Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Rapid vs Traditional Microbiological Methods

microbiology rapid methods traditional methods lab test

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 Heffer03

Heffer03

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Costa Rica
    Costa Rica

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:04 AM

Hello everyone!

 

I'm starting a new project in our poultry proccesing plant: implemetation of rapid microbiology (pathogens mainly: Salmonella, Listeria and Campy)

We know the bigest cons of any rapid method would be the cost per analysis and the return of investment can be significant (years). Now to overcome those cons, I need to find some pros...but here's the catch: the first saving that comes to mind would be the storage expenses of the hold batch during the analysis time but acctually the saving here is very little because of how we deal with the space (I have double checked this with different supervisors) so isn't enough to justify the implementation.

Does anyone have any experience in the implementation of a rapid microbiology method in the lab? Can you share some other pros to help me justify the project?

:helpplease:

Thanks! 


  • 0

#2 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,449 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 May 2017 - 12:11 PM

Hi Heffer,

Do you already have an operational micro. Lab ?

If not, you might preferably focus on baby steps first.


  • 0

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


#3 Heffer03

Heffer03

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 9 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • Costa Rica
    Costa Rica

Posted 25 May 2017 - 01:33 PM

Hi Heffer,

Do you already have an operational micro. Lab ?

If not, you might preferably focus on baby steps first.

 

Yes, we already have an operational micro lab. We follow the MLG USDA. All the technical requirements for the implementation such as lab environmental conditions, equipment and so on has been reviewed and approved by a technical personal.


  • 0

#4 Panos

Panos

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 7 posts
  • 1 thanks
0
Neutral

  • United States
    United States

Posted 25 May 2017 - 02:54 PM

Pro: Rapid tests can significantly reduce both costs in labor as well as consumables as long as they are used selectively. 

Cons: Rapid test still need a conformation step (Culture plate), need yearly maintenance and calibration. 

I would look at what the approved rapid test are for your product as a starting point. 

 


  • 0

#5 FurFarmandFork

FurFarmandFork

    QA Manager/FS Blogger

  • IFSQN Senior
  • 443 posts
  • 225 thanks
35
Excellent

  • United States
    United States
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

Posted 25 May 2017 - 03:18 PM

If you have the facilities and personnel to follow the MLG, I'm not sure what pro's there are beyond turnaround time and sensitivity of the method. The problem tends to be that once you have a presumptive positive you need to confirm, you have none of the media or training because it hasn't happened for months (hopefully) and everything's expired....The only other Pro will be reduction in your laboratory labor and materials cost depending on how it hashes out. Do an ROI.

Attached Files


  • 0

For discussions related to food safety, production, and agriculture. Check out my blog at http://furfarmandfork.com/.

 


#6 Charles.C

Charles.C

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Moderator
  • 12,449 posts
  • 3244 thanks
346
Excellent

  • Earth
    Earth
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:SF
    TV
    Movies

Posted 25 May 2017 - 05:27 PM

Hi Heffer,

 

IMO any meaningful answer depends on what analyses you are intending to apply rapid method XYZs for / the sensitivity of the result. I doubt that you can generalise.

 

IMEX, "rapid methods" often, essentially, involve "shortcuts" which may work fine for certain product types/food matrices but totally fail (+ or -)  for others. This may include commercial products.

I have been involved in several prolonged/painful microbiological arguments where a customer has employed rapid, in-house, methods but without appreciating their caveats.

 

One can see some of the potential risks fairly easily by simply comparing "standard" biochemical identification schemes (eg ISO,BAM) for various "popular" pathogenic species. Even test kits usually rely on percentage of match and may struggle where a genus contains numerous, closely similar species. Quantitative methods for hygienic indicators may also fall into similar traps.

 

Not saying that all Rapid Methods are useless but IMO they need to be implemented with considerable caution.


  • 1

Kind Regards,

 

Charles.C


Thanked by 1 Member:




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users