Clostridium perfringensand its toxins in minced meat from Kars, Turkey

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of Clostridium perfringens and its toxins in minced meat. A total of 96 minced meat samples were collected from local markets (16) and small butcher's shops (80) in Kars (Turkey). Samples were analysed for the presence of C. perfringens and its toxins using a commercially available ELISA kit. A total of 31 (32%) Clostridium spp. strains were isolated and 17 (55%) of these isolates were identified as C. perfringens. Four (25%) of the samples from local markets and 27 (34%) from small butcher's shops were contaminated with Clostridium spp. Furthermore, C. perfringens was isolated from two (12%) and 15 (19%) samples from local markets and small butcher's shops, respectively. Mean counts of Clostridium spp. were 2.2 +/- 0.83 x 10(2) CFU g(-1) for local markets and 4.35 +/- 8.53 x 10(2) CFU g(-1) for small butcher's shops; mean counts for C. porringers were 2.75 +/- 0.21 x 10(2) and 6.82 +/- 10.96 x 10(2) CFU g(-1) from markets and butcher's shops, respectively. The number of samples contaminated with both Clostridium spp. and C. perfringens was higher in small butcher's shops than in local markets. Moreover, higher numbers of Clostridium spp. and C. perfringens were isolated in samples from small butcher's shops than from local markets. A total of 13 (13%) samples were also positive for toxins produced by the organism, as detected by ELISA. Eleven samples from small butcher's shops and two samples from local markets were positive for the C. perfringens toxins tested. Moreover, two (12%), one (1%), four (4%) and two (2%) samples were contaminated with C. perfringens types A, B, C and D, respectively. In conclusion, some meat samples collected from local markets and small butcher's shops contained C. perfringens and its toxins and, therefore, present a potential risk of food poisoning.

Toxinotyping and antimicrobial susceptibility of enterotoxigenic Clostridium perfringens isolates from mutton, beef and chicken meat

“…All the C. perfringens isolates are not equally capable of producing toxins in vitro conditions (Wen and McClane 2004). Similar findings were recorded by Kamber et al (2007) where 13 out of 17 C. perfringens isolates were found positive for toxin production and Singh et al (2005) who reported 22 out of 116 isolates were positive for the toxin production. In the present study antigen detection ELISA assay using commercial kit was employed for the toxinotyping of the isolates.…”

“…Such difference could be attributed to the improper hygienic conditions at the local butcher shops in comparison to strict hygienic measures adopted at large meat outlets/grocery stores. Another study also showed that, level of C. perfringens contamination was higher in the meat samples collected from small butcher shops (15/80) when compared to the samples obtained from the local market (2/16) (Kamber et al 2007). Environmental conditions at local butcher shops favor bacterial contamination.…”

“…Even a small numbers of C. perfringens spores can then germinate, multiply and lead to the production of toxins. Therefore, meat can be a health hazard if improperly cooked, processed under improper hygienic conditions or if the cold storage chain is not maintained before and after cooking (Kamber et al 2007). Changing food habits of people, like preference of more ready to eat foods where chances of contamination are high, predispose the community to more C. perfringens food poisoning cases.…”

“…Some previous studies show a variable prevalence of C. perfringens that ranges from 30 to 80 % in USA (Lin and Labbe 2003;Wen and McClane 2004), 8 to 71 % in Japan (Miki et al 2008;Miwa et al 1998), 18 to 65 % in Turkey (Cadmak 2001;Kamber et al 2007) and 11 to 76 % in India (Gurmu et al 2013;Singh et al 2005). Most of previous studies used a range of specialized media (modified Duncan strong medium, motility nitrate medium and lactose gelatin medium) for the detection of C. perfringens which might have contributed to the higher isolation rates while we used only TSC agar for the bacterial culture.…”

“…In the present study antigen detection ELISA assay using commercial kit was employed for the toxinotyping of the isolates. Such ELISA kits have a detection limit of 10 ng/ml for alpha, beta and epsilon toxins (Kamber et al 2007). All the meat samples directly processed for toxinotyping might have toxin concentration below the detectable limit of the assay and hence regarded as negative.…”