Review of Detection Limits for Various Techniques for Bacterial Detection in Food Samples

Abstract

Foodborne illnesses can be infectious and dangerous, and most of them are caused by bacteria. Some common food-related bacteria species exist widely in nature and pose a serious threat to both humans and animals; they can cause poisoning, diseases, disabilities and even death. Rapid, reliable and cost-effective methods for bacterial detection are of paramount importance in food safety and environmental monitoring. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR), lateral flow immunochromatographic assay (LFIA) and electrochemical methods have been widely used in food safety and environmental monitoring. In this paper, the recent developments (2013–2023) covering PCR, LFIA and electrochemical methods for various bacterial species (Salmonella, Listeria, Campylobacter, Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Escherichia coli (E. coli)), considering different food sample types, analytical performances and the reported limit of detection (LOD), are discussed. It was found that the bacteria species and food sample type contributed significantly to the analytical performance and LOD. Detection via LFIA has a higher average LOD (24 CFU/mL) than detection via electrochemical methods (12 CFU/mL) and PCR (6 CFU/mL). Salmonella and E. coli in the Pseudomonadota domain usually have low LODs. LODs are usually lower for detection in fish and eggs. Gold and iron nanoparticles were the most studied in the reported articles for LFIA, and average LODs were 26 CFU/mL and 12 CFU/mL, respectively. The electrochemical method revealed that the average LOD was highest for cyclic voltammetry (CV) at 18 CFU/mL, followed by electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) at 12 CFU/mL and differential pulse voltammetry (DPV) at 8 CFU/mL. LOD usually decreases when the sample number increases until it remains unchanged. Exponential relations (R2 > 0.95) between LODs of Listeria in milk via LFIA and via the electrochemical method with sample numbers have been obtained. Finally, the review discusses challenges and future perspectives (including the role of nanomaterials/advanced materials) to improve analytical performance for bacterial detection.