Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T16:08:44.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The bacteriology of dehydrated vegetables

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. Rishbeth
Affiliation:
Ministry of Food, Department of Pathology, Cambridge
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Considerable errors arose when the plate count method was used to determine the number of bacteria on dehydrated vegetables. Bacteria probably occurred on the surface of the vegetables only.

Plate counts tended to be greater when suspensions were prepared at higher temperatures over the range 10–40° C. Counts often increased by 20% and sometimes by 50% in the short period allowed in the standard procedure (25 min.), probably owing to multiplication of bacteria. Changes in the volume of suspensions, caused by rehydration of vegetables, led to small errors for which allowance could be made. Larger variations in count arose from sampling errors through differences in the number of bacteria on individual strips and, to a lesser extent, through imperfect distribution of bacteria in suspensions. The relation of plate counts to the actual number of bacteria on the vegetables was uncertain.

However, the error in counting a single sample (— 65% to + 150%) was appreciably smaller than that in counting successive samples from the same factory (about fivefold) and this in turn was less than the variation between different factories (up to a thousandfold). The plate count could therefore be used with some confidence as a general guide to the state of factory hygiene.

The author is grateful for assistance given by Dr M. Stephenson, F.R.S., of the Biochemical Laboratory, Cambridge, and by Dr M. Ingram, Dr H. G. Wager and others of the Low Temperature Research Station, Cambridge.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1947

References

REFERENCES

Anonymous (1944). Blanching equipment may cause bacterial contamination of canned vegetables. Food Trade Rev. 14, no. 7, 4.Google Scholar
Clague, J. A. (1936). Microbiological examination of dried foods. Food Res. 1, 4559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, J. T. (1944). Two outbreaks of food poisoning. Mon. Bull. Min. Hlth, Lond., 3, 63.Google Scholar
Gane, R. (1943). The activity of water in dried foodstuffs: water content as a function of humidity and temperature. Dehydration. D.S.I.R. and M.O.F. U.K. Progress Reports.Google Scholar
Haines, R. B. (1943). The bacteriology of dehydrated foodstuffs. Dehydration. D.S.I.R. and M.O.F. U.K. Progress Reports.Google Scholar
Haines, R. B. & Elliott, E. M. L. (1944). Some bacteriological aspects of dehydrated foods. J. Hyg., Camb., 43, 370–81.Google ScholarPubMed
Jones, A. H. (1943). Microbiological aspects of dehydrated vegetables and fruits. Food in Canada, Reprint no. 5, 15.Google Scholar
Jordan, E. O. & Burrows, W. (1935). Streptococcus food poisoning. J. Infect. Dis. 55, 363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintner, J. H. & DeLay, P. D. (1943). Sanitation aspects of vegetable dehydration plants. Army Vet. Bull., Wash., 37, 1219.Google Scholar
Makower, B. & Dehority, G. L. (1943). Equilibrium moisture content of dehydrated vegetables. Industr. Engng Chem. 35, 193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ministry of Food, Dehydration Division (1945). British vegetable dehydration. Food Manuf. 20, 271.Google Scholar
Ministry of Food, Dehydration Division (1946). Monograph on vegetable dehydration in the United Kingdom. H.M.S.O. (in the Press).Google Scholar
Prescott, S. C. (1920). Some bacteriological aspects of dehydration. J. Bact. 5, 109–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snow, D., Crichton, M. H. G. & Wright, N. C. (1944). Mould deterioration of feeding stuffs in relation to humidity of storage. Part I. Ann. Appl. Biol. 31, 102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, N. C. (1940). The storage of artificially dried grass. J. Agric. Sci. 31, 194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar