- 期刊
比較衛福部腸桿菌科檢驗公告方法與3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae及CompactDry Enterobacteriaceae之檢測效能
Evaluation of 3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae and CompactDry Enterobacteriaceae Methods
摘要
過去，台灣衛生福利部食品藥物管理署訂定大腸桿菌群（coliform）及大腸桿菌（Escherichia coli）的檢測作為食品衛生指標檢驗項目，在2018年，更提出腸桿菌科（Enterobacteriaceae）檢驗方法（以下簡稱公告方法）。腸桿菌科所涵蓋的菌種種類比大腸桿菌群者為多，顯然地，更具有衛生指標性。市面上，亦有簡便腸桿菌科檢測的方法，主要產品為3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae（以下簡稱3M Petrifilm，3M公司，美國）及CompactDry Enterobacteriaceae（以下簡稱CompactDry，NISSUI公司，日本），然而，據吾等所知，在台灣，此兩種方法的檢測效能尚未有與公告方法的比較報告。本研究選擇39件市售手搖飲料利用公告方法進行腸桿菌科之檢測，使用的培養基為violet red bile glucose agar（VRBGA），並利用oxidase（氧化酶）和O／Fglucose（氧化／還原葡萄糖）之生化試驗鑑定VRBGA上的生長菌，最後再進行腸桿菌科之計數，所獲得的結果再與3M Petrifilm及CompactDry的檢測結果進行效能比較。結果指出公告方法、3M Petrifilm及CompactDry的腸桿菌科檢出率分別為64.1%（25／39），53.8%（21／39）及56.4%（22／39），根據衛福部食藥署建議之食品及水中腸桿菌科指標菌檢驗的採樣計畫及限量標準，手搖飲料的限量標準為100CFU/mL，公告方法檢出飲料不合格率為30.8%（12/39），而3M Petrifilm及CompactDry分別為23.1%（9／39）及20.5%（8／39），因此，後兩者對飲料中腸桿菌科檢測之偽陰性分別為25.0%（3／12）及33.3%（4／12）。另外，3M Petrifilm及CompactDry在培養結果的判讀方面，顯然地比VRBGA不易觀察。基於上述的發現，建議衛生主管單位定期抽檢手搖飲料的衛生安全，並對從業人員進行必要的衛生教育，而品管工作者也需要瞭解使用簡便測試方法的限制性，其等可能發生偽陰性結果或會將超標的檢體誤判為合格。
並列摘要
In the past, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of Taiwan Ministry of Health and Welfare demanded detection of coliform and Escherichia coli as food hygiene indicators. In 2018, it was expanded to detect Enterobacteriaceae which covers more bacterial species than coliform group. Simplified Enterobacteriaceae detection methods such as 3M Petrifilm Enterobacteriaceae (3M Company, USA) and CompactDry Enterobacteriaceae (NISSUI Company, Japan) are commercially available. However, the efficacy of these methods has not been compared to that of the standard method recommended by Taiwan FDA (TFDA). In this study, 39 hand-shake drinks were tested for Enterobacteriaceae by 3M Petrifilm and CompactDry, and the results were compared to those of the standard method using violet red bile glucose agar (VRBGA). Biochemical tests of oxidase and O/F glucose were used to identify the colonies grown on VRBGA. Results showed that the detection rates of Enterobacteriaceae by VRBGA, 3M Petrifilm, and CompactDry were 64.1% (25/39), 53.8% (21/39), and 56.4% (22/39), respectively. Based on TFDA requirement of less than 100 CFU/ml of Enterobacteriaceae in each sample, the unsatisfactory rate of drinks examined by VRBGA was 30.8% (12/39), while those of 3M Petrifilm and CompactDry were 23.1% (9/39) and 20.5% (8/39), respectively. Therefore, the false negative rates of the latter two methods for the detection of Enterobacteriaceae in drinks were 25.0% (3/12) and 33.3% (4/12) respectively. In addition, interpretation of 3M Petrifilm and CompactDry results was harder than those of VRBGA. Based on results of this study, we urge that food quality control workers understand the limitations of simplified Enterobacteriaceae test methods as they may result in false negative results or misjudgement in food safety control.