Comparing Uncertainty Resulting from Two-Step and Global Regression Procedures Applied to Microbial Growth Models

Abstract

Two different microbial modeling procedures were compared and validated against independent data for Listeria monocytogenes growth. The most generally used method is two consecutive regressions: growth parameters are estimated from a primary regression of microbial counts, and a secondary regression relates the growth parameters to experimental conditions. A global regression is an alternative method in which the primary and secondary models are combined, giving a direct relationship between experimental factors and microbial counts. The Gompertz equation was the primary model, and a response surface model was the secondary model. Independent data from meat and poultry products were used to validate the modeling procedures. The global regression yielded the lower standard errors of calibration, 0.95 log CFU/ml for aerobic and 1.21 log CFU/ml for anaerobic conditions. The two-step procedure yielded errors of 1.35 log CFU/ml for aerobic and 1.62 log CFU/ml for anaerobic conditions. For food products, the global regression was more robust than the two-step procedure for 65% of the cases studied. The robustness index for the global regression ranged from 0.27 (performed better than expected) to 2.60. For the two-step method, the robustness index ranged from 0.42 to 3.88. The predictions were overestimated (fail safe) in more than 50% of the cases using the global regression and in more than 70% of the cases using the two-step regression. Overall, the global regression performed better than the two-step procedure for this specific application.