Previous Article | Next Article ![]()
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, February 2004, p. 1081-1087, Vol. 70, No. 2
0099-2240/04/$08.00+0 DOI: 10.1128/AEM.70.2.1081-1087.2004
Copyright © 2004, American Society for Microbiology. All Rights Reserved.
Louise Perrier,2 Jeanne-Marie Membré,3 Benoît Leporq,3 Eric Mettler,4 Dominique Thuault,5 Louis Coroller,5 Valérie Stahl,6 and Michèle Vialette1*
Institut Pasteur de Lille, 59019 Lille Cedex,1 Danone Vitapole, 91767 Palaiseau Cedex,2 LGPTA-INRA, 59651 Villeneuve d'Ascq Cedex,3 SOREDAB, La Tremblaye, 78125 La Boissière-Ecole,4 ADRIA, Z. A. de Créac'h Gwen, 29196 Quimper Cedex,5 Aérial, 67305 Schiltigheim Cedex, France6
Received 19 May 2003/ Accepted 12 November 2003
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The objective of this study was to develop a methodology to use these first results in foods. Thus, challenge tests were carried out, and then kinetics were analyzed to (i) obtain medium-dependent parameters and (ii) validate complete models. Since temperature is the major factor of interest in the food industry (18), the studies reported focused on that aspect.
|
|
|---|
Strains and media.
The food products and bacteria studied were selected according to food safety concerns, especially those of France (Table 1). For a given species, representative strains were chosen, whose cardinal values had been obtained in the earlier step of the Sym'Previus program (20, 21): 16 strains of L. monocytogenes from sausage (3 strains), seafood (2 strains), dairy products (6 strains), poultry (1 strain), and food plants (4 strains); 10 strains of E. coli from a meat product (1 strain), bovine feces (3 strains), dairy products (3 strains), and human isolates (3 strains); 10 strains of B. cereus from seafood (1 strain), dairy products (6 strains), egg or egg-based products (2 strains), and pasta (1 strain); 5 strains of C. perfringens from pork (1 strain), dairy products (3 strains), and poultry (1 strain); and 9 strains of Salmonella from sausage and pork meat (2 strains), dairy products (1 strain), poultry (1 strain), dairy plants (3 strains), and bakery products (2 strains). The study of the effect of temperature on growth rates demonstrated that intraspecies variability was low compared to uncertainty (21), and only one strain was retained for the validation study. In this way, a single strain was selected to perform challenge tests for each bacterial species. This selection was based principally on the strain's food origin.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 1. Food products and bacterial species used in the present work
|
Bacterial counts were determined by plating on selective media: Hektoen and Rambach for Salmonella; ALOA (agar Listeria [Ottaviani and Agosti]; AES Laboratoire, Bruz, France), Palcam, and Oxford for L. monocytogenes; sorbitol MacConkey agar for E. coli; Mossel for B. cereus; and tryptose-sulfite-cycloserine for Clostridium perfringens. Dilutions were made in tryptone salt broth.
Preparation of the inoculum.
Two subcultures from frozen strains were carried out successively at 37°C in brain heart infusion for 16 and 8 h, respectively. The cultures were shaken at 50 oscillations · min-1, and one final subculture was made at the product incubation temperature studied. In order to have all strains in the same physiological state, a preliminary study was performed in Bioscreen C (Labsystems, Helsinki, Finland). Turbidity was monitored over the whole growth curve of the strains at the chosen temperature. The natural logarithm of the population was calculated. On this log-transformed growth curve, t0 is the time of intersection of two straight lines, one for the exponential growth phase and one for the saturation phase [ln(N) = ln(Nmax)]. The duration of the final subculture was then chosen as t0 plus 10% in order to have cells at the end of their exponential phase.
Growth in food products (challenge tests).
Where freezing was possible, a single stock of product was used for all trials of a given experiment. Food was contaminated with an approximate inoculum level of 5 x 103 CFU/g and divided into 10-g samples. Two iterations of each experiment were performed (the second iteration was repeated twice), with at least 15 measurement points for each curve. Following the first experiment, these points were chosen at optimal time values in order to obtain an even spread of points in the growth curve for the second iteration. The two repetitions of this second experiment were conducted simultaneously. This protocol was used for all challenge test experiments throughout the study: kinetics were generally obtained at 15 and 10°C for L. monocytogenes, E. coli, B. cereus, and Salmonella and at 25 and 20°C for C. perfringens in the food products studied.
Statistical analysis.
Three different software programs were used according to what was available in each laboratory: SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.), S-Plus (AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N.J.), and Excel (Microsoft Excel 2000). Similar results were obtained with each of these programs.
Primary and secondary models.
The primary growth model, describing the evolution of a bacterial population with time (see the appendix), was the modified logistic model proposed by Rosso (27). The population level is referred to as N.
The secondary model, describing the influences of environmental factors on the growth parameters, was based on the gamma concept (37) and was written as follows:
![]() | (1) |
![]() | (2) |
are the maximal specific growth rate and lag time in the specific food product at given T, pH, and aw values; µopt and
min are values at optimal T, pH, and aw values in the specific food product.
2(T),
1(pH), and
2(aw) (given in the appendix) have parameters that are considered to be independent of the growth medium (11). The matrix (food) effect is described through µopt and
min. |
|
|---|
Determination of µopt and
min parameters.
The general model (equation 1) was studied more precisely with temperature, and validation was consequently performed on this factor. Growth was monitored in a food product at a fixed temperature; a preliminary study (data not presented) showed that this temperature had to be close to Topt (to obtain a correct µopt estimate), although not too high (to avoid null lag time and to prevent product modifications). The values of pH and aw were measured. When all three growth curve trials were produced, the modified logistic model was fitted to the data.
Values of pH and aw were considered to be constant for a given food product, since they were not deliberately modified. Therefore, a reduced version of the secondary model was proposed:
![]() | (3) |
![]() | (4) |
Since the parameters in
2(T) are independent of the growth medium (11), the values obtained in laboratory medium were used. Therefore, µ'opt was the parameter that needed to be adjusted to adapt the model to the product. Regression was only carried out using the temperature module, leading to an estimation of µ'opt. This new parameter represented pH and water activity effects, along with the food effect (equation 4). Using this reduced model (equation 3), simulations of growth could be produced at a given temperature in a given food product, where the µ'opt value of this product was used, assuming pH and aw values to be identical at all temperatures. Similarly, a value of
'min was used instead of
min.
Examples of µ'opt determination with E. coli in cooked poultry meat and B. cereus in crab sticks are shown in Fig. 1. When adjusting the model, a common value of µmax over the three trials was computed (as for maximal population, Nmax), whereas there was a different lag time,
(as for inoculum size, N0), for each trial. The final
was chosen as the minimum of these three values, allowing
'min calculation using the temperature module. Eventually, µ'opt and
'min were obtained, allowing the model to be completed for the food product. As an example, parameters for an E. coli strain growing in cooked poultry meat (as shown in Fig. 1A) are given in Tables 2, 3, and 4. In Table 2, the results of the regression on the three trials are presented. Cardinal-model calculations under the experimental conditions are shown in Table 3, and the consequent parameter estimations are given in Table 4.
![]() View larger version (15K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 1. Growth of an E. coli O26 strain in cooked poultry meat (A) and of a B. cereus strain in crab sticks (B) at 15°C. The points represent observed data (squares, first trial; circles, second trial; triangles, third trial), and the lines represent adjusted primary model (continuous line, first trial; dashed line, second trial; dotted line, third trial). The models are adjusted with common µmax and Nmax for all trials, but with one and one N0 for each separate experiment.
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 2. Example of parameter estimation for an E. coli O26 strain growing in cooked poultry meata
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 3. Example of parameter estimation for an E. coli O26 strain growing in cooked poultry meata
|
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 4. Example of parameter estimation for an E. coli O26 strain growing in cooked poultry meata
|
'min values) in a given environment (temperature). Values of growth rate (µmax) and lag time (
) can be obtained for a new temperature condition with the reduced secondary model, and a predicted growth curve can subsequently be drawn using the primary model.
Validation of model.
New data were acquired for the food product studied under other growth conditions chosen as being close to real storage conditions for the product yet still permitting growth. Since a full model was available and all parameters were known, a prediction of growth could be made once temperature, pH, and aw were measured or set. Challenge tests conducted with L. monocytogenes at 10°C in chocolate cream (Fig. 2), in raw poultry meat (Fig. 3), in smoked salmon (Fig. 4), in potted meat (Fig. 5), and in crab sticks (Fig. 6) are presented as illustrations. The observed kinetics were compared to simulations with the model. The results were found to be satisfactory [the discrepancy between observed and predicted log(N) was <1 log unit] in 80% of food-bacteria associations (Table 1). However, as illustrated in Fig. 5 and 6, some combinations would require further work.
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 2. Validation of L. monocytogenes model at 10°C: growth in chocolate cream (diamonds) compared to simulation of growth in chocolate cream (line).
|
![]() View larger version (17K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 3. Validation of L. monocytogenes model at 9°C: growth in raw poultry meat (diamonds) compared to simulation of growth in raw poultry meat (line).
|
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 4. Validation of L. monocytogenes model: growth in smoked salmon at 10 (diamonds) and at 25°C (squares) compared to simulations of growth in smoked salmon at 10 (solid line) and at 25°C (shaded line).
|
![]() View larger version (16K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 5. Validation of L. monocytogenes model at 10°C: growth in potted meat (diamonds) compared to simulation of growth in potted meat (line).
|
![]() View larger version (19K): [in a new window] |
FIG. 6. Validation of L. monocytogenes model at 10°C: growth in crab sticks (diamonds) compared to simulation of growth in crab sticks (line).
|
Predicted µmax (or equivalent generation time, GT) was compared to the observed value, which was calculated from the growth curve using the modified logistic model. The indices proposed by Ross (25) and modified by Baranyi et al. (2) were used here. The bias factor is defined as follows:
![]() | (5) |
![]() | (6) |
The bias and accuracy factors were computed for the predictions of this model compared to the three trials of new experimental data, and predictions using the Pathogen Modeling Program (PMP) (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wyndmoor, Pa. [http://www.arserrc.gov/mfs/pathogen.htm]) were also performed (for the PMP model, see reference 4). The results for L. monocytogenes in various products are shown in Table 5. Predictions using the present model were favorable. Some bias factors indicate slightly fail-dangerous predictions, although not too far above the acceptable level of 1.15 recommended by Ross et al. (26). For example, the highest bias factor was
1.3 for raw poultry meat data. As can be seen in Fig. 3, this results in a slight difference between predicted and observed growth (<1 log unit at the end of the exponential phase). Accuracy factor values are generally <1.3.
|
View this table: [in a new window] |
TABLE 5. Bias and accuracy factors for generation times of L. monocytogenes in food products using the Sym'Previus model (developed in this paper) and using PMP (4)
|
|
|
|---|
These results indicate that the model gives correct predictions of the effect of temperature on food products. Reliable simulations of growth can be obtained, representing useful complements to experimental assays. L. monocytogenes was chosen to illustrate the utilization of this model, but the behaviors of the other pathogens studied could also be predicted. It was therefore concluded that choosing cardinal models was interesting, and furthermore, they are easy to use and have biologically meaningful parameters. Moreover, the hypothesis of the non-food-dependent parameters Tmin, Topt, and Tmax (11) was confirmed by our results.
Temperature has been the main factor studied so far. However, the methodology could easily be adapted to study other factors more precisely. For example, if a new product formulation changed its pH, a process of µopt calculation and model validation could be conducted, along the lines of what has been done in this program. Similarly, much effort has been invested in growth rate modeling, although a simple lag time model has been assumed in this study. However, the form of the model makes it suitable for improvements without invalidating what has been done here. Hence, lag time modeling represents a future step in the program. Since the last subculture was carried out at the temperature of the challenge test, the lag time was reduced, which led to a "fail-safe" prediction. To be closer to the industrial context, other scenarios will be performed.
Validation is an essential step after modeling. The first stage of validation, when proposing a new type of model, is often internal validation (34), which means validation is performed on the same data used for building the model (23, 24). However, further external validation, using new data not used for fitting the model, would appear to be essential to confirm the robustness of the model (10).
Predictive models are often built on data obtained in laboratory medium. Extrapolation to predictions in food products is not straightforward (8, 15) because of the complexity of these media (35). Models take a limited number of factors into account compared to the numerous factors influencing growth in food products; this phenomenon has been named "completeness error" (19). Therefore, a good way of validating a model is to compare its prediction to data obtained for food products.
Food data used for validation were sometimes taken from published results (4, 12, 17). This is an easier way of validating a model than conducting new experiments on food products. However, it is often difficult to use published results for comparison with model predictions (16, 34). Conditions of growth are sometimes not precisely described, and it is necessary to make assumptions about some factors (3, 30, 32). Some models incorporate a new factor for which few data (or even no data) have been published; therefore, validations have to be made with a level 0 for such a factor (5, 33).
The methodology presented in this paper makes it necessary to conduct experiments on food products, since some parameters (µopt and
min) are specific to a bacterial-species-growth medium combination. Data are acquired on the studied product for model building, and then new data are obtained on the product for model validation. This method is an intermediate between (i) "all laboratory media" methods (1, 7), which require further validation to be considered safe, and (ii) "all food" methods (13, 22), which are more expensive. Even so, the validation process described here currently considers a single strain per food-species combination. However, it is possible at this stage to give a rough classification of foods according to the suitability of the model for predictions in these products. Furthermore, using the standard methodology reported in this paper, new challenge tests could be performed to further validate the model. It should be noted that a complementary study of the variability of model predictions has been conducted (21). A comparison between our experimental results obtained from foods and PMP simulations (Table 5) indicated that the PMP software gave too conservative GT predictions. This result is not surprising, since PMP is not a food-oriented program. However, the comparison was made because, at the moment, this software is one of the references in predictive microbiology modeling and is freely available on the Internet.
The Sym'Previus program is still running. Further studies are planned to include new microorganisms (Staphylococcus aureus) and new factors (organic acids) or to improve models (lag time modeling, growth limits, and interactions). The existence of a standardized methodology would be extremely helpful in conducting these projects jointly in several laboratories.
|
|
|---|
![]() |
is the lag time, and µmax is the growth rate.
The secondary model (28, 29), based on the gamma concept (37), uses individual modules for the environmental factors:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
X corresponds to T, pH, or aw factors, with n values of 2, 1, and 2, respectively. The estimated parameters are µopt, Tmin, Topt, Tmax, pHmin, pHopt, aw(min), and aw(opt).
For the pH equation, the symmetry hypothesis (20) was assumed:
![]() |
For the water activity, aw(max) was fixed at 1.
Present address: Laboratory of Food Microbiology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. ![]()
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Copyright © 2009 by the American Society for Microbiology. For an alternate route to Journals.ASM.org, visit: http://intl-journals.asm.org | More Info»