IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v38y2018i4p638-652.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact of Cooking Procedures and Storage Practices at Home on Consumer Exposure to Listeria Monocytogenes and Salmonella Due to the Consumption of Pork Meat

Author

Listed:
  • Alessandra De Cesare
  • Eva Doménech
  • Damiano Comin
  • Adele Meluzzi
  • Gerardo Manfreda

Abstract

The objective of this research was to analyze the impact of different cooking procedures (i.e., gas hob and traditional static oven) and levels of cooking (i.e., rare, medium, and well‐done) on inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella in pork loin chops. Moreover, the consumer's exposure to both microorganisms after simulation of meat leftover storage at home was assessed. The results showed that well‐done cooking in a static oven was the only treatment able to inactivate the tested pathogens. The other cooking combinations allowed to reach in the product temperatures always ≥73.6 °C, decreasing both pathogens between 6 log10 cfu/g and 7 log10 cfu/g. However, according to simulation results, the few cells surviving cooking treatments can multiply during storage by consumers up to 1 log10 cfu/g, with probabilities of 0.059 (gas hob) and 0.035 (static oven) for L. monocytogenes and 0.049 (gas hob) and 0.031 (static oven) for Salmonella. The key factors affecting consumer exposure in relation to storage practices were probability of pathogen occurrence after cooking, doneness degree, time of storage, and time of storage at room temperature. The results of this study can be combined with prevalence data and dose–response models in risk assessment models and included in guidelines for consumers on practices to be followed to manage cooking of pork meat at home.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessandra De Cesare & Eva Doménech & Damiano Comin & Adele Meluzzi & Gerardo Manfreda, 2018. "Impact of Cooking Procedures and Storage Practices at Home on Consumer Exposure to Listeria Monocytogenes and Salmonella Due to the Consumption of Pork Meat," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 638-652, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:638-652
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12882
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12882
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12882?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alessandra De Cesare & Silvia Vitali & Marcello Trevisani & Federica Bovo & Gerardo Manfreda, 2017. "Microbiological and Modeling Approach to Derive Performance Objectives for Bacillus cereus Group in Ready‐to‐Eat Salads," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 408-420, March.
    2. A. N. Swart & F. van Leusden & M. J. Nauta, 2016. "A QMRA Model for Salmonella in Pork Products During Preparation and Consumption," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 516-530, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Greenberg & Anthony Cox & Vicki Bier & Jim Lambert & Karen Lowrie & Warner North & Michael Siegrist & Felicia Wu, 2020. "Risk Analysis: Celebrating the Accomplishments and Embracing Ongoing Challenges," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2113-2127, November.
    2. Thomas Oscar, 2021. "Salmonella Prevalence Alone Is Not a Good Indicator of Poultry Food Safety," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 110-130, January.
    3. Yangjunna Zhang & Annette M. O'Connor & Chong Wang & James S. Dickson & H. Scott Hurd & Bing Wang, 2019. "Interventions Targeting Deep Tissue Lymph Nodes May Not Effectively Reduce the Risk of Salmonellosis from Ground Pork Consumption: A Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(10), pages 2237-2258, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:38:y:2018:i:4:p:638-652. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.