
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.6221
pmid: 23653326
AbstractBACKGROUNDProbiotics are widely used in the food industry and medicine fields in China, but few studies have been conducted to evaluate the actual microbial amounts and species in probiotic products, which may conflict with the labels and mislead consumers to choose inappropriate foods or medicines.RESULTSTwenty commercial dairy products and eight commercial ‘healthcare’ samples were collected from markets in China and tested using culture‐dependent and culture‐independent methods. The results suggested that the total bacterial counts of most commercial products met the minimum quantitative requirement of the Chinese national standard (6.00 log colony‐forming units g−1). However, the bacterial counts of specific species were inconsistent with the labelling. In parallel, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis analysis indicated that some probiotic‐containing products were wrongly labelled; no Bifidobacterium species were detected in the products claiming to contain bifidobacteria, and the probiotic characteristics (antimicrobial activity, acid resistance and bile resistance) of some isolates had degraded. Moreover, some contaminating bacteria, e.g. Enterobacter sp., Klebsiella sp. and Serratia sp., were also detected in these products.CONCLUSIONThe combination of culture‐dependent and culture‐independent methods was proven to quickly and conveniently detect the microbial diversity in probiotic products, and more effort is required to regulate the probiotic market in China. © 2013 Society of Chemical Industry
China, Bacteria, Probiotics, Health Promotion, Legislation, Food, Bacterial Load, Lactobacillus, Food Labeling, Food Microbiology, Food Quality, Humans, Bifidobacterium, Dairy Products
China, Bacteria, Probiotics, Health Promotion, Legislation, Food, Bacterial Load, Lactobacillus, Food Labeling, Food Microbiology, Food Quality, Humans, Bifidobacterium, Dairy Products
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 37 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
