Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal

BMC Research Notes, Aug 2018

Objectives This study aims to assess the bacteriological quality of marketed raw meat with a special emphasis on isolation of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in raw meat marketed in Dharan. Altogether 50 meat samples were collected from local markets of Dharan and transported to the microbiology laboratory at 4 °C. The meat samples were homogenized in a sterile glass homogenizer and the possible pathogens were isolated and identified by conventional microbiological techniques. Results The mean total viable count values were found having a mean count of 8.22 ± 0.14, 8.29 ± 0.17, 7.87 ± 0.18 and 7.92 ± 0.19 in terms of log10 CFU/g ± Standard Error for chicken, pork, buffalo, and goat meat respectively. Coliforms were found in 84% samples, S. aureus was found in 68% samples, Salmonella spp. in 34% samples, Shigella spp. in 6% samples, Vibrio spp. in only 3 samples and P. aeruginosa was isolated from 40% sample. Higher microbial load and presence of intestinal commensals E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp indicates that meat might be contaminated by the visceral content and consumers are at risk of getting a foodborne disease when eaten raw.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs13104-018-3722-x.pdf

Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal

BMC Research Notes December 2018, 11:618 | Cite as Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal AuthorsAuthors and affiliations Kamana BantawaKalyan RaiDhiren Subba LimbuHemanta Khanal Open Access Research note First Online: 29 August 2018 Received: 03 July 2018 Accepted: 20 August 2018 1 Shares 768 Downloads Abstract Objectives This study aims to assess the bacteriological quality of marketed raw meat with a special emphasis on isolation of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus in raw meat marketed in Dharan. Altogether 50 meat samples were collected from local markets of Dharan and transported to the microbiology laboratory at 4 °C. The meat samples were homogenized in a sterile glass homogenizer and the possible pathogens were isolated and identified by conventional microbiological techniques. Results The mean total viable count values were found having a mean count of 8.22 ± 0.14, 8.29 ± 0.17, 7.87 ± 0.18 and 7.92 ± 0.19 in terms of log10 CFU/g ± Standard Error for chicken, pork, buffalo, and goat meat respectively. Coliforms were found in 84% samples, S. aureus was found in 68% samples, Salmonella spp. in 34% samples, Shigella spp. in 6% samples, Vibrio spp. in only 3 samples and P. aeruginosa was isolated from 40% sample. Higher microbial load and presence of intestinal commensals E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp indicates that meat might be contaminated by the visceral content and consumers are at risk of getting a foodborne disease when eaten raw. KeywordsMeat Total viable count Coliforms Dharan  Abbreviations CFU colony forming unit FDA Food and Drug Administration SE standard error TVC total viable count TCC total coliform count Introduction The term meat refers to the flesh, skeletal muscle and any attached connective tissue or fat excluding bone and bone marrow [1]. Meat is a good source of protein, essential fatty acids, minerals and vitamins but easily perishable because it provides the suitable medium for the growth of various microorganisms [1, 2]. The muscles of healthy animals contain less or nil microorganisms though, meat can be contaminated during slaughtering and transportation [3]. Contamination of raw meat easily occurs from external sources during bleeding, handling, and processing via knives, tools, clothes, hands, and air [4]. The contaminated meat and meat products readily cause a variety of biological, chemical, physical, and particularly microbial food hazards [5, 6]. The extent of microbial contamination and composition of microbial flora reflect the standard hygiene of meat [7]. Foodborne pathogens are the leading causes of illness and death in less developed countries [8]. Nearly 1.4 million cases are caused by nontyphoidal Salmonella serotypes and 270,000 cases are caused by pathogenic Escherichia coli, including E. coli O157: H7 [7, 8]. Although these pathogens usually cause self-limiting gastroenteritis, invasive diseases and complications also may occur. Similarly, systemic Salmonellosis infections can be life-threatening, and Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, particularly E. coli O157: H7, can cause bloody diarrhoea and hemolytic uremic syndrome [9]. Nowadays, the awareness has been growing on the public health impact of zoonotic foodborne pathogens transmitted from animal originated food [10]. The most important foodborne bacterial pathogens associated with meat are Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium perfringes, Yersinia enterocolitica and Aeromonas hydrophila [11]. Among them, Salmonella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes and verocytotoxin producing E. coli O157 are a major public health problem [9]. Additionally, Pseudomonas species are associated with spoilage of meat causing off-odours, off-flavours, discolouration and gas production [12, 13]. Similarly, Vibrio species are the leading cause of gastroenteritis, wound infection and septicemia in human [14, 15]. The marketed raw meat is available with objectionable hygiene and in the open air without adequate temperature control in Nepal. The present study was done to determine the prevalence of foodborne pathogens with special emphasis on Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli and Vibrio spp. in marketed raw meat available in Dharan, eastern Nepal. Main text MethodsStudy site The study area is a city of Province No. 1 of Nepal and located in foothills of Mahabharat range in the north and Terai region in the south at the altitude of 349 meters. It is a trade centre between the hilly region and terai plains of eastern development region. The per capita meat consumption in Dharan is comparatively higher i.e. 13 kg whereas national per capita meat consumption is only 9 kg. Analytical methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in 6 months from January to June 2017 focusing on retail meat shops of Dharan city. A total of 50 (15 chicken, 15 pork, 10 buffalo and 10 goat meat) samples were collected. A sample of 250 g was collected in a sterile plastic bag and transported to the laboratory maintaining cold chain. The samples were collected at 7–9 a.m. Samples were processed immediately as soon as possible otherwise preserved at 4 °C. Along with sample collection and homogenization, all of the analyses including total viable count (TVC), total coliform count (TCC), isolation of E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp., Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas spp. were done as described by U.S. FDA guideline of bacteriological analytical methods for food samples [16]. The triplicate plate cultures were prepared for all tests performed and all of the culture media were used supplied from Himedia, India. Obtained isolates were identified by cultural characteristics, Gram staining, and biochemical tests as described by Bergey’s Manual of Determinative Bacteriology [17]. For statistical analysis, data obtained were tabulated with Microsoft Office Excel 2007 and analyzed with SPSS version 23. Chi square test was used to determine the significant association of dependent variables at 5% level of significance. Results and discussions The mean value of TVC and TCC of raw meat is presented in Table 1. The mean TVC value was slightly higher in chicken (log.10 8.22 ± 0.14 CFU/g) and pork (log10 8.29 ± 0.17 CFU/g) in compared to buffalo (log10 7.87 ± 0.18 CFU/g) and goat (log10 7.92 ± 0.19 CFU/g). Table 1 Mean total counts of raw meat in log10 CFU per gram ± standard error (SE) Sample (n = 50) Mean TVC Mean TCC Chicken (n = 15) 8.22 ± 0.14 8.13 ± 0.13 Pork (n = 15) 8.29 ± 0.17 6.16 ± 0.92 Buffalo (n = 10) 7.87 ± 0.18 6.31 ± 1.06 Goat (n = 10) 7.92 ± 0.19 6.37 ± 1.07 Results revealed that the highest TVC was found in pork sample and the lowest TVC was found in buffalo meat sample. The microbiological condition of fresh raw meat of local market of Dharan can be assumed to be heavily contaminated with spoilage and pathogenic organisms. In the case of coliforms, the lowest TCC was found in pork meat (6.16 ± 0.92 CFU/g) and the highest coliform count was found in chicken meat (8.13 ± 0.13 CFU/g). From statistical analysis, a significant association between the type of meat and the coliform count was not observed (P > 0.05). Total viable count was found to be higher in almost all of the samples than the inspected German Quality meat standards, microbiological standards of Europe and United States, EU microbiological standard of cut meat and Oregon state microbiological standard for fresh meat. The result obtained was also higher than guideline by ISO, being followed by Nepal, which has set 105–107 total viable count and absence of coliforms in 0.01 g of raw meat and ≤ 104 total viable counts and absence of coliforms in 0.01 g for pre-cooked meat. The reason behind the higher prevalence rates could be could be related to the difference in time and season of research. Table 2 illustrated that the prevalences of different bacterial pathogens. The highest prevalence of Salmonella spp., E. coli, and P. aeruginosa were found in chicken meat. Neither of chicken meat was contaminated with Vibrio spp. and neither of buffalo meat was contaminated with Shigella spp. From the statistical analysis, it can be concluded that there was no significant relationship between the type of meat and the presence of S. aureus (P > 0.05), E. coli (P > 0.05), Shigella (P > 0.05), Vibrio (P > 0.05) and P. aeruginosa (P > 0.05). However, there was a significant association between the type of meat and Salmonella spp. (P < 0.05). Table 2 Prevalence of pathogens in raw meat Type of meat Prevalence of pathogens (%) S. aureus E. coli Salmonella spp. Shigella spp. Vibrio spp. P. aeruginosa Chicken (n = 15) 53.33 66.6 60 4 0 46.66 Pork (n = 15) 73.33 60 10 0 2 40 Buffalo (n = 10) 80 40 20 2 2 40 Goat (n = 10) 70 46.7 33.3 0 2 33.33 Total (N = 50) 68 54 34 6 6 40 P-value 0.501 0.527 0.047 0.346 0.674 0.708 In this study, S. aureus was found in 68% samples. This prevalence is higher than previous researches by Tassew et al. in Ethiopia in 2010 and Abdalrahman et al. in beef [18, 19]. The prevalence of S. aureus was also greater than the study of Rong et al. in retail foods of China [20]. The higher prevalence of S. aureus indicates that inadequate cleaning, unsatisfactory handling, and post-processing contamination from the polluted atmosphere around shops. High prevalence of S. aureus in raw meat and handlers contain health hazards like toxin-mediated virulence and invasiveness to consumers [21]. These higher prevalence rates could be due to hand evisceration technique and inadequate hand washing. As an indicator of hygiene and sanitary quality, the presence of E. coli suggests that consumers are at risk of being food poisoned and the presence of other pathogenic flora [22]. E. coli was found in 54% of the total samples. The prevalence of E. coli was also higher than in previous studies of Roades et al. in 2008, Lee et al. in 2006–2012 and Rontsiou et al. in 2012 [23, 24, 25]. Another potential pathogen Salmonella spp. was found in 34% of total samples which is higher than previous studies by Tassew et al. in 2010 and Garedew et al. in 2015 [14, 18]. The prevalence of Salmonella spp. in meat was beyond the EU Microbiological standards of cut meat for sale and further processing according to which Salmonella. Differences in prevalence rates from this study to another might be attributed to the unhygienic processing and poor sanitation of meat shops. It showed that meat retailers were found to be unaware of the basic requirements of basic guidelines regarding meat. It had been proved that direct contact with raw meat might pose health hazards to humans especially butchers because E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella and Vibrio are transmitted via the faecal–oral route. Shigella spp. were found in 6% samples which is higher than the research by Tassew et al. in which it was found in only 0.6% samples but lower than Garedew et al. in 2016 in Ethiopia [14, 26]. Similarly, Vibrio spp. were also found in 6% samples which is lower than the research by Lopatek et al. in 2015 and Yucel et al. in 2010 in marine seafood [27, 28]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa was isolated from 40% sample which was comparable to findings of researches by Kwan et al., Gennari et al., Arnautet al., and Elmanhdi et al. at different dates and locations [29, 30, 31, 32]. Higher prevalence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa indicates the post-processing contamination and meat are prone to spoilage. The presence of different pathogens in examined samples represents a great public health risk. Our results concluded that the cross-contamination occurs from the raw meat to handlers to consumers. Conclusions All the meat samples were found to contain higher microbial load than prescribed standards. This study showed that 68% of samples were contaminated with S. aureus, 54% samples with E. coli, 34% samples with Salmonella spp., 40% of samples with Pseudomonas spp. and 6% samples with Vibrio spp. and Shigella spp. Presence of intestinal commensals E. coli, Salmonella spp., Shigella spp., Vibrio spp. indicates the alarming public health concerns, which needs to be studied in larger contexts to identify the source of contamination. This study also revealed that unhygienic processing and poor sanitation of meat shops and meat retailers were unaware of basic requirements and guidelines of meat shop. To upgrade the quality of raw meat, routine monitoring of meat shops, implementation of Animal Slaughter and Meat Inspection Act 2055 and awareness campaign for the butchers and consumers should be done. Limitations Confirmation of bacteria by molecular methods was not performed. Similarly, serotyping of isolated pathogens were not done. Antibiotics susceptibility patterns of isolates were not examined. Notes Authors’ contributions KB participated in study design, sample collection, processing, bacterial culture, data analysis and preparing the manuscript. DSL participated in sample collection, processing and bacterial identification. KR participated in data analysis and interpretation. HK participated in bacterial culture, identification and assisted in manuscript preparation. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Acknowledgements We are thankful to the butchers for co-operation and Department of Microbiology, Central Campus of Technology, Tribhuvan University, Dharan for their technical support. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Availability of data and materials All the required data and materials are provided in the manuscript. Consent for publication Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was carried out as a part of the Thesis of Master of Science (M.Sc.) Microbiology and approved by Department of Microbiology, Central Campus of Technology. Consents of retail shopkeepers were taken orally before collecting samples. Funding None to declare. This research was carried out from the financial assistance provided by University Grant Commission, Nepal for the Masters Research Support Grant. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Williams P. Nutritional composition of red meat. Nutr Diet. 2007;64:S113–9.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-0080.2007.00197.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 2. Komba EV, Komba EV, Mkupasi EM, Mbyuzi AO, Mshamu S, Mzula A, Luwumba D. Sanitary practices and occurrence of zoonotic conditions in cattle at slaughter in Morogoro Municipality, Tanzania: implications for public health, Tanzan. J Health Res. 2012;14:1–12.Google Scholar 3. Ercolini D, Russo F, Torrieri E, Masi P, Villani F. Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:4663–71.  https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.00468-06.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 4. Eisel WG, Linton RH, Muriana PM. A survey of microbial levels for incoming raw beef, environmental sources, and ground beef in a red meat processing plant. Food Microbiol. 1997;14:273–82.  https://doi.org/10.1006/fmic.1996.0094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 5. Kim HJ, Kim D, Song SO, Goh YG, Jang A. Microbial status and guideline for raw chicken distributed in Korea. Korean J Poult Sci. 2016;43:235–42.  https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2016.43.4.235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 6. Ko EK, Heo EJ, Kim YJ, Park HJ, Wee SH, Moon JS. Evaluation of microbiological contamination level of raw beef from retail markets in Seoul, Korea. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour. 2013;33:403–10.  https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2013.33.3.403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 7. Blaser MJ. Epidemiologic and clinical features of Campylobacter jejuni infections. J Infect Dis. 1997;176(Suppl. 2):S103–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 8. Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V, McCaig LF, Bresee JS, Shapiro C, Griffin PM, Tauxe RV. Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerg Infect Dis. 1999;5:607–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 9. Griffin PM. Escherichia coli O157: H7 and other enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli. In: Blaser MJ, Smith PD, Ravdin JI, Greenberg HB, Guerrant RL, editors. Infections of gastrointestinal tract. New York: Raven Press; 1995. p. 739–61.Google Scholar 10. Zhao C, Ge B, Villena J, Robert S, Emily Y, Shaohua Z, David G, David W, Jianghong M. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork and beef from the greater Washington D.C. area. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67(12):5431–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 11. Bhandare SG, Sherikar AT, Paturkar AM, Waskar VS, Zende RJ. A comparison of microbial contamination on sheep/goat carcasses in a modern Indian abattoir and traditional meat shops. J Food Cont. 2007;18(7):854–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 12. Arnaut-Rollier I, De Zutter L, Van Hoof J. Identities of the Pseudomonas spp. in flora from chilled chicken. Int J Food Microbiol. 1999;48(2):87–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 13. Borch E, Kant-Muermans ML, Blixt Y. Bacterial spoilage of meat and cured meat products. Int J Food Microbiol. 1996;33(1):103–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 14. Garedew L, Hagos Z, Zegeye B, Addis Z. The detection and antimicrobial susceptibility profile of Shigella isolates from meat and swab samples at butcher’s shops in Gondar town, northwest Ethiopia. J Infect Public Health. 2016;9(3):348–55.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2015.10.015.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 15. Arnaut-Rollier I, Vauterin L, De Vos P, Massart DL, Devriese LA, De Zutter L, Van Hoof J. A numerical taxonomic study of the Pseudomonas flora isolated from poultry meat. J Appl Microbiol. 1999;87(1):15–28.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 16. U.S. FDA: Bacteriological Analytical Manual (BAM). Center for food safety and applied nutrition. https://www.fda.gov/food/foodscienceresearch/laboratorymethods/ucm200694.html. Accessed 22 Jan 2017. 17. Garrity GM, Brennner DJ, Krieg NR, Staley JT. Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology. The proteobacteria, the gammaproteobacteria. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer; 2005.Google Scholar 18. Tassew H, Abdissa A, Beyene G, Gebre-Selassie S. Microbial flora and foodborne pathogens on minced meat and their susceptibility to antimicrobial agents. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2010;20(3):137–43.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 19. Abdalrahman LS, Wells H, Fakhr MK. Staphylococcus aureus is more prevalent in retail beef livers than in pork and other beef cuts. Pathogens. 2015;4(2):182–98.  https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens4020182.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 20. Rong D, Wu XuM, Zhang J, Yu S. Prevalence, virulence genes, antimicrobial susceptibility, and genetic diversity of Staphylococcus aureus from retail aquatic products in China. Front Microbiol. 2017;2017(8):714.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar 21. Kadariya J, Smith TC, Thapaliya D. Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcal food-borne disease: an ongoing challenge in public health. BioMed Res Int. 2014.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/827965.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 22. Chao G, Zhou X, Jiao X, Qian X, Xu L. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of foodborne pathogens isolated from food products in China. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2007;4(3):277–84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 23. Rhoades JR, Duffy G, Koutsoumanis K. Prevalence and concentration of verocytotoxigenic Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes in the beef production chain: a review. Food Microbiol. 2009;26(4):357–76.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2008.10.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 24. Lee JB, Han D, Lee HT, Wi SM, Park JH, Jo JW, Cho YJ, Hahn TW, Lee S, Kang B, et al. Pathogenic and phylogenetic characteristics of non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli isolates from retail meats in South Korea. J Vet Sci. 2018;19(2):251–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 25. Rantsiou K, Alessandria V, Cocolin L. Prevalence of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli in food products of animal origin as determined by molecular methods. Int J Food Microbiol. 2012;154(1–2):37–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.12.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 26. Garedew L, Hagos Z, Addis Z, Tesfaye R, Zegeye B. Prevalence and antimicrobial susceptibility patterns of Salmonella isolates in association with hygienic status from butcher shops in Gondar town, Ethiopia. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2015;4:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar 27. Lopatek M, Wieczorek K, Osek J. Prevalence and antimicrobial resistance of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from raw shellfish in Poland. J Food Prot. 2015;78(5):1029–33.  https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-437.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 28. Yücel N, Balci S. Prevalence of Listeria, Aeromonas, and Vibrio species in fish used for human consumption in Turkey. J Food Prot. 2010;73(2):380–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 29. Kwan KK, Skura BJ. Identification of proteolytic pseudomonads isolated from raw milk. J Dairy Sci. 1985;68(8):1902–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 30. Gennari M, Dragotto F. A study of the incidence of different fluorescent Pseudomonas species and biovars in the microflora of fresh and spoiled meat and fish, raw milk, cheese, soil and water. J Appl Bacteriol. 1992;72(4):281–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 31. Elmahdi S, DaSilva LV, Parveen S. Antibiotic resistance of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Vibrio vulnificus in various countries: a review. Food Microbiol. 2016;57:128–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar 32. Gousia P, Economou V, Sakkas H, Leveidiotou S, Papadopoulou C. Antimicrobial resistance of major food borne pathogens from major meat products. Foodborne Pathog Dis. 2011;8(1):27–38.  https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2010.0577.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar Copyright information © The Author(s) 2018 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. Authors and Affiliations Kamana Bantawa1Email authorView author's OrcID profileKalyan Rai1Dhiren Subba Limbu2Hemanta Khanal11.Department of Microbiology, Central Campus of TechnologyTribhuvan UniversityDharanNepal2.Department of Microbiology, Birendra Memorial CollegeTribhuvan UniversityDharanNepal


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2Fs13104-018-3722-x.pdf

Kamana Bantawa, Kalyan Rai, Dhiren Subba Limbu, Hemanta Khanal. Food-borne bacterial pathogens in marketed raw meat of Dharan, eastern Nepal, BMC Research Notes, 2018, 618, DOI: 10.1186/s13104-018-3722-x