Loading…
Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms
In 2015, the U.S. States Food and Drug Administration published the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), providing guidance for growers to minimize food safety risks associated with growing, harvesting, packing, and holding fresh produce. To mitigate foodborne outbreaks attributed to contaminated agricultural...
Saved in:
Published in: | Food protection trends 2022-05, Vol.42 (3), p.186-193 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Magazinearticle |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c173t-845a2eee887c0195d21b5c761f645bbd539bdf85c44148dbef0bc096b8d757183 |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 193 |
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 186 |
container_title | Food protection trends |
container_volume | 42 |
creator | Nwadike, Londa |
description | In 2015, the U.S. States Food and Drug Administration published the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), providing guidance for growers to minimize food safety risks associated with growing, harvesting, packing, and holding fresh produce. To mitigate foodborne outbreaks attributed to contaminated agricultural water, the PSR requires growers to test their water for microbial contamination. The increased production of fruits and vegetables in Kansas and Missouri necessitates the investigation of agricultural water quality in these states. This study assessed and compared the prevalence of generic Escherichia coli in agricultural water sources in both states. A total of 426 agricultural water samples were analyzed using the IDEXX Colilert with Quanti-Tray/2000 method. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of E. coli in agricultural waters detected between the two states (P < 0.4023), the average number of E. coli in surface water sources (158.7 most probable number [MPN]/100 mL, n = 247)was statistically greater than that of groundwatersources (20.4 MPN/100 mL, n = 179, P < 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate the higher microbial risk of surface water compared with groundwater in both states and the need for continued grower education on safe water management practices. |
doi_str_mv | 10.4315/FPT-21-033 |
format | magazinearticle |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_2665645397</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2665645397</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c173t-845a2eee887c0195d21b5c761f645bbd539bdf85c44148dbef0bc096b8d757183</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkE9LxDAUxHNQcF29-AmCR6GaNEn_HJfFqrjiCiseQ5K-upW2qXmpsN_eLnp6MG9mYH6EXHF2KwVXd9V2l6Q8YUKckAVXkielyrMzco74xZgouZQLMq59P5pgYvsDdIUIiD0MkfqGxj3Ql9YFb1vT0bfJdG08HB-rz9C6qYtTmPUPEyFQP9BnM6BBaoZ6TiH6KbS0CoB7ug2-nhzQyoQeL8hpYzqEy_-7JO_V_W79mGxeH57Wq03ieC5iUkhlUgAoitwxXqo65Va5PONNJpW1tRKlrZtCOSm5LGoLDbOOlZkt6lzlvBBLcv3XOwb_PQFGHWD0IaJOs0zNJaLMZ9PNn2leiRig0WNoexMOmjN9hKhniDrleoYofgEplGc3</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><pqid>2665645397</pqid></control><display><type>magazinearticle</type><title>Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><creator>Nwadike, Londa</creator><creatorcontrib>Nwadike, Londa ; Food Science Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA</creatorcontrib><description>In 2015, the U.S. States Food and Drug Administration published the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), providing guidance for growers to minimize food safety risks associated with growing, harvesting, packing, and holding fresh produce. To mitigate foodborne outbreaks attributed to contaminated agricultural water, the PSR requires growers to test their water for microbial contamination. The increased production of fruits and vegetables in Kansas and Missouri necessitates the investigation of agricultural water quality in these states. This study assessed and compared the prevalence of generic Escherichia coli in agricultural water sources in both states. A total of 426 agricultural water samples were analyzed using the IDEXX Colilert with Quanti-Tray/2000 method. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of E. coli in agricultural waters detected between the two states (P < 0.4023), the average number of E. coli in surface water sources (158.7 most probable number [MPN]/100 mL, n = 247)was statistically greater than that of groundwatersources (20.4 MPN/100 mL, n = 179, P < 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate the higher microbial risk of surface water compared with groundwater in both states and the need for continued grower education on safe water management practices.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1541-9576</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.4315/FPT-21-033</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Des Moines: Elsevier Limited</publisher><subject>Agriculture ; E coli ; Escherichia coli ; Farms ; Food contamination ; Food contamination & poisoning ; Food safety ; Fruits ; Groundwater ; Harvesting ; Microbial contamination ; Microorganisms ; Most probable number ; Pathogens ; Rain ; Statistical analysis ; Statistical methods ; Surface water ; Surface-groundwater relations ; Testing laboratories ; Water analysis ; Water management ; Water pollution ; Water quality ; Water sampling</subject><ispartof>Food protection trends, 2022-05, Vol.42 (3), p.186-193</ispartof><rights>Copyright Allen Press Inc. May/Jun 2022</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c173t-845a2eee887c0195d21b5c761f645bbd539bdf85c44148dbef0bc096b8d757183</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>776,780,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Nwadike, Londa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Food Science Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA</creatorcontrib><title>Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms</title><title>Food protection trends</title><description>In 2015, the U.S. States Food and Drug Administration published the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), providing guidance for growers to minimize food safety risks associated with growing, harvesting, packing, and holding fresh produce. To mitigate foodborne outbreaks attributed to contaminated agricultural water, the PSR requires growers to test their water for microbial contamination. The increased production of fruits and vegetables in Kansas and Missouri necessitates the investigation of agricultural water quality in these states. This study assessed and compared the prevalence of generic Escherichia coli in agricultural water sources in both states. A total of 426 agricultural water samples were analyzed using the IDEXX Colilert with Quanti-Tray/2000 method. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of E. coli in agricultural waters detected between the two states (P < 0.4023), the average number of E. coli in surface water sources (158.7 most probable number [MPN]/100 mL, n = 247)was statistically greater than that of groundwatersources (20.4 MPN/100 mL, n = 179, P < 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate the higher microbial risk of surface water compared with groundwater in both states and the need for continued grower education on safe water management practices.</description><subject>Agriculture</subject><subject>E coli</subject><subject>Escherichia coli</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Food contamination</subject><subject>Food contamination & poisoning</subject><subject>Food safety</subject><subject>Fruits</subject><subject>Groundwater</subject><subject>Harvesting</subject><subject>Microbial contamination</subject><subject>Microorganisms</subject><subject>Most probable number</subject><subject>Pathogens</subject><subject>Rain</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Statistical methods</subject><subject>Surface water</subject><subject>Surface-groundwater relations</subject><subject>Testing laboratories</subject><subject>Water analysis</subject><subject>Water management</subject><subject>Water pollution</subject><subject>Water quality</subject><subject>Water sampling</subject><issn>1541-9576</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>magazinearticle</recordtype><recordid>eNotkE9LxDAUxHNQcF29-AmCR6GaNEn_HJfFqrjiCiseQ5K-upW2qXmpsN_eLnp6MG9mYH6EXHF2KwVXd9V2l6Q8YUKckAVXkielyrMzco74xZgouZQLMq59P5pgYvsDdIUIiD0MkfqGxj3Ql9YFb1vT0bfJdG08HB-rz9C6qYtTmPUPEyFQP9BnM6BBaoZ6TiH6KbS0CoB7ug2-nhzQyoQeL8hpYzqEy_-7JO_V_W79mGxeH57Wq03ieC5iUkhlUgAoitwxXqo65Va5PONNJpW1tRKlrZtCOSm5LGoLDbOOlZkt6lzlvBBLcv3XOwb_PQFGHWD0IaJOs0zNJaLMZ9PNn2leiRig0WNoexMOmjN9hKhniDrleoYofgEplGc3</recordid><startdate>20220501</startdate><enddate>20220501</enddate><creator>Nwadike, Londa</creator><general>Elsevier Limited</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RQ</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>883</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0F</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>PYYUZ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220501</creationdate><title>Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms</title><author>Nwadike, Londa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c173t-845a2eee887c0195d21b5c761f645bbd539bdf85c44148dbef0bc096b8d757183</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>magazinearticle</rsrctype><prefilter>magazinearticle</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Agriculture</topic><topic>E coli</topic><topic>Escherichia coli</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Food contamination</topic><topic>Food contamination & poisoning</topic><topic>Food safety</topic><topic>Fruits</topic><topic>Groundwater</topic><topic>Harvesting</topic><topic>Microbial contamination</topic><topic>Microorganisms</topic><topic>Most probable number</topic><topic>Pathogens</topic><topic>Rain</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Statistical methods</topic><topic>Surface water</topic><topic>Surface-groundwater relations</topic><topic>Testing laboratories</topic><topic>Water analysis</topic><topic>Water management</topic><topic>Water pollution</topic><topic>Water quality</topic><topic>Water sampling</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Nwadike, Londa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Food Science Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Career & Technical Education Database</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Trade & Industry</collection><collection>Agriculture Science Database</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Food protection trends</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Nwadike, Londa</au><aucorp>Food Science Institute, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms</atitle><jtitle>Food protection trends</jtitle><date>2022-05-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>186</spage><epage>193</epage><pages>186-193</pages><issn>1541-9576</issn><abstract>In 2015, the U.S. States Food and Drug Administration published the Produce Safety Rule (PSR), providing guidance for growers to minimize food safety risks associated with growing, harvesting, packing, and holding fresh produce. To mitigate foodborne outbreaks attributed to contaminated agricultural water, the PSR requires growers to test their water for microbial contamination. The increased production of fruits and vegetables in Kansas and Missouri necessitates the investigation of agricultural water quality in these states. This study assessed and compared the prevalence of generic Escherichia coli in agricultural water sources in both states. A total of 426 agricultural water samples were analyzed using the IDEXX Colilert with Quanti-Tray/2000 method. Although there were no statistically significant differences in the prevalence of E. coli in agricultural waters detected between the two states (P < 0.4023), the average number of E. coli in surface water sources (158.7 most probable number [MPN]/100 mL, n = 247)was statistically greater than that of groundwatersources (20.4 MPN/100 mL, n = 179, P < 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P < 0.0001). These results demonstrate the higher microbial risk of surface water compared with groundwater in both states and the need for continued grower education on safe water management practices.</abstract><cop>Des Moines</cop><pub>Elsevier Limited</pub><doi>10.4315/FPT-21-033</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1541-9576 |
ispartof | Food protection trends, 2022-05, Vol.42 (3), p.186-193 |
issn | 1541-9576 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_2665645397 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate |
subjects | Agriculture E coli Escherichia coli Farms Food contamination Food contamination & poisoning Food safety Fruits Groundwater Harvesting Microbial contamination Microorganisms Most probable number Pathogens Rain Statistical analysis Statistical methods Surface water Surface-groundwater relations Testing laboratories Water analysis Water management Water pollution Water quality Water sampling |
title | Comparative Assessment of the Microbial Quality of Agricultural Water on Kansas and Missouri Fresh Produce Farms |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-12T17%3A43%3A58IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparative%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Microbial%20Quality%20of%20Agricultural%20Water%20on%20Kansas%20and%20Missouri%20Fresh%20Produce%20Farms&rft.jtitle=Food%20protection%20trends&rft.au=Nwadike,%20Londa&rft.aucorp=Food%20Science%20Institute,%20Kansas%20State%20University,%20Manhattan,%20KS%2066506,%20USA&rft.date=2022-05-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=186&rft.epage=193&rft.pages=186-193&rft.issn=1541-9576&rft_id=info:doi/10.4315/FPT-21-033&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2665645397%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c173t-845a2eee887c0195d21b5c761f645bbd539bdf85c44148dbef0bc096b8d757183%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2665645397&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |