Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:12:11.604Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of storage and preservation of milk samples on the response of microbial inhibitor tests

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 October 2013

Milagro Borràs Llopis ,
Marta Roca Marugón ,
Rafael Lisandro Althaus  and
Maria Pilar Molina Pons
Milagro Borràs Llopis*
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain
Marta Roca Marugón
Affiliation:
Centro Superior de Investigación en Salud Pública, Avd. Cataluña, 21 46020 Valencia, Spain
Rafael Lisandro Althaus
Affiliation:
Cátedra de Biofísica, Facultad de Ciencias Veterinarias, Universidad Nacional del Litoral – R.P.L., Kreder 2805, 3080 Esperanza, Argentina
Maria Pilar Molina Pons
Affiliation:
Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnología Animal, Universitat Politècnica de València, Camino de Vera, s/n 46022 Valencia, Spain
*
*For correspondence; e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of storage time (4 °C) on milk samples and the use of azidiol as preservative on the results of microbial inhibitor tests used to detect antimicrobials in milk. For this purpose, 16 milk bulk samples divided into two aliquots, preservative-free and with azidiol, spiked with 12 concentrations of amoxicillin, ampicillin, penicillin G and oxytetracycline, were used. The milk samples were analysed using the BRT MRL, Delvotest MCS Accelerator and Eclipse 100 at 0, 24, 48 and 72 h stored at 4 °C. The logistic regression model was applied to study the effect of storage time (ST), preservative (P) and their interaction (ST×P). At a concentration equivalent to the Detection Limit (DL), the positive results of microbial inhibitor tests do not remain stable during storage time. These results are more reproducible if samples are stored with a preservative. At Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) concentration microbial inhibitor tests can detect penicillin for up to 72 h of storage. For oxytetracycline, the BRT MRL and Delvotest MCS tests presents DL exceeding the MRL, therefore they are not sensitivity to this tetracycline (0% positive results). By contrast Eclipse 100, whose DL is lower than the MRL, gave 100% positive results during the 72 h storage period. It can be concluded that it would be convenient to store milk samples with azidiol at 4 °C and to carry out analyses within the first 48 h since milk sampling.

Keywords

Microbial inhibitor testsstorageazidiolantibiotics
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Dairy Research , Volume 80 , Issue 4 , November 2013 , pp. 475 - 484
Copyright
Copyright © Proprietors of Journal of Dairy Research 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alanis, AJ 2005 Resistance to antibiotics: are we in the Post-Antibiotic Era? Archives of Medical Research 36 697–705Google Scholar
Althaus, R, Molina, MP, Peris, C, Torres, A & Fernández, N 2003 Accuracy of BRT and Delvotest microbial inhibition test as affected by composition of ewe's milk. Journal of Food Protection 66 473–478Google Scholar
AOAC Official Methods of Analysis of AOAC International 2000 Food Composition; Additives; Natural Contaminants, 17th Edition. Vol. II, Chapter 33, pp. 1–2 (Ed. Horwitz, William). Gaithersburg: AOAC International, Maryland, USAGoogle Scholar
Babu, KS, Singh, RS & Chander, H 1989 Effect of antibiotic resistance on the flavour profile of lactic acid bacteria. Journal of Dairy Research 56 155–157Google Scholar
Berruga, MI, Molina, MP, Noves, B, Roman, M & Molina, A 2007 In vitro study about the effect of several penicillins during the fermentation of yogurt made from ewe's milk. Milchwissenschaft 62 303–305Google Scholar
BOE Real Decreto 1728/2007 By establishing the basic rules of control to be met by operators in the dairy sector and amending the Royal Decree 217/2004. Boletín Oficial Del Estado 15 3508–3519Google Scholar
Butler, G & Stergiadis, S 2011 Suitability of bronopol preservative treated milk for fatty acid determination. Journal of Dairy Research 78 220–225Google Scholar
Comunian, R, Paba, A, Dupre, I, Daga, ES & Scintu, MF 2010 Evaluation of a microbiological indicator test for antibiotic detection in ewe and goat milk. Journal of Dairy Science 93 5644–5650Google Scholar
Demoly, P & Romano, A 2005 Update on beta-lactam allergy diagnosis. Current Allergy and Asthma Reports 5 9–14CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elizondo, J, Aldunate, A, Ezcurra, P, Gallego, I, Saigos, E, Ulayar, E & Izco, JM 2007 Efficiency of the proportion of azidiol on preservation in ewe´s milk samples for analysis. Food Control 18 185–190Google Scholar
European Commission Regulation 853/2004 Laying dawn specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin. Official Journal of the European Union 139 55–205Google Scholar
European Commission Regulation 37/2010 On pharmacologically active substances and their classification regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. Official Journal of the European Union 15 1–72Google Scholar
Haagsma, N 1993 Stability of veterinary drug residues during storage, preparation and processing. In Proceedings of Euro Residue II Conference on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food, pp. 41–49 (Eds Haagsma, N, Ruiter, A, Czedik-Eysenberg, PB & Veldhoven, ). The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
Himanish, D, Mahadeva, N, Jayaraman, S & Bawa, AS 2008 Effect of processing, preservation and storage on oxytetracycline in spiked milk. Journal Food Science Technology 45 50–55Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 1995 Milk and Milk Products. Guidance on Sampling. Brussels, Belgium: FIL-IDF Standard No. 50CGoogle Scholar
International Dairy Federation 2002 Guidelines for a Standardized Description of Microbial Inhibitor Test. Brussels, Belgium: FIL-IDF Standard No. 183, ISO/DIS 13969Google Scholar
International Dairy Federation 2010 Current Situation & Compilation of Commercially Available Screening Methods for the Detection of Inhibitors/Antibiotics Residues in Milk. Brussels, Belgium: FIL- IDF Standard No. 442Google Scholar
Kang, JH, Jin, JH & Kondo, F 2005 False-Positive outcome and drug residue in milk samples over withdrawal times. Journal of Dairy Research 88 908–913Google Scholar
Kantiani, L, Farré, M & Barcelo, D 2009 Analytical methodologies for the detection of β-lactam antibiotics in milk and feed samples. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 28 729–744Google Scholar
Le Breton, MH, Savoy-Perroud, MC, Diserens, JM 2007 Validation and comparison of the Copan Milk Test and Delvotest SP-NT for the detection of antimicrobials in milk. Analytical Chemical Acta 586 280–283Google Scholar
Martínez, JR, Gonzalo, C, Carriedo, JA & San Primitivo, F 2003 Effect of freezing on fossomatic cell counting in ewe milk. Journal of Dairy Science 86 2583–2587Google Scholar
Molina, MP, Althaus, RL, Balasch, S, Torres, A, Peris, C & Fernandez, N 2003 Evaluation of screening test for detection of antimicrobial residues in ewe milk. Journal of Dairy Science 86 1947–1952Google Scholar
Navrátilova, P 2009 Screening methods used for the detection of veterinary drug residue in raw cow milk- A review. Czech Journal Food Science 6 393–401Google Scholar
Perme, T, Bizjak, M, Gacnik, KS & Kirbis, A 2010 Validation of Twinsensor, screening test for the detection of beta-lactams and tetracyclines in milk, and comparison to Delvotest SP-NT. Slovenian Veterinary Research 47 97–106Google Scholar
Roca, M, Molina, MP, Villegas, L, Gabirondo, E & Althaus, RL 2008 Effect of cold storage on stability of tetracyclines in milk. International Dairy Federation Proceedings 1. 42 World Dairy Summit MexicoGoogle Scholar
Sánchez, A, Sierra, D, Luengo, C, Corrales, JC, Morales, CT, Contreras, A & Gonzalo, C 2005 Influence of storage and preservation on Fossomatic cell count and composition of goat milk. Journal of Dairy Science 88 3095–3100Google Scholar
Schenck, FJ & Friedman, SL 2000 The effect of storage at 4 °C on the stability of ampicillin residues in raw Milk. Food Additives and Contaminants 17 675–677Google Scholar
Sierra, D, Sánchez, A, Contreras, A, Luengo, C, Corrales, JC, de la Fe, C, Guirao, I, Morales, CT & Gonzalo, C 2009a Effect of storage and preservation on total bacterial counts determined by automated flow cytometry in bulk tank goat milk. Journal of Dairy Science 92 4841–4845Google Scholar
Sierra, D, Sánchez, A, Contreras, A, Luengo, C, Corrales, JC, Morales, CT, De la Fe, C, Guirao, I & Gonzalo, C 2009b Detection limits of four antimicrobial residue screening tests for β-lactams in goat's milk. Journal of Dairy Science 92 3585–3591Google Scholar
Stead, SL, Ashwin, H, Richmond, SF, Sharman, M, Langeveld, PC, Barendse, JP, Stark, J & Keely, BJ 2008 Evaluation and validation according to international standards of the Delvotest® SP-NT screening assay for antimicrobial drugs in milk. International Dairy Journal 18 3–11Google Scholar
Toldrá, F & Reig, M 2006 Methods for rapid detection of chemical and veterinary drug residues in animal foods. Trends in Food Science and Technology 17 482–489Google Scholar