%0 Journal Article
%T Microbiological Contamination of Fresh Chicken Meat in the Retail Stores
%A Karahmet Enver
%A Isakovi£¿ Senita
%A Operta Sabina
%A Hamidovi£¿ Saud
%A Toroman Almir
%A £¿ulan£¿i£¿ Nermina
%A Muhamedagi£¿ Samir
%J Food and Nutrition Sciences
%P 64-72
%@ 2157-9458
%D 2021
%I Scientific Research Publishing
%R 10.4236/fns.2021.121006
%X The aim of this study was to assess the hygienic properties of swabs
taken from the arm and coat of workers, work surfaces, refrigerated display
cases, trays and packaging materials. As well as the safe properties of samples
of fresh chicken meat (wing, drumstick, chest) and chicken internal organs
(heart and liver) from two butcheries. One of the goals was to determine
whether education on hygienic conditions was carried out, influenced the hygienic
condition of swabs and safety samples of fresh chicken meat offal. The results
of the analysis showed that on the first day of sampling, the largest number of <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">bacteria</span></i></span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> were found in the swabs of the arm (butcher A-8.15 ¡Á 10</span><sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">2</span></sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> CFU/ml),
butcher (B-17.88 ¡Á 10</span><sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">2</span></sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> CFU/ml) and the smallest in the packaging
material (0.03 ¡Á 10</span><sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">2</span></sup><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> CFU/ml). Comparing the results of the first and
thirtieth sampling day was </span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">a </span></span></span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">visible decreas</span></span></span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">e</span></span></span><span><span><span style=\"font-family:;\" \"=\"\"><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> in the number of </span><i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">bacteria</span></i></span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> and </span><i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">Enterobacteriaceae</span></i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> for all
examined swabs from both butchers. In the samples of fresh chicken meat, the
number of </span><i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">aerobic</span></i><span> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">mesophilic</span></i> <i><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\">bacteria</span></i></span><span style=\"font-family:Verdana;\"> during the
%K Fresh Chicken Meat
%K Contamination
%K Butcher
%K Swabs
%K Meat Samples
%K Microbiological Analysis
%U http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=106847