Previous Article | Next Article 
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2000, p. 4979-4987, Vol. 66, No. 11
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Growth Limits of Listeria monocytogenes
as a Function of Temperature, pH, NaCl, and Lactic Acid
S.
Tienungoon,
D. A.
Ratkowsky,
T. A.
McMeekin, and
T.
Ross*
School of Agricultural Science, University of
Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Received 21 October 1999/Accepted 7 September 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Models describing the limits of growth of pathogens under multiple
constraints will aid management of the safety of foods which are
sporadically contaminated with pathogens and for which subsequent
growth of the pathogen would significantly increase the risk of
food-borne illness. We modeled the effects of temperature, water
activity, pH, and lactic acid levels on the growth of two strains of
Listeria monocytogenes in tryptone soya yeast extract broth. The results could be divided unambiguously into "growth is
possible" or "growth is not possible" classes. We observed minor
differences in growth characteristics of the two L. monocytogenes strains. The data follow a binomial probability
distribution and may be modeled using logistic regression. The model
used is derived from a growth rate model in a manner similar to that
described in a previously published work (K. A. Presser, T. Ross,
and D. A. Ratkowsky, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 64:1773-1779,
1998). We used "nonlinear logistic regression" to estimate the
model parameters and developed a relatively simple model that describes
our experimental data well. The fitted equations also described well
the growth limits of all strains of L. monocytogenes
reported in the literature, except at temperatures beyond the limits of
the experimental data used to develop the model (3 to 35°C). The
models developed will improve the rigor of microbial food safety risk
assessment and provide quantitative data in a concise form for the
development of safer food products and processes.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Predictive microbiology combines
mathematical modeling with experimental data on combinations of factors
that influence the growth of food spoilage and/or food-borne pathogenic
microorganisms. The models developed are intended to predict the fate
of microorganisms in foods. Since the experimental data are usually
derived from studies using laboratory media, the models must be
validated with data collected under conditions under which food
products are customarily stored.
Predictive microbiology models can be divided into kinetic models and
probability models. With the former type, one calculates the
microbiological life of food products, i.e., the period of time during
which the number of microorganisms in the food is less than a specified
value. With the latter type, one determines whether a microorganism can
grow and identifies storage conditions with a low or nil probability of growth.
Kinetic and probability models may be closely related, because the
probability of detectable growth within a specified time period depends
on germination, lag, and generation times, i.e., on kinetic parameters.
In some cases, a probability model may be derived from a kinetic model
by some simple mathematical transformations. For example, in references
33, 35 and 41, a kinetic model was transformed into a probability model by taking the natural logarithm of both sides of the original equation and then replacing one
side with the "logit" of a probability, i.e., ln [P/(1
P)], where P is the probability that growth occurs.
Low levels of Listeria monocytogenes, i.e., levels not
exceeding 102 to 103 CFU per gram of food at
the time of consumption, are considered by many authorities to pose a
low risk for most consumers (7, 15). Consequently, some
national regulatory authorities, including Germany, The Netherlands,
France, and Canada, advocate or have adopted a food safety risk
management strategy that involves tolerance of low levels of L. monocytogenes in foods, provided that the organism cannot grow to
unacceptable levels during the shelf life of the product
(13). Thus, there is a need for a methodology for evaluating
rapidly the potential for growth of L. monocytogenes in
particular products. Mathematical models to describe the probability of
growth of L. monocytogenes in foods can fulfill that need.
Our objective in this study was to develop methods to identify
combinations of environmental variables that just permit or just
prevent growth. This set of combinations also defines the growth rate
of an organism in multidimensional space, the so-called "hyperspace
cloud" (4). We also wanted to determine the potential for
L. monocytogenes to grow in cold-smoked salmon. We modified the model-fitting procedure described in reference
35 and used nonlinear logistic regression techniques
to estimate as many of the cardinal parameters (e.g.,
Tmin, awmin, etc.) as possible. We
tested this model on experimental data from two strains and evaluated
the resulting predictive equations by using previously published data
from several laboratories (8, 14, 26).
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Culture and inoculum preparation.
Two strains of L. monocytogenes, Scott A and L5, the latter a wild-type strain
isolated from cold-smoked salmon, were used. We inoculated two 250-ml
Erlenmeyer flasks containing 50 ml of TSB-YE (tryptone soya broth [CM
129; Oxoid] with 0.6% yeast extract [L21; Oxoid]) each with one of
the above strains and incubated them with shaking (50 ± 2 rpm)
for 18 h at 30°C. Fifty microliters of that culture was
transferred to 50 ml of fresh TSB-YE in a 250-ml Erlenmeyer flask, and
the incubation was repeated for 18 h at 30°C. Cultures were
grown until the late exponential phase of growth, when the optical
density (at 540 nm) of the culture was 0.8 (45).
Inoculation procedures.
TSB-YE was used as the basal medium
for all experiments but was modified by the addition of NaCl or lactic
acid or of HCl or NaOH to adjust the pH. Under aseptic conditions, 100 µl of inoculum was added to 50 ml of culture medium and mixed well, and the pH was measured immediately. Two milliliters of each broth was
pipetted into four wells of each of four 24-well plates (4 wells by 6 wells). This inoculum produced turbidity just visible to the unaided
eye and was used so that growth would immediately increase the
turbidity of the broth without a lag in detection time. Two wells
served as negative controls (sterile TSB-YE [pH 7.2]), and another
two served as positive controls (TSB-YE [pH 7.2] containing 100 µl
of the inoculum), in each well plate. We used two well plates to test
10 different pH levels for each lactic acid concentration in
quadruplicate. Replicates were incubated at 4, 10, and 20°C in
constant-temperature rooms, at 6 and 8°C in waterbaths, and at 30°C
in a laboratory incubator. We also studied water activity, pH, and
lactic acid effects in duplicate cultures incubated at 20 and 30°C.
Details of the experimental design for each strain are given in Table
1.
Assessment of growth.
Well plate cultures were examined
daily for 90 days. "Presumptive growth" was recorded if there was a
visible increase in the turbidity of the broths. The day on which
growth was first observed was recorded, although that information
played no role in the subsequent fitting of the probability model.
Growth-positive cultures were mixed, and 0.3 ml was withdrawn for pH
measurement in a small capule by using a flat-tip pH probe (model 250A
with calomel-sealed flat-tip probe, AEP433; Orion Research Inc.,
Boston, Mass.). A 0.1-ml aliquot of the culture was streaked onto
TSA-YE (tryptone soya agar [CM 131; Oxoid] with 0.6% yeast extract
[L21; Oxoid]) and incubated at 30°C for 24 to 48 h. Typical
L. monocytogenes colonies were subcultured onto Oxford
Formulation Listeria Selective Agar (Oxoid CM856 including selective
supplement Oxoid SR140) and incubated at 37°C for 24 to 48 h. If
we saw only one colony type on TSA-YE and if colonies typical of
Listeria were seen on Oxford Formulation Listeria selective
agar, then growth of L. monocytogenes was presumed
confirmed. When turbidity did not increase, or if only a deposit formed
in the bottom of the well by the end of the incubation period, we used
a standardized ecometric technique (29, 30, 33) calibrated
to viable counts to identify culture conditions that were lethal to
L. monocytogenes, i.e., in which cell numbers declined
during incubation. These determinations could not be made using
turbidimetric methods alone.
Experimental design.
We conducted three sets of experiments
to test the effect of combinations of temperature, pH, and the
concentration of lactic acid on the growth of L. monocytogenes. The experimental design covered more than 500 different sets of conditions for each strain tested (see Table 1). The
structure of each data set was such that it varied from sparse for
certain combinations of factors to more complete in other regions of
"factor space." There were usually four replicates when the
experiments were conducted in a water bath, but there was only a single
observation for each condition when a temperature gradient incubator
was used. Two forms of acidulant, HCl and lactic acid, were used in
combination so that inhibition due to pH or to lactic acid could be
distinguished. Filter-sterilized 5 M HCl or 4 N NaOH was used to adjust
the pH of media containing various levels of lactic acid. Water
activity was adjusted with NaCl. The contribution of sodium lactate to the water activity of the media was included in calculations, and the
final aw of each medium was measured using a dew point water activity meter (Aqualab CX-2; Decagon Devices, Pullman, Wash.).
Effects of temperature, pH, and lactic acid concentration on
growth limits.
Filter-sterilized lactic acid (Univar,
analytical-grade reagent; minimum, 88% [wt/wt] Ajax Chemicals) was
added to sterile over-strength TSB-YE, prepared in a 1-liter volumetric
flask. The broths were made up to final volume with sterile distilled water to yield final lactic acid concentrations of 10, 20, 30, or 50 mM. TSB-YE with no lactic acid was prepared in the same manner. Each
medium was adjusted to 10 different pH levels, and each pH-lactic acid
combination was dispensed into 25-ml McArtney bottles.
Effects of water activity, pH, and concentration of lactic acid
on growth limits.
Three levels of lactic acid, 0, 20, and 50 mM,
and four levels of water activity, 0.929, 0.940, 0.954, and 0.965, were
selected for additional studies. We prepared a series of over-strength TSB-YE broths of different aws that included NaCl to the
desired level. These media were autoclaved at 105°C for 30 min. We
added 50 mM sterile lactic acid to the sterile aw-adjusted
media in a volumetric flask, and sterile distilled water was added to
achieve the required final volume and concentration. At each water
activity level, the pH was adjusted to ca. 5.4, 5.7, and 6.1, and 15 ml of the broth was then dispensed into duplicate L-shaped glass tubes
(L-tubes) (diameter, 15 mm) designed for use with a temperature gradient incubator (model TN3; Advantec, Toyo Roshi International, Pleasanton, Calif.) L-tubes were incubated at 20°C overnight prior to inoculation.
We also determined growth of
L. monocytogenes at different
levels of lactic acid, under conditions close to that typical of
cold-smoked salmon at 5 and 20°C, i.e., pH ~6.0 and water activity
of ~0.96. Sterile over-strength TSB-YE plus 4.5% NaCl was prepared
in a volumetric flask and made up to final volume with sterile
distilled water and filter-sterilized lactic acid (88% [wt/wt]).
For
experiments at 5°C, lactic acid concentrations of 0 to 400
mM at 50 mM intervals were tested. For experiments at 20°C, lactic
acid
concentrations of 500 mM and from 200 to 400 mM at 50 mM
intervals were
tested. Fifty milliliters of each medium was dispensed
into separate
250-ml side-arm flasks. All broths were adjusted
to pH ~6.0.
Inoculation methods were as described above. The media
were incubated
at 5 and 20°C in water baths with shaking at ~33
± 1 rpm.
Growth was assessed turbidimetrically (Spectronic 20D;
Spectronic
Unicam, Rochester, N.Y.) at 540
nm.
 |
THEORY |
Model derivation.
Suitable kinetic models (32, 38)
can be converted to a probability model. The most general form of
kinetic model employed in those studies is given by equation 1 and has
four variables that affect growth, namely, temperature (T
[in degrees Celsius]), water activity (aw), pH, and
lactic acid concentration ([LAC] [in millimolar units]).
|
(1)
|
where µ
max is the maximum specific growth rate,
c,
d, and
k are scale parameters,
Tmin is the theoretical minimum temperature
for
growth,
Tmax is the theoretical maximum
temperature for growth,
a
wmin is the theoretical
minimum water activity for growth, a
wmax is the
theoretical maximum water activity for growth, pH has its
usual
meaning, pH
min is the theoretical minimum pH for growth,
pH
max is the theoretical maximum pH for growth,
UMIC is the minimum
concentration of
undissociated lactic acid which prevents growth,
DMIC is the minimum concentration of dissociated
lactic acid which
prevents growth,
pKa is the pH
at which levels of undissociated
and dissociated acid are equal (3.86 for lactic acid [
6]),
and
e is the error
term.
In the thesis of Tienungoon (
45), which had four separate
data sets, the superoptimal temperature term {1

exp[
d(
T
Tmax)]}
or
superoptimal water activity term {1

exp[
k(a
w 
a
wmax)]} or
superoptimal pH term (1

10
pH
pHmax) were sometimes not required because
these terms are appropriate
only if there are sufficient data to
support the estimation of
the associated parameters, viz.,
d,
Tmax,
k,
a
wmax and pH
max.
Similarly, the term
involving the dissociated form of lactic acid
{1

[LAC]/[
DMIC(1 + 10
pKa
pH)]} is
needed only if the total [LAC] is very high (e.g., >500
mM). The
kinetic experiment that used the
L. monocytogenes Scott
A
strain had a maximum [LAC] of 200 mM and did not require the
DMIC in the final model. These considerations
allow for some terms
to be deleted from the general model, whereas
other terms may
have to be added in order to produce a good-fitting
interface
model. A procedure for vetting the terms that are the most
appropriate
for an interface model is presented below after we describe
how
we convert a kinetic model to an interface
model.
Interface model.
Using an approach proposed previously
(35), equation 1 or modifications of it were converted to an
interface model for growth/no growth by taking the natural logarithm of
both sides and replacing the left-hand side with the logit of the
probability, P, that the organism will grow, where logit
(P) is a mathematical shorthand for ln[P/(1
P)]. This operation and substitution result in the following model:
|
(2)
|
Equation
2 contains nine `linear-appearing' parameters to be
estimated, namely
b0,
b1,
b2,
b3,
b4,
b5,
b6,
b7, and
b8. Had
the analogy that equation 2 was obtained
by log-transformation
of equation 1 been strictly followed, then
b1 =
b2 = 1, and
b3 =
b4 =
b5 =
b6 =
b7 =
b8 = 0.5. However,
the analogy is incomplete,
and these parameters are treated as free
parameters and are estimated
with the same maximum likelihood or
weighted least-squares procedure
that simultaneously produces estimates
of
Tmin,
d,
Tmax, a
wmin,
k,
a
wmax, pH
min, pH
max,
UMIC, and
DMIC. In this
respect, the growth/no
growth model takes its form from that of
equation 1, even though
it is not a literal translation of it. Forcing
b1 =
b2 = 1.0 and
b3 =
b4 =
b5 =
b6 =
b7 =
b8 = 0.5, so that
b0 is the only
b parameter
estimated,
resulted in a much poorer fit (results not
shown).
Statistical software.
Equation 2 is an example of a nonlinear
logistic regression model. It is nonlinear because the expression on
the right-hand side contains both linear and nonlinear parameters. It
is a logistic regression because the right-hand side of the expression
is linked to the response variable P, the probability of
growth, by a logit link function. Linear logistic regression is a
well-established statistical procedure which can be fitted by a wide
variety of available statistical packages, utilizing built-in
procedures, e.g., PROC LOGISTIC and PROC GENMOD of SAS (SAS/STAT
user's guide, version 6, 4th ed., vol. 2; SAS/STAT software: changes
and enhancements, through release 6.11; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.)
or directives, such as in GENSTAT (Genstat S, release 3, manual;
Genstat, Downer's Grove, Ill.). Nonlinear logistic regression,
however, requires more than a standard procedure or directive. Equation 2 was fitted by adapting code in an example in PROC NLIN of SAS
(SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6, p. 1168); see the Appendix for a
partial listing of the modified code. The critical change is to use a
weight function, which for a binomial probability distribution is
nP(1
P), where P is the
probability of growth and n is the number of replicates. The
mean value of the nonlinear predictor, the expression involving the
growth regulating factors, is linked to the probability P by
the logit link function. Convergence to an optimum solution was
improved by use of a "loss function" that is described in the same
example, although its use is not obligatory.
To identify model terms that were important to include in the model,
the stepwise regression feature of PROC LOGISTIC of SAS
(SAS/STAT
user's guide, version 6) was used. Since that procedure
is for linear
logistic regression, the nonlinear parameters have
to be fixed to
constant values. Initially, these constant values
were not known and
were set to arbitrary values, for which the
converged estimates from
previously derived kinetic models were
employed. Later, these
parameters were reestimated with nonlinear
logistic regression, using
PROC NLIN (SAS/STAT user's guide, version
6) on the updated model, as
discussed in the previous paragraph.
By this means, we tested whether
the model could be improved by
the inclusion of terms involving the
squares of terms or the cross-products
of terms with two or more
factors. We investigated the effect
of the following 11 terms (with the
nonlinear parameters set to
the values to which they subsequently
converged for the Scott
A data set): (i) ln(
T 
0.4164),
(ii) ln(1

10
3.35
pH), (iii)
ln(a
w 
0.9142), (iv) ln{1

exp[0.536
(
T 
48)]}, (v)
ln{1

[LAC]/[23.68(1 + 10
pH
3.86)]},
(vi) ln
2(
T 
0.4164), (vii)
ln
2[1

(10
3.35
pH)], (viii)
ln
2(a
w 
0.9142), (ix)
ln
2{1

[LAC]/[23.68 (1 + 10
pH
3.86)]},
(x) ln(
T 
0.4164) ×
ln(1

10
3.35
pH), and (xi)
ln[1

(10
pH
9.5)].
Assessment of model performance.
The receiver operating
characteristic (ROC) curve (e.g., see reference 25),
the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic (18), and the
maximum rescaled R-square statistic (31) were used as measures of goodness of fit of the model developed. The area
under the ROC curve, c, is a measure of discrimination,
obtained from a plot of sensitivity, i.e., the proportion of observed
events that were correctly predicted to be events, against the
complement of specificity, i.e., the proportion of nonevents that were
correctly predicted to be nonevents. The closer the value of
c is to 1, the greater is the discrimination. In
epidemiological studies, a c value of >0.7 is considered
acceptable discrimination, a c value of >0.8 as excellent
discrimination, and a c value of >0.9 as outstanding
discrimination (25); however, in epidemiology, usually not
all of the factors that influence the response variable are known. For
our model, a high degree of discrimination is expected, since the
identity and approximate range of values of the important factors that
prevent the growth of the organism in the experimental system are well
known. The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit statistic, which involves
grouping objects into a contingency table and calculating a Pearson
chi-square statistic, was proposed (18) as a means of
estimating goodness of fit when there is no replication or insufficient replication in any of the subpopulations. Small values of
the statistic (large P values) indicate a good fit of
the model to the data.
The maximum rescaled
R2 for use with binomial
error was proposed (
31) as a generalization of the
coefficient of determination
R2 that is commonly
used in regression applications involving normally
distributed error.
The closer the value is to 1, the greater the
success in predicting the
dependent variable from the independent
variables. We also evaluated
the model for its ability to predict
the results obtained by others
(
14,
26). Model predictions
were compared graphically to the
observations of those
workers.
We also tested the model on the less complete but more extensive
independent published data (more than 1,000 observations)
summarized in
reference (
38). When complete information on environmental
conditions was not available, we adopted a "worst-case" strategy
and generated predictions assuming that the unspecified variables
were
at the optimal levels for growth of
L. monocytogenes, i.e.,
25°C, pH 7, no lactate, and an a
w of 0.995. Predictions
from the
model were made for a
P value of 0.5, i.e, 50%
probability of
growth.
 |
RESULTS |
Since we did not have sufficient data to fit all the terms in
equation 2, we used a simpler model instead. For example, we collected
no data for an aw of >0.997, precluding estimation of awmax. Also, the term representing the effect of
dissociated lactic acid (i.e., the one with the parameter
DMIC) was not needed to model the present data
sets. The parameters Tmax and pHmax
of equation 2 had to be fixed to obtain convergence, because
insufficient data were available in the high-temperature and high-pH
regions. We set these values to Tmax = 48.0°C and pHmax = 9.5 based on work summarized in
references 20 and 38. The
coefficient of the high-temperature term, d, was fixed at
0.536, the converged value it attained with the kinetic model. This led
to the following simplified model.
|
(3)
|
which was tested on the data from both
strains.
Using PROC LOGISTIC of SAS (SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6), we
examined the effect of the six model terms in equation 3, along with
terms for the square of ln(T
Tmin), the
square of ln(aw
awmin), the square
of ln(1
10pHmin
pH), the
square of ln(1
{[LAC]/[UMIC (1 + 10pH
pKa)]}), and the
cross-product term ln(T
Tmin) × ln(1
10pHmin
pH). The
results from the two strains were the same, with the terms ln2(T
Tmin) and
ln2(1
10pHmin
pH) explaining a statistically significant proportion of the
total variation in logit (P), whereas the other three
additional terms and the superoptimal pH term ln(1
10pH
9.5) were not significant. This resulted in
the following final model, which was used for both data sets:
|
(4)
|
Parameter estimates and their standard errors, obtained with
nonlinear logistic regression using PROC NLIN of SAS (SAS/STAT
user's
guide, version 6) are given in Table
2
for the data from
the two strains.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Parameter estimates from fitting equation 4 to data for
the growth/no growth interface of two strains
of L. monocytogenes
|
|
 |
MODEL PERFORMANCE |
Goodness of fit.
We compared the modeled growth/no growth
interface to the data upon which the model was based (Fig.
1). Since four factors affect growth, it
is difficult to display the model in all dimensions, but Fig. 1 is
representative of the performance of the models for both strains for
all pairs of variables. Objective measures of how well the model
describes the data set are summarized in Table
3.

View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Selected growth/no growth interfaces (P = 0.5) predicted by equation 4 for L. monocytogenes,
compared to the data used to generate the model. (a) Temperature/pH
interface predicted by equation 4 fitted to data for L. monocytogenes Scott A compared to observed growth responses of
that strain in TSB-YE with added salt (aw = 0.993 ± 0.001) and without added lactate. Growth ( ) or no growth ( )
within 90 days is shown. (b) pH/water activity interface predicted by
equation 4 fitted to data for L. monocytogenes Scott A
compared to observed growth responses of that strain in TSB-YE in the
presence of 50 mM lactate at 20°C. Growth ( ) or no growth ( )
within 90 days from probabilistic and kinetic experiments,
respectively, is shown.
|
|
Comparison to independent data.
We also compared the
predictions of the model to other data collected under laboratory
conditions (Fig. 2 and
3) and under diverse conditions reported
in the literature (data not shown). We collated ~500 data for growth
in laboratory broth and ~500 data for growth in foods derived from 28 and 60 sources, respectively. Unlike the results shown in Fig. 1 to 3,
a comparison to all literature data revealed some cases in which the
model predicts growth is not possible where growth has been reported.
Of particular note were poor predictions at high (i.e., >35°C) and
low (<3°C) temperatures, discussed below.

View larger version (24K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 2.
Evaluation of the probability models for strains Scott A
and L5 fitted to equation 4. The model predictions were compared to the
data of George et al. (14) for the effect of temperature and pH on the
potential for growth of L. monocytogenes NCTC 10357 (a and
c) and Scott A (b and d) in TSB plus 1% glucose plus 0.3% yeast
extract (aw, ~0.995). , growth observed; , growth
not observed. In each panel, the growth/no growth interfaces predicted
at P values of 0.1 (lower curve), 0.5 (middle
curve), and 0.9 (upper curve) are shown. (a) George et al. data for
strain NCTC 10357 compared to data from model for Scott A. (b) George
et al. data for strain Scott A compared to data from model for Scott A. (c) George et al. data for strain NCTC 10357 compared to data from
model for strain L5. (d) George et al. data for strain Scott A compared
to data from model for strain L5.
|
|

View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 3.
Evaluation of the probability models for strains Scott A
and L5 fitted to equation 4. The model predictions were compared to the
data of McClure et al. (26) for the effect of water activity and pH on
the potential for growth of L. monocytogenes NCTC 9863 in
TSB at 25°C at three levels of probability of growth: P = 0.1 (lower curve), P = 0.5 (middle curve), and
P = 0.9 (upper curve). (a) (Upper) equation 4 fitted to
L. monocytogenes Scott A data; (b) (Lower) equation 4 fitted
to L. monocytogenes L5 data. Conditions under which growth
was reported are indicated by , those under which growth was not
observed are indicated by , and those under which growth was
observed in some, but not all, trials are indicated by
 . The abruptness of the predicted
transition from a high (P = 0.9) to a low (P = 0.1) probability of growth is illustrated by the closeness of
the three predicted boundaries. In both panels, three observations lie
within the 10 to 90% probability-of-growth limits.
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
Probability or growth/no growth interface models are of particular
interest in managing the safety of foods which occasionally may be
contaminated with pathogens and for which subsequent growth of the
pathogen would increase the risk of food-borne illness. Definition of
all combinations of environmental factors that prevent growth of
L. monocytogenes in foods will, in effect, quantify the
Hurdle Concept (23, 24). The data underlying the growth/no growth models presented here are based on an observation period of 90 days to ensure that if growth were possible it would have been detected.
Model stability and convergence.
There was a strong similarity
between the estimates of the cardinal model parameters
Tmin, awmin, pHmin,
and UMIC for the two strains (see Table
2). Although it is tempting to interpret these parameters as,
respectively, the "true" minimum levels of temperature, pH, water
activity (controlled by NaCl), and undissociated lactic acid that
permit growth under otherwise optimal conditions, they should be seen
as notional. The estimate of one of these parameters,
pHmin, converged to 3.35, the lower bound that was specified for that parameter (using the "bounds" directive of SAS
PROC NLIN). Relaxing the boundary condition and allowing
pHmin to take on lower values resulted in the estimate
converging to the new lower bound. In addition, allowing parameter
estimates to deviate too far from realistic values caused other
parameters to hit bounds. This behavior reflects the fact that
nonlinear logistic regression, like its counterpart nonlinear
regression with normally distributed error, does not necessarily
guarantee convergence to a global optimum. Even when modeling with
normally distributed error, a subject for which there is an immense
literature (see, for example, references 34 and
42), the behavior of the parameter estimators can be
very erratic, with the estimators exhibiting considerable bias and
having a highly non-normal distribution. Nonlinear logistic regression
is a new field with few published applications, and problems in
estimation and interpretation of results should be expected.
Generally, nonlinear logistic regression models are more flexible than
models with fixed values of the cardinal parameters,
since the extra
parameters improve the goodness of fit. Failure
to obtain stable
solutions in every instance with binomial error
distribution is not
specific to nonlinear logistic regression
but is also experienced using
linear logistic regression. This
failure usually occurs when the number
of trials (or replicates),
n, corresponding to each
condition (i.e., for a specific combination
of temperature, water
activity, pH, etc.) is small. Because the
information content implicit
in binomially distributed error is
much lower than that in normally
distributed error (i.e., counts
are less informative than measures), it
may require sample sizes
of hundreds for each condition in order to
obtain stable outcomes,
even for the standard linear logistic model. In
our experiments,
the number of replicates for each combination of
conditions was
necessarily small (usually quadruplicate, sometimes only
one).
Transition between growth and no growth.
The transition from
"likely to grow" conditions (P = 0.9, or 90%
likelihood of growth) to "unlikely to grow" conditions
(P = 0.1, or 10% likelihood of growth), as predicted
from the fitted model, was abrupt as can be seen graphically for
combinations of pH and temperatures (Fig. 1a) and pH and water activity
(Fig. 1b). The abruptness of the transition between growth or no-growth conditions influenced by pH can be as little as 0.1 to 0.2, which is
close to the limit of reproducibility for pH measurements. For
temperature and water activity, the transition is much less abrupt,
occurring over increments of temperature and water activity that exceed
that of measurement or experimental error. Most of the raw data were of
the form of all n replicates being observed either to grow
or not to grow. For the Scott A strain (521 factor combinations), only
four of these combinations gave a response different from "all
grew" or "none grew," while for the L5 strain (541 data points),
only seven of these outcomes were not in the "all" or "none"
categories. Thus, the experimental data showed an abrupt transition
between growth and no growth that is not closely reflected by the
results of the mathematical modeling. This abruptness does not indicate
inadequate modeling but rather a microbiological reality in which small
changes in environmental factors within an experiment may have a strong
influence on the position of the interface. These differences are
reflected in the predictions of the model at different levels of
P.
Validation using other published data.
Both models perform
well when their data are compared to the data of George et al.
(14), which cover a wide range of pH and temperature (up to
30°C; see Fig. 2) at near-optimal water activity, and of McClure et
al. (26), which cover a wide range of pH and water activity
(see Fig. 3) at 25°C, which is near optimal for the tolerance of
L. monocytogenes to environmental stresses (see, e.g.,
reference 12). In these comparisons, sufficient details were known about the experimental conditions to use the model
for prediction. In contrast, the comparison of model predictions to a
collation of growth data from the literature revealed poorer concordance between predictions and observations, with the model generally predicting the growth/no growth interface to lie beyond the
region where growth has been reported. This was expected because a
worst-case strategy was adopted. For example, inhibitory factors other
than those included in the model, such as other acidulants or
humectants, preservatives, or other microorganisms, were present in
many of the foods tested but could not be included in the model predictions. This led to conservative model predictions. The
limitations of using literature data to evaluate model performance have
been discussed previously (37, 44).
We found two observations of growth in broths at water activity lower
than that at which we observed growth. Those data are
from Miller
(
28), who reported growth of Scott A at an a
w of
0.92 with NaCl as a humectant and growth at an a
w of 0.90 with
glycerol as a humectant, the growth medium being brain heart
infusion
broth at 28°C and at pH 7.4. The latter observation is
consistent
with that from reference
12. Many
bacteria can tolerate lower
water activity when glycerol, which
permeates the cell membrane,
is the humectant rather than NaCl
(
17). Under the former conditions,
i.e., with NaCl as the
humectant, the model for Scott A predicts
the probability of growth as
0.38, while the model for L5 predicts
the probability of growth as
0.012. At these near-growth-limiting
conditions, the predicted response
is very sensitive to small
differences in input values. For example,
the best water activity
meters in routine use in food microbiology have
a measurement
error of the order of ±0.003. Under the conditions
reported by
Miller (
28), if the water activity value were
0.923, the L5
model predicts the probability of growth as 0.49. Thus,
either
model describes well the observations of Miller (
28)
within
the limits of measurement
error.
The minimum pH for the growth of
L. monocytogenes was
reported to be 4.3 using HCl as the acidulant (
12,
14). It
was found
(
45) that
L. monocytogenes strains
Scott A and L5 were able
to grow at pHs as low as 4.23 and 4.25, respectively, in HCl-acidified
media. The predictions of the model are
consistent with these
observations and describe well the limits to
growth revealed in
Fig.
2 and
3.
Organic acids accentuate the pH inhibition of bacterial growth rates
and limits, the magnitude of that inhibition being most
dependent on
the concentration of the undissociated acid (
32,
43,
48),
which increases the minimum pH at which growth is
observed. The kinetic
model from which our interface model is
derived explicitly incorporates
the assumption that the growth
rate is proportional to the
concentration of undissociated organic
acid (
32). We have
been unable to identify independent data
sets by which to evaluate the
predictions of equation 4 for the
combined effects of pH and lactic
acid.
Bolton and Frank (
5) presented data and a modeling approach
similar to that described here. Their data describe the effects
of
water content, brine concentration, and pH on the growth potential
of
L. monocytogenes. Their experimental media were acidified
with
lactic acid, but the final concentrations of lactate that resulted
at each pH tested were not reported. Thus, a comparison of the
predictions of equation 4 to their observations was not
attempted.
L. monocytogenes has been reported to grow at temperatures
less than 0°C in laboratory media broth (e.g., see references
1 and
46) and in vacuum-packed
foods (e.g., see references
3 and
19). However, other reported minimum growth
temperatures
for
L. monocytogenes range from 0.5 to 5.0°C
in various broth
media (
11,
16,
21,
47) and from 3 to 4°C
in foods (
27,
36,
45). The model describes accurately the
data used to generate
it, which are mostly in the range of 4 to 30°C
(see Fig.
1a).
Similarly, for the data shown in Fig.
2 and
3 collected
by independent
workers (
14,
26) under well-controlled
conditions, the predictions
of equation 4 fitted to
L. monocytogenes strains Scott A or L5
provide excellent descriptions
of the growth limits of strains
Scott A, NCTC 10357, and NCTC 9863. Conversely, while the model
predicts well the limits of growth in
response to combined pH
and temperature constraints in the range of 3 to 35°C reported
in the literature (data not shown), at temperatures
outside this
range the model predictions apparently do not agree well
with
some of those independent observations. Extrapolation of the model
to temperatures above 35°C or below 3°C gave unsatisfactory results
for independent data, predicting no growth where it had been reported
in several cases, emphasizing that regression models should not
be
extrapolated beyond the range of the data on which they were
based
(
2). The performance of the model at low temperatures
is
likely to be of the most practical interest at temperatures
in the
chill range. Thus, it is essential to resolve whether there
are strain
differences in the growth potential of
L. monocytogenes at
chill temperatures or whether there are other factors that
increase the
growth potential of
L. monocytogenes in certain
environments.
The omission of important factors in a model, and the
resultant
poor prediction in some cases, has been termed
"completeness error"
(
40). The term containing the
parameters
d and
Tmax was useful
in
improving the goodness of fit of the model in the suboptimal
temperature region but may not be adequate to describe data in
the
high-temperature region, for which additional experimental
data would
be
needed.
Cold-smoked salmon.
In cold-smoked salmon, water activity, pH,
and lactic acid present in the muscle tissue interact to retard
microbial growth, while low-temperature storage further extends the
shelf life of the product. Typical levels are water activity of 0.96 to
0.98 (with NaCl as a humectant), pH 6, and lactic acid levels of 80 to
100 mM (9), with the recommended storage temperature being typically 5°C. Equation 4 enables prediction of the growth potential of L. monocytogenes under these conditions and, for the most
stringent conditions of the ranges indicated above, predicts a
probability of growth of 0.58, whereas for the least stringent of
that range, P equals 0.69. Results (10)
demonstrate that when L. monocytogenes is inoculated onto
smoked salmon, growth is possible, but in naturally contaminated
salmon, growth was more inhibited, suggesting that other factors, such
as smoke components, microbial injury, or the presence of other
microorganisms, are important inhibitors of the growth potential of
L. monocytogenes.
Conclusions.
The growth or no-growth boundary was previously
successfully defined and modeled using only kinetic data
(35). In the present study, the good fit to the kinetic data
by the probability model is evident (Fig. 1). This may represent an
integration of the two extremes, kinetic and probabilistic aspects, of
predictive microbiology.
The growth/no growth boundaries at a
P value of 0.50 presented in this study may be envisaged as a multidimensional tent
enclosing
the space where the probability of growth was 100%. The
space
enclosed by this tent defines part of the hyperspace cloud
(
4)
and is similar to the interpolation region described by
Baranyi
et al. (
2) as the minimum convex polyhedron (MCP).
The MCP
encompasses the interpolation region containing the
combinations
of variables tested in a growth rate modeling study. The
MCP may
provide a rational criterion for designing experiments such
that
the MCP is maximized to cover the entire growth domain, thus
avoiding
prediction by extrapolation. Further, if a growth rate model
is
used to make predictions for extreme conditions, a probability
model
can supplement that prediction by assessing whether growth
is likely.
From a model such as equation 4, the position of the
interface can be
specified by the choice of an appropriate value
of
P, the
probability that growth will occur. Use of a
P value
of 0.5 may be a suitable choice and is one which we adopt here
for
exemplification, but more conservative values, such as a
P of 0.1 (1 in 10 chance of growth occurring) or less, can be chosen
if a
greater margin of safety is
required.
Though development of probabilistic models received considerable
attention in the 1970s and early 1980s (
39), until recently
there has been greater emphasis on the development of models that
predict the rate of microbial growth. Renewed interest in stochastic
modeling approaches has aided the development of quantitative
microbial
risk assessment techniques (
22), which aim to describe
the
most likely levels of exposure to, and the extent of variability
in,
food-borne microbial risks. The types of models described
here, and
variations and alternatives such as those described
by Bolton and Frank
(
5), will assist in the development of
that science. By
evaluating data from our model against a range
of independent data
sets, we found that the model is valid over
a wide range of conditions,
but there are some deficiencies that
must be resolved before the model
can be used with complete
confidence.
 |
APPENDIX |
The code for performing nonlinear logistic regression using PROC
NLIN of SAS (SAS/STAT user's guide, version 6; SAS/STAT software: changes and enhancements, through release 6.11) is as follows: /* DO MLE WITH NONLINEAR LEAST SQUARES*/ proc nlin
nohalve sigsq=1 maxiter=20 converge=5.0e-6 data=interfac;
/* SET INITIAL PARAMETER VALUES AND THEIR BOUNDS*/
parms b0=0 b1=0 b2=0 b3=0 b4=0 b5=0 b6=0 b7=0
awmin=0.92 Tmin=3.0 pHmin=3.4 Umin=20; bounds
2<Tmin<3.059; bounds 0.88<awmin<0.9279; bounds
3.350<pHmin<3.929; bounds 15.191<Umin<50; /* EXPRESS
MODEL*/ y= b0 + b1*log(T-Tmin) + b2*log(T-Tmin)**2 + b3*log(1-exp(0.536*(T-48))) + b4*log(aw-awmin) + b5*log(1-10**(pHmin-pH)) + b6*log(1-10** (pHmin-pH))**2 + b7*log(1-LAC/(Umin*(1+10**(pH-3.86)))); /* CALCULATE
EXPECTATION*/ mu=exp(y)/(1+exp(y)); /* CALCULATE WEIGHT AND
LOSS FUNCTIONS*/ _weight_=1/(n*mu*(1-mu));
_loss_=(
grow*log(mu)
(n-grow)*log(1-mu))/_weight_; /* MODEL
STATEMENT*/ model grow=n*mu; run;
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, Meat
and Livestock Australia, and TASSAL Ltd., Tasmania, Australia.
We thank F. Grau, Food Science Australia, Brisbane, Australia, for the
L. monocytogenes Scott A strain, C. D. Garland,
Aquahealth Laboratory, Hobart, Australia, for L. monocytogenes strain L5, a wild-type strain isolated from
cold-smoked salmon, and W. T. Ross, Health Canada, for helpful
discussions concerning the development of nonlinear logistic regression modeling.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: School of
Agricultural Science, University of Tasmania, G.P.O. Box 252-54, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia. Phone: 61-3-62261831. Fax:
61-3-62262642. E-mail: Tom.Ross{at}utas.edu.au.
Present address: Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public
Health, Nontaburi, Thailand.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Bajard, S.,
L. Rosso,
G. Fardel, and J. P. Flandrois.
1996.
The particular behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes under sub-optimal conditions.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
29:201-211[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Baranyi, J.,
T. Ross,
T. A. McMeekin, and T. A. Roberts.
1996.
Effects of parameterisation on the performance of empirical models used in `predictive microbiology.'
Food Microbiol.
13:83-91[CrossRef].
|
| 3.
|
Bell, R. G.,
N. Penny, and S. M. Moorhead.
1995.
Growth of the psychrotrophic pathogens Aeromonas hydrophila, Listeria monocytogenes and Yersinia enterocolitica on smoked blue cod (Parapercis colias) packed under vacuum or carbon dioxide.
Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.
30:515-521.
|
| 4.
|
Boddy, L., and J. W. T. Wimpenny.
1992.
Ecological concepts in food microbiology.
J. Appl. Bacteriol. Symp.
73(Suppl.):23S-38S.
|
| 5.
|
Bolton, L. F., and J. F. Frank.
1999.
Defining the growth/no growth interface for Listeria monocytogenes in Mexican-style cheese based on salt, pH and moisture content.
J. Food Prot.
62:601-609[Medline].
|
| 6.
|
Budavari, S. (ed.).
1989.
The Merck index: an encyclopedia of chemicals, drugs, and biologicals, 11th ed.
Merck and Co., Inc., Rahway, N.J.
|
| 7.
|
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
1999.
Update: multistate outbreak of listeriosis United States, 1998-1999.
Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep.
47:1117-1118[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Cole, M. B.,
M. V. Jones, and C. Holyoak.
1990.
The effect of pH, salt concentration and temperature on the survival and growth of Listeria monocytogenes.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
69:63-72[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Dalgaard, P.
1997.
Predictive microbiological modelling and seafood quality, p. 431-443.
In
J. Luten, T. Børresen, and J. Ohelenschlâger (ed.), Seafood from producer to consumer, integrated approach to quality. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
|
| 10.
|
Dalgaard, P., and L. V. Jørgensen.
1998.
Predicted and observed growth of Listeria monocytogenes in seafood challenge tests and in naturally contaminated cold-smoked salmon.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
40:105-115[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Duh, Y.-H., and D. W. Schaffner.
1993.
Modelling the effect of temperature on the growth rate and lag time of Listeria innocua and Listeria monocytogenes.
J. Food Prot.
56:205-210.
|
| 12.
|
Farber, J. M.,
F. Coates, and E. Daley.
1992.
Minimum water activity requirements for the growth of Listeria monocytogenes.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
15:103-105.
|
| 13.
|
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
1999.
Report of the FAO expert consultation on the trade impact of Listeria in fish products. FAO fisheries report no. 604.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
|
| 14.
|
George, S. M.,
B. M. Lund, and T. F. Brocklehurst.
1988.
The effect of pH and temperature on initiation of growth of Listeria monocytogenes.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
6:153-156[CrossRef].
|
| 15.
|
Gilbert, R. J.,
J. de Louvois,
T. Donovan,
W. L. Hooper,
G. Nichols,
R. N. Peel,
C. D. Ribeiro, and D. Roberts.
1996.
Microbiological guidelines for some ready-to-eat foods sampled at the point of sale.
PHLS Microbiol. Dig.
13:41-43.
|
| 16.
|
Gill, C. O.,
G. G. Greer, and B. D. Dilts.
1997.
The aerobic growth of Aeromonas hydrophila and Listeria monocytogenes in broths and on pork.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
35:67-74[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 17.
|
Gould, G. W.
1989.
Drying, raised osmotic pressure and low water activity, p. 97-117.
In
G. W. Gould (ed.), Mechanisms of action of food preservation procedures. Elsevier Applied Science, London, United Kingdom.
|
| 18.
|
Hosmer, D. W., and S. Lemeshow.
1989.
Applied logistic regression.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
|
| 19.
|
Hudson, J. A., and S. J. Mott.
1993.
Growth of Listeria monocytogenes, Aeromonas hydrophila and Yersinia enterocolitica on cold-smoked salmon under refrigeration and mild temperature abuse.
Food Microbiol.
10:61-68[CrossRef].
|
| 20.
|
International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods.
1996.
Micro-organisms in foods, book 5: microbiological specifications of food pathogens.
Blackie Academic and Professional, London, United Kingdom.
|
| 21.
|
Juntilla, J. T.,
S. I. Niemela, and J. Hirn.
1988.
Minimum growth temperatures of Listeria monocytogenes and non-haemolytic listeria.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
65:321-327[Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Lammerding, A. M.
1997.
An overview of microbial food safety risk assessment.
J. Food Prot.
60:1420-1425.
|
| 23.
|
Leistner, L.
1985.
Hurdle technology applied to meat products of the shelf stable and intermediate moisture food types, p. 309-329.
In
D. Simatos, and J. L. Multon (ed.), Properties of water in foods in relation to quality and stability. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
|
| 24.
|
Leistner, L.
1986.
Allgemeines über Rohwurst.
Fleischwirtschaft
66:290, 292, 295-300, 359.
|
| 25.
|
Lemeshow, S., and J. R. Le Gall.
1994.
Modeling the severity of illness of ICU patients.
JAMA
272:1049-1055[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 26.
|
McClure, P. J.,
T. A. Roberts, and P. Otto Oguru.
1989.
Comparison of the effects of sodium chloride, pH and temperature on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes on gradient plates and in liquid medium.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
9:95-99[CrossRef].
|
| 27.
|
Membré, J.-M.,
T. Ross, and T. A. McMeekin.
1999.
Behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes under combined chilling processes.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
28:216-220[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 28.
|
Miller, A.
1992.
Combined water activity and solute effects on the growth and survival of Listeria monocytogenes Scott A.
J. Food Prot.
55:414-418.
|
| 29.
|
Mossel, D. A. A.,
F. V. Rossem,
M. Doopmans,
M. Hendriks,
M. Verouden, and I. Eelderink.
1980.
Quality control of solid culture media: a comparison of the classic and the so-called ecometric technique.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
49:439-454[Medline].
|
| 30.
|
Mossel, D. A. A.,
T. M. G. B.-V. Laarhoven,
A. M. T. Ligtenberg-Merdus, and M. E. B. Werdler.
1983.
Quality assurance of selective culture media for bacteria, moulds and yeasts: an attempt at standardization at the international level.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
54:313-327[Medline].
|
| 31.
|
Nagelkerke, N. J. D.
1991.
A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination.
Biometrika
78:691-692[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 32.
|
Presser, K.,
D. A. Ratkowsky, and T. Ross.
1997.
Modelling the growth rate of Escherichia coli as a function of pH and lactic acid concentration.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
63:2355-2360[Abstract].
|
| 33.
|
Presser, K. A.,
T. Ross, and D. A. Ratkowsky.
1998.
Modelling the growth limits (growth/no growth interface) of E. coli as a function of pH, lactic acid and temperature.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
64:1773-1779[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 34.
|
Ratkowsky, D. A.
1983.
Nonlinear regression modeling: a unified practical approach.
Marcel Dekker, New York, N.Y.
|
| 35.
|
Ratkowsky, D. A., and T. Ross.
1995.
Modelling the bacterial growth/no growth interface.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol.
20:29-33.
|
| 36.
|
Ross, T.
1993.
A philosophical basis for the development of kinetic models in predictive microbiology. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia.
|
| 37.
|
Ross, T.
1996.
Indices for performance evaluation of predictive models in food microbiology.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
81:501-508[Medline].
|
| 38.
|
Ross, T.
1999.
Predictive food microbiology models in the meat industry.
Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, Australia.
|
| 39.
|
Ross, T., and T. A. McMeekin.
1994.
Predictive microbiology a review.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
23:241-264[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 40.
|
Ross, T.,
J. Baranyi, and T. A. McMeekin.
1999.
Predictive microbiology and food safety, p. 1699-1710.
In
R. Robinson, C. A. Batt, and P. Patel (ed.), Encyclopaedia of food microbiology. Academic Press, London, United Kingdom.
|
| 41.
|
Salter, M. A.,
T. Ross,
D. A. Ratkowsky, and T. A. McMeekin.
2000.
Modelling the combined temperature and salt (NaCl) limits for growth of a pathogenic Escherichia coli strain using generalised non-linear regression.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
61:159-167[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 42.
|
Seber, G. A. F., and C. J. Wild.
1989.
Nonlinear regression.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, N.Y.
|
| 43.
|
Sorrells, K. M.,
D. C. Enigl, and J. R. Hatfield.
1989.
Effect of pH, acidulant, time, and temperature on the growth and survival of Listeria monocytogenes.
J. Food Prot.
52:571-573.
|
| 44.
|
Sutherland, J. P.,
A. P. Bayliss, and T. A. Roberts.
1994.
Predictive modelling of the growth of Staphylococcus aureus: the effects of temperature, pH and sodium chloride.
Int. J. Food Microbiol.
21:217-236[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 45.
|
Tienungoon, S.
1998.
Some aspects of the ecology of Listeria monocytogenes in salmonid aquaculture. Ph.D. thesis.
University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
|
| 46.
|
Walker, S. J.,
P. Archer, and J. G. Banks.
1990.
Growth of Listeria monocytogenes at refrigeration temperatures.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
68:157-162[Medline].
|
| 47.
|
Wilkins, P. O.,
R. Bourgeois, and R. G. E. Murray.
1972.
Psychrotrophic properties of Listeria monocytogenes.
Can. J. Microbiol.
18:543-551[Medline].
|
| 48.
|
Young, K. M., and P. M. Foegeding.
1993.
Acetic, lactic and citric acids and pH inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes Scott A and the effect on intracellular pH.
J. Appl. Bacteriol.
74:515-520[Medline].
|
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, November 2000, p. 4979-4987, Vol. 66, No. 11
0099-2240/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Yoon, Y., Kendall, P. A., Belk, K. E., Scanga, J. A., Smith, G. C., Sofos, J. N.
(2009). Modeling the Growth/No-Growth Boundaries of Postprocessing Listeria monocytogenes Contamination on Frankfurters and Bologna Treated with Lactic Acid. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
75: 353-358
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Belletti, N., Kamdem, S. S., Patrignani, F., Lanciotti, R., Covelli, A., Gardini, F.
(2007). Antimicrobial Activity of Aroma Compounds against Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Improvement of Microbiological Stability of Soft Drinks as Assessed by Logistic Regression. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 5580-5586
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Giotis, E. S., McDowell, D. A., Blair, I. S., Wilkinson, B. J.
(2007). Role of Branched-Chain Fatty Acids in pH Stress Tolerance in Listeria monocytogenes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
73: 997-1001
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Kongo, J. M., Malcata, F. X., Ho, A. J., Wiedmann, M.
(2006). Detection and characterization of Listeria monocytogenes in Sao Jorge (Portugal) cheese production.. J DAIRY SCI
89: 4456-4461
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Ponciano, J. M., Vandecasteele, F. P. J., Hess, T. F., Forney, L. J., Crawford, R. L., Joyce, P.
(2005). Use of Stochastic Models To Assess the Effect of Environmental Factors on Microbial Growth. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 2355-2364
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Panagou, E. Z., Skandamis, P. N., Nychas, G.-J. E.
(2005). Use of Gradient Plates To Study Combined Effects of Temperature, pH, and NaCl Concentration on Growth of Monascus ruber van Tieghem, an Ascomycetes Fungus Isolated from Green Table Olives. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.
71: 392-399
[Abstract]
[Full Text]