Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Sol Schvartzman

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
TABLE 2. Estimated coefficients obtained from the logistic regression analysis

Table 2 Estimated coefficients obtained from the logistic regression analysis

Related Figures (6)

No. of cheeses showing growth/total no. tested, with a,, of:
No. of cheeses showing growth/total no. tested, with a,, of:
‘ Values for ay are averages (+standard deviations). NC, no coagulation: no experiment was possible because coagulation of the milk did not occur under these conditions. —, no experiment was carried out under these conditions. ’ No growth occurred in all six replicates with high contamination levels; therefore, 100% no growth with low contamination levels was assumed. * Growth occurred in all six replicates with low contamination levels; therefore, 100% growth with high contamination levels was assumed.
‘ Values for ay are averages (+standard deviations). NC, no coagulation: no experiment was possible because coagulation of the milk did not occur under these conditions. —, no experiment was carried out under these conditions. ’ No growth occurred in all six replicates with high contamination levels; therefore, 100% no growth with low contamination levels was assumed. * Growth occurred in all six replicates with low contamination levels; therefore, 100% growth with high contamination levels was assumed.
FIGURE 1. Effect of a, on the observed log change in L. monocytogenes cell numbers at (A) low contamination level and (B) high contamination level.
FIGURE 1. Effect of a, on the observed log change in L. monocytogenes cell numbers at (A) low contamination level and (B) high contamination level.
FIGURE 3. Predicted probability of growth of L. monocytogenes as affected by water activity at pH 65 ( ), O.1 (s-nnrene ), 5.9 (~——), and 5.6 (—--—) at contamination level of 1 log CFU/gdw. The apparent increase in probability of growth initiation below an a,, of 0.95 could be an artifact due to a lack of data points at those conditions: no curd separation occurred under these conditions.
FIGURE 3. Predicted probability of growth of L. monocytogenes as affected by water activity at pH 65 ( ), O.1 (s-nnrene ), 5.9 (~——), and 5.6 (—--—) at contamination level of 1 log CFU/gdw. The apparent increase in probability of growth initiation below an a,, of 0.95 could be an artifact due to a lack of data points at those conditions: no curd separation occurred under these conditions.
FIGURE 2. Predicted probability of growth of L. monocytogenes as affected by water activity at contamination levels of 0.6 ( ), 2 (------- ), and 3 (~——) log CFU/gdw and pH 6.5. “ Pr, probability. » NS, not significant.
FIGURE 2. Predicted probability of growth of L. monocytogenes as affected by water activity at contamination levels of 0.6 ( ), 2 (------- ), and 3 (~——) log CFU/gdw and pH 6.5. “ Pr, probability. » NS, not significant.
FIGURE 4. Comparison of the ComBase Modelling Toolbox predictions (QO) and observed data on amount of growth (®@) against ay (A) and pH (B).
FIGURE 4. Comparison of the ComBase Modelling Toolbox predictions (QO) and observed data on amount of growth (®@) against ay (A) and pH (B).
Related topics:
Food ScienceBiologyMedicinePulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE)Food ContaminationHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationCheese MicrobiologyWater Metabolismfood handling
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved