研究文章雷竞技app下载苹果版

微生物的太阳比较干发酵虎鱼(Hydrocynus ssp)和泥鱼(高清晰anguiliaris)在当地被称为Abil摘要在南苏丹在当地市场出售

文摘

大部分南苏丹是习惯性的消费者的鱼,特别是老虎的种类和泥浆。大多数情况下,它们在太阳晒干发酵的形式。然而,这两个应用处理方法仍然是传统的质量控制;发酵是自发而除了频繁波动的温度,日晒法完成裸露的地面上引入一些危害。因此,这些产品对公众健康构成威胁。文学点可能微分微生物在鱼类,即使暴露在类似的加工条件,因此微分风险。因此,需要比较微生物的两个常见的食用鱼类在南苏丹来评估这两个,带来了更高的风险。方法:太阳干发酵鱼物种都是随机选择的样本从Konyokonyo市场在朱巴。基于国际标准的标准化程序组织用于微生物概要文件的枚举。结果:两个鱼样本有更高的总微生物计数。 However, Tiger Fish had comparatively higher counts than Mud fish, 3.7 × 106 cfu/g to 1.0 × 105 cfu/g compared to 3.0 × 104 cfu/g to 1.6 × 104 cfu/g for Mud Fish. Beneficial LAB formed the highest proportion of counts, 3.5 × 105 cfu/g to 4.1 × 104 cfu/g in Tiger fish and 1.5 × 104 cfu/g to 4.0 × 103 cfu/g in Mud fish. Enterobacteriacea, coliforms and molds were all present in levels at which they pose a risk to public health in both species, though c ounts were higher in Tiger Fish. Enterobacteriacea counts ranged from 4.0 ×103 cfu/g to 2.0 × 103 cfu/g in Tiger Fish compared to 2 × 102 cfu/g to 9.0 × 103 cfu/g on Mud fish samples. Coliform counts varied from 2.5 × 103 to 1.0 × 103cfu/g in Tiger fish and 9.0 × 101 to 1.0 × 101 cfu/g on mud fish samples. Conclusion: Traditionally sun-dried fermented Tiger and Mud fish are microbiologically unsafe and pose a food poisoning risk to the public; undesirable enterobacteriacea, coliforms and molds are within risky levels. However, Tiger fish presents a much higher risk owing to its higher counts compared to mud fish. Post-harvest handling practices along the chain; harvesting to consumer consumption need to be aligned to the current good manufacturing practices.

Amegovu KA, Mawadri M, Mandah J和Yiga P

阅读全文下载全文|访问全文