4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

1/85

Results

4. RESULTS

4.1. Mycological examination of meat and milk and their

products:

4.1.1. Mycological examination of meat and meat products:

4.1.1.1 Total mould count (TMC) of the examined samples

As shown in Table (2) and Fig. (2), it was noticed that the highest

total mould count (TMC) was obtained from the sausage samples,followed b hawawchi samples, luncheon and minced meat! whereas the

fro"en meat samples ielded the lowest count of mould. TMC in sausage

samples, ranged from 2 # $%2to &.'% # $%

&with a mean count of '.2% #

$%

'

$ 2& # $%

'

hil i h hi th TMC d f &% # $%

2

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

2/85

$% $ 2& # $% hil i h hi th TMC d f &% # $%

Results

Ta!le (") Total mould count in meat and meat product samples

Type of examined Total moulds count (TMC)

sampleMin Max Mean # SE

$ro%en meat $# $%2

2.*% # $%

2 # $%2

$.2% # $%2

Minced meat $# $%2

$.&% # $%'

$.*% # $%

*.%%# $%2

Li&er 2# $%2

'.*% # $%

'.& # $%

1.&% # $%

'idney $.2% # $%2

.%% # $%

2.2% # $%

2.1 # $%

Luncheon $# $%2

'.&% # $%'

.&% # $%

.% # $%

Sausage 2# $%2

&.'% # $%&

'.2% # $%'

$.2& # $%'

aachi .&% # $%2

.*% # $%&

&.2% # $%'

'.2$0 $%'

Mi i i M i 56 t d d

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

3/85

3 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

4/85

Result

s

+*,*,*"* -re&alence of moulds in meat and meat product samples

From Table () and Fig (), it is e+ident that the most commonl

isolated mould species in the e0amined fro"en meat were Aspergillus

spp. (%7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (&%7),Alternariaspp. ('7),

Mucor spp.Cladosporium spp.Rhizopus spp.,Scopulariopsis spp., and

Curvularia spp. (27 for each) were rearl isolated. 8n minced meat

samples, Aspergillus spp. were the most common isolates ($%%7),

followed bPenicilliumspp. (2%7), Cladosporiumspp. (*7), then.,

Fusarium spp., Mucor spp. and Rhizopus spp. ('7for

each),Scopulariosis,spp.Alternariaspp. and Curvulariaspp. (27).

8n li+er samples the Aspergillus spp. predominated isolate in

('7) f ll d b P i illi ($*7) Cl d i (97)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

5/85

3 ' 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

6/85

Results

spp.,Fusariumspp. andRhizopusspp. were detected in ('7 for each).

Concerning sausage samples,Aspergillusspp. were at the top of

all isolated fungi (9%7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (&%7),

Alternaria spp. (%7), Cladosporium (2%7) and 5copulariopsis spp.

($27) whileMucorspp. ($%7),Rhizopusspp. andFusariumspp. (*7

each) were rarel isolated. -hereas, Curvularia spp. ('7) were

reco+ered at lowest freuenc.

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

7/85

Results

Ta!le (.) -re&alence of moulds in meat and meat product samples

Tpe of sample Fro"en Minced;i+er &% % &%?&% $%% ?&% ' 2& &% 1 9 '% 9% '% 9%

Penicillium spp. 2& &% $% 2% 9 $* 2% '% $1 9 $ ' 2& &%

Alternaria spp. 2 ' $ 2 % % ' 2 ' 9 2 ' $& %

Cladosporium spp. $ 2 * ' 9 * $' % % $% 2%

Curvularia spp. $ 2 $ 2.% % % % % $ 2 % % 2 '

Fusarium spp. % % 2 '.% $ 2 $ 2 2 ' 2 ' *

Mucor spp. $ 2 2 '.% 2 ' & $% * * $2 & $%

Rhizopus spp. $ 2 2 '.% $ 2 * ' 9 2 ' 2 *

Scopulariopsis spp. $ 2 $ 2.% $ 2 2 ' % % % % * $2

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

8/85

3 * 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

9/85

Results

$ig* (.) -re&alence of mould species in meat and meat product samples3 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

10/85

Results

+*,*,*.* $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspecies isolated from

examined meat and meat products

From Table (') and Fig. ('), it is clear that the e0amined minced

meat and li+er samples had the highest total isolatedAspergillusspp..

The most common isolates ofAspergilliin fro"en meat wereA. flavus

(%7), A niger andA. candidus(2'7 for each), whileA. versicolor

was reco+ered from (97) and A. fumigatus from ('7). -hereas, A.

ochraceus andA. parasiticus were present in few of samples (27 for

each).

8n minced meat samples,A. flavuswas reco+ered from ('7),A.

niger from (%7), A. candidus aand A. ochraceus as (2%7), A.

parasiticus ('7)A. fumigatus,A. terreus were (27 for each).

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

11/85

Results

were reco+ered at lower freuenc (27 for each). n the other hand ,

in awawchi samples the most commonAspergillusspp. wasA.niger

(297), followed b A. flavus, (2'7), A. ochraceus, A. candidus, A.

fumigates,A. versicolor were (*7 for each). -hereas, the isolates of

A. parasiticus and A. terreus were reco+ered in rare rates (27 for

each). Considering the sausage samples, the most common

Aspergillusspp. was alsoA. flavus, ('7), followed b,A. candidus

(2*7),A.niger ($%7),A. ochraceus ,A. fumigatus (*7for each) and

A. terreus were reco+ered in low le+els (27).

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

12/85

Results

Ta!le (+) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined meat and meat products

Tpe of sample Fro"en Minced;i+er

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

13/85

3 9% 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

14/85

Results

$ig* (+) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined meat and meat products3 9$3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

15/85

Result

s

4.1.2. Mycological examination of milk and milk products

4.1.2.1. Total mould count of the examined in milk and milk

product samples

As shown in Table (&) and Fig (&), it was noticed that the highesttotal mould count was obtained from the Fresh amietta cheese

samples, followed b Fresh

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

16/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

17/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

18/85

Results

+*,*"*"* -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk products

From Table (*) and Fig (*), genera were isolated from e0amined

raw mil/ represents b genusAspergillus. (%7), followed b

Penicillium spp. (2'7), Alternaria spp. ('7), Mucor spp.

Cladosporium spp., Scopulariopsis spp. (27for each). Also, in

oghurt samples, Aspergillus spp. were the most common isolates

(*7), followed bPenicilliumspp. (2%7), Cladosporiumspp. (*7),

Mucor spp and!otr"otrichumspp.('7 for each) thenAlternariaspp,

Scopulariosis spp. (27for each).

8n hard cheese samples theAspergillusspp. were also the most

common isolates (97) followed b Penicillium spp. (%7), Mucor

spp. (*7),!otr"otrichum spp.('7), both of Cladosporiumspp. and

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

19/85

Results

Ta!le (1) -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk product samples

Tpe of sample Baw mil/ oghurt ard cheeseFresh

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

20/85

3 9& 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

21/85

Results

$ig* (1) -re&alence of moulds in milk and milk products

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

22/85

3 9* 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

23/85

Results

+*,*"*.* $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspecies isolated from

examined milk and milk product samples

From Table () and Fig (), it is clear that the e0amined mil/ and

mil/ product samples were predominated, respecti+el Aspergillus

spp.. The most common isolated spp.ofAspergillusfrom raw mil/ was

A. flavus(2%7)A. niger($*7),A. candidus (#$),A. fumigatus

('7) and lastl b both. A. ochraceusandA. parasiticuswere (27 for

each). 8n oghurt samples, A. nigerwere the main isolates (2'7),

followed bA. flavus, ($97) andA. fumigatus(27).

8n hard cheese samples,A. nigerwas isolated at rate of (%7),

A. flavus at ($%7),A. ochraceus at ('7),A. parasiticus at (27).

8n Fresh

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

24/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

25/85

Results

$ig (2) $re/uency of identifiedAspergillusspp* isolated from the examined milk and milk product samples3 913

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

26/85

Results

-hoto (,) A. flavus on S34 agar -hoto (") Microscopy of A. flavus

shoing yello green surface shoing radiated head5 !iseriate

colour and granular consistency* phialide and rounded &esicle*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

27/85

Results

-h

o

t

o

n

S

3

4

i

t

h

!

u

f

f

o

r

c

e

c

o

l

o

u

r

*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

28/85

i

u

m

s

p

e

ci

e

s

on

S

3

t

u

re

5

h

it

e

s

u

rf

a

c

e

e

n

ts

o

n

th

e

c

e

nt

e

r

*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

29/85

-h

o

t

o

(

1

.

o

c

h

r

a

c

e

u

s

s

h

o

i

n

g

h

e

a

d

a

n

d

l

a

r

g

e

s

e

p

t

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

30/85

-h

o

t

o

F

us

a

r

i

um

s

p

ec

i

e

s

c

s

le

n

d

e

r5

m

u

l

ti

c

e

l

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

31/85

d

mi

c

r

o

co

n

i

d

ia

*

3

1$

3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

32/85

Results

-hoto (,8)P. citrinumon S34 shoing

Rhizopus species shoing long5 deep !luish green surface colour and

!ranched sporangio6phores &el&ety texture*

and terminate ith rhi%oids*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

33/85

Results

4.2. 9TS !ased -CR for differentiation 4spergillus species from

the other mem!er of genera

The molecular diagnosis for the critical mcoto0igenic species

(A. flavus,A. parasiticus) is considered, with utili"ing uniue internal

transcribed spacer (8T53$) regions for genus and species3specific

detection for identifingAspergillusspecies producing aflato0in based

on oligonucleotides. 6le+en isolates of identified Aspergillus species

that isolated from fro"en meat, li+er, /idne, hawawchi, sausage,

cheese, fresh /ariesh cheese, oghurt and raw mil/ were selected for

genotpic identification and amplified product was obtained at $1&bp

as shown in photo ($$).

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

34/85

Results

4.3. Screening of aflatoxin production from resistant strains of A.

flavus andA. parasiticus on Coco nut agar media (C4M)

For determination of aflato0in production based on presence or

absence of fluorescence on the re+erse side of the colonies was

determined b e0posing the petri dishes to u.+ (*& nm) and e0pressed

as positi+e (blue fluorescence) or negati+e as re+ealed in photos

($2D$) respecti+el.

on shoing !lue

fluorescence onre&erse side of

the plate after

exposure to u*&*

rays*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

35/85

Result

s

4.4. 3etection of potency of antifungal drugs againstA. flavusand

A. parasiticus isolates:

4.4.1. 3etection of potency of antifungal drugs aganist A. flavus

and A. parasiticus isolated from meat and its products

+*+*,*,* -otency of

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

36/85

3 1& 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

37/85

Result

s

isolates were resistant. Two out of fi+e ofA.parasiticuswas inhibited

b ben"oic acid at same concentration but ?& isolates were resistant.

8n luncheon sample, the growth of *?$& ofA.flavusisolates was

inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of .%% Eg?ml. while theremaider is resistant. A.parasiticusisolates were resistant to the same

antifungal agent.

5ausage sample, the growth of &?$ A. flavus isolates were

inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of .%% Eg?ml. A.

parasiticus isolate was resistant.

awawchi sample showed that &?$2 A. flavus isolates were

inhibited b ben"oic acid at concentration of Eg?ml .while ?$2 of the

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

38/85

3 1* 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

39/85

Ta!le (7) -otency of !en%oic acid against fungi isolated from meat an

=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains at

5ource ofTested strains numbers

tested antifungal

isolation %.& %.& $.%

5 B 5 B 5 B

Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($&) 3 $ 3 $& $2

Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $

Minced meat Aspergillus flavus ($) 3 $ 3 $ 3 $

Aspergillus parasiticus (2) 3 2 3 2 3 2

;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) 3 $* 3 $* 2 $'

Aspergillus parasiticus () 3 3 $ 2

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

40/85

;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) 1 $% * $$ &

Aspergillus parasiticus () $ 2 2 $ $ 2

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

41/85

Results

Ta!le (,8) -otency of propionic acid against fungi isolated from meat and its product

=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains at different concentrations of

5ource of Tested strains numbers tested antifungalsisolation %.& %.& $.% 2.% .%

5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B 5 B

Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($&) 9 1 * 1 * $& 3 $& 3

Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ $ 3 $ 3 $ 3 $ 3

Minced meat Aspergillus flavus ($) $% $$ * $2 & $ 3 $ 3

Aspergillus parasiticus (2) $ $ 2 6 2 3 2 3 2 3

;i+er Aspergillus flavus ($*) ' $2 1 1 $* 3 $* 3

Aspergillus parasiticus () $ 2 3 3 3 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

42/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

43/85

Ta!le (,,) -otency of sor!ic acid against fungi isolated from milk a

=umber of sensiti+e and resistant strains


tested antifung


5 B 5 B 5 B

Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) 3 $% 3 $% ' *

Aspergillus parasiticus ($) 3 $ 3 $ $ 3

oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & * 9 $

Aspergillus parasiticus ($) % $ % $ % $

,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 2 2


Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) 9 9 1 2


8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

44/85

Ta!le (,") -otency of !en%oic acid against fungi isolated from milkt



tested antifung


5 B 5 B 5 B

Fro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) ' * ' * * '


oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & ' & ' &


,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 2 2


Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) & * & * * &


8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

45/85

Ta!le (,.) -otency of propionic acid against fungi isolated from milk a



tested antifung


5 B 5 B 5 BFro"en meat Aspergillus flavus ($%) 2 9 ' *


oughurt Aspergillus flavus (1) ' & ' & & '


,ard cheese Aspergillus flavus (&) 2 ' $ ' $


Fresh /aresh Aspergillus flavus ($$) & * & * * &


8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

46/85

Results

+*0* -re&alence of Resistant strains of A.flavus and A.

parasiticus for all tested antifungals (Sor!ic5

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

47/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

48/85

Results

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

49/85

Result

s

+*0*"* -re&alence of Resistant strains of A. flavus and

A.parasiticus for all tested antifungals (Sor!ic5

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

50/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

51/85

Results

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

52/85

Result

s

4.6. 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains ofA. flavusand

A. parasiticus isolated from meat and milk and their

products samples (ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)*

+*1*,* 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains ofA. flavusand

A. parasiticus isolated from meat and meat product samples

(ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)*

The aflato0ins production b antifungal resistant isolates were

recorded as in Table ($*) and Fig. ($%).

The resistant isolates ofA. flavus(9.&7) andA. parasiticus

($%%7) that reco+ered from fro"en meat produced significant le+els of

Aflato0ins. The le+els of produced Aflato0ins b A. flavus were

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

53/85

Result

s

The results of AF produced b A. flavus (9.7) and A.

parasiticus ($%%7) from /idne thatA. flavusproduce AF@$ at range

of (%.%3$&.% ppb), and (%.%32%.%ppb) for AF@2, A. parasiticus

produced AFs at le+els of ($2.% ppb) for AF@$ and (%.% ppb) for

AF@2.

8n luncheon samples, the isolates ofA. flavus(*2.&.&7) produced

le+els of AFs ranged from ($232'.% ppb) for AF@$, and (%3 2%.%ppb)

for AF@2 .A. parasiticuswas not Contrar poroduce.

Table ($), sausage samples, the showed AF produced b the

isolated A. flavus (9$.97) and A. parasiticus (%7) in a significant

le+els. 8t were ranged from (1.&32&.% ppb) for AF@$, and (%32.% ppb)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

54/85

Result

s

Ta!le (,1) 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains of A. flavusandA. parasiticusisolated from meat and meatproduct samples (>g= ,888 ml) (pp!)

5ource of Total =o.Aflato0in I+e Juantitati+e detection of aflato0ins

5trains samples (Eg?$%%% ml) (ppm)isolation of isolates

=o 7 @$ @2 G$ G2Fro"en meat A. flavus 9 9.&7 .&3**.% $%.&3 % %

A. parasiticus $ $ $%%7 '.% 2 %3' %32*Total 1 9 99.9

Minced meat A. flavus $% 9 9%7 %3$ %322 % %A. parasiticus % % % % % %3 %3$*

Total $% 9 9%7

;i+er A. flavus 1 .7 %3 %3* % %A. parasiticus $ $ $%%.%7 && 22 %3 %3&

Total $% 9 9%7

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

55/85

3 $$2 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

56/85

Results

$ig (,8) -re&alence and le&els of aflatoxins produced !yA. flavusandA. parasiticusthat isolated from examined

meat and meat product samples (>g=,888 ml) (ppm)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

57/85

3 $$ 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

58/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

59/85

Result

s

Ta!le (,2) 4flatoxins detection from resistant strains of A. flavusandA. parasiticusisolated from milk and milk

product samples (ug= ,888 ml) (pp!)

Aflato0in I+eJuantitati+e detection of

Total =o. samples5ource of isolation 5trains aflato0ins (Eg?$%%% ml) (ppm)

of isolates=o 7

@$ @2 G$ G2

Baw mil/ A. flavus 2 $ &%7 %3&* %3$& %3% %3%

A. parasiticus % %

Total 2 $ &%7

oghurt A. flavus ' ' $%%7 23$&.& $.&39.& %3% %3%

A. parasiticus % %

Total ' ' $%%7

ard cheese A. flavus 2 $ &%7 %32& %3$% %

A. parasiticus % %

Total 2 $ &%7

Fresh

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

60/85

3 $$& 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

61/85

Results

$ig (,,) -re&alence and le&els of aflatoxins produced !yA. flavusandA. parasiticusthat isolated from examined

milk and milk product samples (>g=,888 ml) (ppm)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

62/85

3 $$* 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

63/85

Result

s

4.7. Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in

examined meat and meat product samples

As demonstrated in Table ($9) and Fig. ($2), the highest mean

+alues of aflato0in residues (Eg?/g), @$, @2, G$ and G2 were

detected in the /idne samples ($2.* $.91, 1.9' $.*, &.9

$.* and *.9' $.1, respecti+el), followed b the li+er samples

($.9$ $.1*, .2* %.12, 2.&$ %.* and $.* %.9), luncheon

samples (.$ $.&, .&1 $.$2, &.2' $.$2 and *. $.'1),

hawawchi samples ($$.% 2.', 2.2& %.&2, 2.&' %.11 and

2.&* %.2), minced meat samples (.*2 %.99, .'% %.92, '.2'

%.9&, 2.9 %.*%) fro"en meat samples which had the lowest

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

64/85

Results

Ta!le (,7): 5tatistical analsis of aflato0in residues (ppb) detected in e0amined meat and meat product samples (n42%).

Tpes of @$ @2 G$ G2aflato0ins

Tpe ofMin Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56 Min Ma0 Mean 56

e0aminedsample

Fro"en meat $.2 1.2& '.9% %.91 %% 22 &.% 2.$ % *.% $.$ %.*% % % % %

Minced meat %.% .& .*2 %.99 %.% . .'% %.92 %.% 9.$ '.2' %.9& %.% &.& 2.9 %.*%

;i+er % 2% $.9$ $.1* % *.2& .2* %.*2 % 2.&$ %.* % .&% $.* %.9

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

65/85

Results

$ig (,") Statistical analytical results of &arious aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected examined meat and meat

product samples (n?,0)*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

66/85

3 $$1 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

67/85

Results

4.8. Statistical analytical results of total (

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

68/85

Results

$ig (,.) Statistical analytical results of total aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in positi&e examined meat andmeat products samples

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

69/85

3 $2$ 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

70/85

Result

s

4.9. Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in

examined milk and milk product samples

The obtained results in Table (2%) and Fig. ($') showed the

residues of AFs in mil/ and mil/ product. -here the highest mean

+alues of aflato0in residues (Eg?/g), M$, @$, @2, G$and G2were

detected in the hard cheese samples (&.' $.2, 9. $.1, $.' $.'

, %.% and %.%, respecti+el), followed b the fresh damietta cheese

samples ('.* $.*, *.' %.**, $.% $.% %.% and %.%), oghurt

samples ($. $.%, 2. $.', %.9 %.&& %.% and %.%), raw mil/

samples ('.1 $.&&, %.%, %.%, %.% and %.%), fresh /areish cheese

samples (2.1 $.%1, %.%, %.%, %.% and %.%), respecti+el.

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

71/85

Results

Ta!le ("8) Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in examined milk and milk product samples

(n?"8)

Types of M1 B1 B2 G1 G2aflatoxins

Type ofexamined Min Max Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SE Min. Max. Mean SEsample

Raw milk 0 13 4.39 1 .55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yogh!t 0 6.5 1.34 1 .06 0 7.5 2.31 1.47 0 2 .9 0.86 0.55 0 0 0 0 0 3/.75 0 .6 2 0 .62

"a!d #heese 0 10 .9 5 .4 4 1.23 0 17.5 8.31 1.91 0 14 1.4 1.4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

$!esh %a!eish0 6.7 2.09 1 .09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

#heese

$!esh &amietta0 9.2 4.6 1.06 0 15 6.4 0.66 0 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

#heese

Min 4 minimu Ma0 4 ma0imum 56 4 standard error Eg?/g 4 ppb %4 not detected

3 $2 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

72/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

73/85

Results

$ig (,+) Statistical analytical results of &arious aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in positi&e examined milk and

milk product samples (n?,0)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

74/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

75/85

Results

+*,8* Statistical analytical results of total aflatoxin residues (pp!)detected in examined milk and milk product samples

As illustrated in in Table (2$)and fig ($&), the highest mean

+alues of total aflato0in residues (Eg?/g) were detected in hard cheese

samples ($.1* .21), followed b fresh damietta cheese samples

(1.'$ 2.*), oghurt samples( &.1 $.1), raw mil/ ('.1 $.&&)

and the lower le+els obser+ed in fresh /areish cheese samples (.%

2.2$).

Ta!le (",) Statistical analysis of aflatoxin residues (pp!) detected in

examined milk and milk product samples (n?"8)

Tpes of aflato0ins Aflato0in (ppb)

Tpe of e0amined sample Min Ma0 Mean 56

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

76/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

77/85

Result

s

+*,,* Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected

in examined samples of meat and meat products and the

permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8

pp!)*

From table (22) and Fig. ($*), it is clear that the aflato0in

uantities detected in samples of meat and its products e0ceeds the

aflato0in permissible limits.

8n fro"en meat, 2&7 of the samples showed higher le+els ofaflato0ins than the permissible limits recommended b (-)

(K$&ppb) and $%7 of the samples contained aflato0ins more than the

permissible limits of (K2%ppb) (FADFA)

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

78/85

3 $2 3

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

79/85

Results

of samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%ppb (FA).

8n sausage samples showed residues of aflato0ins in &7 of

samples more than the permissible limits of $& ppb (-) and %7

of samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%

ppb (FA).

8n hawawchi showed also aflato0ins residues in &7 of samples

more than the permissible limits of $& ppb (-) and %7 of

samples contained aflato0ins more than the permissible limits of 2%

ppb (FA).

Therefore, the high incidence of reected samples which unfit for

consumption was detected in samples of sausage (&7) followed b,

Results

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

80/85

Results

Ta!le ("") Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxin residues detected in examined samples of meat and meat

products and recommended permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8 pp!)

Tpe of e0amined =o. of e0amined =o. of positi+e5amples contained aflato0ins 5amples contained aflato0ins

K $& ppb (-,) K 2% ppb (FA) D FAsample samples samples

=o. 7 =o. 7

Fro"en meat 2% $$ & 2& 2 $%

Minced meat 2% $& & ' 2%

;i+er 2% $$ 9 '% & &%

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

81/85

Results

$ig (,1) Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected in positi&e examined samples of meat and

meat products and recommended permissi!le limits of AB (,0 pp!) and $4B $34 ("8 pp!)*

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

82/85

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

83/85

Results

+*,"* Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detectedin examined samples of milk and milk proucts and

recommended permissi!le limits of the European Community

(EC) limit (8*0 ug=kg for all 4$s and 4$M,*)5 AB (,0 pp!)

and $4B and $34 ("8 pp!)*

8n Table (2), the samples of mil/ and mil/ products unfit for

consumption occording to the 6uropean Communit. -here, their AF

content more than %.& ppb, the high rate of reected samples detected

in domietta cheese (9%7), hard cheese (*%7), raw mil/ (&%7), fresh/ariesh cheese (%7) and the lowest incidence detected in $%7 of

oghurt samples.

Comparing ower results to the limits of FA and FA ($&32%

Results

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

84/85

Results

Ta!le (".) Comparison !eteen the total aflatoxins residues detected in examined samples of milk and milk

proucts and recommended permissi!le limits of the European Community (EC) limit as tightened further

to 0 ug=kg to esta!lish limit for aflatoxin M,at le&el of 8*80 ug=kg*5 AB (,0 pp!) and $4B and $34 ("8pp!)

5amples contained aflato0in 5amples contained aflato0insTpe of e0amined =o. of e0amined =o. of positi+e

M$ in mil/ K %.& ppb (6C) K $&32% ppb (FA) and FAsample samples samples

=o. 7 =o. 7

Baw mil/ 2% 2% $% &%7 % %

oghurt 2% ' 2 $% % %

ard cheese 2% $& $2 *% $% &%

Fresh

8/11/2019 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

85/85

Results

Ta!le ("+) Comparison of different methods for detection of aflatoxin produced !y A. flavusandA. parasiticus

isolated from meat5 milk and their products

Code Source ofC4M

Strain flourescence TLC $luorometer;o* isolation

& A. parasiticus Minced meat I I @$D@2DG$DG2 9% (>g=,88ml

li/uid media)

9 A. parasiticus ;i+er I I @$D@2DG$DG2 *%

A. parasiticus ;i+er I I @$D@2 %

1 A. flavus awawchi I I @$D@2 $.&

$* A. flavus cheese I I @$ $&

$$ A. flavus

4- RESULTS 21-8-2014

Documents

Transcript of 4- RESULTS 21-8-2014