论文部分内容阅读
目的比较副溶血性弧菌国家标准检测方法与快速检测方法之间的差异,为今后的方法改进以及突发公共卫生事件的快速检测提供参考依据。方法定性检测采用国家标准显色平板法、纸片法和荧光PCR法等快速检测方法进行对比,定量检测采用国家标准MPN法、纸片法和显色平板计数法等快速检测方法进行对比。结果定性检测中,国家标准显色平板法、纸片法和荧光PCR法检出率分别为33.33%、28.57%和38.10%,差异无统计学意义(χ~2=0.422,P=0.810)。定量检测中,国家标准平均菌量依次为52.49 cfu/g、50.71 cfu/g和52.14 cfu/g,差异无统计学意义(P=0.998)。结论快速检测方法定性和定量检测结果均与国家标准检测方法的差异无统计学意义,表明快速检测方法可以应用于副溶血性弧菌检测,且快速准确。
Objective To compare the differences between the national standard detection methods and the rapid detection methods of Vibrio parahaemolyticus, and provide a reference for the future improvement of methods and rapid detection of public health emergencies. Methods The qualitative test was carried out by using the national standard colorimetric plate method, the disk method and the fluorescent PCR method for rapid detection. The quantitative detection was carried out by using the national standard MPN method, the paper method and the color plate counting method. Results In the qualitative test, the detection rates of the national standard color plate method, the disk method and the fluorescent PCR method were 33.33%, 28.57% and 38.10% respectively, with no significant difference (χ ~ 2 = 0.422, P = 0.810). In the quantitative analysis, the average national average bacterial counts were 52.49 cfu / g, 50.71 cfu / g and 52.14 cfu / g, with no significant difference (P = 0.998). Conclusion There is no significant difference between the qualitative and quantitative test results of the rapid test method and the national standard test method, indicating that the rapid test method can be applied to the detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and is rapid and accurate.