衛福部公告檢驗方式對市售乳酸菌保健食品中乳酸菌計數的適用性評估

Suitability of Method Promulgated by Ministry of Health and Welfare in which Lactic Acid Bacteria Enumeration Is Used for Healthy Foods Containing Lactic Acid Bacteria

盧穎敏(Weng-Man Lou) ； 沈嘉恬(Chia-Tien Shen) ； 劉梅玉(Mei-Yu Liu) ； 李秀霞(Hsiu-Hsia Li) ； 蔡岳廷(Yueh-Ting Tsai) ； 蔡文城(Wen-Cherng Tsai)

《檢驗及品保雜誌》 4卷3期 (2015/08) Pp. 101-107

https://doi.org/10.6573/JTQA.201508_4(3).01

摘要

近年來乳酸菌產品的保健功效漸為大眾所接受，相關產業發展迅速，為了維持乳酸菌產品的品質，中華民國經濟部標準檢驗局(CNS)及台灣優良食品發展協會(GMP)特別公告乳酸菌產品不同劑型的含量標準。在2013 年台灣衛生福利部食品藥物管理署亦公告乳酸菌檢驗方法(以下簡稱TFDA 方法)，為了探討TFDA方法對乳酸菌計數的適用性，吾等利用TFDA方法所建議的稀釋液(0.1% peptone water)與經熱處理的厭氧稀釋液進行10 種市售乳酸菌產品的乳酸菌計數比較，結果指出利用厭氧稀釋液序列稀釋檢體比TFDA方法建議的0.1% peptone water所檢測的乳酸菌菌量高出約1.5 倍[2.7×10^9 CFU/g(mL) vs. 1.8×10^9 CFU/g(mL)]。本研究亦將TFDA 方法建議的雙叉桿菌(Bifidobacterium spp.）計數培養基：轉半乳糖苷寡醣-莫匹羅星培養基(Transgalactosylated oligosaccharides-mupirocin medium, TOS-MUP)與使用不含MUP 的CMP^(TM) TOS w/o MUP agar計數結果進行比較。以廠家在產品包裝標示的菌量為標準依據，結果發現以CMP^(TM) TOS w/o MUP agar 進行雙叉桿菌計數，在檢測的9 個檢體中均符合標示(100%)，但若以TFDA 方法建議的TOS-MUP agar 做為計數培養基，則56%(5/9)無法檢測出雙叉桿菌。基於上述的發現，吾等建議TFDA 方法宜再修正，包括選用經過熱處理的厭氧稀釋液以及另外接種CMP^(TM) TOS w/o MUP agar 進行雙叉桿菌的計數，以避免測得的總乳酸菌及雙叉桿菌數與標示不符而影響廠家的權益。

關鍵字

乳酸菌計數 ； 厭氧稀釋液 ； 雙叉桿菌(Bifidobacterium spp.)計數

並列摘要

Recently, the health benefits of foods containing lactic acid bacteria have been recognized by the public, and thus the production of such foods has increased rapidly. To guarantee the quality of products containing lactic acid bacteria, the Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection, Ministry of Economic Affairs, ROC (CNS) and the Taiwan Food Good Manufacturing Practice Development Association (GMP) have promulgated the acceptance of standard levels of lactic acid bacteria in various types of products. In 2013, the Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) also promulgated the lactic acid enumeration method (abbreviated hereafter as the ＂enumeration method＂). To evaluate the suitability of the enumeration method, we followed the guidelines and used a dilution solution of 0.1% peptone water to compare the heat-treatment anaerobic dilution solution to enumerate the lactic acid bacteria counts in 10 kinds of products sold in the markets. The results indicated that using anaerobic dilution solution resulted in a lactic acid bacteria count 1.5 times higher than that obtained by the 0.1% peptone water [2.7×109 CFU/g (mL) vs. 1.8×109 CFU/g (mL)]. This study also compare the total Bifidobacterium counts obtained by either transgalactosylated oligosaccharides-mupirocin medium (TOS-MUP) or CMPTM TOS w/o MUP agar. Based on the lactic acid contents stated on the products’ labels, we found counts that were 100% (9/9) consistent with the labels when TOS without MUP agar was used for testing. However, 56% (5/9) of the counts were not consistent with the label when TOS-MUP testing was used. Based on the above findings, we recommend that it may be necessary to revise the method promulgated by the MHW, including using heat-treated anaerobic dilution solution instead of 0.1% peptone water and inoculating an extra plate of CMPTM TOS w/o MUP agar for Bifidobacterium counts to avoid both types of counting results being inconsistent with the labels used by the manufacturers and thus affecting their business reputations.

並列關鍵字

Lactic acid bacteria enumeration method ； heat-treatment anaerobic dilution solution ； Bifidobacterium counts ； TOS-MUP agar ； CMP^(TM) TOS w/o MUP agar