International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied ... · PDF file22 International Journal...

10
22 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31 Original Article Isolation and Characterization of Microorganisms Responsible for Different Types of Food Spoilages Ashok Kumar 1* , Varun Bhushan 1 , Shikha Verma 1 , Gaurav Srivastav 2 and Sushil Kumar 3 1 Department of Biotechnology, Himachal Institute of Life Sciences Rampurghat Road, Paonta Sahib -173025 Himachal Pradesh INDIA 2 Research Scholar Biotechnology, Uttarakhand Technical University, Suddhowala, Dehradun-248002 Uttarakhand INDIA 3 Department of Microbiology, Himachal Institute of Life Sciences Rampurghat Road, Paonta Sahib -173025 Himachal Pradesh INDIA *Corresponding author: [email protected] Cont: +919450501471 Received 13 September 2011; accepted 20 September 2011 Abstract Bacteria are the main and an important cause of food spoilage. They thrive where food and water are present and the temperature is suitable. To resist harm, some bacteria can form spores tough reproductive cells that are able to survive under adverse conditions, that can resist damage by heat as in cooking, by cold as in freezing and by chemicals such as disinfectants. Bacteria need four hours to adapt to the new environment. 30 spoiled food samples were collected form Paonta sahib and seven bacterial isolates viz. Bacillus, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, E.coli, Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, and Micrococcus were isolated and characterized on the basis of morphology and biochemical reactions. It was found that the Bacillus, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas were the dominating species in the spoilage of every categories of food material. In fruits, vegetables and meat Klebsiella was the most potent spoiling bacteria. In meat, milk and in fatty products Pseudomonas was found in most of the spoilages. Although Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Bacillus were dominant in spoilages E.coli, Staphylococcus and Micrococcus was also recovered from considerable categories of the spoiled sample. The bacteria especially gram negative, was key responsible for food spoilage. © 2011 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved Key words: Food spoilage, Bacteria, Gram negative, Klebsiella, milk, Lactobacillus. Introduction There is potential for a wide range of vegetables and fruits products to become contaminated with microorganisms. The range of microorganisms associated with outbreaks linked to fresh produce encompasses bacteria, viruses and parasites. The products of most concern are sprouted seeds and unpasteurized juices. Most of the reported outbreaks have been associated with bacterial contamination, particularly members of the Enterobacteriaceae. Of these, Salmonella and Escherichia coli in sprouted seeds and fruit juices are of particular concern. Outbreaks linked to protozoa e.g. Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Giardia etc have been associated more with fruits than with vegetables. Protozoa and viruses are most often associated with contaminated water or food handlers. Fruits and vegetables normally carry a non-pathogenic epiphytic microflora (Ray, 2004). There is rapid progress in the field of chemical detection technology; little of this technology appears to have found application in estimation of the remaining shelf life of foods and early detection of spoilage. Predictive microbiology aims to summaries the probable behavior of specific spoilage organisms and the progression of spoilage processes in foods. The quantitative knowledge generated in the field of predictive microbiology provides a sound basis for the rational development of devices with which to monitor loss of product shelf life during storage, distribution and retail sale. To predict remaining shelf life accurately it is necessary, however, to consider the microbial ecology of the food system (McMeekin et al., 1996). A Bacillus strain was isolated from spoiled apple juice. This strain was acidophilic with a growth range between pH 2.5 and 5.5. Lipid analysis demonstrated the occurrence of omega Available online at http://www.urpjournals.com International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

Transcript of International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied ... · PDF file22 International Journal...

22 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

Original Article

Isolation and Characterization of Microorganisms Responsible for Different Types of

Food Spoilages

Ashok Kumar1*

, Varun Bhushan1, Shikha Verma

1, Gaurav Srivastav

2 and Sushil Kumar

3

1 Department of Biotechnology, Himachal Institute of Life Sciences Rampurghat Road, Paonta Sahib -173025 Himachal Pradesh INDIA 2Research Scholar Biotechnology, Uttarakhand Technical University, Suddhowala, Dehradun-248002 Uttarakhand INDIA

3Department of Microbiology, Himachal Institute of Life Sciences Rampurghat Road, Paonta Sahib -173025 Himachal Pradesh INDIA

*Corresponding author: [email protected] Cont: +919450501471

Received 13 September 2011; accepted 20 September 2011 Abstract

Bacteria are the main and an important cause of food spoilage. They thrive where food and water are present and the

temperature is suitable. To resist harm, some bacteria can form spores tough reproductive cells that are able to survive under

adverse conditions, that can resist damage by heat as in cooking, by cold as in freezing and by chemicals such as disinfectants.

Bacteria need four hours to adapt to the new environment. 30 spoiled food samples were collected form Paonta sahib and seven

bacterial isolates viz. Bacillus, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas, E.coli, Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, and Micrococcus were isolated and characterized on the basis of morphology and biochemical reactions. It was found that the Bacillus, Klebsiella and

Pseudomonas were the dominating species in the spoilage of every categories of food material. In fruits, vegetables and meat

Klebsiella was the most potent spoiling bacteria. In meat, milk and in fatty products Pseudomonas was found in most of the

spoilages. Although Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Bacillus were dominant in spoilages E.coli, Staphylococcus and

Micrococcus was also recovered from considerable categories of the spoiled sample. The bacteria especially gram negative,

was key responsible for food spoilage.

© 2011 Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

Key words: Food spoilage, Bacteria, Gram negative, Klebsiella, milk, Lactobacillus.

Introduction

There is potential for a wide range of vegetables and fruits

products to become contaminated with microorganisms. The

range of microorganisms associated with outbreaks linked to

fresh produce encompasses bacteria, viruses and parasites.

The products of most concern are sprouted seeds and

unpasteurized juices. Most of the reported outbreaks have

been associated with bacterial contamination, particularly

members of the Enterobacteriaceae. Of these, Salmonella

and Escherichia coli in sprouted seeds and fruit juices are of

particular concern. Outbreaks linked to protozoa e.g.

Cryptosporidium, Cyclospora, Giardia etc have been

associated more with fruits than with vegetables. Protozoa and viruses are most often associated with contaminated

water or food handlers. Fruits and vegetables normally carry

a non-pathogenic epiphytic microflora (Ray, 2004).

There is rapid progress in the field of chemical detection

technology; little of this technology appears to have found application in estimation of the remaining shelf life of foods

and early detection of spoilage. Predictive microbiology aims

to summaries the probable behavior of specific spoilage

organisms and the progression of spoilage processes in foods.

The quantitative knowledge generated in the field of

predictive microbiology provides a sound basis for the

rational development of devices with which to monitor loss

of product shelf life during storage, distribution and retail

sale. To predict remaining shelf life accurately it is necessary,

however, to consider the microbial ecology of the food

system (McMeekin et al., 1996).

A Bacillus strain was isolated from spoiled apple juice. This

strain was acidophilic with a growth range between pH 2.5

and 5.5. Lipid analysis demonstrated the occurrence of omega

Available online at http://www.urpjournals.com

International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology

Universal Research Publications. All rights reserved

23 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

cyclohexane fatty acids and hopanoids. As these cell

constituents have among bacilli been found only in Bacillus

acidocaldarius strains, isolated microorganism seems to be

related to this species. The organism could be a threat to fruit

juices during storage at elevated temperatures, greater than or

equal to 26˚C because its spores were able to survive pasteurization conditions (Cerny et al., 1984). Species most

commonly implicated in fruit and fruit product disintegration

are Byssochlamy sfulva, Byssochlamys nivea, Neosartorya

fischeri, Talaromyces flavus and Eupenicillium brefeldianum.

They can survive heat treatments used for fruit processing

and can grow and spoil the products during storage at room

temperature, which results in great economic losses. Besides

spoilage, the heat-resistant molds produce a number of toxic

secondary metabolites, such as byssotoxin A; byssochlamic

acid; the carcinogen, patulin, the tremorgenic substances,

fumitremorgin A and C, and verruculogen; fischerin, which

caused fatal peritonitis in mice; and eupenifeldin, a compound possessing cytotoxicity as well as in vivo

antitumor activity (Tournas., 1994).

Strain A. acidoterrestris was identified as the causative agent

in spoilage of commercially pasteurized apple juice.

Alicyclobacillus sp. is soil borne bacteria, and do not strictly

require thermophilic and acidic environments.

Alicyclobacillus sp. possesses several distinct characteristics;

the major one is their ability to survive commercial

pasteurization processes and produce off-flavours in fruit

juices. Guaiacol and halophenols were identified as the offensive smelling agent in many Alicyclobacillus sp. related

spoilage. The Alicyclobacillus sp was identified as potential

spoilage bacteria in fruit juices (Chang et al., 2004).

Spoilage of milk products by Pseudomonas fragi is

characterized by the production of a strawberry like odour.

Ethyl esters of butyric, hexanoic, and 3-methylbutanoic acid

were shown to be the major contributors to the odour on the

basis of their relative concentration in the headspace

(Cormier et al., 1991). Proteolysis during storage of ultra high

temperature skim and whole milks processed by either direct or indirect systems has been studied. All the proteolysis

indices determined increased activities of both native milk

proteinase and proteinases of bacterial origin were observed

in skim ultra high temperature milks. The different behavior

of ultra high temperature skim and whole milks on storage

would have to be taken into account in establishing the

process conditions (Lopez et al., 1993). Proteolysis of milk

proteins is attributed to both native proteases and the

proteases produced by psychrotrophic bacteria during storage

of fresh raw milk. These proteases cause beneficial or

detrimental changes, depending on the specific milk product.

Plasmin, the major native protease in milk, is important for cheese ripening. A microbial protease from a psychrotrophic

microorganism can indirectly increase plasmin levels in the

casein curd. This relationship between the plasmin system

and microbial proteases in milk provides a means to control

levels of plasmin to benefit the quality of dairy products

(Nielsen, 2002).

The reason for the reported difference in spoilage behaviour

of skim and whole pasteurized milks was investigated. The rates of growth of psychrotrophic bacteria were not

significantly different in the two milks and the bacterial

types, all Pseudomonads, present at spoilage were also

similar. However, when representative spoilage organisms

were cultured into freshly pasteurized skim and whole milks,

skim milks exhibited predominantly bitter flavours while

whole milk showed mostly sour flavours. The different

spoilage behaviors can be largely explained by greater

proteolysis in skim milk than in whole milk, caused by higher

production of protease and greater susceptibility of the

protein to protease attack (Deeth et al., 2002).

Material and Methods:

1. Sample collection The samples were collected from the local market of Paonta

Sahib (Fig. 1). The sample collection was performed

according to standard method given by APHA 1998. The

sample names were coded for simplicity on the basis of their

types. The codes with their name are listed in table 1.

Fig. 1 Location Paonta Sahib in HP

2. Bacteriological Analysis: Bacteriological analysis was done by selective media method

by Presscott, 2002 and Sherman, 2005.

3. Morphological Characterization

The isolated microbes were characterized on the basis of

simple staining and gram staining (Holt et al., 1994;

Sherman, 2005).

4. Biochemical Characterization

The isolates were characterized by biochemical tests viz.

IMViC reactions i.e. indole test, Methyl Red test, Voges

Proskauer test and Citrate utilization test, Nitrate Reduction

24 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

Table 1: Sample Type and their codes

S No Sample Type Sample Code

1 Apple S1

2 Mango S2

3 Orange S3

4 Sugar cane S4

5 Pomegranate S5

6 Papaya S6

7 Litchi S7

8 Lady finger S8

9 Pumpkin S9

10 Guard S10

11 Bingil S11

12 Capsicum S12

13 Karella S13

14 Cucumber S14

15 Tomato S15

16 Egg S16

17 Fish S17

18 Pork S18

19 Hegot S19

10 Chicken S20

21 Milk S21

22 Cheese S22

23 Curd S23

24 Ice-cream S24

25 Ghee S25

26 Butter S26

27 Milk cream S27

28 Kneeled wheat S28

29 Bread S29

30 Honey S30

test, Lactose, Sucrose, Dextrose fermentation Reaction test by

standard method given by Sherman, 2005 and Holt et al.,

1994.

Results and Discussion

Bacteria can cause fruits and vegetables to get mushy or

slimy, or meat to develop a bad odor. There are different

spoilage bacteria which grow well at room temperature. The

large number of microorganisms and their waste products

cause the objectionable changes in odor, taste and texture. In

the present study different samples of spoiled food were

collected from the market of Paonta sahib.

Morphological Characterization

The seventy three isolates were recovered from the thirty samples of the various categories of food. The recovered

isolate were characterized on the basis of colour, shape,

texture, margin, arrangement and staining characteristics

(Table 2).

Seventy three isolates were characterized on the basis of

colony morphology and the staining characteristics. It was

observed that thirty-nine isolates were gram (-ve) rods, twenty-five isolates was gram (+ve) rods and nine isolates

was gram (+ve) cocci (Fig 2).

Biochemical Characterization The seventy three isolates were characterized on the basis of

biochemical tests (Table 3). The tests performed to

characterize the isolates were Indole, MR, VP, citrate

utilization, nitrate reduction, fructose, sucrose and dextrose

fermentation (Sherman, 2009).

In the present study, the thirty spoiled samples of various

categories of food such as fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and milk products, ghee, butter, milk cream, kneeled wheat, bread

and honey were collected from the local market of Paonta

sahib. The seventy three isolates were characterized on the

basis of biochemical identification (Sherman, 2009). The

result obtained from the data shows that the bacteria found in

spoiled samples was Bacillus, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas,

E.coli, Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, Micrococcus and there

prevalence was 18%, 15%, 14%, 10%, 7%, 5%, 4%

respectively (Fig. 3). Klebsiella pneumonia is a potent

enteroinvasive food borne pathogen and causes serious illness

(Sabota et al., 1998).

In order to understand the prevalence of bacteria for different

categories of food individual study of different categories was

carried out. Sixteen isolates was recovered from the seven

samples of fruits. The bacteria found to spoil the fruits were

identified as Klebsiella, Bacillus, E.coli, Staphylococcus,

Pseudomonas, Lactobacillus and there prevalence was

31.25%, 25%, 18.75%, 12.5%, 6.25% and 6.25% respectively

(Fig. 4). A Bacillus strain was isolated from spoiled apple

juice. This strain was acidophilic with a growth range

between pH 2.5 and 5.5. This organism could be a threat to fruit juices during storage at temperatures greater than or

equal to 26°C because its spores were able to survive

pasteurization condition (Cerny et al., 1984). Lactobacillus

fermentum and Lactobacillus plantarum are the heat resistant

lactic acid bacteria obtained from spoiled acidified fruits

(Shearer et al., 2002).

Among the vegetable eight samples was collected and

twenty-one isolates were recovered from them. The bacteria

found to spoil the vegetables were identified as Klebsiella,

Bacillus, E.coli, Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas and there

prevalence in vegetable sample was found to be 33.33%, 23.80%, 14.28%, 14.28%, 14.28% respectively (Fig. 5).

Pseudomona and Klebsiella are responsible for spoilage even

in frozen vegetables (Manani et al., 2006).

25 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

Table 2: Morphological Characterization of Recovered Isolates

S.

No.

Sample

code

Isolate

code

Colony Morphology Simple

staining

Gram Staining Suspects

1 S1 S 1I1 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

2 S1 S1I2 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Klebsiella, E.coli,

3 S2 S2I1 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Klebsiella, E.coli,

4 S2 S2I2 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

5 S3 S3I1 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

6 S3 S3I2 Slimy, White, Somewhat translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Klebsiella, E.coli,

7 S4 S4I1 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

8 S4 S4I2 Abundant, Opaque, golden growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Staphylo-coccus,

Micrococcus

9 S5 S5I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

10 S5 S5I2 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

11 S6 S6I1 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

12 S6 S6I2 Abundant, Opaque, golden growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Staphylo-coccus,

Micrococcus

13 S6 S6I3 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

14 S7 S7I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

15 S7 S7I2 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

16 S7 S7I3 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

17 S8 S8I1 Slimy, White, Somewhat translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

18 S8 S8I2 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

19 S9 S9I1 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

20 S9 S9I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

21 S10 S10I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

22 S10 S10I2 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

23 S11 S11I1 Slimy, White, Somewhat

translucent, raised growth

Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

24 S11 S11I2 Abundant, Opaque, golden growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Staphylo-coccus,

Micrococcus

25 S12 S12I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

26 S12 S12I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

27 S12 S12I3 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

28 S13 S13I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

29 S13 S13I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

26 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

30 S13 S13I3 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

31 S14 S14I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

32 S14 S14I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

33 S14 S14I3 Abundant, Opaque, golden growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Staphylo-coccus,

Micrococcus

34 S15 S15I1 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

35 S15 S15I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

36 S15 S15I3 Abundant, Opaque, golden growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Staphylo-coccus,

Micrococcus

37 S15 S15I4 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

38 S16 S16I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

39 S16 S16I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

40 S17 S17I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

41 S17 S17I2 Soft, smooth, yellow growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Micrococcus,

Staphylo-coccus,

42 S17 S17I3 Abundant, opaque, white waxy growth

Rods Gram(+ve), rods

Bacillus

43 S17 S17I4 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

44 S18 S18I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

45 S18 S18I2 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

46 S19 S19I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

47 S19 S19I2 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

48 S20 S20I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

49 S20 S20I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

50 S20 S20I3 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

51 S21 S21I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

52 S21 S21I2 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

53 S21 S21I3 Soft, smooth, yellow growth Cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Micrococcus

Staphylo-coccus,

54 S21 S21I4 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

55 S22 S22I1 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex colonies

Rods Gram(+ve), rods

Lactobacillus

56 S23 S23I1 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

57 S24 S24I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

27 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

58 S24 S24I2 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

59 S24 S24I3 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

60 S25 S25I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

61 S25 S25I2 Soft, smooth, yellow growth cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Micrococcus,

Staphylo-coccus

62 S26 S26I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

63 S26 S26I2 Soft, smooth, yellow growth cocci Gram(+ve)

cocci

Micrococcus,

Staphylococcus

64 S26 S26I3 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli ,Klebsiella

65 S27 S27I1 Abundant, thin, white growth with

medium turning green

Rods Gram(-ve), rods Pseudomonas

66 S27 S27I2 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

67 S27 S27I3 Abundant, opaque, white waxy growth

Rods Gram(+ve), rods

Bacillus

68 S28 S28I1 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

69 S28 S28I2 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

70 S29 S29I1 Abundant, opaque, white waxy growth

Rods Gram(+ve), rods

Bacillus

71 S30 S30I1 Small ,creamy, whitish, convex

colonies

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Lactobacillus

72 S30 S30I2 Abundant, opaque, white waxy

growth

Rods Gram(+ve),

rods

Bacillus

73 S30 S30I3 White, moist and glistening growth Rods Gram(-ve), rods E.coli, Klebsiella

Among the meat products thirteen isolates were recovered

from the five samples. The bacteria found to spoil the

vegetables were identified as Pseudomonas, Klebsiella,

Bacillus, E. coli, Micrococcus and there prevalence in

vegetable sample was found to be 38.46%, 23.07%, 23.07%,

7.69%, 7.69% respectively (Fig. 6). A study of the bacteria

associated with spoilage of fresh meat was carried out. The

flora causing spoilage of meat includes Bacillus subtilis,

Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Micrococcus

varians, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus

aureus. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most dominant of

the isolated species. It was able to utilize glucose as its

primary carbon source and grew faster than the other meat

spoilage organisms (Olajuyigbe et al., 2006).

Among the milk and milk products nine isolate were recovered from the four samples. The bacteria found to spoil

the milk were identified as Lactobacillus, Pseudomonas,

Bacillus, Micrococcus and there prevalence in milk samples

was found to be 44.44%, 22.22%, 22.22%, 11.11%

respectively (Fig. 7). Mesophilic Lactobacillus sp. is the

dominant organisms in mature Cheddar cheese (Jordan et al.,

2002). Species of the genus Lactobacillus are widespread in

nature and can be found on plants or material of plant origin,

in manure and man-made habitats such as sewage, in

fermenting or spoiling food and also in association with the

intestinal tracts and mucous membranes of man and many

28 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

Table 3: Biochemical Characterization of the Recovered Isolate

Isolate code Indole MR VP CU NR Lactose Sucrose Dextrose Identified bacteria

S 1I1 - - - - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S1I2 - + - + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S2I1 - - - + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S2I2 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli

S3I1 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S3I2 - + - + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S4I1 - - - - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S4I2 - + + - + A A A Staphylococcus sp.

S5I1 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli sp.

S5I2 - - + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S6I1 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S6I2 - + + - + A A A Staphylococcus sp.

S6I3 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S7I1 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli sp.

S7I2 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S7I3 - - - - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S8I1 - - + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S8I2 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli sp.

S9I1 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S9I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S10I1 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli

S10I2 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S11I1 - + - + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S11I2 - + - - + A A A Staphylococcus sp.

S12I1 + + - - + AG A- AG E.coli sp.

S12I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S12I3 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S13I1 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S13I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S13I3 - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S14I1 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S14I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S14I3 - + - - + A A A Staphylococcus sp.

S15I1 - + - + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S15I2 - - - - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S15I3 - + + - + A A A Staphylococcus sp.

S15I4 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S16I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S16I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S17I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S17I2 - - - - - - - - Micrococcus sp.

S17I3 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S17I4 + + - - + AG A- AG E.coli sp.

S18I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S18I2 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S19I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S19I2 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S20I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S20I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S20I3 - + + + + AG AG AG Klebsiella sp.

S21I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

29 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

S21I2 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S21I3 - - - - - - - - Micrococcus sp.

S21I4 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S22I1 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S23I1 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S24I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S24I2 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S24I3 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S25I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S25I2 - - - - - - - - Micrococcus sp.

S26I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S26I2 - - - - - - - - Micrococcus sp.

S26I3 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli sp.

S27I1 - - - + + - - - Pseudomonas sp.

S27I2 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S27I3 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S28I1 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S28I2 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli sp.

S29I1 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S30I1 - - - - + + + + Lactobacillus sp.

S30I2 - - + - + - A A Bacillus sp.

S30I3 + + - - + AG A AG E.coli

A= acid, G= gas, AG= acid, gas

30 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

animals (Chenoll et al., 2005). Lactobacilli from breast milk

could contribute to an anti-infective protection in neonates

and would be excellent candidates for the development of

infant probiotic products (Olivares et al., 2006). Degradation

of milk components through various enzymatic activities

associated with the contamination of dairy products by

Pseudomonas sp can reduce the shelf life of processed milk

(Cormier et al., 1991; Belgin et al., 2006).

On the basis of this observation it was estimated that the

bacteria causing spoilage in food product were Klebsiella,

E.coli, Bacillus, Lactobacillus, Pseudomonas, Micrococcus

and Staphylococcus.

Conclusion

From the present study it was concluded that seven

bacterial isolates viz. Bacillus, Klebsiella, Pseudomonas,

E.coli, Lactobacillus, Staphylococcus, Micrococcus was

isolated from the spoiled food samples. It was found that the

Bacillus, Klebsiella and Pseudomonas were the dominating species in the spoilage of every categories of food material.

In fruits, vegetables and meat Klebsiella was the most potent

spoiling bacteria. In meat, milk and in fatty products

Pseudomonas was found in most of the spoilages. Although

Klebsiella, Pseudomonas and Bacillus were dominant in

spoilages E.coli, Staphylococcus and Micrococcus was also

recovered from considerable categories of the spoiled sample.

Lactobacillus was recovered from the acidified spoilages as

well as from the milk spoilages. The strains of Lactobacillus

in fresh milk act as probiotic but in spoilages it is responsible

for the acid production and the sour taste and ranicity.

Acknowledgements:

Authors are thankful to Dr. Gaurav Gupta, Director Himachal

Institute of Life Sciences, Paonta Sahib (HP) INDIA for

providing the lab facility. The authors are also grateful to

Mrs. K.P. Rathoure for her technical support.

References

1. APHA (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of

Water and Wastewater, 18th Ed. American Public Health

Association, Washington, DC: 45-60.

2. Belgin D, Kathryn JB., (2006); Genetic Diversity and Spoilage Potentials among Pseudomonas spp. Isolated

from Fluid Milk Products and Dairy Processing Plants, J

Applied Microbiology., 101:72–79

3. Cerny G, Hennlich W, Poralla K., (1984); Spoilage of

fruit juice by bacilli: isolation and characterization of the

spoiling microorganisms. Z Lebensm Unters Forsch.,

179(3):224-227.

4. Chang SS, Kang D H., (2004); Spoilage of fruit juice by

bacilli: isolation and characterization of the spoiling

microorganisms, Crit Rev Microbiol., 30(2):55-74.

5. Chenoll E, Carmen Macián M, Aznar R.,(2005);

Lactobacillus rennini sp. isolated from rennin and associated with cheese spoilage, Int J of systematic and

evolutionary microbiology., 130(2):138-139.

6. Cormier, F., Raymond, Y., Champagne, CP., Morin, A.,

(1991); Analysis of Odor active volatiles from

Pseudomonas fragi grown in milk. Journal of

Agricultural Food Chemistry, 39:159-161.

7. Deeth HC, Khusniati T, Datta N, Wallace RB., (2002);

Spoilage patterns of skim and whole milks, J Dairy Res.,

69(2):227-41.

8. Holt, J.G, Krieg, N.R, Senath, P.H.A Staley, J.T and

Williams, S.T., (1994); Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology 9th Ed. Baltimore Md

Williams and Wilkins.

9. Jordan KN, Cogan TM., (2002); Heat resistance of

Lactobacillus spp. isolated from Cheddar cheese., Int J

Food Microbiol., 46(3):89-92.

10. López Fandiño R, Olano A, Corzo N, Ramos M., (1993);

Proteolysis during storage of UHT milk: differences

between whole and skim milk. J Dairy Res., Aug;

60(3):339-47.

11. McMeekin TA, Ross T., (1996); Shelf life prediction:

status and future possibilities. Int J Food Microbiol., 33(1):65-83.

12. Nielsen SS., (2002); Plasmin system and microbial

proteases in milk: characteristics, roles, and relationship.

J Agric Food Chem., 50(22):6628-34.

13. Olajuyigbe OO, Oluremi BB, Umaru DG., (2006);

Bacterial spoilage of fresh meat in some selected Lagos

markets. lfe Journal of Science., 8 (2): 193-198.

14. Olivares M, Díaz Ropero MP, Martín R, Rodríguez JM,

Xaus J., (2006); Antimicrobial potential of four

Lactobacillus strains isolated from breast milk. J Agric

Food Chem., 38(21):3128-3134.

15. Prescott LM, Harley JP, Klein DA., (2002); Microbiology, 5th Edi, McGraw-Hill, New York. Pp

1014.

31 International Journal of Research in Pure and Applied Microbiology 2011; 1(2): 22-31

16. Ray Bibek. (2004); Fundamental Food Microbiology.

Third edition. Londan: CRC Press.

17. Sabota JM, Hoppes WL, Ziegler JR, DuPont H,

Mathewson J, Rutecki GW., (1998); A new variant of

food poisoning: enteroinvasive Klebsiella pneumoniae

and Escherichia coli sepsis from a contaminated hamburger. Am J Gastroenterol., 93(1):118-119.

18. Shearer AE, Mazzotta AS, Chuyate R, Gombas DE.,

(2002); Heat resistance of juice spoilage

microorganisms. J Food Prot., 65(8):1271-1275.

19. Sherman N., Cappuccino J.G., (2005); Microbiology: a

laboratory manual. Sixth edition, ISBN 81(3):265-267.

20. Tournas V. 1994. Heat-resistant fungi of importance to the food and beverage industry. Crit Rev Microbiol

20(4):243-63.

Source of support: Nil; Conflict of interest: None declared