Question: What is the optimal processing time for food samples in the Pulsifier®?

Answer: Both our in- house and independent trials have demonstrated that the superior action of the Pulsifier® can yield recovery rates of bacteria equivalent to paddle type processors within 15 seconds. Processing for londer periods does not improve counts. The added benefit of this short processing time is that in these trials their was a zero incidence of bag breakages.

Question: If I use the PulsifierTM, do I need to continue using processing bags with filters?

Answer: The unique action of the Pulsifier® virtually eliminates the need for bags containing filter units. Even with very soft foods, the nature of the pulsificate is such that it should be more easily pipetted and filtered than with the suspension produced using a paddle type processor.

MICROGENTM Salmonella

Question: Can the Microscreen® Salmonella be used to screen faecal enrichment broth media for Salmonella spp.

Answer: Although we cannot support this with our own data, some customers have successfully employed this application for the Microscreen® Salmonella . Depending on the broth medium employed, the Microscreen® Salmonella may be used to screen these broths as an alternative to sub culture and the examination of additional colonies. This procedure has been shown to be able to detect all positive broths containing Salmonella spp. with approximately 7% of all negative broths giving some sign of agglutination and thus requiring subculture. The use of this method can significantly reduce the cost of processing negative samples.

This must be validated for the type and brand of media being used to ensure optimal performance.

MICROGENTM GNA ID

Question: I have an identification code of 7702, when I examine this code using the MID Identification Software, all choices give are Salmonella spp. all choices have high liklihoods (100%) and Probabilities (1/1). The identification comments all indicate “Poor Identification”. How do I interpret these results?

Answer: These results indicate that each of these choices is highly likely. The reason for the comment of “Poor Identification” lies in the fact that the percentage probabilities of each of the choices given are all low and close (24%, 25%, 28% and 15%). These Percent Probabilities indicate that there is very little to differentiate between the choices give and hence the identifications are deemed to be “Poor”. In reality the identification of this isolate as Salmonella spp. based on the biochemical reactions is an acceptable identification. Each choice has a very high probability, a very high likelihood and all isolates proposed arer of the same genus. To further differentiate these choices, additional biochemical tests and Salmonella Serology would be required.