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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Food protection trends 2022-05, Vol.42 (3), p.186-193
Main Author: Nwadike, Londa
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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P &lt; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P &lt; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &lt; 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 &lt; 0.0001), and seasonal effects were detected (P &lt; 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