Staphylococcus aureus and staphylococcal food-borne disease: an ongoing challenge in public health.
Journal: 2015/January - BioMed Research International
ISSN: 2314-6141
Abstract:
Staphylococcal food-borne disease (SFD) is one of the most common food-borne diseases worldwide resulting from the contamination of food by preformed S. aureus enterotoxins. It is one of the most common causes of reported food-borne diseases in the United States. Although several Staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs) have been identified, SEA, a highly heat-stable SE, is the most common cause of SFD worldwide. Outbreak investigations have found that improper food handling practices in the retail industry account for the majority of SFD outbreaks. However, several studies have documented prevalence of S. aureus in many food products including raw retail meat indicating that consumers are at potential risk of S. aureus colonization and subsequent infection. Presence of pathogens in food products imposes potential hazard for consumers and causes grave economic loss and loss in human productivity via food-borne disease. Symptoms of SFD include nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps with or without diarrhea. Preventive measures include safe food handling and processing practice, maintaining cold chain, adequate cleaning and disinfection of equipment, prevention of cross-contamination in home and kitchen, and prevention of contamination from farm to fork. This paper provides a brief overview of SFD, contributing factors, risk that it imposes to the consumers, current research gaps, and preventive measures.
Relations:
Content
Citations
(50)
References
(98)
Diseases
(2)
Organisms
(2)
Processes
(1)
Affiliates
(1)
Similar articles
Articles by the same authors
Discussion board
BioMed Research International. Dec/31/2013; 2014
Published online Mar/31/2014

Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcal Food-Borne Disease: An Ongoing Challenge in Public Health

Abstract

Staphylococcal food-borne disease (SFD) is one of the most common food-borne diseases worldwide resulting from the contamination of food by preformed S. aureus enterotoxins. It is one of the most common causes of reported food-borne diseases in the United States. Although several Staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs) have been identified, SEA, a highly heat-stable SE, is the most common cause of SFD worldwide. Outbreak investigations have found that improper food handling practices in the retail industry account for the majority of SFD outbreaks. However, several studies have documented prevalence of S. aureus in many food products including raw retail meat indicating that consumers are at potential risk of S. aureus colonization and subsequent infection. Presence of pathogens in food products imposes potential hazard for consumers and causes grave economic loss and loss in human productivity via food-borne disease. Symptoms of SFD include nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramps with or without diarrhea. Preventive measures include safe food handling and processing practice, maintaining cold chain, adequate cleaning and disinfection of equipment, prevention of cross-contamination in home and kitchen, and prevention of contamination from farm to fork. This paper provides a brief overview of SFD, contributing factors, risk that it imposes to the consumers, current research gaps, and preventive measures.

1. Introduction

Food-borne diseases are a major public health concern worldwide [1, 2]. WHO defines food-borne disease (FBD) as “disease of infectious or toxic nature caused by, or thought to be caused by, the consumption of food or water” [2]. Annually, an estimated 76 million illnesses, 325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths are caused by food-borne diseases in the United States [3]. Among these cases, 31 known pathogens cause 9.4 million illnesses, 56,000 hospitalizations, and 1300 deaths [4]. Using data from 2000–2008, researchers estimated that pathogens that were implicated in most FBD were norovirus (5.5 million, 58%), nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. (1.0 million, 11%), Clostrodium perfringens (1.0 million, 10%), and Campylobacter spp. (0.8 million, 9%). Among many food-borne pathogens, nontyphoidal Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. are the leading causes of FBD in the United States, England, and Australia [4].

S. aureus is a significant cause of FBD, causing an estimated 241,000 illnesses per year in the United States [4]. However, the true incidence of Staphylococcus aureus food-borne disease (SFD) could be a lot higher as sporadic food-borne disease caused by S. aureus is not reportable in the United States [5]. Some other contributing factors for the low incidence of SFD include misdiagnosis, improper sample collection and laboratory examination [6], lack of seeking medical attention by the affected persons complicating the laboratory confirmation [5, 7], and lack of routine surveillance of clinical stool specimens for S. aureus or its enterotoxins [5, 8, 9]. Unavailability of implicated foods for confirmation of laboratory testing at the time of outbreak investigation further complicates the matter [5]. It is essential to note that FBD that is confirmed by laboratory testing and reported to public health agencies accounts for only a small fraction of illnesses [4]. FBD impose a great economic burden, accounting for $50–$80 billion annually in “health care costs, lost productivity, and diminished quality of life” in the United States [10, 11]. It is estimated that each case of SFD costs $695, representing a total cost of $167,597,860 annually in the United States [10]. The Institute of Medicine recognized FBD as a high priority [12]. “The potential for foods to be involved in the emergence or reemergence of microbial threats to health is high, in large part because there are many points at which food safety can be compromised.” Although FBD has decreased in recent years, it is still higher than Healthy People 2020 goals [10]. The presence of food-borne pathogens in ready-to-eat foods, meat, and meat products puts consumers at high risk and imposes grave economic losses to producers due to recalls of implicated food products [13, 14].

2. Staphylococcus aureus

S. aureus is a commensal and opportunistic pathogen that can cause wide spectrum of infections, from superficial skin infections to severe, and potentially fatal, invasive disease [15]. This ubiquitous bacterium is an important pathogen due to combination of “toxin-mediated virulence, invasiveness, and antibiotic resistance.” This organism has emerged as a major pathogen for both nosocomial and community-acquired infections. S. aureus does not form spores but can cause contamination of food products during food preparation and processing. S. aureus can grow in a wide range of temperatures (7° to 48.5° C; optimum 30 to 37°C), pH (4.2 to 9.3; optimum 7 to 7.5), and sodium chloride concentration up to 15% NaCl. S. aureus is a dessication tolerant organism with the ability to survive in potentially dry and stressful environments, such as the human nose and on skin and inanimate surfaces such as clothing and surfaces [16]. These characteristics favor growth of the organism in many food products [2]. S. aureus can remain viable on hands and environmental surfaces for extended durations after initial contact [17, 18].

3. Staphylococcal Food-Borne Disease

SFD is one of the most common FBD and is of major concern in public health programs worldwide [1, 2, 19]. It is one of the most common causes of reported FBD in the United States [1, 2022]. The first documented event of SFD due to the consumption of contaminated cheese was investigated by Vaughan and Sternberg in Michigan, USA, in 1884 [19]. A typical FBD caused by S. aureus has a rapid onset following ingestion of contaminated food (usually 3–5 hours). This is due to the production of one or more toxins by the bacteria during growth at permissive temperatures [2]. However, the incubation period of SFD depends on amount of toxin ingested [22]. Very small dose of SEs can cause SFD. For example, one report indicated that approximately 0.5 ng/mL concentration of SEs contaminated with chocolate milk caused a large outbreak [22, 23].

The onset of SFD is abrupt. Symptoms include hypersalivation, nausea, vomiting, and abdominal cramping with or without diarrhea. If significant fluid is lost, physical examination may reveal signs of dehydration and hypotension [1, 6, 22, 24]. Abdominal cramps, nausea, and vomiting are the most common [2]. Although SFD is generally self-limiting and resolves within 24–48 hours of onset, it can be severe, especially in infants, elderly, and immune-compromised patients [1, 6, 22]. Antibiotics are not used for therapy [7]. Approximately 10% of individuals inflicted with SFD will present to a hospital [22, 24]. Management of SFD is supportive. The attack rate of SFD can be up to 85% [22]. S. aureus may not be detected by culture in the events when food is contaminated and toxin is formed prior to cooking [22, 25]. A study involving 7126 cases indicated that case fatality rate of SFD is 0.03%.; all deaths were in elderly patients [22]. Recovery is complete in approximately 20 hours [22, 24].

The conclusive diagnostic criteria of SFD are based upon the detection of staphylococcal enterotoxins in food [26], or recovery of at least 105 S. aureus g−1 from food remnants [19]. S. aureus enterotoxin can be detected on the basis of three types of methods: bioassays, molecular biology, and/or immunological techniques [19, 27]. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR), and RT-quantitative PCR can be carried out to evaluate the toxic potential of strain [19]. The enzyme immunoassay and enzyme-linked fluorescent assay are the most commonly used immunological methods based on the use of antienterotoxin polyclonal or monoclonal antibodies [19]. Several molecular typing methods are widely used for the genetic characterization of S. aureus such as multilocus sequence typing, spa typing, SCCmec typing, and Pulse-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE). These techniques provide means to trace epidemiologically related strains leading to the tracking back to the origin of contamination [28]. However, these methods have variation in their discriminating powers and can be increased by combining the methods [29]. Molecular-based methods provide information about the source of contamination (human or animal origin). The PFGE and spa typing can be used alone or in association to gather the information regarding the origin of S. aureus contamination [19].

Various types of foods serve as an optimum growth medium for S. aureus. Foods that have been frequently implicated in SFD are meat and meat products, poultry and egg products, milk and dairy products, salads, bakery products, especially cream-filled pastries and cakes, and sandwich fillings [2, 6, 30]. Foods implicated with SFD vary from country to country, particularly due to variation in consumption and food habits [2]. If food is prepared in a central location and widely distributed, SFD outbreaks can have grave consequences impacting thousands of people. For example, over 13,000 cases of SFD occurred in Japan in 2000 as a result of contamination of milk at a dairy-food-production plant [22, 31].

4. Staphylococcal aureus Enterotoxins

S. aureus produces wide arrays of toxins. Staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs) are a family of nine major serological types of heat stable enterotoxins (SEA, SEB, SEC, SED, SEE, SEG, SEH, SEI, and SEJ) that belong to the large family of pyrogenic toxin superantigens [1, 6]. Pyrogenic toxins cause superantigenic activity such as immunosuppression and nonspecific T-cell proliferation [2]. It is hypothesized that superantigenic activity of SEs helps facilitate transcitosis that allows the toxin to enter the bloodstream, thus enabling it to interact with antigen-presenting cells and T cells leading to superantigen activity [1, 6, 19]. The majority of effects of SEs in SFD is believed to be triggered by initiating a focal intestinal inflammatory response due to their superantigenic activity or by affecting intestinal mast cells causing their degranulation [1, 22, 32].

SEs are highly stable and highly heat-resistant and resistant to environmental conditions such as freezing and drying [2, 19]. They are also resistant to proteolytic enzymes such as pepsin or trypsin and low pH, enabling them to be fully functional in the gastrointestinal tract after ingestion [2, 6]. The heat stability characteristic of S. aureus imposes a significant threat in food industries [1]. The mechanisms of SEs causing food poisoning are not clearly known. However, it is believed that SEs directly affect intestinal epithelium and vagus nerve causing stimulation of the emetic center [2, 19]. All staphylococcal enterotoxins cause emesis [22, 32]. An estimated 0.1 μg of SEs can cause staphylococcal food poisoning in humans [2].

SEs produced by some strains of S. aureus are the causative agents of SFD, and SEA is the most common toxin implicated in such events. SEA is highly resistant to proteolytic enzymes. SEA was recovered from 77.8% of all SFD outbreaks in the United States followed by SED (37.5%) and SEB (10%) [1, 6]. SEA is the most commonly found enterotoxin among SFD outbreaks in Japan, France, and UK [6]. However, SEC and SEE are also implicated with SFD. The outbreak of gastrointestinal illness via contaminated coleslaw in the United States was caused by SEC produced by methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA) from an asymptomatic food handler [33]. SEC was linked to the SFD outbreak in 1980 in Canada [34]. SEC was also involved in the SFD outbreak during 2001–2003 in Taiwan [35] and 2009 outbreak in Japan [36]. S. aureus is often implicated with caprine mastitis [37]. In sheep, goats, and cattle, SEC was the predominant toxin type detected in S. aureus isolated from mastitis milk [38]. Other studies have documented SEC producers as the most prevalent enterotoxin-producing S. aureus isolated from goat's milk [39] and goat's skin of udder, teats, and milk [40]. Six SFD outbreaks in France in 2009 were caused by SEE present in soft cheese made from unpasteurized milk [26]. Although rare, SEE has also been implicated in the SFD outbreaks in USA and UK [6]. Various new SEs (SEG to SElU2) have been identified. However, only SEH-producing strains have been involved in SFD outbreaks [6].

S. aureus can survive in multiple host species. Molecular typing such as multilocus sequence typing (MLST) has helped to gain insights about population structure of S. aureus. Studies have identified over 2200 sequence types (STs) of S. aureus using the MLST techniques. The STs can be grouped into clonal complexes (CC). Several studies have indicated that majority of the livestock-associated STs belong to a small number of animal-associated clones. For example, CC97, ST151, CC130, and CC126 are commonly found on bovine infections. CC133 are common among small-ruminants such as sheep or goats. ST1, ST8, CC5, ST 121, and ST398 are found in human host species [41]. ST5 is predominant among poultry isolates [42]. CC133 and ST522 are mostly implicated with mastitis in sheep and goats. One Danish study indicated that ST133 was the predominant lineage in sheep and goats [42].

5. Contributing Factors

In the United States, approximately 30% and 1.5% of the population are colonized with methicillin-susceptible S. aureus (MSSA) [43] and MRSA, respectively, [4345] with the most important site for colonization being the anterior nares (nostrils) [46]. While colonization itself does not harm the host, it is a risk factor for developing subsequent symptomatic infections [43, 47]. These colonized healthy persons categorized as persistent carriage and intermittent carriage serve as S. aureus careers and are able to transmit the bacterium to susceptible persons [46].

S. aureus is a common causative agent of bovine mastitis in dairy herds. A study conducted in Minnesota to estimate the heard prevalence of S. aureus from bulk tank milk found that heard prevalence of MSSA and MRSA was 84% and 4%, respectively [48]. Other studies estimated that the prevalence of S. aureus in bulk milk tank was 31% in Pennsylvania and 35% in cow milk samples in Louisiana [48]. Studies from Argentina [49], Brazil [50], Ireland [51], and Turkey [52] have documented the presence of staphylococcal enterotoxin genes and production of SEs by S. aureus of bovine origin. The udders with clinical and subclinical staphylococcal mastitis can contribute to the contamination of milk by S. aureus via direct excretion of the organisms in the milk [38] with large fluctuations in counts ranging from zero to 108 CFU/mL [53]. For example, cattle mastitis was the sole source of contamination in 1999 S. aureus outbreak in Brazil that affected 328 individuals who consumed unpasteurized milk [54]. Similarly, 293 S. aureus isolates were recovered from 127 bulk tank milk samples of goats and sheep from Switzerland [38]. Recently, S. aureus isolates were recovered from mammary quarter milk of mastitic cows and from bulk tank milk produced on Hungarian dairy farms indicating that S. aureus from infected udders may contaminate bulk milk and, subsequently, raw milk products [53]. However, S. aureus contamination in milk can occur from the environment during handling and processing of raw milk as well [53].

Improper food handling practices in the retail food industry are thought to contribute to a high number of FBD outbreaks [55]. Studies have indicated that the majority of FBD outbreaks result from such practices [55, 56]. It was reported that the hands of food handlers were implicated in 42% of food-borne outbreaks that occurred between 1975 and 1998 in the United States [55, 57].

In a recent study [13] investigating the microbiological contamination in ready-to-eat food products processed at a large processing plant in Trinidad, West Indies, S. aureus was the most common pathogen detected. S. aureus was isolated from precooked food samples of franks, bologna, and bacon and postcooked bologna and bacon. The overall prevalence of S. aureus detected in air, food, and environmental samples was 27.1% (46/170). It was determined that the counts of S. aureus increased after heat treatment, and only postcooking environmental surfaces that came into contact with ready-to-eat foods that were contaminated with S. aureus during slicing and packaging harbored S. aureus. S. aureus was also frequently found on food handler's gloves [13]. Pathogenic microbes can adhere to the surface of the gloves worn by retail food employees and can serve as a source of cross-contamination if not changed frequently [55]. The practice of wearing gloves without proper hand washing can contaminate both the interior and exterior of the gloves. Hand washing is often neglected when gloves are used, which may promote rapid microbial growth on the hands as gloves provide a warm, moist environment for bacterial growth on the hands [55, 57]. Hand-washing, an easy method of preventing many microbial contamination, is too often forgotten [55].

The finding of high bacterial counts in the air and on food contact surfaces in the postprocessing environment is suggestive of cross-contamination of postcooked products and is the most important risk factor affecting microbiological quality of food [13]. A study [58] found that processed foods that require more handling during preparation are more vulnerable to S. aureus contamination [13]. Another study [59] demonstrated that increased human handling contributed to contamination by S. aureus in a pork processing plant.

Analysis of the data of FBD outbreaks reported to the Food-borne Disease Outbreak Surveillance System during 1998 to 2008 [5] indicate that meat and poultry dishes were the most common foods (55% of S. aureus outbreaks) reported in S. aureus outbreaks in the United States. Foods implicated with S. aureus outbreaks were most often prepared in a restaurant or deli (44%). Errors in food processing and preparation (93%) were the most common contributing factor in FBD outbreaks. Forty-five percent and 16% of these errors occurred in restaurants and delis and homes or private residences, respectively. The study identified various errors in food processing and preparation that include (i) insufficient time and temperature during initial cooking (40%) hot holding (33%) and reheating process (57%); (ii) prolonged exposure of foods at room or outdoor temperature (58%); (iii) slow cooling of prepared food (44%); (iv) inadequate cold holding temperatures (22%); (v) and preparing foods for extended periods of time prior to serving [5]. Cross-contamination in the vicinity of food preparation and processing was another contributing factor in S. aureus food-borne outbreaks. Insufficient cleaning of processing equipment or utensils (67%) and storage in contaminated environments (39%) were the most common errors reported [5].

6. Farm, Food, and Beyond

In recent years, a new strain of S. aureus, livestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (LA-MRSA), has been recognized as a novel pathogen that has become a rapidly emerging cause of human infections [60, 61]. LA-MRSA was first detected in 2005 in swine farmers and swine in France and in The Netherlands [6264]. Researchers have isolated LA-MRSA from number of countries in Asia [6567], Europe [6874], and North America [75, 76]. Studies have found increased human colonization and infection of LA-MRSA belonging to the multilocus sequence type 398 (ST398) lineages in livestock-dense areas in Europe [7780]. Investigators in The Netherlands have shown that ST398 now accounts for 20% of human MRSA cases [81] and this strain accounts for 42% of newly detected MRSA in that country, suggesting that animals may be an important reservoir for human MRSA infections [77]. Compared to the general population, Dutch pig farmers are 760 times more likely to be colonized with MRSA [82].

In several studies, MRSA has been found at high levels on US and European farms and in commercially-distributed meats, emerging as a potential concern for meat handlers and consumers [28, 64, 68, 7577, 8388]. Several species of meat-producing animals are frequently implicated including pigs [68, 75, 76], poultry [8991], and cattle [73, 92]. The presence of MRSA on raw retail meat products is well documented, with prevalence ranging from less than 1 percent in Asia [93, 94] to 11.9% in The Netherlands [95], with intermediate prevalence found in other studies [87, 96, 97]. A recent study carried out in the United States found that 45% (45/100) of pork products and 63% (63/100) of beef products tested in Georgia were positive for S. aureus. The MRSA prevalence in this study was 3% and 4% in retail pork and beef, respectively [28]. Another US study testing retail meat in Louisiana isolated MRSA from 5% (6/120) of meat samples tested, while 39.2% (47/120) of samples were positive for any type of S. aureus [87]. Very high prevalence of S. aureus (64.8%, 256/395) was observed on retail pork products collected from Iowa, Minnesota, and New Jersey [85]. The prevalence of MRSA in this study was 6.6%. Other studies in US have found S. aureus in 16.4% (27/165) and MRSA in 1.2% (2/165) of meat samples [84], multidrug resistant (MDR) S. aureus in 52% (71/136) of meat and poultry samples [86], and any S. aureus in 22.5% (65/289) and MRSA in 2% (6/289) of meat and poultry samples [88]. These studies provide some insights regarding the role of commercially distributed meat as a potential vehicle for S. aureus transmission from the farm into the general human population.

The first report of an outbreak of gastrointestinal illness caused by a community-acquired methicillin resistant S. aureus in the United States affected 3 members of the same family. Contaminated coleslaw from an asymptomatic food handler was the source of MRSA [6, 33]. All 3 members of the family who ate foods (shredded pork barbeque and coleslaw) 30 minutes after purchasing at a convenient-market delicatessen developed gastrointestinal symptoms. The S. aureus isolates recovered from the stool samples of the three ill family members and coleslaw and nasal swab of food preparer were identical in PFGE analysis. The implicated strain produced Staphylococcal toxin C and was identified as MRSA [33].

This outbreak provides an evidence of MRSA-contaminated foods as the vehicle in the clusters of illness affecting low-risk persons within the community. The food handlers involved in this outbreak had visited a nursing home. It is important to note that many S. aureus isolates obtained as a part of outbreak investigation may not be tested for antibiotic susceptibility, as antibiotics are not used in the treatment regimen. As such, it is plausible that food-borne outbreak caused by methicillin-resistant strains of S. aureus may go unnoticed. Previously food has been implicated as a source of MRSA transmission in one outbreak of blood and wound infections in hospitalized immunocompromised patients [33, 98].

7. Gaps in Research

Many outbreak investigations successfully traced food handlers as a source of contamination matching the strains of S. aureus in food products and handlers. However, these retrospectively carried-out studies have some limitations and cannot ascertain that the handler was not also colonized due to the exposure to S. aureus contaminated food.

Although numerous studies have focused on documenting risk imposed by S. aureus toxins in food industry and consumers' health, little is known about the potential role of intact bacteria transmitted through the raw meat products and self-inoculation into the nasal cavity of food industry workers and consumers. Additionally, while research has shown the potential for transmission of S. aureus within the home setting [99, 100], the relationship of colonization and transmission of this organism to the food products brought into the home has not been investigated.

Several European studies investigating MRSA in retail meat found ST398 as the most common MRSA type [95, 97, 101]. It has been suggested that meat might be a potential vehicle for the transmission of ST398 from the farm into the community, but additional research needs to be carried out to test this hypothesis.

Researchers have isolated other non-ST398 strains of S. aureus such as ST8, a strain which includes USA 300, the primary cause of community-associated MRSA infections, from US swine farms [102] and retail meat [28, 8488]. However, it is not clear whether human handlers played any role during the postslaughter processing for the contamination of meat positive for ST8. It is suggested that since S. aureus is also present in intestinal tract [103], raw meat may contain MRSA due to the carcasses contaminated with intestinal content during slaughtering process [95]. Finding of human-associated strains of MRSA from raw chicken meat in Japan and Korea provides some support to this hypothesis [89, 93, 94].

Only few studies have been conducted specifically to investigate the implication of MRSA in SFD [19]. Although MRSA was frequently isolated from food production animals and raw retail meat, the relevance of its contamination is unknown. Further study is warranted to investigate the likelihood of gastrointestinal colonization and extraintestinal infection subsequent to the consumption of foods contaminated with MRSA [104]. Since S. aureus isolates obtained from SFD outbreaks may not be tested for antibiotic susceptibility, the true prevalence of MRSA involved in SFD is unknown [33]. Since other Staphylococcal species are also able to produce SEs and are not routinely tested, further research is warranted [2].

8. Prevention

SFD is preventable [10]. Consumers need to be aware of potential food contamination in home and during cooking in kitchen. Cooking food thoroughly is important, but preventing contamination and cross-contamination and maintaining critical points are the most effective ways to prevent SFD. Since research findings and outbreak investigations have suggested that SFD is largely due to faulty food handling practices, knowledge and skills in food industry workers are warranted. Nevertheless, public health intervention should be designed to prevent S. aureus from pre- and postslaughter in meat processing facilities. Public awareness regarding safe meat handling would help to prevent cross-contamination [104] as well as potential colonization of handlers from contaminated food products. Other public health interventions such as personalized and tailored food safety education program targeting diverse sociodemographic people could be a cornerstone in preventing the SFD outbreak [10].

1985's staphylococcal food poisoning due to contaminated chocolate milk in Kentucky, USA, and 2000's extensive outbreak of staphylococcal food poisoning due to contaminated low-fat milk in Japan, are the classical examples of SFD that illustrate the stability and heat resistance of SEs as well as the importance of illumination of any contamination sources during the processing and refrigeration of food and food ingredients. In both cases, high temperature used in pasteurization killed the bacteria but had no effect on SEs [2, 31].

The permissive temperature for the growth and toxin production by S. aureus is between 6°C and 46°C. Thus, the ideal cooking and refrigerating temperature should be above 60°C and below 5°C, respectively. A study reviewing the performance of domestic refrigerators worldwide found that many refrigerators were running above the recommended temperature [105]. Another study conducted in Portugal found that more than 80% of participants cleaned their fridge only monthly [106]. While these studies indicate the need of consumer awareness in food safety, other preventive measures such as the practice of serving food rapidly when kept at room temperature, wearing gloves, masks, hairnets during food handling and processing, frequent hand washing, good personal hygiene of food handlers, and use of “sneeze-bars” at buffet tables could help prevent SFD [22, 58].

Maintaining the cold chain is essential for preventing the growth of S. aureus in food products [5]. Other preventive measures such as control of raw ingredients, proper handling and processing, adequate cleaning, and disinfection of equipment used in food processing and preparation should be deployed [19, 104]. Strict implementation and adherence to the microbiological guidelines such as Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), Good Manufacturing Practice (GMPs), and Good Hygienic Practices (GHPs) developed by World Health Organization and United States Food and Drug Administration can help to prevent S. aureus contamination [13, 107].

9. Conclusion

SFD is one of the most common causes of FBD worldwide. Outbreak investigations have suggested that improper handling of cooked or processed food is the main source of contamination. Lack of maintaining cold chain allows S. aureus to form SEs. Although S. aureus can be eliminated by heat treatment and by competition with other flora in pasteurized and fermented foods, respectively, SEs produced by S. aureus are still capable of causing SFD because of their heat tolerance capacity. This fact should be considered in risk assessment and devising appropriate public health interventions. Prevention of S. aureus contamination from farm to fork is crucial. Rapid surveillance in the event of SFD outbreak and ongoing surveillance for the routine investigation of S. aureus and SEs implicated in food products along with improved diagnostic methods could help to combat the SFD in 21st century. Recent findings of high prevalence of S. aureus including MRSA in raw retail meat impose a potential hazard to consumers, both as classic SFD and as a potential source of colonization of food handlers. Further study is required to fill the research gap.

Acknowledgment

This work was partially funded by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2011-67005-30337 (TCS) from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

  • 1. BalabanNRasoolyAStaphylococcal enterotoxinsInternational Journal of Food Microbiology2000611110[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 2. le LoirYBaronFGautierMStaphylococcus aureus and food poisoningGenetics and Molecular Research2003216376[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 3. MeadPSSlutskerLDietzVFood-related illness and death in the United StatesEmerging Infectious Diseases199955607625[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 4. ScallanEHoekstraRMAnguloFJFoodborne illness acquired in the United States—major pathogensEmerging Infectious Diseases2011171715[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 5. BennettSDWalshKAGouldLHFoodborne disease outbreaks caused by Bacillus cereus, Clostridium perfringens, and Staphylococcus aureus—United States, 1998–2008Clinical Infectious Diseases201357425433[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 6. ArgudínMendozaMCRodicioMRFood poisoning and Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxinsToxins20102717511773[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 7. ScallanEJonesTFCronquistAFactors associated with seeking medical care and submitting a stool sample in estimating the burden of foodborne illnessFoodborne Pathogens and Disease200634432438[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 8. GuerrantRLvan GilderTSteinerTSPractice guidelines for the management of infectious diarrheaClinical Infectious Diseases2001323331351[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 9. ThielmanNMGuerrantRLAcute Infectious DiarrheaThe New England Journal of Medicine200435013847[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 10. Byrd-BredbennerCBerningJMartin-BiggersJQuickVFood safety in home kitchens: a synthesis of the literatureInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health20131040604085[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 11. ScharffRLEconomic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the united statesJournal of Food Protection2012751123131[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 12. CohenMLChanging patterns of infectious diseaseNature20004066797762767[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 13. SyneSMRamsubhagAAdesiyunAAMicrobiological hazard analysis of ready-to-eat meats processed at a food plant in Trinidad, West IndiesInfection Ecology & Epidemiology20133[Google Scholar]
  • 14. SofosJNChallenges to meat safety in the 21st centuryMeat Science2008781-2313[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 15. LowyFDMedical progress: Staphylococcus aureus infectionsThe New England Journal of Medicine19983398520532[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 16. ChaibenjawongPFosterSJDesiccation tolerance in Staphylococcus aureusArchives of Microbiology20111932125135[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 17. KusumaningrumHDvan PuttenMMRomboutsFMBeumerRREffects of antibacterial dishwashing liquid on foodborne pathogens and competitive microorganisms in kitchen spongesJournal of Food Protection20026516165[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 18. ScottEBloomfieldSFThe survival and transfer of microbial contamination via cloths, hands and utensilsJournal of Applied Bacteriology1990683271278[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 19. HennekinneJ-Ade BuyserM-LDragacciSStaphylococcus aureus and its food poisoning toxins: characterization and outbreak investigationFEMS Microbiology Reviews201236815836[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 20. BeanNHGriffinPMGouldingJSIveyCBFoodborne disease outbreaks, 5-year summary, 1983–1987CDC Surveillance Summaries19903911557[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 21. BunningVKLindsayJAArcherDLChronic health effects of microbial foodborne diseaseWorld Health Statistics Quarterly1997501-25156[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 22. MurrayRJRecognition and management of Staphylococcus aureus toxin-mediated diseaseInternal Medicine Journal200535supplement 2S106S119[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 23. EvensonMLHindsMWBernsteinRSBergdollMSEstimation of human dose of staphylococcal enterotoxin A from a large outbreak of staphylococcal food poisoning involving chocolate milkInternational Journal of Food Microbiology198874311316[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 24. HolmbergSDBlakePAStaphylococcal food poisoning in the United States. New facts and old misconceptionsJournal of the American Medical Association19842514487489[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 25. EisenbergMSGaarslevKBrownWHorwitzMHillDStaphylococcal food poisoning aboard a commercial aircraftThe Lancet197527935595599[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 26. OstynAde BuyserMLGuillierFFirst evidence of a food poisoning outbreak due to staphylococcal enterotoxin type E, France, 2009Euro Surveillance20101513[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 27. MclauchlinJNarayananGLMithaniVO’NeillGThe detection of enterotoxins and toxic shock syndrome toxin genes in Staphylococcus aureus by polymerase chain reactionJournal of Food Protection2000634479488[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 28. JacksonCRDavisJABarrettJBPrevalence and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from retail meat and humans in GeorgiaJournal of Clinical Microbiology20135111991207[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 29. WendlandtSSchwarzSSilleyPMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus: a food-borne pathogen?Annual Review of Food Science and Technology20134117139[Google Scholar]
  • 30. TamarapuSMcKillipJLDrakeMDevelopment of a multiplex polymerase chain reaction assay for detection and differentiation of Staphylococcus aureus in dairy productsJournal of Food Protection2001645664668[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 31. AsaoTKumedaYKawaiTAn extensive outbreak of staphylococcal food poisoning due to low-fat milk in Japan: estimation of enterotoxin A in the incriminated milk and powdered skim milkEpidemiology and Infection200313013340[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 32. DingesMMOrwinPMSchlievertPMExotoxins of Staphylococcus aureusClinical Microbiology Reviews20001311634[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 33. JonesTFKellumMEPorterSSBellMSchaffnerWAn outbreak of community-acquired foodborne illness caused by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusEmerging Infectious Diseases2002818284[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 34. de BuyserM-LDufourBMaireMLafargeVImplication of milk and milk products in food-borne diseases in France and in different industrialised countriesInternational Journal of Food Microbiology2001671-2117[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 35. ChiangY-CLiaoW-WFanC-MPaiW-YChiouC-STsenH-YPCR detection of Staphylococcal enterotoxins (SEs) N, O, P, Q, R, U, and survey of SE types in Staphylococcus aureus isolates from food-poisoning cases in TaiwanInternational Journal of Food Microbiology200812116673[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 36. KitamotoMKitoKNiimiYFood poisoning by Staphylococcus aureus at a University festivalJapanese Journal of Infectious Diseases2009623242243[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 37. de BuyserMLDilasserFHummelRBergdollMSEnterotoxin and toxic shock syndrome toxin-1 production by staphylococci isolated from goat’s milkInternational Journal of Food Microbiology198754301309[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 38. ScherrerDCortiSMuehlherrJEZweifelCStephanRPhenotypic and genotypic characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus isolates from raw bulk-tank milk samples of goats and sheepVeterinary Microbiology20041012101107[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 39. FoschinoRInvernizziABaruccoRStradiottoKMicrobial composition, including the incidence of pathogens, of goat milk from the Bergamo region of Italy during a lactation yearJournal of Dairy Research2002692213225[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 40. ValleJGomez-LuciaEPirizSGoyacheJOrdenJAVadilloSEnterotoxin production by staphylococci isolated from healthy goatsApplied and Environmental Microbiology199056513231326[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 41. FitzgeraldJRLivestock-associated Staphylococcus aureus: origin, evolution and public health threatTrends in Microbiology2012204192198[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 42. ErikssonJEspinosa-GongoraCStamphojILarsenARGuardabassiLCarriage frequency, diversity and methicillin resistance of Staphylococcus aureus in Danish small ruminantsVeterinary Microbiology2013163110115[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 43. GrahamPLIIILinSXLarsonELA U.S. population-based survey of Staphylococcus aureus colonizationAnnals of Internal Medicine20061445318325[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 44. GorwitzRJKruszon-MoranDMcAllisterSKChanges in the prevalence of nasal colonization with Staphylococcus aureus in the United States, 2001–2004Journal of Infectious Diseases2008197912261234[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 45. SmithTCGebreyesWAAbleyMJMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigs and farm workers on conventional and antibiotic-free swine farms in the USAPLoS ONE20138[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 46. WertheimHFLMellesDCVosMCThe role of nasal carriage in Staphylococcus aureus infectionsLancet Infectious Diseases2005512751762[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 47. FritzSAEpplinEKGarbuttJStorchGASkin infection in children colonized with community-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureusJournal of Infection2009596394401[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 48. HaranKPGoddenSMBoxrudDJawahirSBenderJBSreevatsanSPrevalence and characterization of Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, isolated from bulk tank milk from Minnesota dairy farmsJournal of Clinical Microbiology2012503688695[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 49. NederVECanavesioVRCalvinhoLFPresence of enterotoxigenic Staphylococcus aureus in bulk tank milk from Argentine dairy farmsRevista Argentina de Microbiologia2011432104106[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 50. ArcuriEFÂngeloFFMartins Guimarã EsMFToxigenic status of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from bovine raw milk and Minas frescal cheese in BrazilJournal of Food Protection2010731222252231[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 51. MurphyBPO’MahonyEBuckleyJFO’BrienSFanningSCharacterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from dairy animals in irelandZoonoses and Public Health2010574249257[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 52. GünaydinBAslantaşÖDemirCDetection of superantigenic toxin genes in Staphylococcus aureus strains from subclinical bovine mastitisTropical Animal Health and Production201143816331637[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 53. PelesFWagnerMVargaLCharacterization of Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from bovine milk in HungaryInternational Journal of Food Microbiology20071182186193[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 54. Simeão do CarmoLDiasRSLinardiVRFood poisoning due to enterotoxigenic strains of Staphylococcus present in Minas cheese and raw milk in BrazilFood Microbiology2002191914[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 55. LuesJFRvan TonderIThe occurrence of indicator bacteria on hands and aprons of food handlers in the delicatessen sections of a retail groupFood Control2007184326332[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 56. ClaytonDAGriffithCJPricePPetersACFood handlers’ beliefs and self-reported practicesInternational Journal of Environmental Health Research20021212539[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 57. AyçiçekHAydoğanHKüçükkaraaslanABaysallarMBaşustaoğluACAssessment of the bacterial contamination on hands of hospital food handlersFood Control200415253259[Google Scholar]
  • 58. AycicekHCakirogluSStevensonTHIncidence of Staphylococcus aureus in ready-to-eat meals from military cafeterias in Ankara, TurkeyFood Control2005166531534[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 59. Saide-AlbornozJJLynn KnipeCMuranoEABeranGWContamination of pork carcasses during slaughter, fabrication, and chilled storageJournal of Food Protection1995589993997[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 60. LarsonKRLHarperALHansonBMMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pork production shower facilitiesApplied and Environmental Microbiology2011772696698[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 61. PriceLBSteggerMHasmanHStaphylococcus aureus CC398: host adaptation and emergence of methicillin resistance in livestockMBio20123116[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 62. SmithTCPearsonNThe emergence of Staphylococcus aureus ST398Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases2011114327339[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 63. WulfMVossAMRSA in livestock animals—an epidemic waiting to happen?Clinical Microbiology and Infection2008146519521[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 64. Armand-LefevreLRuimyRAndremontAClonal comparison of Staphylococcus from healthy pig farmers, human controls, and pigsEmerging Infectious Diseases2005115711714[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 65. GuardabassiLO’DonoghueMMoodleyAHoJBoostMNovel lineage of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Hong KongEmerging Infectious Diseases2009151219982000[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 66. WagenaarJAYueHPritchardJUnexpected sequence types in livestock associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA): MRSA ST9 and a single locus variant of ST9 in pig farming in ChinaVeterinary Microbiology20091393-4405409[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 67. SergioDMBTseHKHsuL-YOgdenBEGohALHChowPKHInvestigation of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigs used for researchJournal of Medical Microbiology200756811071109[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 68. de NeelingAJvan den BroekMJMSpalburgECHigh prevalence of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus in pigsVeterinary Microbiology20071223-4366372[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 69. LewisHCMølbakKReeseCPigs as source of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus CC398 infections in humans, DenmarkEmerging Infectious Diseases200814913831389[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 70. WitteWStrommengerBStanekCCunyCMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in humans and animals, central EuropeEmerging Infectious Diseases2007132255258[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 71. GuardabassiLSteggerMSkovRRetrospective detection of methicillin resistant and susceptible Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in Danish slaughter pigsVeterinary Microbiology20071223-4384386[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 72. DenisOSuetensCHallinMMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in swine farm personnel, BelgiumEmerging Infectious Diseases200915710981101[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 73. PombaCHasmanHCavacoLMda FonsecaJDAarestrupFMFirst description of meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) CC30 and CC398 from swine in PortugalInternational Journal of Antimicrobial Agents2009342193194[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 74. BattistiAFrancoAMerialdiGHeterogeneity among methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from Italian pig finishing holdingsVeterinary Microbiology20101423-4361366[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 75. SmithTCMaleMJHarperALMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) strain ST398 is present in midwestern U.S. swine and swine workersPLoS ONE200941[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 76. KhannaTFriendshipRDeweyCWeeseJSMethicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization in pigs and pig farmersVeterinary Microbiology20081283-4298303[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 77. MonacoMPedroniPSanchiniALivestock-associated methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus responsible for human colonization and infection in an area of Italy with high density of pig farmingBMC Infectious Diseases201313, article 258[Google Scholar]
  • 78. KöckRHarliziusJBressanNPrevalence and molecular characteristics of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) among pigs on German farms and import of livestock-related MRSA into hospitalsEuropean Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2009281113751382[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 79. KöckRSiamKAl-MalatSCharacteristics of hospital patients colonized with livestock-associated meticillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) CC398 versus other MRSA clonesJournal of Hospital Infection2011794292296[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 80. WulfMWHVerduinCMvan NesAHuijsdensXVossAInfection and colonization with methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 versus other MRSA in an area with a high density of pig farmsEuropean Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases2012316165[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 81. van LooIHuijsdensXTiemersmaEEmergence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus of animal origin in humansEmerging Infectious Diseases2007131218341839[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 82. VossALoeffenFBakkerJKlaassenCWulfMMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in Pig FarmingEmerging Infectious Diseases2005111219651966[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 83. FranaTSBeahmARHansonBMIsolation and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus from pork farms and visiting veterinary studentsPloS ONE20138[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 84. HansonBMDresslerAEHarperALPrevalence of Staphylococcus aureus and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on retail meat in IowaJournal of Infection and Public Health201144169174[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 85. O’BrienAMHansonBMFarinaSAMRSA in conventional and alternative retail pork productsPLoS ONE201271[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 86. WatersAEContente-CuomoTBuchhagenJMultidrug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in US meat and poultryClinical Infectious Diseases2011521012271230[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 87. PuSHanFGeBIsolation and characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains from louisiana retail meatsApplied and Environmental Microbiology2009751265267[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 88. BhargavaKWangXDonabedianSZervosMda RochaLZhangYMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in retail meat, Detroit, Michigan, USAEmerging Infectious Diseases201117611351137[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 89. PersoonsDvan HoorebekeSHermansKMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in poultryEmerging Infectious Diseases2009153452453[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 90. NematiMHermansKLipinskaUAntimicrobial resistance of old and recent Staphylococcus aureus isolates from poultry: first detection of livestock-associated methicillin-resistant strain ST398Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy2008521038173819[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 91. MuldersMNHaenenAPJGeenenPLPrevalence of livestock-associated MRSA in broiler flocks and risk factors for slaughterhouse personnel in the NetherlandsEpidemiology and Infection20101385743755[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 92. FeßlerAScottCKadlecKEhrichtRMoneckeSSchwarzSCharacterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 from cases of bovine mastitisJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy2010654619625[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 93. KwonNHParkKTJungWKCharacteristics of methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from chicken meat and hospitalized dogs in Korea and their epidemiological relatednessVeterinary Microbiology20061172-4304312[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 94. KitaiSShimizuAKawanoJCharacterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolated from retail raw chicken meat in JapanJournal of Veterinary Medical Science2005671107110[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 95. de BoerEZwartkruis-NahuisJTMWitBPrevalence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in meatInternational Journal of Food Microbiology20091341-25256[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 96. van LooIHMDiederenBMWSavelkoulPHMMethicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in meat products, the NetherlandsEmerging Infectious Diseases2007131117531755[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 97. LozanoCLópezMGómez-SanzERuiz-LarreaFTorresCZarazagaMDetection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ST398 in food samples of animal origin in SpainJournal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy200964613251326[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 98. KluytmansJvan LeeuwenWGoessensWFood-initiated outbreak of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus analyzed by pheno- and genotypingJournal of Clinical Microbiology199533511211128[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 99. BhatMDumortierCTaylorBSStaphylococcus aureus ST398, New York City and Dominican RepublicEmerging Infectious Diseases2009152285287[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 100. HuijsdensXWvan DijkeBJSpalburgECommunity-acquired MRSA and pig-farmingAnnals of Clinical Microbiology and Antimicrobials20065, article 26[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 101. FeßlerATKadlecKHasselMCharacterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus isolates from food and food products of poultry origin in GermanyApplied and Environmental Microbiology2011772071517157[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 102. OsadebeLUHansonBSmithTCHeimerRPrevalence and characteristics of Staphylococcus aureus in connecticut swine and swine farmersZoonoses and Public Health201360234243[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 103. BhallaAAronDCDonskeyCJStaphylococcus aureus intestinal colonization is associated with increased frequency of S. aureus on skin of hospitalized patientsBMC infectious diseases20077p. 105[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 104. WeeseJSAveryBPReid-SmithRJDetection and quantification of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) clones in retail meat productsLetters in Applied Microbiology2010513338342[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 105. JamesSJEvansJJamesCA review of the performance of domestic refrigeratorsJournal of Food Engineering2008871210[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 106. AzevedoIRegaloMMenaCIncidence of Listeria spp. in domestic refrigerators in PortugalFood Control2005162121124[PubMed][Google Scholar]
  • 107. LammerdingAMAn overview of microbial food safety risk assessmentJournal of Food Protection1997601114201425[PubMed][Google Scholar]
Collaboration tool especially designed for Life Science professionals.Drag-and-drop any entity to your messages.