) and Normal (right) beef stored at 4 °C and at 9 °C, packed in air, vacuum and MAPs -O2/CO2/N2- 70/20/10 (MAP70/20), 50/40/10 (MAP50/40), 30/60/10 (MAP30/60), during the time of storage.
Figure 1. Evolution of E. coli O157:H7 levels (log UFC/g) on DFD (left) and Normal (right) beef stored at 4 °C and at 9 °C, packed in air, vacuum and MAPs -O2/CO2/N2- 70/20/10 (MAP70/20), 50/40/10 (MAP50/40), 30/60/10 (MAP30/60), during the time of storage.
Foods 12 01420 g001
Foods 12 01420 g002 550
Figure 2. Evolution of L. monocytogenes levels (log UFC/g) on DFD (left) and Normal (right) beef stored at 4 °C and at 9 °C, packed in air, vacuum and MAPs -O2/CO2/N2- 70/20/10 (MAP70/20), 50/40/10 (MAP50/40), 30/60/10 (MAP30/60), during time of storage.
Figure 2. Evolution of L. monocytogenes levels (log UFC/g) on DFD (left) and Normal (right) beef stored at 4 °C and at 9 °C, packed in air, vacuum and MAPs -O2/CO2/N2- 70/20/10 (MAP70/20), 50/40/10 (MAP50/40), 30/60/10 (MAP30/60), during time of storage.
Foods 12 01420 g002
Table
Table 1. Counts of E. coli O157:H7 (log CFU/g) in inoculated beef samples according to pH groups (Normal and DFD) in five different packagings and stored at two temperatures (4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C) at day 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 pm.
Table 1. Counts of E. coli O157:H7 (log CFU/g) in inoculated beef samples according to pH groups (Normal and DFD) in five different packagings and stored at two temperatures (4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C) at day 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 pm.
Days pmTemp.
(°C)		AirVacuumMAP70/20MAP50/40MAP30/60
N **DFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.
1A.I. *3.35 ± 0.263.41 ± 0.32ns3.15 ± 0.523.31 ± 0.37ns3.30 ± 0.203.32 ± 0.25ns3.36 ± 0.373.33 ± 0.37ns3.33 ± 0.293.37 ± 0.33ns
34 ± 0.53.23 ± 0.783.20 ± 0.42ns3.48 ± 0.273.30 ± 0.33ns3.60 ± 0.183.23 ± 0.27ns3.39 ± 0.463.25 ± 0.27ns3.34 ± 0.263.33 ± 0.26ns
9 ± 0.53.55 ± 0.454.16 ± 1.15ns3.51 ± 0.484.39 ± 0.65ns3.35 ± 0.433.84 ± 0.29ns3.58 ± 0.273.88 ± 0.56ns3.36 ± 0.273.56 ± 0.30ns
Sig.nsns ns* ns* nsns nsns
74 ± 0.53.33 ± 0.213.68 ± 0.76ns3.28 ± 0.293.04 ± 0.30ns3.51 ± 0.263.18 ± 0.21ns3.28 ± 0.192.99 ± 0.37ns3.28 ± 0.162.84 ± 0.23*
9 ± 0.53.43 ± 0.736.31 ± 1.26**3.36 ± 0.426.57 ± 0.26***3.24 ± 0.305.61 ± 0.12***3.27 ± 0.355.30 ± 0.49***3.20 ± 0.354.52 ± 0.78*
Sig.ns* ns*** ns*** ns*** ns**
104 ± 0.53.36 ± 0.253.09 ± 0.60ns3.28 ± 0.362.95 ± 0.43ns3.27 ± 0.243.17 ± 0.42ns3.23 ± 0.192.98 ± 0.51ns3.19 ± 0.262.97 ± 0.34ns
9 ± 0.53.44 ± 0.927.05 ± 1.42**3.72 ± 0.767.77 ± 0.32***3.26 ± 0.396.30 ± 0.52***3.24 ± 0.366.25 ± 0.37***3.39 ± 0.424.65 ± 1.22ns
Sig.ns** ns*** ns*** ns*** ns*
144 ± 0.5---3.65 ± 0.122.66 ± 0.54*3.27 ± 0.403.50 ± 0.62ns2.97 ± 0.423.04 ± 0.37ns3.12 ± 0.403.19 ± 0.39ns
9 ± 0.5---3.67 ± 0.567.84 ± 0.15***3.24 ± 0.546.59 ± 0.77***3.31 ± 0.336.65 ± 0.38***3.28 ± 0.334.90 ± 1.48ns
Sig.---ns*** ns*** ns*** nsns
214 ± 0.5---3.17 ± 0.162.60 ± 0.60ns---------
9 ± 0.5---3.74 ± 0.688.35 ± 0.21***---------
Sig.---ns*** ---------
284 ± 0.5---2.91 ± 0.222.81 ± 0.28ns---------
9 ± 0.5---3.61 ± 0.598.76 ± 0.64***---------
Sig.---ns*** ---------
* A.I.—after inoculation; ** N—Normal (pH); Sig.—Significance: ns—not significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001.
Table
Table 2. Counts of L. monocytogenes (log CFU/g) in inoculated beef samples according to pH groups (Normal and DFD) in five different packagings and stored at two temperatures (4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C) at day 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 pm.
Table 2. Counts of L. monocytogenes (log CFU/g) in inoculated beef samples according to pH groups (Normal and DFD) in five different packagings and stored at two temperatures (4 ± 0.5 °C and 9 ± 0.5 °C) at day 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21 and 28 pm.
Days pmTemp
(°C)		AirVacuumMAP70/20MAP50/40MAP30/60
N **DFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.NDFDSig.
1A.I.*3.10 ± 0.883.02 ± 1.12ns2.90 ± 0.643.13 ± 0.81ns2.96 ± 0.943.02 ± 0.75ns2.91 ± 0.963.06 ± 0.82ns2..46 ± 1.072.97 ± 0.99ns
34 ± 0.52.78 ± 1.192.91 ± 1.15ns2.80 ± 1.213.20 ± 0.86ns2.64 ± 0.962.64 ± 0.89ns2.56 ± 0.892.60 ± 0.98ns2.34 ± 1.292.55 ± 1.21ns
9 ± 0.52.81 ± 0.933.39 ± 1.05ns2.95 ± 1.043.74 ± 1.17ns2.61 ± 0.653.41 ± 0.92ns2.61 ± 0.793.17 ± 1.00ns2.74 ± 0.663.19 ± 0.92ns
Sig.nsns nsns nsns nsns nsns
74 ± 0.52.51 ± 0.903.76 ± 0.90ns2.71 ± 0.923.86 ± 0.92ns2.21 ± 0.933.06 ± 0.69ns2.08 ± 0.872.92 ± 0.81ns2.25 ± 0.662.64 ± 0.99ns
9 ± 0.51.83 ± 0.677.25 ± 0.68***2.68 ± 0.837.11 ± 0.61***1.74 ± 0.766.49 ± 0.83***1.79 ± 0.916.17 ± 0.91***1.99 ± 0.775.55 ± 0.62***
Sig.ns*** ns** ns*** ns** ns**
104 ± 0.52.48 ± 0.624.47 ± 0.91*2.55 ± 1.104.55 ± 0.90*1.59 ± 0.883.89 ± 0.90*1.63 ± 1.083.21 ± 0.79ns1.49 ± 0.852.63 ± 0.98ns
9 ± 0.52.07 ± 0.758.25 ± 0.45***2.54 ± 0.818.24 ± 0.20***1.69 ± 1.017.91 ± 0.57***1.37 ± 0.747.79 ± 0.20***1.42 ± 0.727.01 ± 0.37***
Sig.ns*** ns*** ns*** ns*** ns***
144 ± 0.5---2.04 ± 1.045.71 ± 0.81**1.35 ± 0.794.82 ± 1.05**1.32 ± 0.724.07 ± 1.29**1.68 ± 1.153.33 ± 1.27ns
9 ± 0.5---2.66 ± 0.538.33 ± 0.13***2.50 ± 0.788.55 ± 0.32***2.54 ± 0.748.53 ± 0.30***2.45 ± 0.757.91 ± 1.09***
Sig.---ns*** ns*** ns*** ns**
214 ± 0.5---2.08 ± 0.646.78 ± 0.69***---------
9 ± 0.5---2.23 ± 0.728.29 ± 0.28***---------
Sig.---ns** ----- ---
284 ± 0.5---1.71 ± 1.207.57 ± 0.41***----- ---
9 ± 0.5---1.86 ± 0.698.14 ± 0.41***----- ---
Sig.---nsns ----- ---
* A.I.—after inoculation; ** N—Normal (pH); Sig.—Significance: ns—not significant; * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01 and *** p < 0.001.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Saraiva, C.; Saraiva, S.; Patarata, L.; da Conceição Fontes, M.; Martins, C. Behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in Normal and DFD Beef of an Autochthonous Portuguese Breed. Foods 2023, 12, 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12071420

AMA Style

Saraiva C, Saraiva S, Patarata L, da Conceição Fontes M, Martins C. Behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in Normal and DFD Beef of an Autochthonous Portuguese Breed. Foods. 2023; 12(7):1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12071420

Chicago/Turabian Style

Saraiva, Cristina, Sónia Saraiva, Luis Patarata, Maria da Conceição Fontes, and Conceição Martins. 2023. "Behaviour of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in Normal and DFD Beef of an Autochthonous Portuguese Breed" Foods 12, no. 7: 1420. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12071420

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop