1488

Journal of Food Protection, Vol. 62, No. 12, 1999, Pages 14881496
Copyright Q, International Association of Milk, Food and Environmental Sanitarians

Review

Impedance Microbiology: Applications in Food Hygiene

MONIKA WAWERLA,* A. STOLLE, BARBARA SCHALCH,

AND

H. EISGRUBER

Institute of Hygiene and Technology of Food of Animal Origin, Veterinary Faculty, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Veterinarstr. 13, D-80539
Munich, Germany
MS 98-246: Received 17 September 1998/Accepted 9 August 1999

ABSTRACT
Impedance microbiology is a rapid method that enables qualitative and quantitative tracing of microorganisms by measuring the change in the electrical conductivity. With direct impedance technology, the change in the conductivity of a liquid
culture medium serves as a measuring parameter, whereas with indirect impediometry, the change in the electrical conductivity
of a reaction solution, which occurs through the absorption of gases from the inoculated bacterial culture, is measured. Most
investigations concerning the applicability of impediometry in food microbiology deal with the impedimetric detection or
enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae, especially the detection of Salmonella. However, impediometry has been applied to other
bacterial groups or species as well. Furthermore, a great number of published findings concern the impedimetric determination
of the total bacterial count. The successful application of this fast method on further areas of food hygiene, such as tracing
antibiotics and testing additives for their antimicrobiological effect, has also been described. In general the use of impediometry
for the application areas stated has been judged positively. However, the time and expense required by the user to optimize
the method, the deficits when testing slightly contaminated sample material or determining the bacterial count in those cases
in which the microorganisms are sublethally damaged, and the necessity of performing individual calibration for each food
category limit the applicability of impediometry.

Conventional microbiological methods for determining

the bacterial count or for tracing certain pathogenic microorganisms require a great deal of time, work, and material.
Modern quality assurance, e.g., on the basis of the hazard
analysis critical control point concept, needs test methods
with speedily available results to allow a quick reaction to
possible risks. The test duration is especially important
where the quality assurance of highly perishable products
is concerned. In addition, the decrease in storage costs
through the use of rapid methods is advantageous for the
food industry.
One way to meet the demands of food microbiology
could be the application of impediometry. Impedance or
conductance measurement is a rapid method that reduces
work and material and is based on the influence that the
microbial metabolic activity has on the electrical conductivity of a liquid culture medium or a reaction solution. The
measuring process is named according to the parameters
that comprise the measuring system. The term impedance
(included, for example, in the names impedance measurement, impediometry, and impedimetric method) is a synonym for the total resistance that occurs in the alternating
current circuit, consisting of the ohmic, inductive, and capacitive resistance. A material constant, the specific resistance, influences the ohmic resistance. Conductivity is defined as the reciprocal value of the specific resistance and
contributes to the conductance (this term is included, for
* Author for correspondence. Tel: 089-2180-2522; Fax: 089-2180-3872;
E-mail: Sekretariat@lmhyg.vetmed.uni-muenchen.de.

example, in the names conductance measurement, conductimetry, and conductimetric method), which is defined as
the reciprocal value of the total resistance (25, 50).
MEASURING METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
The basic technical equipment required for performing
impedance microbiology consists of special incubators and
their culture vessels (equipped with electrodes) and an evaluation unit with computer, printer, and appropriate software.
At present, there are four impedance systems available. Table 1 contains some data about these commercially available devices.
The two basic measuring principles are the direct and
indirect impedance techniques. With the direct impedance
method, the electrodes reach into the liquid culture medium
that has been inoculated with the sample material (5, 26).
As a result of the metabolic activity of the microorganisms
contained in the sample, large molecules are broken down
into many smaller, electrically charged molecules. These
changes in the molecular composition increase the conductivity of the liquid and the capacitance that arises mainly
from the polarization of the electrode-liquid interface (16,
31, 35, 37, 40, 42, 51). The impedance-splitting method
distinguishes itself from the usual methods of measuring
the total impedance by a separate recording of the change
in impedance in the medium and the impedance change of
the electrode system (40, 43). The culture medium reacts
like an ohmic resistance, whereas the impedance of the
electrode system is ohmic and capacitive (5). The sensitive
reaction of the impedance change of the electrode system

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

IMPEDANCE IN FOOD HYGIENE

1489

TABLE 1. Impedimetric systems

Impedimetric
system

Bactometer

Malthus System V

Rapid automated
bacterial impedance
technique (RABIT)

BacTrac

Malthus Instruments Ltd.,

Crawley, UK (13); also
available via IUL-Instruments, Konigswinter, Germany (3), and
via Radiometer International, Copenhagen,
Denmark (49)
Conductance (11)

Don Whitley Scientific

Ltd., Shipley, UK (11,
22)

Sy-Lab, Purkersdorf, Austria (2, 40)

Conductance (11)

No statements to be found
in the literature
Up to 512 in two temperature-controlled incubators (13, 35, 37)

Possible (3)

Possible (1)

Impedance (impedancesplitting method) (2, 40,

43)
Possible (2)

Up to 1200 (3)

Disposable modules (13,

17); possibility to place
analysis tubes in a standard incubator and connect them to the computer with an extension
cable (15, 17); stainless
steel electrodes (13, 17)

Water bath incubator (13);

availability of reusable,
disposable, semidisposable and large volume
cells (3); platinumceramic electrodes (13)

32 RABIT electrode tubes

per incubator; maximum of 16 incubators;
individual temperature
control for each incubator (1)
Aluminium incubators;
high-grade steel electrodes (1)

Company

Bio Merieux, Nurtingen,

Germany (6); Basingstoke, UK (11); Hazelwood, Missouri, USA
(13, 35)

Impedance signal

Conductance, capacitance,
impedance (11, 35)

Indirect impediometry
Number of samples

Peculiarities of
the equipment

to relatively small changes in conductivity allows the use

of culture media with high basic conductivity for this process and can reduce the duration of the test (28, 38, 40,
41). The indirect impedance method also allows the use of
culture media with high salt concentrations. The culture
vessel of this method consists of two separate sections, arranged in a way that enables a gas exchange. One of the
sections contains the culture medium and the sample, and
the other, in which the impedance reading is performed,
contains an alkaline solution or an alkaline agar bridge.
Consequently, the gases, mainly CO2, that are produced because of the metabolic activity in the inoculated culture
medium during incubation are absorbed by the potassium
hydroxide in the other section of the culture vessel, thus

FIGURE 1. Generalized example for the graphic presentation of

impedance readings (direct impediometry), threshold value, and
detection time.

20 or 40 impedance tubes
per incubator; maximal
six incubators; individual temperature control
for each incubator (2)
Aluminium incubators;
stainless steel electrodes
(2)

leading to a decrease in the conductance of the alkaline

substance (5, 14, 22, 46).
The principle of all impedance systems is that they
measure the relative or absolute changes in conductance,
impedance, or capacitance at regular intervals (e.g., every
6 min). The measured impedance values are graphically
plotted on the ordinate against the incubation times on the
abscissa (5, 16, 22, 36, 37, 47). To detect specific microorganisms, the user has to determine a definite change in
the measured quantity as threshold value. For a positive
detection, this threshold value has to be exceeded by the
impedance curve (5, 10, 46). The incubation time required
to reach certain curve features, e.g., the threshold value, is
called detection time (5, 36, 46). The graphic presentation
of direct impedance measurements and the terms threshold
value and detection time are illustrated in Figure 1.
Impedance enumeration of microorganisms relies on
the detection time being inversely related to sample contamination (16, 26, 32, 37). Careful calibration is a prerequisite for quantification. At least 30 samples, the bacterial
count of which should vary by several orders of magnitude,
have to be tested with both the impedance method and a
conventional method. The conventional bacterial counts are
compared with the respective impedance detection times by
the computer software of the impedance system to compile
a regression equation and to calculate the correlation coefficient and the mean variation. In the following routine

1490

WAWERLA ET AL.

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

TABLE 2. Impedimetric detection or enumeration of Enterobacteriaceaea

Species/group

Sample material

Enterobacteriaceae (13) Dehydrated meat

Dry soups as finished

products
Dehydrated meat

Dry soups as finished

products
Enterobacteriaceae (31) Meat, meat products,
poultry
Surface samples

Coliforms (26)

Raw milk

Impedance system or
medium and
special details

Procedures used
in parallel

Bactometer; Entero-Medi- Pour plate technique with r 5 20.97

overlay; violet red bile
um (BACTOMETER),
glucose agar; 1378C, 2
partly twice concentratdays
ed with addition of
Monensin
r 5 20.84
r 5 20.84

Malthus; Enterobacteriaceae medium (MALTHUS)

r 5 20.90
Malthus; Enterobacteriaceae medium (MALTHUS)
Malthus; coliform broth
or enterobacteriaceae
medium (MALTHUS)
RABIT; WCB

35 LMBG (L 06.00-18)

r 5 20.92

Impression smears

Results comparable

35 LMBG (L 01.00-3)

r 5 20.893 (29 measurements)

r 5 20.944 (62 measurements)
r 5 20.912

Pasteurized milk
Surface inoculation on
BacTrac; milk sample
VRB
with addition of 0.2%
yeast extract and 0.1%
benzalconium chloride
RABIT; 3 ml WCB pre- MPN method according
pared double strength
to British Standard BS
1 3 ml undiluted milk
4285, Section 3.7,
1987

Coliforms (51)

Pasteurized milk

Coliforms (33)

Pasteurized milk (900

samples)

Coliforms (27)

Soft cheese
RABIT; WCB
35 LMBG (L 01.00-3)
Standard type
Cheese types out of raw
milk or with spices,
molds, etc.
Pasteurized egg products: BacTrac; BiMedia 160B; Quantitative determination: MPN method acquantitative determinaend products (95 samcording to 35 LMBG
tion in end products by
ples), intermediate
(L 01.00-2); qualitative
means of the MPN
products (184 samples)
determination: presmethod
ence/absence test
Pour plate technique;
Commercial ready-to-use RABIT; MacConkey
Broth (OXOID)
VRB; 1378C, 24 h
mixed salads, packed
in polyethylene trays
covered with polypropylene film (153 samples); one batch was
inoculated with the antimicrobial-producing
strain Lactobacillus
casei IMPC LC34

Coliforms (45)

Coliforms (36)

Resultsb

MPN method detected

presumptive coliforms
in 83 samples and the
RABIT in 100 (2 false
positives)
r 5 20.838
r 5 20.936

Qualitative and quantitative determinations:

good correspondence
between impedance results and results of the
conventional procedure
Discrepancies between
standard microbiological counts and counts
obtained via the impedance method for
samples with a low
level of contamination

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

IMPEDANCE IN FOOD HYGIENE

1491

TABLE 2. Continued

Species/group

Escherichia coli (24)

Sample material

Bivalve shellfish

Impedance system or
medium and
special details

Malthus; Malthus Coliform Broth (MALTHUS); 100 ml conductivity cells

Procedures used
in parallel

Results

French conventional
MPN method

825 samples

Escherichia coli (19)

Sensitivity of the two

methods not significantly different
Confirmation tests of 608
4.0% false positive, 0.7%
conductivity cells
false negative
10 replicates of five samImpediometry: SD 0.08
ples
0.26; CV 1.0%3.9%
MPN: SD 0.200.47;
CV: 5.4%13.2%
Potable water
BacTrac; medium with
United Kingdom standard No significant differences
trimethylamine oxide
between the impedimemembrane filtration
and D-glucuronic acid;
tric method and the
technique using memUK standard method
brane lauryl sulfate
sample 5 membrane,
on the one hand and
broth; Colilertt presthrough which 100 ml
between the impedimeence/absence test
water had been filtered
tric method and the
Colilertt on the other
hand; false positive
with two Salmonella
strains

LMBG, Law on Foods and Commodities (Germany); WCB, Whitley coliform broth; VRB, violet red bile agar; MPN, most probable
number; SD, standard deviation, CV, coefficient of variation.
b r, correlation coefficient.

test measurements, the computer software calculates the

bacterial count of the sample material from the measured
detection times (5, 13, 26, 31).
THE USE OF IMPEDIOMETRY IN FOOD
MICROBIOLOGY
The suitability of impedance measurements for detecting and enumerating certain microorganisms in food has
been tested many times, the main emphasis being on the
detection or enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae and the determination of the total bacterial count. A smaller number
of publications are dedicated to the detection or enumeration of other bacterial groups or bacterial species that are
important in the food industry, such as Listeria, clostridia,
or lactobacilli. Tables 2 through 5 describe some of the
investigations that have been published since 1990.
In the cited publications, impedance microbiology is in
general stated as being on a par with if not better than the
conventional methods. This positive assessment is mirrored
in the official recognition of this method. For example, the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists International
has recognized impedance microbiology as a final action
method for the detection of salmonellae in foods (4). In
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the use of impediometry for tracing salmonellae in processed animal protein has
been regulated by law since 1989 (21, 33). There are also

attempts being made to standardize the use of impediometry in the Federal Republic of Germany (5).
However, Bolliger et al. (13) and Orsi et al. (36) pointed out that conventional colony counts and impedance enumeration do not correspond so closely when there is only
slight contamination of the sample. Our investigations (53)
for tracing Clostridium perfringens in minced meat showed
that when the samples were contaminated with less than
103 CFU/g, false-negative results were often obtained.
Much importance is placed on the choice of the impedance media and the modus operandi (23). For example
Donaghy and Madden (21) reported in their investigations
for impedance detection of salmonellae that there were bad
rates of recovery and a high percentage of false-positive
results. By changing the process, however, they achieved a
recovery rate as good as, if not better than, the recovery
rate of the conventional method (22). Donaghy and Madden
(22) compared four commercial Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium formulations from three different manufacturers. They
found that even small changes in the composition of the
culture media could greatly influence their applicability as
impedance media. With regard to the incubation conditions
for impedance detection of C. perfringens, our investigations (53) showed, in contrast to published test results of
others, that a paraffin layer is a necessity, even with a sufficiently prereduced culture medium.

1492

WAWERLA ET AL.

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

TABLE 3. Detection of salmonellae by impediometrya

Sample material

Impedance system or
medium and special details

Procedures used in parallel

Malthus and RABIT: Easter and 35 LMBG (L 00.00-20)

Gibson Medium and Ogdens
Medium; BacTrac: modified RV
broth
161 environmental samples Malthus; disposable electrode cells ISO-DIS 6579; 1991. Modified
Semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis
with Medium 1 (contains dulcifrom a milk powder factol and trimethylamine-N-oxide) Medium (MSRV)
tory and 49 artificially
and medium 2 (contains lysine)
contaminated samples
from MALTHUS
(10 CFU of Salmonella
infantis) (30)
Soft cheese (artificially
BacTrac; special selective medium ISO standard method 6789: 1990
contaminated) (7)
and IDF standard 1985; semisolid RV medium; MicroscreenLatextest; gene probe
Raw meat and processed RABIT; Easter and Gibson medi- Conventional enrichment in RV
broth
animal protein (21)
um (LAB M), Easter and Gibson medium (laboratory-made),
and Ogdens medium
Dried dairy products (10)

Raw meat (44 samples)

and processed animal
protein (33 samples)
(22)

RABIT; RV Broth (LAB M); indirect impedance method

Poultry (31)
250 samples: whole poultry carcasses, poultry
cuts, eggs, and minced
meat (40)

Malthus; Salmonella selective medium 1 and 2 (MALTHUS)

BacTrac; laboratory-developed
medium with magnesium chloride, malachite, green oxalate,
and novobiocin

Various raw and cooked

foods; environmental
swab samples (28)

BacTrac; modified RV broth and

modified selenitecystine medium

Surface samples (31)

Malthus; salmonella selective medium 1 and 2 (MALTHUS)

Results

1.54.8% false positives, 0.0%

false negatives

Recovery rate from 100 positive

samples: ISO, 100; MSRV, 82;
impedance method, 66; impediometry the highest portion of
false positives
Impedance measurement has a
high recovery rate but gives
false positives

Recovery rates: Raw meat: with

both techniques, 95%; processed animal protein: with
conventional technique, 84%;
with impedance technique,
59%; High number of false positives
Recoveries of Salmonella equivaConventional methodology as
lent to, or better than, those obspecified in the Animal Protein
tained with the conventional
Order (1989) (standard method
procedure
in the UK): RV broth; 1428C,
48 h
35 LMBG (L 00.00-20)
No false negatives or false positives possible
Enrichment in the following me- Impedance method had the highest
recovery rate; some false posidia: selenitecystine broth, RV
tives; lowest number of false
broth, RV broth modified, tetranegatives
thionate brilliant green bile
broth; 1428C, 24 h
35 LMBG (L 00.00-20)
Using impediometry detection of
Salmonellae in 7.6% of 459
food samples; using the method
according to 35 LMBG only
in 6.8%; 86 swab samples negative with both methods; impedance method: no false negatives but always some false
positives
Impression smears
Results Comparable

RABIT, rapid automated bacterial impedance technique; RV, Rappaport-Vassiliadis; LMBG, Law on Foods and Commodities (Germany).

It has been found that the greater the number of different strains from various species used in a test, the poorer
is the correlation between impedance enumeration and conventional colony counts (Table 6). This is a result of the
differing metabolic activities of the various species involved (32). In consideration of the different microflora of
all sorts of foodstuffs, Jurinka and Mifek (31) recommended the calibration of the impedance system separately for
each category of food to determine the total viable counts.
However, each foodstuff can have its own microflora, depending on the manufacturer (28). Reinschmidt et al. (41)

also pointed out that the composition of the microflora of,

for example, raw sausages changes during ripening. Furthermore, the metabolic activity of the microflora found in
food can be influenced by the storage conditions of the food
and by its ingredients (12, 13, 28, 32).
OTHER APPLICATION AREAS FOR IMPEDANCE
MICROBIOLOGY
The use of impedance measurements in connection
with the hygiene and the technology of food is not limited
to routine detection and enumeration of certain microor-

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

IMPEDANCE IN FOOD HYGIENE

1493

TABLE 4. Determination of the total viable counts by impediometrya

Sample material

Raw milk (26)

Pasteurized milk (26)

Ice cream (121 samples)

(28)
Milk-based ice cream (80
samples) (41)
Liquid whole egg, native
and frozen (45)
Chicken carcass rinses
(9)

Meat, meat products,

poultry (31)
Fresh Mettwurst sausage
(41)

Impedance system or
medium and special details

Procedures used in parallel

Resultsb

r 5 20.891 (32 measurements)

r 5 20.626 (27 measurements
based on a calibration curve
with r 5 20.696)
BacTrac; BiMedia 001A
Drop plating method; PC; 1308C, r 5 20.7545
48 h
BacTrac; general purpose medium Drop plating method
r 5 20.68
from Sy-Lab
BacTrac; BiMedia 001A, tryptone Drop plating method
Close to very close correlation besoy broth and brain heart infutween detection times and consion broth
ventional colony counts
Impedimetric method: lowest corBactometer; General Purpose Me- Spiral plater model D; standard
relation with plate count results
dium (Bio Merieux)
PC; 1378C, 2448 h; ATP bio(r 5 20.32) of all methods
luminescence; hydrophobic grid
tested
membrane filtration; turbidimetry
Malthus; SPYE broth (MAL35 LMBG (L 06.00-18); PC
Products with similar composition:
THUS)
r . 20.93; otherwise, r , 20.70
BacTrac; general purpose medium Drop plating method
Flat curves in case of properly ripfrom Sy-Lab
ened products; r 5 20.83
(based on an M value of 2%)
RABIT; Whitley impedance broth Pour plate technique; PC; 1308C, r 5 20.943
48 h
RABIT: Whitley impedance broth
RABIT; Whitley impedance broth

35 LMBG (L 01.00-5)
35 LMBG (L 01.00-5)

Commercial ready-to-use
mixed salads, packed
in polyethylene trays
covered with polypropylene film; one batch
was inoculated with
the antimicrobial-producing strain Lactobacillus casei IMPC
LC34 (198 samples)
(36)
Dehydrated raw materi- Bactometer: General Purpose Me- Pour plate technique; PC; 1308C, Bactometer: r between 20.71 and
3 days
20.94; Malthus: r between
dium Plus (BACTOMETER);
als, fresh salads, and
20.76 and 20.97; Bactometer
Malthus: SPYE broth (MALdry soups and bouilhas significantly shorter detecTHUS)
lons as finished prodtion times than Malthus
ucts (13)
Surface samples (31)
Malthus; SPYE broth (MALImpression smears
Results comparable
THUS)
a

RABIT, rapid automated bacterial impedance technique; LMBG, Law on Foods and Commodities (Germany); PC, plate count agar;
ATP, adenosine triphosphate.
b r, correlation coefficient.

ganisms. Impedance microbiology can have advantages

over conventional microbiological methods in other applications. In the following, some examples are given.
One application area is the detection of antibiotics in
food. For example, Chen and Chang (18) found that the
impedance method is 30 times more sensitive than the usual
test methods for tracing penicillin G in milk.
Tranter et al. (49), Johansen et al. (29), Tassou et al.
(48), Orsi et al. (36), and Taranto et al. (47) used impediometry to test the efficiency of antimicrobial substances or
microorganisms as preserving agents. One advantage of using impediometry for this is the fact that several substances
or one substance under different conditions can be tested
at the same time (49). Furthermore, processes such as bac-

terial counting, reduction of the absorbance in bacterial suspensions, or formation of inhibition zones on agar plates
are not as suitable for testing the antimicrobial effect of
alkaline peptides as methods that measure the microbial
metabolic activity, because an agglutination of positively
charged peptides with negatively charged bacterial cells can
occur (29). However, it is not evident from extended detection times in impedance assays whether the bacteria are
damaged sublethally or whether only a few bacteria have
survived (29).
For the dairy industry, impediometry is a valuable
method for determining the quality and activity of starter
cultures (32, 37, 44).
From the measured conductance changes of bacterial

1494

WAWERLA ET AL.

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

TABLE 5. Detection or enumeration of other bacteria by impediometrya

Species or group

Clostridium perfringens
and Clostridiuma sporogenes (wild strains) (23)

Clostridium spp. (23)

Clostridium perfringens
(42 strains) (53)

Listeria spp. (39)

Listeria monocytogenes
(8)

Lactobacilli (31)
a

Sample material

Impedance system or
medium and
special details

Procedures used
in parallel

Resultsb

r 5 20.933; curves often

Artificially contaminated Malthus; fluid thioglycol- Blood agar plates (Coshouldered, due to the
ground meat (54 mealate medium
lumbia agar, containing
presence of two C.
surements)
10% whole sheeps
spp.
blood); 1378C, 18 h,
anaerobically; suspect
colonies confirmed on
tryptose sulfite neomycin medium
Meat unfit for consump- Malthus; fluid thioglycol- Colony counts on tryp14 results obtained by
tion (4 samples, 22
late medium
tose sulfite neomycin
conductance measuremeasurements)
medium
ments close to the results obtained with the
procedure used in parallel; curves often irregular because of the
presence of several
clostridia in the samples
Minced meat (artificially BacTrac; DRCM (Merck) DIN-standard 10 103, 35 Reliable screening test
contaminated)
supplemented with the
LMBG (L 06.00-39)
for sample material
combination of selecwith contamination
tive agents according
levels higher than 103
to method L 06.00-39
CFU/g; at lower conof the official methods
tamination levels, false
collection and accordnegatives are probable
ing to 35 LMBG, respectively, according to
DIN-standard 10 103
(300 mg D-cycloserine
and 50 mg sodium
azide per 1,000 ml
DRCM); overlay of
viscid paraffin (2 ml)
Impedance method: high
120 samples: raw meat, BacTrac; impedance me- Enrichment broth
sensitivity and precistreaked onto Oxford
fermented sausages,
dium 5 modification
sion, good practicabiliand modified listeria
and cheese
of FDA broth and
ty, reduction in work
selective agar plates
PALCAM agar
and time
(1378C, 24 h); confirmation and serotyping
Minced meat
Malthus and BacTrac: lis- 35 LMBG (L 00.00-22) After confirmation via
gene probe, the same
teria trimethylamine
number of positive
broth; Malthus: in adsamples were found
dition, listeria selective
with both methods
medium in disposable
conductance cells including listeria selective supplement (MALTHUS)
Meat, meat products,
Malthus; Malthus lacto- 35 LMBG (L 06.00-18); r 5 20.92
poultry
bacilli broth AOAC
Rogosa agar

DRCM, differential reinforced clostridial broth; LMBG, Law on Foods and Commodities (Germany); DIN, German Institute for
Standardization.
b r, correlation coefficient.

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

IMPEDANCE IN FOOD HYGIENE

TABLE 6. Correlation between the number of lactobacilli strains

or species and the correlation coefficient between conventional
colony counts and impedance resultsa
Diversity of lactobacilli strains

Single-strain cultures
Cell suspensions of different strains belonging to
the same species
Cell suspensions of strains belonging to different
thermophilic species
a

Correlation
coefficient

6.
7.

8.

.20.97
20.90
20.733

9.

10.

Data from Lanzanova et al. (32).

11.

cultures exposed to different environmental conditions,

conclusions in the sense of predictive modeling can be
drawn via mathematical relations (20, 52).
In this brief survey, only the most important application areas of impedance microbiology were mentioned.
Several further possible applications are currently being
considered.

12.

13.

14.

CONCLUSIONS
In most of the publications that concern the suitability
of impediometry for the detection and enumeration of microorganisms in food, impedance microbiology proved to
be a practical alternative to conventional methods. In other
publications, the advantages of impedance microbiology
were referred to concerning other microbiological problems
in the area of food hygiene and technology.
The substitution of conventional methods by impediometry in routine food tests is, however, only advantageous
when the typical test material consists of a high percentage
of similar samples, since the optimization of the method
and the necessity of specifically calibrating the impedimetric system for each food category requires a lot of time.
Furthermore, it should be clarified whether the disadvantages of impedance measurement can be reconciled with
the respective task. For example, this could be the risk of
false-negative results with slightly contaminated sample
material. In addition, impedance microbiology is not suitable for determining the bacterial count if the microorganisms have been exposed to influences that lead to sublethal
damage of the bacteria.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
24.
The authors thank Dr. Brigitte Sperner for checking the manuscript.

REFERENCES
1.

Anonymous. 1991. Product information on RABIT. MAST DIAGNOSTICA, Reinfeld, Germany.

2. Anonymous. 1993. Product information on BacTrac Serie 4000. SYLAB, Purkersdorf, Austria.
3. Anonymous. 1995. Product information on Malthus V. IUL INSTRUMENTS GMBH, Konigswinter, Germany.
4. Anonymous. 1996. Salmonella in foodsautomated conductance
method: AOAC official method 991.38. In Official methods of analysis of AOAC International, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists International, Gaithersburg, Md.
5. Anonymous. 1998. Grundlagen des Nachweises und der Bestimmung von Mikroorganismen mittels Impedanz-Verfahren. Deutsches
Institut fur Normung e.V., Berlin.

25.
26.

27.

28.
29.
30.

1495

Anonymous. 1998. Price list 1998 1999. BIO MERIEUX, Nurtingen, Germany.
Asperger, H., and P. Pless. 1994. Zum Salmonellennachweis in
KaseMethodenvergleich unter besonderer Berucksichtigung der
Begleitflora- problematik. Wien. Tierarztl. Monatsschr. 81:1217.
Baumgart, J., S. Sieker, and B. Vogelsang. 1994. Listeria monocytogenes in HackfleischNachweis mit der Impedanz-Methode und
einem neuen Selektiv medium. Fleischwirtschaft 74:647648.
Bautista, D. A., R. A. Clarke, and M. W. Griffiths. 1994. Comparison
of microbiological methods for monitoring chicken carcass quality.
J. Rapid Methods Automation Microbiol. 3:2335.
Becker, H., G. Schaller, and G. Terplan.1992. Konventionelle und
alternative Verfahren zum Nachweis verschiedener pathogener Mikroorganismen in Milch und Milchprodukten. dmz Lebensm. Industrie
Milchwirtschaft 113:956, 958968.
Blackburn, C. de W. 1991. Detection of Salmonella in foods using
impedance. Eur. Food Drink Rev. 3540.
Blackburn, C. de W., and A. R. Davies. 1994. Development of antibiotic-resistant strains for the enumeration of foodborne pathogenic
bacteria in stored foods. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 24:125136.
Bolliger, S., M. Casella, and M. Teuber. 1994. Comparative impedance evaluation of the microbial load of different foodstuffs. Lebensm.-Wiss.-Technol. 27:177184.
Bolton, F. J. 1990. An investigation of indirect conductimetry for
detection of some food-borne bacteria. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 69:655
661.
Bulte, M. 1983. Die Impedanzmessung und das Biolumineszenzverfahren als anwendbare Schnellmethoden zur Erfassung der mikrobiellen Kontamination auf Fleischoberflachen. VMD dissertation. FU
Berlin.
Cady, P., S. W. Dufour, J. Shaw, and S. J. Kraeger. 1978. Electrical
impedance measurements: rapid method for detecting and monitoring micro- organisms. J. Clin. Microbiol. 7:265272.
Cady, P., D. Hardy, S. Martins, S. W. Dufour, and S. J. Kraeger.
1978. Automated impedance measurements for rapid screening of
milk microbial content. J. Food Prot. 41:277283.
Chen, H. C., and T. C. Chang. 1994. Detection of penicillin G in
milk using a conductimetric method. J. Dairy Sci. 77:15151520.
Colquhoun, K. O., S. Timms, and C. R. Fricker. 1995. Detection of
Escheri- chia coli in potable water using direct impedance technology. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 79:635639.
Deak, T., and L. R. Beuchat. 1994. Use of indirect conductimetry to
predict the growth of spoilage yeasts, with special consideration of
Zygosaccharomyces bailii. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 23:405417.
Donaghy, J. A., and R. H. Madden. 1992. Impedance detection of
Salmonella in processed animal protein and meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 16:265269.
Donaghy, J. A., and R. H. Madden. 1993. Detection of Salmonella
in animal protein by Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth using indirect impediometry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 17:281288.
Dromigny, E., F. Bourrion, Y. Rugraf, F. J. Bolton, and N. Leden.
1997. New media for detection and counting of clostridia in foods.
Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 24:1922.
Dupont, J., D. Menard, C. Herve, F. Chevalier, B. Be`liaeff, and B.
Minier. 1996. Rapid estimation of Escherichia coli in live marine
bivalve shellfish using automated conductance measurement. J.
Appl. Bacteriol. 80:8190.
Harms, V. 1987. Physik fur Mediziner und Pharmazeuten, 10th ed.
Harms, Kiel, Germany.
Jaksch, P. 1991. Grundlagen der Impedanztechnik und Erfahrungen
bei der Untersuchung roher und pasteurisierter Milch. dmz Lebensm.
Industrie Milchwirtschaft 112:950960.
Jaksch, P. 1991. Nachweis coliformer Keime in Weichkase mittels
Impedanztechnik. dmz Lebensm. Industrie Milchwirtschaft 112:
10501055.
Jockel, J. 1996. Einsatz der Impedanzmethode in der amtlichen Lebensmittel- uberwachung. Fleischwirtschaft 76:945950.
Johansen, C., T. Gill, and L. Gram. 1995. Antibacterial effect of
protamine assayed by impedimetry. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 78:297303.
Joosten, H. M. L. J., W. G. F. M. van Dijck, and F. van der Velde.

1496

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

WAWERLA ET AL.

1994. Evaluation of motility enrichment on modified semisolid Rappaport-Vassiliadis medium (MRSV) and automated conductance in
combination with Rambach agar for Salmonella detection in environmental samples of a milk powder factory. Int. J. Food Microbiol.
22:201206.
Jurinka, A., and K. Mifek. 1994. Impedanzverfahren zur Untersuchung wichtiger mikrobiologischer Parameter. Ernahrung 18:210
213.
Lanzanova, M., G. Mucchetti, and E. Neviani. 1993. Analysis of
conductance changes as a growth index of lactic acid bacteria in
milk. J. Dairy Sci. 76:2028.
Madden, R. H., W. E. Espie, and J. McBride. 1996. Benefits of
indirect impediometry, using Rappaport-Vassiliadis broth, for the detection of Salmonella in processed animal protein. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 29:387390.
Madden, R. H., and A. Gilmour. 1995. Impedance as an alternative
to MPN enumeration of coliforms in pasteurized milks. Lett. Appl.
Microbiol. 21:387388.
Noble, P. A., E. Ashton, C. A. Davidson, and W. L. Albritton. 1991.
Heterotrophic plate counts of surface water samples by using impedance methods. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 57:32873291.
Orsi, C., S. Torriani, B. Battistotti, and M. Vescovo. 1997. Impedance measurements to assess microbial contamination of ready-touse vegetables. Z. Lebensm.-Unters.-Forsch. 205:248250.
Over, S. 1994. Der Einsatz des Bactometers in mikrobiologischen
Laboratorien der milchverarbeitenden Industrie. dmz Lebensm. Industrie Milchwirtschaft 115:432435.
Pless, P. 1991. Anwendung der Impedanzmessung bei der mikrobiologischen Untersuchung von Fleisch und Fleischwaren, p. 135
140. In 32. Arbeitstagung d. Arbeitsgebietes Lebensmittelhygiene
der DVG. German Veterinary Society, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Pless, P. 1992. Detection of Listeria spp. by a new impedance method, p. 11941197. In Proceedings of the Third World Congress on
Foodborne Infections and Intoxications. Berlin, Germany.
Pless, P., K. Futschik, and E. Schopf. 1994. Rapid detection of salmonellae by means of a new Impedance-Splitting method. J. Food
Prot. 57:369376.
Reinschmidt, B., J. Jockel, and G. Hildebrandt. 1992. Impedanzmegerate in der Routinediagnostik. Lebensmitteltechnik 12:5860.

J. Food Prot., Vol. 62, No. 12

42.

43.

44.
45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.
51.

52.

53.

Richards, J. C. S., A. C. Jason, G. Hobbs, D. M. Gibson, and R. H.

Christie. 1978. Electronic measurement of bacterial growth. J. Phys.
Earth Sci. Instrum. 11:560568.
Schalch, B., and H. Eisgruber. 1994. Quantitativer Nachweis von
Clostridium perfringens mittels Impedanzmeverfahren, p. 217221
(Teil I). In 35. Arbeitstagung d. Arbeits- gebietes Lebensmittelhygiene der DVG. German Veterinary Society, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Schumann, B. 1993. Mikrobiologische Schnellmethodenproduktivere Qualitatssicherung. Dtsch. Milchwirtschaft 44:11081109.
Schutzle, U., M. Bulte, and G. Hildebrandt. 1993. Impedanzmessungen an Eiprodukten, p. 217221 (Teil II). 34. Arbeitstagung d. Arbeitsgebietes Lebensmittelhygiene der DVG. German Veterinary
Society, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Silley, P., and S. Forsythe. 1996. Impedance microbiologya rapid
change for microbiologists (a review). J. Appl. Bacteriol. 80:233
243.
Taranto, M. P., A. Pesce de Ruiz Holdalgo, and G. Font de Valdez.
1997. Use of a conductimetric method to evaluate the effect of bile
acids on Listeria monocytogenes. Milchwissenschaft 52:247249.
Tassou, C. C., E. H. Drosinos, and G. J. E. Nychas. 1995. Effects
of essential oil from mint (Mentha piperita) on Salmonella enteritidis
and Listeria monocytogenes in model food systems at 4 8 and 10 8C.
J. Appl. Bacteriol. 78:593600.
Tranter, H. S., S. C. Tassou, and G. J. Nychas. 1993. The effect of
the olive phenolic compound, oleuropein, on growth and enterotoxin
B production by Staphylococcus aureus. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 74:253
259.
Trautwein, A., U. Kreibig, and E. Oberhausen. 1987. Physik fur
Mediziner, Biologen, Pharmazeuten. 4th ed. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Url, B. 1991. Nachweis von Rekontaminationskeimen in Trinkmilch
mit Hilfe der Impedanzmessung, p. 313319. In 32. Arbeitstagung
d. Arbeitsgebietes Lebensmittel- hygiene der DVG. German Veterinary Society, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany.
Wallentin Lindberg, C., and E. Borch. 1994. Predicting the aerobic
growth of Y. enterocolitica O:3 at different pH-values, temperatures
and L-lactate concentrations using conductance measurements. Int.
J. Food Microbiol. 22:141153.
Wawerla, M. 1998. Quantitativer Nachweis von Clostridium perfringens in Hackfleisch mittels Impedanzmessung. DVM dissertation.
Munich.