Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 20;11(19):2942.
doi: 10.3390/foods11192942.

Quantitative Risk Assessment of Susceptible and Ciprofloxacin-Resistant Salmonella from Retail Pork in Chiang Mai Province in Northern Thailand

Chaiwat Pulsrikarn  1 , Anusak Kedsin  2 , Parichart Boueroy  2 , Peechanika Chopjitt  2 , Rujirat Hatrongjit  3 , Piyarat Chansiripornchai  4 , Nipattra Suanpairintr  4   5 , Suphachai Nuanualsuwan  5   6
Affiliations

Quantitative Risk Assessment of Susceptible and Ciprofloxacin-Resistant Salmonella from Retail Pork in Chiang Mai Province in Northern Thailand

Chaiwat Pulsrikarn et al. Foods. .

Abstract

The adverse human health effects as a result of antimicrobial resistance have been recognized worldwide. Salmonella is a leading cause of foodborne illnesses while antimicrobial resistant (AMR) Salmonella has been isolated from foods of animal origin. The quantitative risk assessment (RA) as part of the guidelines for the risk analysis of foodborne antimicrobial resistance was issued by the Codex Alimentarius Commission more than a decade ago. However, only two risk assessments reported the human health effects of AMR Salmonella in dry-cured pork sausage and pork mince. Therefore, the objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the adverse health effects attributable to consuming retail pork contaminated with Salmonella using risk assessment models. The sampling frame covered pork at the fresh market (n = 100) and modern trade where pork is refrigerated (n = 50) in Chiang Mai province in northern Thailand. The predictive microbiology models were used in the steps where data were lacking. Susceptible and quinolone-resistant (QR) Salmonella were determined by antimicrobial susceptibility testing and the presence of AMR genes. The probability of mortality conditional to foodborne illness by susceptible Salmonella was modeled as the hazard characterization of susceptible and QR Salmonella. For QR Salmonella, the probabilistic prevalences from the fresh market and modern trade were 28.4 and 1.9%, respectively; the mean concentrations from the fresh market and modern trade were 346 and 0.02 colony forming units/g, respectively. The probability of illness (PI) and probability of mortality given illness (PMI) from QR Salmonella-contaminated pork at retails in Chiang Mai province were in the range of 2.2 × 10-8-3.1 × 10-4 and 3.9 × 10-10-5.4 × 10-6, respectively, while those from susceptible Salmonella contaminated-pork at retails were in the range 1.8 × 10-4-3.2 × 10-4 and 2.3 × 10-7-4.2 × 10-7, respectively. After 1000 iterations of Monte Carlo simulations of the risk assessment models, the annual mortality rates for QR salmonellosis simulated by the risk assessment models were in the range of 0-32, which is in line with the AMR adverse health effects previously reported. Therefore, the risk assessment models used in both exposure assessment and hazard characterization were applicable to evaluate the adverse health effects of AMR Salmonella spp. in Thailand.

Keywords: AMR; Salmonella; probabilistic models; quinolone; retail pork; risk assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Annual mortality cases from susceptible Salmonella-contaminated pork from the fresh market in Chiang Mai.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Annual mortality cases from QR Salmonella-contaminated pork from the fresh market in Chiang Mai.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Annual mortality cases from susceptible Salmonella-contaminated pork from the modern trade in Chiang Mai.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Snary E., McEwen S. Antimicrobial Resistance Risk Assessment. In: Guardabassi L., Jensen L.B., Kruse H., editors. Guide to Antimicrobial Use in Animals. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd.; Oxford, UK: 2008. pp. 27–43. - DOI
    1. Booton R.D., Meeyai A., Alhusein N., Buller H., Feil E., Lambert H., Mongkolsuk S., Pitchforth E., Reyher K.K., Sakcamduang W., et al. One Health drivers of antibacterial resistance: Quantifying the relative impacts of human, animal and environmental use and transmission. One Health. 2021;12:8. doi: 10.1016/j.onehlt.2021.100220. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Phumart P., Phodha T., Thamlikitkul V., Riewpaiboon A., Prakongsai P., Limwattananon S. Health and economic impacts of antimicrobial resistant infections in Thailand: A Preliminary Study. J. Health Syst. Res. 2012;6:360.
    1. Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance (CXG 77-2011) FAO; Rome, Italy: 2011. p. 28.
    1. FAO. WHO . Principles and Guidelines for the Conduct of Microbiological Risk Assessment (CAC/GL-30) 2nd ed. FAO; Rome, Italy: WHO; Geneva, Switzerland: 1999. p. 10.