MICROBIOLOGICAL QUALITY ASSESSMENT OF FRESH STRAWBERRIES (Fragaria X ananassa) SOLD IN SUPERMARKETS IN WEST ZONE OF COIMBATORE CITY, TAMIL NADU, INDIA

R. MOHANAPRIYA¹, Z. JOHN KENNEDY²*, D. BALACHANDAR^3
1Department of Agricultural Microbiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
²Post Harvest Technology Center, Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
³Department of Agricultural Microbiology, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
* Corresponding Author : priyajagan888@gmail.com

Received : 02-07-2020     Accepted : 17-07-2020     Published : 30-07-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 7       Pages : 1875 - 1878
Int J Microbiol Res 12.7 (2020):1875-1878

Keywords : Strawberry, Microbial quality, Coliforms, Food safety
Academic Editor : Rajpal Diwakar, Natteewan Udomsil
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Post Harvest Technology Center, Agricultural Engineering College and Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore, 641003, Tamil Nadu, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The fresh strawberries are highly prone to contamination by food borne pathogens and so this study was conducted to analyze the microbial quality parameters such as total aerobic mesophilic microbial count, fungal count, Enterobacteriaceae colony count, total coliforms count, fecal coliforms count, E. coli count and presence of Salmonella in fresh strawberries sold in supermarkets around the areas of west Coimbatore city. In addition, the two methods for coliforms detection namely Most Probable Number (MPN) and petrifilm methods were compared. The results showed that the total aerobic mesophilic count ranged from 5.53 to 6.61 log cfu/g and the fungal count ranged from 1.42 to 4.46 log cfu/g. The Enterobacteriaceae colony count ranged from 1.42 to 3.81 log cfu/g with supermarket 4 having the highest count. On comparing the two methods for coliforms detection, it was found that the petrifilm count was within the corresponding MPN range at 95% confidence limit for all the analysed samples. The total coliforms count showed huge difference among the strawberry samples in both MPN and petrifilm methods. Market 1 had the highest coliform count in both methods. The fecal coliforms were found in samples from supermarkets 1, 3 and 5. There was no E. coli and Salmonella in the fresh strawberry samples but the presence of fecal coliforms in some samples indicate the possibility of fecal contamination which reflects the need for Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in primary production and Good Hygiene Practices (GHP) in pre-harvest and post-harvest operations.

1. Sivapalasingam S., Friedman C.R., Cohen L. and Tauxe R.V. (2004) Journal of Food Protection, 67(10), 2342-2353.
2. Delbeke S., Ceuppens S., Hessel C.T., Castro I., Jacxsens L., De Zutter L. and Uyttendaele M. (2015) Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 81(7), 2562-2570.
3. Delbeke S., Ceuppens S., Jacxsens L. and Uyttendaele M. (2015) Journal of Food Protection, 78(4), 652-660.
4. Laidler M.R., Tourdjman M., Buser G.L., Hostetler T., Repp K.K., Leman R., Samadpour M. and Keene W.E. (2013) Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(8), 1129-1134.
5. Moneim A.A., Ceuppens S., El Tahan F. and Uyttendaele M. (2014) Journal of Food Processing & Technology, 5(308), 2.
6. Food and Drug Administration (2001) FDA survey of imported fresh produce. FY 1999 Field Assignment. https://www.fda.gov
7. Erkmen O. and Bozoglu T.F. (2016) Food Microbiology, 2 Volume Set: Principles into Practice (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.
8. ISO 4833-1 (2013) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
9. ISO 21527-1 (2017) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
10. ISO 21528-2 (2017) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
11. ISO 4831 (2006) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
12. ISO 7251 (2005) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
13. ISO 6579 (2017) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland
14. Ortiz-Solá J., Viñas I., Colás-Medà P., Anguera M. and Abadias M. (2020) International Journal of Food Microbiology, 314, 108392.
15. Kurtböke D.I., Palk A., Marker A., Neuman C., Moss L., Streeter K. and Katouli M. (2016) Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 100(19), 8593-8606.
16. Matner R.R., Fox T.L., Mciver D.E. and Curiale M.S. (1990) Journal of Food Protection, 53(2), 145-150.
17. ISO 7218 (2007) International Organization for Standardization, Switzerland, https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:7218:ed-3:v1:en
18. Mukherjee A., Speh D., Dyck E. and Diez-Gonzalez F. (2004) Journal of Food Protection, 67(5), 894-900.
19. Alam S., Khalil S., Ayub N., Bibi A., Saeed B., Khalid S. and Siddiq S. (2013) Natural Science, 5, 1298-1304.
20. Johannessen G.S., Eckner K.F., Heiberg N., Monshaugen M., Begum M., Økland M. and Høgåsen H.R. (2015) International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12(6), 6919-6932.
21. Dziedzinska R., Vasickova P., Hrdy J., Slany M., Babak V. and Moravkova M. (2018) Journal of Food Science, 83(12), 3069-3075.
22. Yu K., Newman M.C., Archbold D.D. and Hamilton-Kemp T.R. (2001) Journal of Food Protection, 64(9), 1334-1340.