• EI
  • Scopus
  • 食品科学与工程领域高质量科技期刊分级目录第一方阵T1
  • DOAJ
  • EBSCO
  • 北大核心期刊
  • 中国核心学术期刊RCCSE
  • JST China
  • FSTA
  • 中国精品科技期刊
  • 中国农业核心期刊
  • CA
  • WJCI
  • 中国科技核心期刊CSTPCD
  • 中国生物医学SinoMed
中国精品科技期刊2020
微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较[J]. 食品工业科技, 1999, (06): 54-56. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.1999.06.082
引用本文: 微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较[J]. 食品工业科技, 1999, (06): 54-56. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.1999.06.082
微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 1999, (06): 54-56. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.1999.06.082
Citation: 微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较[J]. Science and Technology of Food Industry, 1999, (06): 54-56. DOI: 10.13386/j.issn1002-0306.1999.06.082

微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较

微生物检测国标法和滤膜法的比较

  • 摘要: 主要针对中华人民共和国国家标准GB4789.1- 94 食品卫生检验方法微生物学部分的微生物检测标准方法与目前国外普遍使用的滤膜微生物检测法从准确度、检测时间、成本等几个方面进行比较,并得出如下结论:就准确度而言,在相同的实验条件下,两种检测方法对于细菌总数、酵母菌、霉菌、大肠菌群的检测结果无区别;从检测时间来看,无论操作还是培养滤膜法都比国标法节约时间;滤膜法的成本要略高于国标法。此外,滤膜法还具备某些独特的优越性。 

     

    Abstract: Two detective methods in food microbiology have been compared in this paper.One is the national standardization method of food hygiene (GB 4789.1-94) , the part of microbiology detection, the other is the membrane filter technique, which is widely used in foreign countries.The comparisons include the accuracy, the time and the cost in the detection of total bacteria;E.coli;mould;saccharomyate.The conclusions are as follows:the detective result of the two methods has no difference at the accuracy, and the later takes less time in the operation as well as culture.The cost of the later is higher than the former relatively.Additionally, the later has more unique advantages.

     

/

返回文章
返回