While the presence of ≥1% of an undeclared species in ground meat generally used as an indicator of intentional mislabeling as opposed to cross-contamination, the actual percent of undeclared species resulting from cross-contamination has not been experimentally determined. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of sanitation procedures on the crosscontamination of animal species in ground meat products, using undeclared pork in ground beef. Pork (13.6 kg) was processed using a commercial grinder, then one of three sanitation treatments was completed (“no cleaning”, “partial cleaning”, or “complete cleaning”). Next, beef (13.6 kg) was ground using the same equipment. For “no cleaning,” beef was ground immediately after pork without any cleaning step; for “partial cleaning,” the hopper tray was wiped, and excess meat was taken out from the auger; for “complete cleaning,” all parts of the grinder were disassembled and thoroughly cleaned with water and soap. A 100-g sample was collected for each 0.91 kg (2 lb) of beef processed with the grinder and each sanitation treatment was tested twice. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to quantify pork in ground beef. For “no cleaning,” the first 100-g sample of ground beef run through the grinder contained 24.42 ± 10.41% pork, while subsequent samples contained
","abstract_html":"<p>While the presence of ≥1% of an undeclared species in ground meat generally used as an indicator of intentional mislabeling as opposed to cross-contamination, the actual percent of undeclared species resulting from cross-contamination has not been experimentally determined. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of sanitation procedures on the crosscontamination of animal species in ground meat products, using undeclared pork in ground beef. Pork (13.6 kg) was processed using a commercial grinder, then one of three sanitation treatments was completed (“no cleaning”, “partial cleaning”, or “complete cleaning”). Next, beef (13.6 kg) was ground using the same equipment. For “no cleaning,” beef was ground immediately after pork without any cleaning step; for “partial cleaning,” the hopper tray was wiped, and excess meat was taken out from the auger; for “complete cleaning,” all parts of the grinder were disassembled and thoroughly cleaned with water and soap. A 100-g sample was collected for each 0.91 kg (2 lb) of beef processed with the grinder and each sanitation treatment was tested twice. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to quantify pork in ground beef. For “no cleaning,” the first 100-g sample of ground beef run through the grinder contained 24.42 ± 10.41% pork, while subsequent samples contained</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Chung, Sunjung"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Science (MS)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":"Food Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Rosalee Hellberg, Ph.D.","Lilian Were, Ph.D.","Denise Foley, Ph.D."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2019,"date_issued":"2019-05-28T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2019-05-28T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:38:00Z","subjects":["Species identification","cross - contamination","ground meat","pork","mislabeling","real - time PCR","Food and Drug Law","Food Processing","Other Food Science"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/food_science_theses/3","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Rosalee Hellberg, Ph.D.","Lilian Were, Ph.D.","Denise Foley, Ph.D."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Chung, Sunjung"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2021-05-28T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Food Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Science (MS)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Species identification","cross - contamination","ground meat","pork","mislabeling","real - time PCR","Food and Drug Law","Food Processing","Other Food Science"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/food_science_theses/3"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["While the presence of ≥1% of an undeclared species in ground meat generally used as an indicator of intentional mislabeling as opposed to cross-contamination, the actual percent of undeclared species resulting from cross-contamination has not been experimentally determined. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of sanitation procedures on the crosscontamination of animal species in ground meat products, using undeclared pork in ground beef. Pork (13.6 kg) was processed using a commercial grinder, then one of three sanitation treatments was completed (“no cleaning”, “partial cleaning”, or “complete cleaning”). Next, beef (13.6 kg) was ground using the same equipment. For “no cleaning,” beef was ground immediately after pork without any cleaning step; for “partial cleaning,” the hopper tray was wiped, and excess meat was taken out from the auger; for “complete cleaning,” all parts of the grinder were disassembled and thoroughly cleaned with water and soap. A 100-g sample was collected for each 0.91 kg (2 lb) of beef processed with the grinder and each sanitation treatment was tested twice. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to quantify pork in ground beef. For “no cleaning,” the first 100-g sample of ground beef run through the grinder contained 24.42 ± 10.41% pork, while subsequent samples contained
"]},{"key":"dc:source","label":"Dc Source","values":["Chung, S. (2019). Effect of poor sanitation procedures on cross-contamination of animal species in ground meat products. Master's thesis, Chapman University. https://doi.org/10.36837/chapman.000064"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Effect of Poor Sanitation Procedures on Cross-Contamination of Animal Species in Ground Meat Products"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Rosalee Hellberg, Ph.D.","Lilian Were, Ph.D.","Denise Foley, Ph.D."],"dc:creator":["Chung, Sunjung"],"dc:date.available":["2021-05-28T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["While the presence of ≥1% of an undeclared species in ground meat generally used as an indicator of intentional mislabeling as opposed to cross-contamination, the actual percent of undeclared species resulting from cross-contamination has not been experimentally determined. The objective of this study was to quantify the effect of sanitation procedures on the crosscontamination of animal species in ground meat products, using undeclared pork in ground beef. Pork (13.6 kg) was processed using a commercial grinder, then one of three sanitation treatments was completed (“no cleaning”, “partial cleaning”, or “complete cleaning”). Next, beef (13.6 kg) was ground using the same equipment. For “no cleaning,” beef was ground immediately after pork without any cleaning step; for “partial cleaning,” the hopper tray was wiped, and excess meat was taken out from the auger; for “complete cleaning,” all parts of the grinder were disassembled and thoroughly cleaned with water and soap. A 100-g sample was collected for each 0.91 kg (2 lb) of beef processed with the grinder and each sanitation treatment was tested twice. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to quantify pork in ground beef. For “no cleaning,” the first 100-g sample of ground beef run through the grinder contained 24.42 ± 10.41% pork, while subsequent samples contained
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.chapman.edu/food_science_theses/3"],"dc:source":["Chung, S. (2019). Effect of poor sanitation procedures on cross-contamination of animal species in ground meat products. Master's thesis, Chapman University. https://doi.org/10.36837/chapman.000064"],"dc:subject":["Species identification","cross - contamination","ground meat","pork","mislabeling","real - time PCR","Food and Drug Law","Food Processing","Other Food Science"],"dc:title":["Effect of Poor Sanitation Procedures on Cross-Contamination of Animal Species in Ground Meat Products"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Food Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Science (MS)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:38:00Z"}