Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Gut Pathogens 1/2018

Open Access 01.12.2018 | Review

The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in vegetables, fruits, and fresh produce: a systematic review and meta-analysis

verfasst von: Hooriyeh Mohammadpour, Enayat Berizi, Saeid Hosseinzadeh, Majid Majlesi, Morteza Zare

Erschienen in: Gut Pathogens | Ausgabe 1/2018

Abstract

There are a number of reports indicating correlation between outbreaks of campylobacteriosis and the consumption of raw vegetables. This study is a meta-analysis on the prevalence of Campylobacter in fresh vegetables and fruits without any location limitation, which was performed through a documented review of the available resources. Relevant literature was reviewed by trained reviewers, who examined the results for the inclusion of articles in the meta-analysis. The prevalence of Campylobacter in raw vegetables, the sample source, the Campylobacter species, and the method of detection were extracted. The prevalence of Campylobacter in vegetables, fruits, and fresh produce were estimated to be 0.53%. Analysis of the various sample groups initially showed that the bean and sprouts group was the vegetable with the highest prevalence of Campylobacter (11.08%). The rate of contamination was higher when both the molecular and conventional methods were employed. The highest prevalence of Campylobacter was found in Asia (33.4%). Despite the low prevalence, consumption of raw vegetables is inherently risky because no treatment is used to inactivate the pathogens. Therefore, proper sanitation methods are recommended to treat the raw products.

Background

In recent years, it is emphasized that consuming the organic food is associated with a healthier lifestyle. Thus, new food consumption trends indicate that people are interested in freshly produced organic foods. Among them, the consumption of fresh cut or minimally-processed fruit and vegetables have undergone a sharp increase. Such trends have been reflected in an increase in the popularity of salad bars in many countries [13]. In terms of retail, vegetables can be sold intact or minimally processed to provide a ready-to-eat product and can be contaminated at any point in the chain, starting from the farm to the plate. As they are not subjected to any treatment to eliminate pathogens, a diverse range of human enteric pathogens can contaminate them. There are a number of reports showed the correlation between foodborne illness outbreaks and the consumption of raw vegetables, annually [4, 5]. Several bacterial pathogens have been implicated in foodborne illnesses associated with the consumption of raw vegetables, such as Salmonella spp., thermo-tolerant Campylobacter, Listeria monocytogenes, and certain enteric viruses [6]. These may contaminate vegetables during any stage of production. The yearly average frequency of foodborne outbreaks linked with fresh produce contamination between 2002 and 2012 was reported by Wadamori et al. [7] with the prevalence of 57% (USA), 8% (Japan), and 6% (New Zealand). Infection by Campylobacter spp., specifically Campylobacter jejuni and Campylobacter coli, are the major cause of the mild bacterial diarrhea disease in the world [8]. Campylobacter spp. is estimated as the third most common bacterial cause of foodborne illness, but relatively few outbreaks have been detected [5]. Studies in high-income countries have estimated the annual incidence between 4.4 and 9.3 per 1000 population. While, the disease is usually self-limiting within 3–7 days, an acute infection can have serious long-term consequences, including severe neurological dysfunctions, such as Guillain–Barré syndrome (GBS) and Miller Fisher syndrome (MFS), and functional bowel diseases, such as irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) [9]. In 2013, the overall national incidence of campylobacteriosis infections per 100,000 population was estimated to be 6.621, which led to 1010 hospitalizations and 12 death [10]. In 2011, the Euro surveillance editorial team reported that out of a total of 5048 outbreaks of foodborne diseases, Campylobacter was responsible for 220,209 cases which occurred in the European Union (EU) [11]. It has been estimated that 75% [12] and 82% [13] of Campylobacter disease in Australia was associated with food. Most fruits and many vegetables are typically consumed raw and may also be as an important vehicle for Campylobacter spp. It is essential to assess Campylobacter as a relevant microbial risk for raw vegetables, fruits and minimally processed packaged salads, because can be pail of the indigenous microflora of fresh produce. A number of reports refer to fresh produce harboring potential foodborne pathogens. Lettuce and spinach are described in the international literature as the main vegetable sources of human infection by Campylobacter spp. [1, 16, 25, 26]. An increased interest in the campylobacteriosis risk assessment of raw vegetables is driven by several outbreaks of infections caused by consumption of fresh produce, such as leafy vegetables and salads [14], lettuce [15], and sprout and cabbage [16]. Studies have revealed that travelling to Asia, Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Southern Europe significantly increased the risk of acquiring campylobacteriosis as compared to travelling within Western Europe [1719]. Between 2004 and 2012, total of seven and three outbreaks of campylobacteriosis associated with the consumption of fresh vegetables have occurred in the United States and Europe, respectively [20]. Studies such as Evans et al. [21]; Mellou et al. [22] and Danis et al. [3] reported that fresh vegetables and fruits could be considered as risk factors for Campylobacter infection.
Role of fresh vegetable as a risk factor in campylobacteriosis, was previously addressed. Previous studies reported different prevalence of infection in assorted fresh vegetables. Present systematic review and meta-analysis study was aimed to focus on the more precise prevalence of infection. Therefore our study will be useful to find out the role of each vegetable to cause the infection.

Methods

Search strategy

A comprehensive scientific search on the presence of Campylobacter spp. in freshly produced food was carried out in three valid electronic global databases: PubMed, Scopus, and Science Direct using the same keywords. The search was performed through systematic research from the year 1990 till 2017. Keywords used to filter through the databases were: Campylobacter, vegetable, lettuce, spinach, leafy vegetable, sprout, fruits, salad, rocket, onion, carrot, cilantro, tomato, cucumber, broccoli, cabbage, cantaloupe, parsley, arugula, pepper, blueberry, strawberry, apple, peach, and melon. Articles containing any of these keywords in their abstracts or titles were included. A total of 135 articles were finally selected.

Study selection

After screening these relevant abstracts, 80 articles were selected. Articles that did not use the English language in the main text, review articles, and book chapters, as well as publications, related to the surveillance of case control study, risk factors, outbreaks of campylobacteriosis, genotyping, food handlers with their hygienic practices, and artificially contaminated samples were excluded from the study. Thereafter, full text screening of all the eligible primary studies was carried out from the databases. In case that full text of the articles were not available, they were finally excluded. To improve the reliability, our included articles was screened by two independent researchers.

Data extraction

Population of the study included vegetables, fruits, and freshly produced food investigated in each relevant primary study. Food that has been considered as fresh produces in this study are vegetables [fresh cut, organic, leafy, root crops, and ready-to-eat (RTE)], beans and sprouts, salad (mixed, gravy), and fruits (fresh cut, mixed, or fruit crops). Various samples were collected from restaurants, retail shops, farm, supermarkets, and ready-to-eat street-vended foods. Studies that apply any treatment, such as heat, pressure, irradiation, and bactericidal on fresh produce, and those found to report effects of cross-contamination were disregarded from the assay. Different kinds of salads and vegetables were categorized into a few subgroups.

Statistical analysis

All the data was analyzed using the Stata® 13.0 software (StataCorp LP., College Station, Texas, USA). Confidence interval of the prevalence rate of Campylobacter spp. in every study was calculated on the basis of binomial proportion formula. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the help of the I2 and Chi square test. For heterogeneity recognition, p < 0.05 and I square > 50%. Random-effects model was used to calculate the prevalence estimate after the heterogeneity test.

Results and discussion

Systematic review

Search results and selection of studies

Following research using electronic global databases, a list of titles and abstracts from all the articles provided by the researcher was evaluated independently based on the selected keywords and elimination of similar articles in order to determine and select related topics. From a total of 447 records, at least 301 studies selected as related articles. These articles were assessed by their titles; 115 articles were included. After screening of relevant abstracts, full text of 87 articles were obtained and assessed for eligibility. Out of these, 49 studies were excluded based on inclusion and exclusion criteria mentioned in the methodology. Considering all the requirements, at least 38 studies were finally included in the quantitative meta-analysis. Some studies related to basic scientific, quality, quantity, and methodologies were selected for additional assessment (Fig. 1). All the selected articles were classified based on total samples, prevalence, commodity, isolation method, and region, and were collected for the preparation of a check list by the researcher. Sample collections were grouped into seven categories: vegetables, RTE vegetables, leafy vegetables, root crops, salad, beans and sprouts, and fruit and evaluated using two dimensions of scientific principles and methodology accuracy.

Characteristics of studies and data extraction

The summary plan of this study has been presented in Table 1. Although in most studies the prevalence of Campylobacter was low, the highest prevalence of Campylobacter spp. was reported by Khalid et al. [16]. Out of the seven food categories, freshly produced food showed the highest prevalence, while the lowest rate of contamination was associated with the consumption of salads. Among Campylobacter species, C. jejuni has reflected the highest prevalence in targeted population, while only one study confirmed the isolation in lettuce. The major detection methods were included the selective culture, molecular, and a combination of culture/molecular techniques. The presence of pathogen was confirmed by of the selective culture method (n = 29). Thirty studies were performed to isolate different species of Campylobacter regardless of any limitation. This analysis revealed seven researches in Asia, three in Africa, nineteen in Europe, one in Oceania, two in South America, and six in North America.
Table 1
Information of included studies in the meta-analysis of prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in vegetables, fruits and fresh produces
References
Na
nb
P (%)
95% Cl
Cam.Sp
Sample
Method
Country
V (g)c
[1]
5
0
0
0–49.06
spp.
Arugula
Culture
Spain
25
 
18
0
0
0–20.95
spp.
Carrot
Culture
Spain
25
 
21
0
0
0–18.63
spp.
Corn salad
Culture
Spain
25
 
21
0
0
0–18.63
spp.
Endive
Culture
Spain
25
 
29
0
0
0–14.1
spp.
Lettuce
Culture
Spain
25
 
10
0
0
0–32.17
spp.
Spinach
Culture
Spain
25
 
15
0
0
0–21.28
spp.
Sprouts
Culture
Spain
25
 
132
0
0
0–3.37
spp.
Mixed salads
Culture
Spain
25
 
21
0
0
0–18.63
spp.
Fresh–cut fruit
Culture
Spain
25
 
28
0
0
0–14.63
spp.
Whole vegetables
Culture
Spain
25
[23]
40
0
0
0–9.75
spp.
Fresh vegetable
Culture
Austria
25
 
36
0
0
0–11.75
spp.
Mixed salad
Culture
Austria
25
[24]
128
0
0
0–3.58
spp.
Lettuce
Culture
Canada
25
 
59
0
0
0–7.37
spp.
Spinach
Culture
Canada
25
 
129
0
0
0–3.56
spp.
Green onions
Culture
Canada
25
 
206
0
0
0–2.26
spp.
Carrots
Culture
Canada
25
 
120
0
0
0–3.8
spp.
Tomatoes
Culture
Canada
25
 
31
0
0
0–13.38
spp.
Strawberry
Culture
Canada
25
[25]
40
2
5
0–11.75
jejuni
Lettuce
Molecular
Brazil
25
 
40
1
2.5
0–7.33
coli
Lettuce
Molecular
Brazil
25
 
40
0
0
0–10.62
spp.
Spinach
Molecular
Brazil
25
[26]
80
0
0
0–4.6
spp.
Strawberry
Culture/molecular
Belgium
25
 
241
8
3.3
1.7 –6.4
spp.
Leafy greens
Culture/molecular
Belgium
25
[8]
40
4
10
0.7–19.3
spp.
Yard long bean
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
39
18
46.1
31–61
spp.
Winged bean
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
41
23
56.09
41–71
spp.
Mung bean sprout
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
36
20
55.5
40–70
spp.
Vietnamese coriander
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
39
21
53.8
38–70
spp.
Japanese parsley
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
37
22
59.4
43–74
spp.
Indian pennywort
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
38
13
34.2
19–49
spp.
Wild cosmos
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
[27]
49
4
8.16
0–15.7
spp.
Vegetable from farm
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
[28]
27
0
0
0–14.3
jejuni
Vegetable
Culture
Vietnam
250
[29]
5170
0
0
0–0.09
spp.
Leafy vegetables
Culture
Canada
25
 
3696
0
0
0–0.13
spp.
Leafy herbs
Culture
Canada
25
[30]
400
2
0.5
0.0–1.2
jejuni
Grated vegetables
Culture/molecular
France
20
[31]
50
1
2
0.0–5.88
spp.
Parsley
Culture/molecular
Mexico
25
[32]
88
8
9
3.02–14.97
spp.
Lettuce
Culture
Belgium
25
[15]
48
4
8.3
0.5–16.1
spp.
Greenhouse lettuce
Culture
Belgium
25
 
40
4
10
0.7–19.3
spp.
Open field farm lettuce
Culture
Belgium
25
[33]
22
9
40.9
19.52–60.47
jejuni
Vegetable/fruit salads
Culture
Pakistan
10
[34]
80
0
0
0–5.5
spp.
Strawberry
Culture/molecular
Norway
10
[16]
61
22
36.06
24–48
jejuni
Winged bean
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
60
40
66.6
54–78
jejuni
Long yard bean
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
20
11
55
34–76
jejuni
Indian pennywort
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
47
20
42.5
28.4–56.6
jejuni
Japanese parsley
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
10
7
70
42–98
jejuni
Vietnamese coriander
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
23
12
52.2
31.6–72.4
jejuni
Cucumber
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
30
21
70
54–86
jejuni
Cabbage
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
10
8
80
56–104
jejuni
Mung bean sprout
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
 
70
50
71.4
70–81.9
jejuni
Wild cosmos
Culture/molecular
Malaysia
10
[35]
9
1
11.11
0–31.44
jejuni
Spinach
Culture
India
25
 
9
1
11.11
0–31.44
jejuni
Fenugreek
Culture
India
25
 
9
0
0
0–34.86
spp.
Cauliflower
Culture
India
25
 
9
0
0
0–34.86
spp.
Cabbage
Culture
India
25
 
10
0
0
0–32.48
spp.
Coriander
Culture
India
25
 
4
0
0
0–55
spp.
Raddish
Culture
India
25
 
6
0
0
0–44.79
spp.
Carrot
Culture
India
25
[36]
151
0
0
0–2.9
spp.
Lettuce
Culture
UK
25
[37]
1372
12
0.9
0.4–1.4
spp.
Fresh leafy vegetable
Culture/molecular
Italy
25
 
1160
6
0.5
0.1–0.9
spp.
Ready to Eat vegetable
Culture/molecular
Italy
25
[38]
86
0
0
0–5.23
spp.
Organic vegetable
Culture
North Ireland
25
[39]
42
0
0
0–10.16
spp.
RTE vegetables
Culture
Canada
100
[40]
1260
0
0
0–0.36
spp.
Fruit and vegetables
Culture
UK
25
 
224
0
0
0–2.07
spp.
Mixed salads
Culture
UK
25
 
226
0
0
0–2.05
spp.
Coleslaw (Salad)
Culture
UK
25
[41]
12
0
0
0–28.7
spp.
Salad
Culture
South Africa
25
[42]
22
0
0
0–17.78
jejuni
Salad/gravy prepared
Culture
South Africa
20
 
22
0
0
0–17.78
jejuni
Salad/gravy during holding
Culture
South Africa
20
 
22
0
0
0–17.78
jejuni
Salad/gravy raw materials
Culture
South Africa
20
[43]
65
0
0
0–6.85
spp.
RTU vegetables
Culture
Canada
25
 
296
0
0
0–1.47
spp.
RTU vegetable
Culture
Canada
25
[44]
183
2
1.09
0–2.4
spp.
Spinach
Culture
Canada
50
 
348
2
0.57
0–1.24
spp.
Lettuce
Culture
Canada
50
 
174
2
1.15
0.0–2.65
spp.
Radish
Culture
Canada
200
 
160
1
0.62
0–1.8
spp.
Green onion
Culture
Canada
50
 
177
1
0.56
0–1.54
spp.
Parsley
Culture
Canada
50
 
153
1
0.65
0.0–1.82
spp.
Potatoes
Culture
Canada
200
 
150
0
0
0.0–3.09
spp.
Celery
Culture
Canada
50
 
130
0
0
0.0–3.55
spp.
Cabbage
Culture
Canada
200
 
149
0
0
0–3.09
spp.
Carrot
Culture
Canada
200
 
123
0
0
0.0–3.61
spp.
Cucumber
Culture
Canada
200
 
482
14
2.9
1.5–4.5
spp.
Fresh vegetables
Culture
Canada
50/200
[45]
90
20
22.2
13.5–30.5
spp.
MAP mixed salad
Culture
UK
10
[46]
2870
0
0
0–0.165
spp.
RTE salads
Culture
UK
25
[47]
3852
0
0
0–0.122
spp.
RTE salad vegetables
Culture
UK
25
[48]
3200
0
0
0–0.148
spp.
RTE organic vegetables
Culture
UK
25
[49]
94
0
0
0–4.93
spp.
Chicken salad
Culture/molecular
UK
25
 
35
0
0
0–12
spp.
Ham salad
Culture/molecular
UK
25
 
12
0
0
0–28.7
spp.
Salmon salad
Culture/molecular
UK
25
[50]
28
0
0
0–14.6
jejuni
Vegetable
Culture
Malawi
10
[51]
40
0
0
0–10.6
spp.
Vegetable
Culture
United States
25
[52]
11
1
9.1
0–25.9
jejuni
Cucumber
Culture
Malaysia
25
 
9
0
0
0–34.8
jejuni
Lettuce
Culture
Malaysia
25
[53]
55
0
0
0–7.85
jejuni
Asparagus
Culture
New Zealand
50
 
55
0
0
0–7.85
jejuni
Mung bean sprouts
Culture
New Zealand
50
 
55
0
0
0–7.85
jejuni
Watercress
Culture
New Zealand
50
 
55
0
0
0–7.85
jejuni
Spinach
Culture
New Zealand
50
 
55
0
0
0–7.85
jejuni
Silver beet
Culture
New Zealand
50
[14]
1157
2
0.17
0.02–0.62
spp.
Fruit crops
Culture
Netherland
25
 
196
0
0
0–1.86
spp.
Root crops
Culture
Netherland
25
 
127
0
0
0–2.86
spp.
Cabbage
Culture
Netherland
25
 
8
0
0
0–36.94
spp.
Mushrooms
Culture
Netherland
25
 
42
0
0
0–8.41
spp.
Onions, garlic
Culture
Netherland
25
 
50
1
2
0.05–10.65
spp.
Stem and sprout crops
Culture
Netherland
25
 
2549
5
0.2
0.06–0.46
spp.
Mixed salads/vegetables
Culture
Netherland
25
 
159
1
0.6
0.02–3.45
spp.
Vegetable-fruit mix
Culture
Netherland
25
 
11
0
0
0–28.49
spp.
Fruit
Culture
Netherland
25
 
779
2
0.3
0.03–0.92
spp.
Mixed fruit
Culture
Netherland
25
 
562
2
0.36
0.04–1.28
spp.
Leafy vegetables
Culture
Netherland
25
[54]
217
2
0.9
0.0–2.2
jejuni
Mushrooms
Culture
Ireland
10
 
62
0
0
0–7.11
spp.
Vegetables/salad
Culture
Ireland
10
[55]
1810
3
0.22
0.06–0.48
spp.
Raw vegetable
Culture
Netherland
25
 
764
0
0
0–0.5
spp.
Vegetable
Culture
Netherland
25
 
1151
0
0
0–0.4
spp.
Vegetable
Culture
Netherland
25
a Number of samples, b Number of positive samples, c Sample volume

Meta-analysis results

Overall prevalence

The total prevalence of Campylobacter in vegetables, fruits, and fresh products was estimated at 0.53% (Fig. 2). The results showed a low occurrence of Campylobacter based on the reports of Losio and Verhoeff-Bakkenes, where the prevalence was less than one percent in vegetables and fruits [30, 37]. Lower rates of isolation were probably due to problems in the growth and recovery of microorganisms. Based on many scientific research reports, foods of animal origin, such as raw milk [56], turkey, chicken, beef, pork [57] and manure [58] were considered as the major sources of Campylobacter spp. Hence, it is likely that the occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in the targeted resource of this study was due to cross-contamination during growth, irrigation, harvest, transportation, and further processing and handling. Danis and Pintar both supported this hypothesis [3, 59].

Type of samples

All of the target samples included for this review have been listed in Table 2. Fresh produce, in particular fruit, does not receive any lethal treatment that kills all pathogens prior to consumption. Results related to the prevalence of pathogen in the different types of produce subgroups have been presented in Table 3. The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that, among the different group of samples, the beans and sprouts (11.08%) revealed the highest prevalence, followed by the vegetable, detected in 1.73% of samples from supermarkets, retails, and farm lands. The minimum prevalence of Campylobacter was belong to the salad and fruit, which estimated at around 0.02% and 0.20%, respectively. As shown in Table 2, the highest prevalence of Campylobacter was found in the Indian pennywort and wild cosmos. Fields on which livestock or wild animals have grazed are more likely to be contaminated with enteric pathogens. Factors, such as bacterial presence in livestock, companion animals, wild animals, insects, and the natural environment, including soil and surface waters, lack of good agricultural practices (GAP), and cross-contamination with manure, could be related to the presence of pathogens in these vegetables [60]. Also, high prevalence was found in beans and sprouts. Lots of outbreak reports throughout the world have been linked to the consumption of raw and lightly cooked sprouts [61, 62]. Sprout production involves a unique seed germination process that can support the growth of pathogens because its germination is ideal for bacterial proliferation [63]. Additional factors, such as nutritive value, root nature of sprout, cross-contamination by manure, and irritation might have influenced the microbial contamination of these products. When manure is spread on agricultural fields, it possibly goes into the surface water. Hence, along with weak good manufacturing practice (GMP) and GAP, the presence of environmental bacteria may occur in food. Low prevalence in salad vegetables (0.02%) and fruits (0.20%) may be due to the accurate and sufficient attention paid towards hygiene of salad commodities and also sensitivity to acidic conditions (pH < 5.0) for fruits. Human or animal sources, as well as handling in the stores, may also be associated with increasing the microorganisms at the surface of fresh produce. The low temperature and lack of nutrients at the surface of fruits cause a reduction in Enterobacteriaceae during storage. It can also be due to the breaking of the cold chain during shelf-life or handling by the shoppers. Therefore, it is not surprising to find Campylobacter on the surface of fresh produce [64].
Table 2
Meta-analysis of prevalence of Campylobacter in all of foods
Sourcea
Total inputsb
Total sample sizec
Overall prevalence (%)
95% confidence interval
I2 (%)
P for χ2
Pennywort
2
57
57.84
45.37–70.31
0.00
0.74
Wild cosmos
2
108
53.46
17.02–89.89
95.10
0.00
Coriander
3
56
41.00
0.00–83.65
93.60
0.00
Bean
4
200
39.47
13.81–65.13
94.70
0.00
Sprouts
5
171
23.68
6.68–40.68
95.60
0.00
Parsley
4
313
18.58
8.54–28.62
96.10
0.00
Cucumber
3
157
18.30
0.00–42.00
92.50
0.00
Fenugreek
1
9
11.11
0.00–26.83
Cabbage
4
296
10.42
2.38–18.45
95.90
0.00
Lettuce
10
921
1.53
0.12–2.94
54.00
0.02
Radish
2
178
1.14
0.00–2.47
0.00
0.93
Spinach
6
356
0.91
0.00–1.98
0.00
0.81
Mushroom
2
225
0.89
0.00–1.99
0.00
0.92
Potato
1
153
0.65
0.00–1.56
Fresh cut vegetables
2
421
0.50
0.00–1.10
Green Onion
2
289
0.49
0.00–1.29
0.00
0.54
Fruits
4
1968
0.21
0.00–0.45
0.00
0.97
RTE vegetables
5
4763
0.13
0.00–0.40
31.00
0.21
Vegetables
15
8535
0.12
0.00–0.28
38.40
0.06
Leafy vegetables
5
11,041
0.10
0.00–0.25
81.10
0.00
Salad
16
7692
0.02
0.00–0.26
63.50
0.00
Onion
1
42
0.00
0.00–4.20
Crops
1
196
0.00
0.00–0.93
Beet
1
55
0.00
0.00–3.92
Water cress
1
55
0.00
0.00–3.92
Asparagus
1
55
0.00
0.00–3.92
Celery
1
150
0.00
0.00–1.54
Cauliflower
1
9
0.00
0.00–17.43
Strawberry
3
191
0.00
0.00–1.70
0.00
1.00
Tomatoes
1
120
0.00
0.00–1.90
Endive
1
21
0.00
0.00–9.31
0.00
0.00
Arugula
2
60
0.00
0.00–24.53
0.00
0.00
Carrot
4
379
0.00
0.00–0.90
0.00
1.00
a Different type of fresh vegetables and fruits
b Number of distinctive prevalence values is reported
c Number of vegetable and fruit samples used to determine each estimate
Table 3
Prevalence of Campylobacter in subgroups of freshly produced foods
Sourcea
Total inputsb
Total sample sizec
Overall prevalence (%)
95% confidence interval
I2 (%)
P for χ2
Vegetables
Organic vegetable, asparagus, parsley, coriander, tomatoes, green onion, cucumber, endive, mushroom, arugula, cosmos, fenugreek, cauliflower, Celery
39
10,094
1.73
1.04–2.41
95.10
0.00
RTE vegetables
Fresh cut vegetables, RTU and RTE vegetables
3
1602
0.49
0.16–0.83
0.00
0.98
Leafy vegetables
Spinach, lettuce, cabbage, pennywort, water cress
29
12,726
0.49
0.17– 0.82
87.00
0.00
Root crops
Radish, potato, carrot, beet
9
961
0.34
0.00–0.82
0.00
0.93
Salad
MAP mixed salad, RTE salads, chicken salad, ham salad, salmon salad
16
7692
0.02
0.00–0.26
63.50
0.00
Bean and sprouts
Winged bean, long yard bean, sprouts, mung bean sprout
12
3932
11.08
7.82–14.33
96.20
0.00
Fruit
Fruits, strawberry, fruit salads
8
2168
0.20
0.00–0.45
0
1.00
aSample collections were grouped into seven categories: vegetables, RTE vegetables, leafy vegetables, root crops, salad, beans and sprouts, and fruit
bNumber of distinctive prevalence values is reported
cNumber of vegetable and fruit samples used to determine each estimate

Campylobacter species

Results of the statistical analysis also showed that the highest prevalence of Campylobacter was observed for C. jejuni, with a percentage of 18.20%, whereas other Campylobacter spp. had the minimum prevalence, with a percentage of 0.23% (Table 4). Actually, among different species, C. jejuni showed the highest prevalence [54, 65]. It is worth mentioning that the aim of majority of the papers assessed in this study was to consider no specific species of Campylobacter. The highest prevalence of Campylobacter was identified by molecular approaches. C. jejuni mainly resided in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals and birds, and, therefore, the excreta may act as a source of contamination. Isolation of C. jejuni from vegetables was possibly due to the fecal contamination of these commodities and water at any step of the production chain. However, contact with the utensils used to process raw chicken was also important as they were the main reservoirs of C. jejuni [66]. In developed countries, C. jejuni was the most frequent cause of acute diarrheal infections. An improvement in the survival of C. jejuni in soil and rhizosphere is possibly a substantial factor in the environmental cycle of bacteria [67].
Table 4
Prevalence values and sample sizes for Campylobacter species provided in Table 1
Speciesa
Total inputsb
Total sample sizec
Overall prevalence (%)
95% confidence interval
I2 (%)
P for χ2
Campylobacter spp.
86
37,682
0.23
0.11–0.35
77.8
0.000
Campylobacter jejuni
27
1444
18.20
13.63–22.77
97.2
0.000
Campylobacter coli
1
40
2.50
0.0–6.16
_
_
aDifferent species of Campylobacter
bNumber of distinctive prevalence values is reported
cNumber of vegetable and fruit samples used to determine each estimate

Methods of detection

Various isolation methods have been applied according to the literature. The results of the meta-analysis have shown on more than one method for better identification of the bacterium, and thus the estimated prevalence in this method was 21.52% (Table 5). Higher prevalence rates were reported using most probable number PCR (MPN-PCR) by Khalid et al. [16] and Chai et al. [8]. Additionally, there have been articles documenting the positive efficacy of this method for the isolation of food-borne pathogens in various food types. Norinaga et al. [68] compared two methods, MPN-PCR and MPN- thiosulfate citrate bile sucrose agar (MPN- TCBS agar), for the detection and enumeration of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in sea foods. The results showed that MPN-PCR was more convenient and reliable compared to MPN-TCBS, which was also supported by Luan et al. [69].
Table 5
Prevalence values and sample sizes for detection method of Campylobacter
Methoda
Total inputsb
Total sample sizec
Overall prevalence (%)
95% confidence interval
I2 (%)
P for χ2
Culture
85
34,922
0.06
0.01–0.12
23.7
0.03
Molecular
3
120
2.38
0.0–5.07
0.0
0.46
Culture/molecular
26
4124
21.52
18.60–24.44
97.9
0.000
aDifferent method of detection
bNumber of distinctive prevalence values is reported
cNumber of vegetable and fruit samples used to determine each estimate

Strength and weaknesses of this study

In few studies, the heterogeneity as high as 75%. This finding indicated a high proportion of heterogeneity to assess weighted mean between studies. Factors influencing variations that were not clarified in our study may have associated with this heterogeneity. This phenomenon is common for this kind of study due to limited number of published data. One of the limitations was due to English inclusion criteria, therefore other non-English reports were not included in our study. Data for most Oceania, Africa and South American countries were inadequate for analysis. As such, we were not able to estimate the prevalence of campylobacter in fresh vegetables among those countries.
The current systematic review and meta-analysis was the first study estimating the prevalence of Campylobacter in different kinds of fresh vegetables and fruits in various geographical areas. In addition the specific role of each species of bacteria was studied. The more applicable method of detection was also investigated.

Conclusion

As final conclusion it seems that in spite of general low prevalence of the Campylobacter contamination in vegetable and fruits and the high level of consumption of these products raises it total risk of infection. Food chain is increasing the risk of contamination by different routes, for instances, primary production (the most effective one), postharvest contamination during transportation, food processing steps, packaging, distribution and cross contamination in the retail market are among the health hazards. Therefore, employing proper sanitation techniques is highly recommended during all the steps of food preparation.

Authors’ contributions

EB: study design; review relevant articles, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting and finalizing the manuscript; study supervision. HM, MM and SH: review relevant articles, analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript. MZ: analysis and interpretation of data; drafting the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Not applicable.

Funding

This work was supported by Shiraz University of Medical Sciences (Grant No. 1396-01-106-15153).

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Jongen W. Improving the safety of fresh fruit and vegetables. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005. Jongen W. Improving the safety of fresh fruit and vegetables. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2005.
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Danis K, Di Renzi M, O’Neill W, Smyth B, McKeown P, Foley B, Tohani V, Devine M. Risk factors for sporadic Campylobacter infection: an all-Ireland case-control study. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(7):19123.PubMed Danis K, Di Renzi M, O’Neill W, Smyth B, McKeown P, Foley B, Tohani V, Devine M. Risk factors for sporadic Campylobacter infection: an all-Ireland case-control study. Euro Surveill. 2009;14(7):19123.PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization. The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation, Utrecht. Berlin: World Health Organization; 2013. p. 2012. World Health Organization. The global view of campylobacteriosis: report of an expert consultation, Utrecht. Berlin: World Health Organization; 2013. p. 2012.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Crim SM, Iwamoto M, Huang JY, Griffin PM, Gilliss D, Cronquist AB, Cartter M, Tobin-D’Angelo M, Blythe D, Smith K. Incidence trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food. Foodborne Dis Act Surve Net US sites. 2014;10:2006–13. Crim SM, Iwamoto M, Huang JY, Griffin PM, Gilliss D, Cronquist AB, Cartter M, Tobin-D’Angelo M, Blythe D, Smith K. Incidence trends of infection with pathogens transmitted commonly through food. Foodborne Dis Act Surve Net US sites. 2014;10:2006–13.
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Hall G, Kirk MD, Becker N, Gregory JE, Unicomb L, Millard G, Stafford R, Lalor K. OzFoodNet Working Group. Estimating foodborne gastroenteritis, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(8):1257.CrossRef Hall G, Kirk MD, Becker N, Gregory JE, Unicomb L, Millard G, Stafford R, Lalor K. OzFoodNet Working Group. Estimating foodborne gastroenteritis, Australia. Emerg Infect Dis. 2005;11(8):1257.CrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Carvalho AF, Silva DM, Azevedo SS, Piatti RM, Genovez ME, Scarcelli E. Detection of CDT toxin genes in Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from broiler carcasses and vegetables in São Paulo, Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2013;44(3):693–9.CrossRef Carvalho AF, Silva DM, Azevedo SS, Piatti RM, Genovez ME, Scarcelli E. Detection of CDT toxin genes in Campylobacter spp. strains isolated from broiler carcasses and vegetables in São Paulo, Brazil. Braz J Microbiol. 2013;44(3):693–9.CrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Ceuppens S, Johannessen GS, Allende A, Tondo EC, El-Tahan F, Sampers I, Jacxsens L, Uyttendaele M. Risk factors for Salmonella, shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Campylobacter occurrence in primary production of leafy greens and strawberries. Int J Environm Res Pub Health. 2015;12(2):9809–31. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120809809.CrossRef Ceuppens S, Johannessen GS, Allende A, Tondo EC, El-Tahan F, Sampers I, Jacxsens L, Uyttendaele M. Risk factors for Salmonella, shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Campylobacter occurrence in primary production of leafy greens and strawberries. Int J Environm Res Pub Health. 2015;12(2):9809–31. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerph120809809.CrossRef
31.
Zurück zum Zitat Gómez-Govea M, Solís-Soto L, Heredia N, García S, Moreno G, Tovar O, Isunza G. Analysis of microbial contamination levels of fruits and vegetables at retail in Monterrey, Mexico. J Food Agric Environ. 2012;10(1):152–6. Gómez-Govea M, Solís-Soto L, Heredia N, García S, Moreno G, Tovar O, Isunza G. Analysis of microbial contamination levels of fruits and vegetables at retail in Monterrey, Mexico. J Food Agric Environ. 2012;10(1):152–6.
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Johannessen GS, Eckner KF, Heiberg N, Monshaugen M, Begum M, Økland M, Høgåsen HR. Occurrence of Escherichia coli, Campylobcter, Salmonella and shiga-toxin producing E. coli in norwegian primary strawberry production. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2015;12(6):6919–32. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120606919.CrossRef Johannessen GS, Eckner KF, Heiberg N, Monshaugen M, Begum M, Økland M, Høgåsen HR. Occurrence of Escherichia coli, Campylobcter, Salmonella and shiga-toxin producing E. coli in norwegian primary strawberry production. Int J Environ Res Pub Health. 2015;12(6):6919–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​ijerph120606919.CrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Little C, Roberts D, Youngs E, De Louvois J. Microbiological quality of retail imported unprepared whole lettuces: a PHLS food working group study. J Food Prot. 1999;62(4):325–8.CrossRef Little C, Roberts D, Youngs E, De Louvois J. Microbiological quality of retail imported unprepared whole lettuces: a PHLS food working group study. J Food Prot. 1999;62(4):325–8.CrossRef
37.
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Medeiros DT, Sattar SA, Farber JM, Carrillo CD. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in raw and ready-to-eat foods and in a Canadian food service operation. J Food Prot. 2008;71(10):2087–93.CrossRef Medeiros DT, Sattar SA, Farber JM, Carrillo CD. Occurrence of Campylobacter spp. in raw and ready-to-eat foods and in a Canadian food service operation. J Food Prot. 2008;71(10):2087–93.CrossRef
40.
Zurück zum Zitat Meldrum R, Ribeiro C, Smith R, Walker A, Simmons M, Worthington D, Edwards C. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat foods: results from a long-term surveillance program (1995 through 2003). J Food Prot. 2005;68(8):1654–8.CrossRef Meldrum R, Ribeiro C, Smith R, Walker A, Simmons M, Worthington D, Edwards C. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat foods: results from a long-term surveillance program (1995 through 2003). J Food Prot. 2005;68(8):1654–8.CrossRef
41.
Zurück zum Zitat Mosupye FM, Von Holy A. Microbiological quality and safety of ready-to-eat street- vended foods in Johannesburg, South Africa. J Food Prot. 1999;62(11):1278–84.CrossRef Mosupye FM, Von Holy A. Microbiological quality and safety of ready-to-eat street- vended foods in Johannesburg, South Africa. J Food Prot. 1999;62(11):1278–84.CrossRef
43.
Zurück zum Zitat Odumeru JA, Mitchell SJ, Alves DM, Lynch JA, Yee AJ, Wang SL, Styliadis S, Farber JM. Assessment of the microbiological quality of ready-to-use vegetables for health-care food services. J Food Prot. 1997;60(8):954–60.CrossRef Odumeru JA, Mitchell SJ, Alves DM, Lynch JA, Yee AJ, Wang SL, Styliadis S, Farber JM. Assessment of the microbiological quality of ready-to-use vegetables for health-care food services. J Food Prot. 1997;60(8):954–60.CrossRef
46.
Zurück zum Zitat Sagoo SK, Little CL, Mitchell RT. Microbiological quality of open ready-to-eat salad vegetables: effectiveness of food hygiene training of management. J Food Prot. 2003;66(9):1581–6.CrossRef Sagoo SK, Little CL, Mitchell RT. Microbiological quality of open ready-to-eat salad vegetables: effectiveness of food hygiene training of management. J Food Prot. 2003;66(9):1581–6.CrossRef
47.
Zurück zum Zitat Sagoo S, Little C, Ward L, Gillespie I, Mitchell R. Microbiological study of ready-to-eat salad vegetables from retail establishments uncovers a national outbreak of salmonellosis. J Food Prot. 2003;66(3):403–9.CrossRef Sagoo S, Little C, Ward L, Gillespie I, Mitchell R. Microbiological study of ready-to-eat salad vegetables from retail establishments uncovers a national outbreak of salmonellosis. J Food Prot. 2003;66(3):403–9.CrossRef
49.
Zurück zum Zitat Söderqvist K, Lambertz ST, Vågsholm I, Boqvist S. Foodborne bacterial pathogens in retail prepacked ready-to-eat mixed ingredient salads. J Food Prot. 2016;79(6):978–85.CrossRef Söderqvist K, Lambertz ST, Vågsholm I, Boqvist S. Foodborne bacterial pathogens in retail prepacked ready-to-eat mixed ingredient salads. J Food Prot. 2016;79(6):978–85.CrossRef
51.
Zurück zum Zitat Thunberg RL, Tran TT, Bennett RW, Matthews RN, Belay N. Microbial evaluation of selected fresh produce obtained at retail markets. J Food Prot. 2002;65(4):677–82.CrossRef Thunberg RL, Tran TT, Bennett RW, Matthews RN, Belay N. Microbial evaluation of selected fresh produce obtained at retail markets. J Food Prot. 2002;65(4):677–82.CrossRef
52.
Zurück zum Zitat Thung TY, Siti Norshafawatie BM, Premarathne JM, Chang WS, Loo YY, Kuan CH, New CY, Ubong A, Ramzi OS, Mahyudin NA, Dayang FB. Isolation of food-borne pathogen bacteriophages from retail food and environmental sewage. Int Food Res J. 2017;24(1):450–4. Thung TY, Siti Norshafawatie BM, Premarathne JM, Chang WS, Loo YY, Kuan CH, New CY, Ubong A, Ramzi OS, Mahyudin NA, Dayang FB. Isolation of food-borne pathogen bacteriophages from retail food and environmental sewage. Int Food Res J. 2017;24(1):450–4.
55.
Zurück zum Zitat Wijnands LM, Delfgou-Van Asch EHM, Beerepoot-Mensink ME, Van Der Meij-Florijn A, Fitz-James I, Van Leusden FM, Pielaat A. Prevalence and concentration of bacterial pathogens in raw produce and minimally processed packaged salads produced in and for the Netherlands. J Food Prot. 2014;77(3):388–94.CrossRef Wijnands LM, Delfgou-Van Asch EHM, Beerepoot-Mensink ME, Van Der Meij-Florijn A, Fitz-James I, Van Leusden FM, Pielaat A. Prevalence and concentration of bacterial pathogens in raw produce and minimally processed packaged salads produced in and for the Netherlands. J Food Prot. 2014;77(3):388–94.CrossRef
56.
Zurück zum Zitat Christidis T, Pintar K, Butler A, Nesbitt A, Thomas M, Marshall B, Pollari F. Campylobacter spp. prevalence and levels in raw milk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Food Prot. 2016;79(10):1775–83.CrossRef Christidis T, Pintar K, Butler A, Nesbitt A, Thomas M, Marshall B, Pollari F. Campylobacter spp. prevalence and levels in raw milk: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Food Prot. 2016;79(10):1775–83.CrossRef
57.
Zurück zum Zitat Korsak D, Mackiw E, Rozynek E, Żylowska M. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef meat in Poland between 2009 and 2013. J Food Prot. 2015;78(5):1024–8.CrossRef Korsak D, Mackiw E, Rozynek E, Żylowska M. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in retail chicken, turkey, pork, and beef meat in Poland between 2009 and 2013. J Food Prot. 2015;78(5):1024–8.CrossRef
62.
Zurück zum Zitat Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. OutbreakNet, foodborne outbreak online database. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2013. OutbreakNet, foodborne outbreak online database.
Metadaten
Titel
The prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in vegetables, fruits, and fresh produce: a systematic review and meta-analysis
verfasst von
Hooriyeh Mohammadpour
Enayat Berizi
Saeid Hosseinzadeh
Majid Majlesi
Morteza Zare
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2018
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Gut Pathogens / Ausgabe 1/2018
Elektronische ISSN: 1757-4749
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13099-018-0269-2

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2018

Gut Pathogens 1/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Leitlinien kompakt für die Innere Medizin

Mit medbee Pocketcards sicher entscheiden.

Seit 2022 gehört die medbee GmbH zum Springer Medizin Verlag

Update Innere Medizin

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.