
The consumption of minimally processed fruit (MPF) has increased over the last decade due to a novel trend in the food market along with the raising consumers demand for fresh, organic, convenient foods and the search for healthier lifestyles. Although represented by one of the most expanded sectors in recent years, the microbiological safety of MPF and its role as an emergent foodborne vehicle has caused great concern to the food industry and public health authorities. Such food products may expose consumers to a risk of foodborne infection as they are not subjected to prior microbial lethal methods to ensure the removal or destruction of pathogens before consumption. A considerable number of foodborne disease cases linked to MPF have been reported and pathogenic strains of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, as well as Norovirus accounted for the majority of cases. Microbial spoilage is also an issue of concern as it may result in huge economic losses among the various stakeholders involved in the manufacturing and commercialization of MPF. Contamination can take place at any step of production/manufacturing and identifying the nature and sources of microbial growth in the farm-to-fork chain is crucial to ensure appropriate handling practices for producers, retailers, and consumers. This review aims to summarize information about the microbiological hazards associated with the consumption of MPF and also highlight the importance of establishing effective control measures and developing coordinated strategies in order to enhance their safety.
Citation: Jessie Melo, Célia Quintas. Minimally processed fruits as vehicles for foodborne pathogens[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(1): 1-19. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023001
[1] | Osmond C. Ekwebelem, Helen Onyeaka, Ismaeel Yunusa, Taghi Miri, Yahwedalu M. Onwuneme, Ayeni T. Eunice, Amara Anyogu, Bright Obi, Ngwogu Ada Carol . Do we trust the government? Attributes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and acceptance in Nigeria. AIMS Medical Science, 2022, 9(2): 268-282. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2022010 |
[2] | Claudia Chaufan, Laurie Manwell, Camila Heredia, Jennifer McDonald . COVID-19 vaccines and autoimmune disorders: A scoping review protocol. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(4): 318-328. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023025 |
[3] | Kasia A. Pawelek, Sarah Tobin, Christopher Griffin, Dominik Ochocinski, Elissa J. Schwartz, Sara Y. Del Valle . Impact of A Waning Vaccine and Altered Behavior on the Spread of Influenza. AIMS Medical Science, 2017, 4(2): 217-232. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2017.2.217 |
[4] | Chien Chinh Vien, Tuan Van Le, Van Tuyet Thi Nguyen, Thang Nghia Hoang, Phila Nay . Viral load dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 in the moderately symptomatic COVID-19 patients in Dak Lak, Viet Nam, 2021. AIMS Medical Science, 2025, 12(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2025001 |
[5] | Carlos Forner-Álvarez, Ferran Cuenca-Martínez, Alba Sebastián-Martín, Celia Vidal-Quevedo, Mónica Grande-Alonso . Combined face-to-face and telerehabilitation physiotherapy management in a patient with chronic pain related to piriformis syndrome: A case report. AIMS Medical Science, 2024, 11(2): 113-123. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2024010 |
[6] | Adeniyi Ayinde Abdulwahab, Deborah Oluwaseun Shomuyiwa, Nwachuya Chukwuemeka Augustine, Akwue Marytheresa Chinaza, Muhsinah Adesewa Abdulwasiu, Agada Emmanuella Chinecherem, Usman Ridwan Kolade, Timileyin Omolayo Awolola, Taiwo Olawehinmi, Yusuff Adebayo Adebisi . Challenges facing pharmaceutical care provision in Nigerian tertiary hospitals: A short review. AIMS Medical Science, 2022, 9(4): 486-495. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2022026 |
[7] | Gasim Dobie, Sarah Abutalib, Wafa Sadifi, Mada Jahfali, Bayan Alghamdi, Asmaa Khormi, Taibah Alharbi, Munyah Zaqan, Zahra M Baalous, Abdulrahim R Hakami, Mohammed H Nahari, Abdullah A Mobarki, Muhammad Saboor, Mohammad S Akhter, Abdullah Hamadi, Denise E Jackson, Hassan A Hamali . The correlation between severe complications and blood group types in COVID-19 patients; with possible role of T polyagglutination in promoting thrombotic tendencies. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(1): 1-13. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023001 |
[8] | Ayema Haque, Areeba Minhaj, Areeba Ahmed, Owais Khan, Palvisha Qasim, Hasan Fareed, Fatima Nazir, Ayesha Asghar, Kashif Ali, Sobia Mansoor . A meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of thromboembolism in hospitalized COVID-19 patients. AIMS Medical Science, 2020, 7(4): 301-310. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2020020 |
[9] | Melissa R. Bowman Foster, Ali Atef Hijazi, Raymond C. Sullivan Jr, Rebecca Opoku . Hydroxyurea and pyridostigmine repurposed for treating Covid-19 multi-systems dysfunctions. AIMS Medical Science, 2023, 10(2): 118-129. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2023010 |
[10] | Hossein Sheibani, Elham Azmoodeh, Amirhessam Kheirieh, Khadijeh Aerab Sheibani . COVID-19 and papular manifestations pattern in 3 patients: a retrospective case series. AIMS Medical Science, 2021, 8(1): 36-41. doi: 10.3934/medsci.2021004 |
The consumption of minimally processed fruit (MPF) has increased over the last decade due to a novel trend in the food market along with the raising consumers demand for fresh, organic, convenient foods and the search for healthier lifestyles. Although represented by one of the most expanded sectors in recent years, the microbiological safety of MPF and its role as an emergent foodborne vehicle has caused great concern to the food industry and public health authorities. Such food products may expose consumers to a risk of foodborne infection as they are not subjected to prior microbial lethal methods to ensure the removal or destruction of pathogens before consumption. A considerable number of foodborne disease cases linked to MPF have been reported and pathogenic strains of Salmonella enterica, Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, as well as Norovirus accounted for the majority of cases. Microbial spoilage is also an issue of concern as it may result in huge economic losses among the various stakeholders involved in the manufacturing and commercialization of MPF. Contamination can take place at any step of production/manufacturing and identifying the nature and sources of microbial growth in the farm-to-fork chain is crucial to ensure appropriate handling practices for producers, retailers, and consumers. This review aims to summarize information about the microbiological hazards associated with the consumption of MPF and also highlight the importance of establishing effective control measures and developing coordinated strategies in order to enhance their safety.
Emerging and re-emerging infectious diseases remains a major public health concern. In the last four years, the world witnessed an unprecedented outbreak of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Since its discovery, COVID-19 has been swiftly spreading from one country to another causing massive deaths and economic devastation world wide. As of 4 June 2023, the cumulative reported number of confirmed cases of COVID-19 reached over 767 million and the cumulative number of dealths reaches over 6.9 million deaths globally [1]. Despite significant progress in the development and introduction of new diagnostics, which has lead to a remarkable decline in deaths and new infections, COVID-19 remains a public health challenge. According to the latest estimates from the world health organization (WHO), from 8 May to 4 June 2023 (28 days), over 1.7 million new cases and over 10,000 deaths occurred globally [1]. Compared to the previous 28 days (10 April to 7 May 2023), this represents a decrease of 38% and 47% in cases and deaths, respectively [1].
In spite of a considerable decline in COVID-19 cases and deaths, it remains imperative for researchers to continuously explore the strength of the novel control methods to eradicate the disease. Mathematical models provide powerful tools for explaining and predicting the COVID-19 trend, and also for quantifying the effectiveness of different novel control strategies either singly or combined. Since its discovery, several mathematical models have been formulated to extensively study various aspects of factors involving COVID-19 transmission and control. Ndaïrou et al. [2] employed a system of integer ordinary differential equations (IODEs) to model the effects of super-spreaders on COVID-19 dynamics in Wuhan, China. Findings from their work showed that super-spreaders play a crucial role on the generation of secondary infections.
Rozenfeld et al. [3] proposed a statistical model to evaluate risk factors associated with COVID-19 infection. Their study showed that the risk of COVID-19 infection is higher among groups already affected by health disparities across age, race, ethnicity, language, income and living conditions. Mushayabasa et al. [4] developed a mathematical model based on IODEs to evaluate the role of governmental action and individual reaction on COVID-19 dynamics in South Africa. Their study demonstrated optimal conditions necessary for the infection to die out as well as persist. In [5], a system of IODEs were utilized to investigate the impacts of vaccination on COVID-19 dynamics. They concluded that vaccination could significantly reduce the generation of new infections. To explore the impact of lockdown of COVID-19 transmission dynamics, Ahmed et al. [6] developed a mathematical model based on the Caputo fractional-order. Khan et al. [7] presented a compartmental model based on Caputo-Fabrizio operator to predict COVID-19 dynamics in the Sultanate of Oman. Ghosh and Martcheva [8] developed an epidemic model based on IODEs to investigate the effects of prosocial awareness on COVID-19 dynamics in Colombia and India. Results from their work showed that prosocial awareness has competitive potential to flatten the COVID-19 prevalence curve.
The aforementioned mathematical models of COVID-19 and those cited therein have certainly produced many useful results and improved the existing knowledge on the disease dynamics. However, despite all these efforts, several challenges remain in the mathematical modeling of COVID-19. In particular, since the advent of several COVID-19 vaccines, a large proportion of the population in different parts of the globe has been reluctant to be inoculated [9]–[11]. This phenomena is known as vaccine hesitancy. WHO defines vaccine hesitancy as the delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite the availability of vaccine services [12]. Vaccine hesitancy limits vaccine efficacy [9].
Emperical studies have shown that the average acceptance rates of the COVID-19 vaccines are relatively low across the world, particularly in the Middle East, Russia, Africa and several European countries [9]. In particular, a study conducted in France in October 2020 revealed that 46% of French citizens are vaccine hesitant. Furthermore, studies conducted in other countries revealed the following statistics with regards to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: 36% in Spain and USA, 35% in Italy, 32% in South Africa and 31% in Japan and Germany. Globally, vaccine hesitancy and objection has been estimated to be around 27% [13]. Lack of information about the side effects, especially the long-term effects, time-line of the COVID vaccines production, culture and religion issues, political and conspiracy theory, are some of the reasons that have been associated with vaccine hesitancy [9], [10].
Considering these large percentages of hesitance and objection of COVID-19 vaccines, we thought it is prudent to quantify the public health implications of vaccine hesitancy on COVID-19 dynamics. To this end, we developed a mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission that incorporates vaccination effects and non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs). Since vaccination is voluntary and most of the COVID-19 vaccines require two or more doses for one to be completely vaccinated, we assume that individuals can choose to be partially or completely vaccinated. Partially vaccinated individuals are those that do not complete all the required vaccine doses while completely vaccinated are those that complete all the required doses per vaccine.
In this study, we are particularly concerned with quantifying the effects of delaying the first and second COVID-19 vaccine dose on disease dynamics. We are cognisant that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) recommends the second dose from 3 to 12 weeks after the first dose [14]. Hence, we will evaluate the implications of taking the second dose after 12 weeks (approximately 84 days). Quantifying the effects of interventions enable policy maker and health experts to evaluate the success of an epidemic response so as to improve and inform ongoing and future interventions.
We therefore proposed a mathematical framework based on the Caputo Fractional derivative, since fractional models can more accurately describe biological and natural phenomena than integer ordinary differential equations [15]–[17]. Although there are several fractional derivatives in literature, we have employed the Caputo derivative due to the following reasons (i) the Caputo derivative for a constant has the same outcome as that of an integer ordinary differential equation, (ii) computations based on the Caputo derivative makes use of local initial conditions, and (iii) the Caputo operator computes an ordinary differential equation, followed by a fractional integral to obtain the desired order of fractional derivative [18]–[20]. To the best of our knowledge, there are no studies in literature that have attempted to quantifying the effects of delaying the second COVID-19 vaccine dose using a fractional model.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the material and methods. We present the novel COVID-19 model and its assumptions. Section 3 presents the results and discussions. In particular, we present both analytical and numerical findings. Finally, concluding remarks and limitations rounds up the paper.
In this section, we present a fractional model to study the transmission of COVID-19 incoportaing NIPs use and vaccination. The model is based on Fractional Calculus (FC), in particular, the Caputo derivative and the Caputo fractional derivative of order q is defined by equation (2.1) [21]:
with t>0,
Let S(t), V(t), E(t), I(t), A(t), H(t) and R(t) denote the number of susceptible, vaccinated, exposed, clinically infected, asymptomatic infectious patients, hospitalized, and recovered human at time t, respectively. Thus the total human population at time t is given by
All new recruited individuals are assumed to be susceptible to infection. Let Λ be the constant recruitment rate. Susceptible individual are assumed to acquire infection following effective contact with individuals displaying clinical signs of the disease
Susceptible individuals are assumed to receive their first dose at rate
Upon being infected with COVID-19, individuals enter the exposed state. These individuals incubates the disease and are not yet infectious. We assume that they will remain in this state for an average period of 1/
Based on the above assumptions the transmission dynamics of COVID-19 can be summarized by the following system of equation (Model flow diagram is in Figure 1):
In this section, we present both analytical and numerical results.
Since model (2.2) monitors human population, it is essential to demonstrate that all model solutions are bounded and positive for all t ≥ 0. Based on the computations in Supplement A, we obtained the following results.
Theorem 3.1. Model (2.2) has unique and non-negative solutions which turn into region Ω+ as t→∞, where Ω+ is defined by:
One of the most important threshold quantity of epidemiological models is the reproduction number. It demostrates the disease transmission potential during an outbreak. Generally, the reproduction number is defined as the average number of new infections produced by a typical infected individual during their entire infectious period when introduced into a completely susceptible population [23]. To determine the reproduction number we will make use of the Next-generation matrix (NGM) method [24]. Based on the computations in Supplement B, we obtained the expression of reproduction number of model (2.2) as follows (3.2):
where ℜ0j, for j = A, I, H denotes the average number of secondary infections generated by one infectious individual from epidemiological class j introduced in population wholly of susceptible (vaccinated and unvaccinated) humans. From (3.2) one can observe the totally susceptible (vaccinated and unvaccinated) human population,
The main focus of this section is to analyze the global behavior of model (2.2) by examining its stability. Global stability analysis enables the researcher to understand the evolution of the disease about the model steady states. Comprehensive analysis in Supplement C shows that the following result holds.
Theorem 3.2. If ℜ0 < 1 then the disease-free equilibrium (DFE) is globally stable. However, if ℜ0 > 1 the DFE is unstable and a unique equilibrium exists and is a global attractor.
Theorem 3.2 implies that whenever ℜ0 < 1 the disease dies out in the community and it persists if ℜ0 > 1. Hence if novel intervention strategies are capable of reducing ℜ0 to values less than unity then the disease will become extinct.
In order to determine numerical results of model (2.2), we need to estimate the model parameters. We obtain these parameter values using two approaches: some parameter values are adapted from literature and some other parameter values are estimated by computing the root-mean square error (RMSE) as follows:
where n is the number of observations. We will make use of the COVID-19 data for Wuhan, China presented in [2]. Note that the daily cases correspond to the first term of the equation
Symbol | Description | Value | Units | Source |
ω | Proportion of exposed individuals who develop clinical signs of the disease | Dimensionless | 0.75 | [4] |
Λ | Per capita human recruitment rate | Day−1 | 20 | [25] |
α−1 | Incubation period | Day | 2 (2–14) | [25] |
φ | Vaccine efficacy | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0–1) | [25] |
κ | Rate of vaccination with first dose | Day−1 | 0.03 | [25] |
θ2 | Rate of vaccination with more than a single dose | Days−1 | 0.05 | [25] |
ϵ | Efficacy of NPIs | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0-1) | [25] |
δ1 | Rate of hospitalization of clinical patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
δ2 | Rate of hospitalization of asymptomatic patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
γ1 | Recover rate of asymptomatic humans | Day−1 | 0.004 | [25] |
γ2 | Recover rate of infected humans | Day−1 | 0.015 | [25] |
γ3 | Recover rate of hospitalized humans | Day−1 | 0.5 | [25] |
d | Disease induced death rate | Day−1 | 0.005 | [26] |
μ | Natural death rate | Day−1 | 5×10−6 | [26] |
β | Disease transmission rate | Day−1 | 5.4×10−6 | Fitting |
Simulation results in Figure 2 shows (a) the RMSE for different derivative orders (b) model fit versus observed values and (c) plot of residuals. From the illustration in (a), one can observe that the minimum error of estimation for the given data occurs for q=0.345. In (b), we can observe that model estimates are extremely close to the observed data. In (c), one can observe that the residuals show very little or no autocorrelation or partial autocorrelation an evidence that we have a good fit.
We examined the relationship between individual parameters and ℜ0 when all model parameters are simultaneously varied. We performed this analysis utilizing the partial rank correlation coefficients (PRCC) approach presented in [27], and the results are presented in Figure 3. The output shows that an increasing recruitment and disease transmission rate will increase disease transmission potential. In contrast, the simulations shows that increasing (i) NPIs use; (ii), vaccination of susceptible individuals (with either first dose or more than one dose) and vaccine efficacy will significantly reduce disease transmission potential. Together, these results suggest that reducing disease transmission rate through awareness campaigns and vaccination will significantly reduce disease transmission potential. In addition, results show that NIPs use has most impact on reducing disease transmission potential. We further investigated the relationship between ℜ0 and four model parameters which are strongly correlated to it; awareness and disease transmission rate (Figure 4). Overall, these simulations confirm that increasing disease transmission rate will increase disease transmission potential and increasing use of NPIs will reduce disease transmission potential.
A contour plot of ℜ0 as a function of ϵ (NPIs use)and φ (vaccine efficacy)is presented in Figure 5. The values of other model parameters are based on Table 1. We observe that whenever the efficacy of NPIs and vaccine are atleast 80% all the time, then the disease transmission potential is reduce to values below unity. This implies that the disease will die out in the community as guaranteed by Theorem 3.2.
Sensitivity analysis results has shown that high NPIs and vaccine efficacy have the potential to reduce transmission potential. Here, we examine the disease dynamics with varying vaccine and NPIs efficacy (Figure 6). Simulation results (Figure 6) concur with earlier findings that increasing NPIs use coupled with high effective vaccine will lead to disease extinction. In particular, one can observe that when both NPIs use and vaccine efficacy exceeds 75% then the disease dies out in the community. Precisely, when ϵ = φ = 0, then ℜ0 = 3.96 and when ϵ = φ = 75%, then ℜ0 = 0.2491. Results presented in Figure 6 also concur with analytical results in Theorem 3.2 that if ℜ0 < 1 the the disease dies out and the reverse occurs for ℜ0 > 1.
To assess the effects of delaying the uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine dose on disease dynamics, we simulated model (2.2) at different values of κ with θ2 fixed at 0.01 per day. The results are in Figure 7. Results show that a delay exceeding 10 days (κ = 0.1) may lead to disease persistence and the reverse leads to disease extinction.
To evaluate the effects of delaying the second COVID-19 vaccine dose on disease dynamics, we simulated model (2.2) at different values of θ2, (the rate at which individuals received more than a single dose) and the other model parameters are fixed as in Table 1. The results are in Figure 8. Simulation results indicates that an increase in the number of individual who take the optimal vaccine doses will lead to disease extinction. Based on these results one can conclude that, if the delay for the second COVID-19 vaccine is more than 100 days (θ2 = 0.01) then the disease may persist. Results in Figure 7 and 8 both show that delaying accepting COVID-19 vaccines have public health implications.
To investigate the role of memory effects on the evolution COVID-19 over time, we simulated model (2.2) for ℜ0 < 1 (Figure 9) and ℜ0 > 1 (Figure 10) at different values of q (the derivative order). In all scenarios, we observed that model solutions will converge to a unique equilibrium point. In particular, if ℜ0 < 1 model solutions converges to DFE and if ℜ0 > 1 solution converge to a unique endemic equilibrium. Moreover, we observed that for ℜ0 > 1 model solutions for different derivative orders exhibit an oscillatory behavior before they eventually converge to their respective endemic points. This phenomena was also obsrved in the following studies [28], [29]. In addition, we observed that due to the fractional-order the rate of decay and growth of solutions differs. In particular, when the memory effects are strong (q < 1), the model solutions converges to their respective equilibrium points earlier than when memory effects are weak (q ≈ 1). This outcome was also noted in the work of Nisar et al. [30].
Mathematical models are invaluable tools that can be used to quantitatively evaluate vaccination programs, improve their design and monitor new vaccine initiatives. Although vaccination is voluntary, the success attained by rolling out vaccines lies on vaccine efficacy and its acceptance by the target population. With the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines estimated to be in the range of 50–95% efficacy [31], their success essentially depended on their acceptance by the population. Despite being highly effective, COVID-19 roll-out has been characterized by vaccine hesitancy. Globally, vaccine hesitancy and objection has been estimated to be around 27% [13]. Using a fractional model in this paper, we evaluated the vaccine hesitancy on COVID-19 dynamics over time. In particular, we evaluated the effects of delaying the first and second COVID-19 dose on disease dynamics over time. In addition, the model also includes the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs).
We employed a fractional model since model based on fractional calculus are capable of describing real world phenomena more accurately compared to integer ordinary differential equations. In particular, we used the Caputo derivative since its derivative for a constant has the same outcome as that of an integer ordinary differential equation. We computed the reproduction number and carried out sensitivity analysis using the partial rank correlation method to assess its relationship with model parameters. Sensitivity analysis results showed that vaccines with relatively high efficacy are capable of minimizing the spread of the epidemic. We also observed that reducing the delay to accept the first and second vaccine doses significantly reduces the epidemic outcomes. In contrast, we observe that parameters associated with recruitment rate of the population and disease transmission can significantly increase the epidemic whenever they are increased.
We also examined the global stability of the model steady states. By constructing suitable Lyapunov functionals, we demonstrated the both the disease-free and endemic equilibrium are globally asymptotically stable whenever they exist. The aforementioned analytical results are supported by numerical illustrations. To underpin and demonstrate this study, we carried out extensive numerical simulations, in particular, we assessed the effects of NPIs and vaccination on disease dynamics. Results showed that vaccines and NIPs interventions that are 75% effective all the time are capable of stopping the epidemic. We also evaluated the implications of vaccine hesitancy on disease dynamics. Outcomes showed that delaying accepting COVID-19 vaccines have public health implications. In particular, a delay of more than 10 and 100 days for the first and second dose, respectively, leads to disease persistence.
Our study has limitations. First, vaccine hesitancy can be triggered or aided by proliferation of anti-vaccination misinformation through social media [32]. As a future work, it will be interesting to modify the proposed model to incorporate media effects. Second, we did not account for heterogeneity in disease transmission. Risks of acquisition, spread, clinical symptoms and disease severity are heterogeneous, as are access to and uptake of universal strategies of confinement, testing and isolation [33]. Despite all these limitations, our findings might be useful for designing and implementing vaccination programs.
In this section, we present the existence, uniqueness, positivity and boundedness of the solutions of model (2.2). We commence our discussion by demonstrating existence and uniqueness of solutions. Our approach is based on the fixed-point theory. Let ℬ be a Banach space of real-valued continuous functions defined on an interval ℐ with the associated norm:
where
By applying the Caputo fractional integral operator, system (5.2), reduces to the following integral equation of Volterra type with Caputo fractional integral of order 0 < q < 1,
Next we prove that the kernels Gi, i=1,2,3,4,5,6,7 fulfill the Lipschitz condition and contraction under some assumptions. In the following theorem, we have demonstrated for G1 and one can easily verify for the remainder.
Theorem 5.1. Let us consider the following inequality
The kernel G1 satisfies the Lipschitz condition as well as contraction if the above inequality is satisfied.
Proof. For S and S1 we proceed as below.
Since A(t), I(t) and H(t) are bounded functions, i.e,
where
Recursively, the expression in (5.3) can be written as
The difference between successive terms of system (5.2) in recursive form is given below:
with the initial conditions
Applying the Lipschitz condition (5.5) one gets
Thus, we have
Similarly, for the remainder of the equations in system (2.2) we have
From (5.12) one can write
Now, we claim the following result which guaranteed the uniqueness of solution of model (2.2).
Theorem 5.2. The proposed fractional epidemic model (2.2) has a unique solution for
Proof. Earlier we have shown that the kernels conditions given in Eqs. (5.5) and (5.6) holds. Thus by considering the Eqs. (5.12) and (5.14), and by applying the recursive technique we obtained the succeeding results as below
‖ϕ1n(t)‖≤‖S0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη1]n,‖ϕ2n(t)‖≤‖V0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη2]n,‖ϕ3n(t)‖≤‖E0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη3]n,‖ϕ4n(t)‖≤‖A0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη4]n,‖ϕ5n(t)‖≤‖I0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη5]n,‖ϕ6n(t)‖≤‖H0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη6]n,‖ϕ7n(t)‖≤‖R0(t)‖[1Γ(q)bqη7]n.} | (5.15) |
Therefore, the above mentioned sequences exist and satisfy
‖Sn+k(t)−Sn(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj1=Tn+11−Tn+k+111−T1,‖Vn+k(t)−Vn(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj2=Tn+12−Tn+k+121−T2,‖En+k(t)−En(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj3=Tn+13−Tn+k+131−T3,‖An+k(t)−An(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj4=Tn+14−Tn+k+141−T4,‖In+k(t)−In(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj5=Tn+15−Tn+k+151−T5,‖Hn+k(t)−Hn(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj6=Tn+16−Tn+k+161−T6,‖Rn+k(t)−Rn(t)‖≤n+k∑j=n+1Tj7=Tn+17−Tn+k+171−T7,} | (5.16) |
where
We now demonstrate the positivity of solutions for all t ≥ 0. To prove positivity and boundedness of solutions, we need the following Generalized Mean Value Theorem in [35] and corollary.
Lemma 5.1. Suppose that
with
Corollary 5.1. Suppose that
We now prove that the non-negative orthant
Thus, by Corollary 5.1, the solution of model (2.2) are always positive for t ≥ 0. We now demonstrate that all solutions of model (2.2) are bounded above for all t ≥ 0. To do this, we need the following Lemma 5.2 and Lemma 5.3.
Lemma 5.2. (see [36]). Let q>0,
where
Lemma 5.3. (see [37]). Let
for
Since all solutions of model system (2.2) have been shown to be positively invariant and have a lower bound zero (5.18)-(5.24), we now proceed to demonstrate that these solutions are bounded above. By summing all equations of system (2.2) one gets:
Taking the Laplace transform of (5.26) leads to:
Combining like terms and arranging leads to
Applying the inverse Laplace transform leads to
where
In order to compute the reproduction number using the next generation matrix (NGM) method [24] we first evaluate the disease-free equilibrium (DFE). Through direct calculations one can easily verify that in the absence of COVID-19 in the community the DFE of model (2.2) is:
We now define the nonnegative matrix ℱ that denotes the generation of new infection terms and the non-singular matrix 𝒱 that denotes the remaining transfer terms are respectively given (at the disease-free equilibrium ℰ0) by:
It follows from (5.31), that the NGM K of the model (2.2) is (5.32)
where
The spectral radius of (5.32) gives the reproduction number of model (2.2) is given by Equation (3.2).
To investigate the global stability of the model steady states we will construct appropriate Lyapunov functionals. Since the recovered/removed population does not contribute to the generation of secondary infections one can ignore that last equation of model (2.2) when examining the global stability and consider the following reduced system
Now, to investigate the global stability of the DFE let us consider the Lyapunov functional (5.38):
where
where,
Taking the derivative of L0(t) along the solutions system (5.37) and making some algebraic simplification lead one gets:
If
To demonstrate the second part of Theorem 3.2, we need Lemma 5.4 in [39]:
Lemma 5.4. Let
We now proceed to investigate the global stability of the endemic equilibrium. We define the Lyapunov functional:
with
Applying Lemma 5.4 leads to (5.43):
where
It follows that if
it implies
We are grateful to their respective institutions for the support they received while carrying out this study. In addition, we would like to thank the anonymous referees and the editors for their invaluable comments and suggestions.
All authors have equal contributions and they read and approved the final version of the paper.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
Septembre-Malaterre A, Remize F, Poucheret P (2018) Fruits and vegetables, as a source of nutritional compounds and phytochemicals: Changes in bioactive compounds during lactic fermentation. Food Res Int 104: 86-99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.09.031 ![]() |
[2] |
Lafarga T, Colás-Medá P, Abadias M, et al. (2019) Strategies to reduce microbial risk and improve quality of fresh and processed strawberries. Inn Food Sci Emer Tech 52: 197-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.12.012 ![]() |
[3] |
Siroli LF, Patrignani DI, Serrazanetti F, et al. (2015) Innovative strategies based on the use of bio-control agents to improve the safety, shelf-life and quality of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci Tech 46: 302-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.04.014 ![]() |
[4] |
Samtiya M, Aluko RE, Dhewa T, et al. (2021) Potential health benefits of food-plant derived bioactive components: An Overview. Foods 10: 839-864. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10040839 ![]() |
[5] |
Prakash A, Baskaran R, Paramasivam N, et al. (2018) Essential oils based nanoemulsions to improve the microbial quality of minimally processed fruits and vegetables: A review. Food Res Int 111: 509-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.05.066 ![]() |
[6] |
Corato H (2019) Improving the quality and shelf-life of fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables for a modern industry: A comprehensive critical review from the traditional technologies into the most promising advancements. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 60: 940-975. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2018.1553025 ![]() |
[7] |
Oliveira M, Abadias M, Usall J, et al. (2015) Application of modified atmosphere packaging as a safety approach to fresh-cut fruits and vegetables – A review. Trends Food Sci Tech 46: 13-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2015.07.017 ![]() |
[8] |
Heaton JC, Jones K (2008) Microbial contamination of fruit and vegetables and the behavior of enteropathogens in the phyllosphere: a review. J Appl Microbiol 104: 613-626. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2007.03587.x ![]() |
[9] |
Olaimat AN, Holley RA (2012) Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: a review. Food Microbiol 32: 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2012.04.016 ![]() |
[10] |
Strawn LK, Schneider KR, Danyluk MD (2011) Microbial safety of tropical fruits. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 51: 132-145. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408390903502864 ![]() |
[11] |
Pérez-Lavalle L, Carrasco E, Valero A (2020) Strategies for microbial decontamination of fresh blueberries and derived products. Foods 9: 1558. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9111558 ![]() |
[12] |
McQuiston JR, Waters RJ, Dinsmore BA, et al. (2007) Molecular determination of H antigens of Salmonella by use of microsphere-based liquid array. J Clin Microbiol 49: 565-573. https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.01323-10 ![]() |
[13] |
Brandl MT, Amundson R (2008) Leaf age as risk factor in contamination of lettuce with Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 2298-2306. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.02459-07 ![]() |
[14] |
Melotto M, Panchal S, Roy D (2014) Plant innate immunity against human bacterial pathogens. Front Microbiol 5: 411. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00411 ![]() |
[15] | Wiedemann A, Virlougeux-Payant I, Chaussé A, et al. (2014) Interaction of Salmonella with animals and plants. Front Microbiol 5: 791. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2014.00791 |
[16] |
Coburn B, Grassi GA, Finlay BB (2007) Salmonella, the host and disease: a brief review. Immun Cell Biol 85: 112-118. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.icb.7100007 ![]() |
[17] |
Mali-Kale P, Winfree S, Steele-Mortimer O (2012) The bimodal lifestyle of Salmonella in epithelial cells: replication in cytosol obscures defects in vacuolar replication. PLoS One 7: e38732. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038732 ![]() |
[18] | European Commission Regulation.Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Off J Eur Union L (2005) 338: 1-26. |
[19] |
Strawn LK, Danyluk MD (2010) Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. on fresh and frozen cut mangoes and papayas. Int J Food Microbiol 138: 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.12.002 ![]() |
[20] |
Alegre I, Abadias M, Anguera M, et al. (2010) Fate of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella and Listeria innocua on minimally-processed peaches under different storage conditions. Food Microbiol 27: 862-868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.05.008 ![]() |
[21] |
Ukuku DO, Huang L, Sommers C (2015) Efficacy of sanitizer treatments on survival and growth parameters of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes on fresh-cut pieces of Cantaloupe during storage. J Food Prot 78: 1288-1295. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-14-233 ![]() |
[22] |
Palekar MP, Taylor TM, Maxim JE, et al. (2015) Reduction of Salmonella enterica serotype Poona and background microbiota on fresh-cut cantaloupe by electron beam irradiation. Int J Food Microbiol 202: 66-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.02.001 ![]() |
[23] |
Graça A, Santo D, Quintas C, et al. (2017) Growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica and Listeria spp., and their inactivation using ultraviolet energy and electrolyzed water, on ‘Rocha’ fresh-cut pears. Food Control 77: 41-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.01.017 ![]() |
[24] |
Yoo BK, Liu Y, Juneja V, et al. (2015) Growth characteristics of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) stressed by chlorine, sodium chloride, acid and starvation on lettuce and cantaloupe. Food Control 55: 97-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.02.040 ![]() |
[25] |
Berger CN, Sodha SV, Shaw RK, et al. (2010) Fresh fruit and vegetables as vehicles for the transmission of human pathogens. Environ Microbiol 12: 2385-2397. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1462-2920.2010.02297.x ![]() |
[26] |
Croxen MA, Law RJ, Scholz R, et al. (2013) Recent advances in understanding enteric pathogenic Escherichia coli. Clin Microbiol Rev 26: 822-880. https://doi.org/10.1128/CMR.00022-13 ![]() |
[27] |
Solomon EB, Yaron S, Matthews KR (2002) Transmission of Escherichia coli O157:H7 from contaminated manure and irrigation water to lettuce plant tissue and its subsequent internalization. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 397-400. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.1.397-400.2002 ![]() |
[28] |
Natvig EE, Ingham SC, Ingham BH, et al. (2002) Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium and Escherichia coli contamination of root and leaf vegetables grown in soils with incorporated bovine manure. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 2737-2744. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.68.6.2737-2744.2002 ![]() |
[29] |
Abadias M, Alegre I, Oliveira M, et al. (2012) Growth potential of Escherichia coli on fresh-cut fruits (melon and pineapple) and vegetables (carrot and escarole) stored under different conditions. Food Control 27: 37-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.02.032 ![]() |
[30] |
Buchanan RL, Gorris LGM, Heyman MM, et al. (2017) A review of Listeria monocytogenes: An update on outbreaks, virulence, dose response, ecology, and risk assessments. Food Control 75: 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.12.016 ![]() |
[31] |
NicAogáin K, O'Byrne CP (2016) The role of stress and stress adaptations determining the fate of bacterial pathogen Listeria monocytogenes in the food chain. Front Microbiol 7: 1865. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01865 ![]() |
[32] |
Ferreira V, Wiedmann M, Teixeira P, et al. (2014) Listeria monocytogenes persistence in food-associated environments: Epidemiology, strain characteristics, and implications for public health. J Food Prot 77: 150-170. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-13-150 ![]() |
[33] |
Colagiorgi A, Bruini I, Di Ciccio PA, et al. (2017) Listeria monocytogenes biofilms in the wonderland of food industry. Pathogens 6: 41. https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens6030041 ![]() |
[34] |
Colás Medà P, Vinas I, Alegre I, et al. (2017) The impact of a cold chain break on the survival of Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes on minimally processed “Conference” pears during their shelf life. J Sci Food Agric 97: 3077-3080. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.8127 ![]() |
[35] |
Melo J, Andrew PW, Faleiro ML (2015) Listeria monocytogenes in cheese and the dairy environment remains a food safety challenge: The role of stress responses. Food Res Int 67: 75-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.10.031 ![]() |
[36] | Shamloo E, Hosseini H, Moghadam ZA, et al. (2019) Importance of Listeria monocytogenes in food safety: a review of its prevalence, detection, and antibiotic resistance. Iran J Vet Res 20: 241-254. |
[37] |
Garner D, Kathariou S (2016) Fresh produce-associated listeriosis outbreaks, sources of concern, teachable moments, and insights. J Food Prot 79: 337-344. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-15-387 ![]() |
[38] |
Lopez-Valladares G, Danielsson-Tham ML, Tham W (2018) Implicated food products for listeriosis and changes in serovars of Listeria monocytogenes affecting humans for recent decades. Foodborne Pathog Dis 15: 387-397. https://doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2017.2419 ![]() |
[39] |
Gustafson RE, Ryser ET (2017) Thermal inactivation and growth of Listeria monocytogenes during production and storage of caramel apples. Food Control 79: 234-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.03.043 ![]() |
[40] | Glass KA, Golden MC, Wanless BJ, et al. (2015) Growth of Listeria monocytogenes within a caramel-coated apple microenvironment. AMS mBio 6: e01232-15. https://doi.org/10.1128/mBio.01232-15 |
[41] |
Ruiz-Llacsahuanga B, Hamilton A, Zaches R, et al. (2016) Utility of rapid tests to assess the prevalence of indicator organisms (aerobic plate count, Enterobacteriaceae, coliforms, Escherichia coli, and Listeria spp.) in apple packinghouses. Int J Food Microbiol 337: 108949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108949 ![]() |
[42] |
De Jesus AJ, Sheth I, Kwon HJ, et al. (2020) Survival of a serotype 4b strain and a serotype 1/2a strain of Listeria monocytogenes, isolated from a stone fruit outbreak investigation, on whole stone fruit at 4 °C. Int J Food Microbiol 334: 108801. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108801 ![]() |
[43] |
Conway WS, Leverentz B, Saftner RA, et al. (2000) Survival and growth of Listeria monocytogenes on fresh-cut apples slices and its interactions with Glomerella cingulata and Penicillium expansum. Plant Dis 84: 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.2.177 ![]() |
[44] | Ziegler M, Rüegg S, Stephan R, et al. (2018) Growth potential of Listeria monocytogenes in six different RTE fruit products: impact of food matrix, storage temperature and shelf life. Ital J Food Saf 7: 7581. https://doi.org/10.4081/ijfs.2018.7581 |
[45] |
Carpentier B, Cerf O (2011) Review–persistence of Listeria monocytogenes in food industry equipment and premises. Int J Food Microbiol 145: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.01.005 ![]() |
[46] |
Bosch A, Gkogka E, Le Guyader FS, et al. (2018) Foodborne viruses: Detection, risk assessment, and control options in food processing. Int J Food Microbiol 285: 110-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.06.001 ![]() |
[47] |
Marsh Z, Shah MP, Wikswo ME (2018) Epidemiology of foodborne norovirus outbreaks -United States, 2009–2015. Food Saf (Tokyo) 6: 58-66. https://doi.org/10.14252/foodsafetyfscj.2017028 ![]() |
[48] |
Butot S, Putallaz T, Sánchez G (2008) Effects of sanitation, freezing and frozen storage on enteric viruses in berries and herbs. Int J Food Microbiol 126: 30-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.04.033 ![]() |
[49] |
Le Guyader FS, Mittelholzer C, Haugarreau L, et al. (2004) Detection of noroviruses in raspberries associated with a gastroenteritis outbreak. Int J Food Microbiol 97: 179-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.04.018 ![]() |
[50] |
Quansah JK, Gazula H, Holland R, et al. (2019) Microbial quality of blueberries for the fresh market. Food Control 100: 92-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2018.12.034 ![]() |
[51] |
Bernard H, Faber M, Wilking H, et al. (2014) Large multistate outbreak of norovirus gastroenteritis associated with frozen strawberries, Germany, 2012. Euro Surveill 19: 20719. https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES2014.19.8.20719 ![]() |
[52] |
Sarvikivi E, Roivainen M, Maunula L, et al. (2012) Multiple norovirus outbreaks linked to imported frozen raspberries. Epidemiol Infect 140: 260-267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268811000379 ![]() |
[53] |
Warriner K, Ibrahim F, Dickinson M, et al. (2013) Internalization of human pathogens within growing salad vegetables. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 20: 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/02648725.2003.10648040 ![]() |
[54] |
Lopman B, Gastañaduy P, Park GW, et al. (2012) Environmental transmission of norovirus gastroenteritis. Curr Opin Virol 2: 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coviro.2011.11.005 ![]() |
[55] |
Harris LJ, Farber JN, Beuchat LR, et al. (2003) Outbreaks associated with fresh produce: incidence, growth, and survival of pathogens in fresh and fresh-cut produce. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2: 78-141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-4337.2003.tb00031.x ![]() |
[56] |
Alegbeleye OO, Singleton I, Sant'Ana AS (2018) Sources and contamination routes of microbial pathogens to fresh produce during field cultivation: A review. Food Microbiol 73: 177-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2018.01.003 ![]() |
[57] |
Chatziprodromidou IP, Bellou G, Vantarakis G, et al. (2018) Viral outbreaks linked to fresh produce consumption: a systematic review. J Appl Microbiol 124: 932-942. https://doi.org/10.1111/jam.13747 ![]() |
[58] |
Vasickova P, Pavlik I, Verani M, et al. (2010) Issues concerning survival of viruses on surfaces. Food Environ Virol 2: 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12560-010-9025-6 ![]() |
[59] |
Teunis PFM, Le Guyader FS, Liu P (2020) Noroviruses are highly infectious but there is strong variation in host susceptibility and virus pathogenicity. Epidemics 32: 100401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.epidem.2020.100401 ![]() |
[60] |
Baert L, Debevere J, Uyttendaele M (2009) The efficacy of preservation methods to inactivate foodborne viruses. Int J Food Microbiol 131: 83-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.03.007 ![]() |
[61] |
Terio V, Bottaro M, Pavoni E, et al. (2017) Occurrence of hepatitis A and E and norovirus GI and GII in ready-to-eat vegetables in Italy. Int J Food Microbiol 249: 61-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.03.008 ![]() |
[62] |
D'Souza D, Sair A, Williams K, et al. (2006) Persistence of caliciviruses on environmental surfaces and their transfer to food. Int J Food Microbiol 108: 84-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2005.10.024 ![]() |
[63] |
Mattison K, Karthikeyan K, Abebe M, et al. (2007) Survival of calicivirus in foods and on surfaces: experiments with feline calicivirus as a surrogate for norovirus. J Food Prot 70: 500-503. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-70.2.500 ![]() |
[64] |
Escudero-Abarca B, Rawsthorne H, Gensel C, et al. (2012) Persistence and transferability of Noroviruses on and between common surfaces and foods. J Food Prot 75: 927-35. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x.jfp-11-460 ![]() |
[65] | Gutierrez-Rodrigues E, Adhikari A (2018) Pre-harvesting farming practices impacting quality of fresh produce safety. ASM Microbiol Spectrum 6: 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.PFS-0022-2018 |
[66] |
Yeni F, Alpas H (2017) Vulnerability of global food production to extreme climatic events. Food Res Int 96: 27-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2017.03.020 ![]() |
[67] |
Machado-Moreira B, Richards K, Brennan F, et al. (2019) Microbial contamination of fresh produce: What, where and how?. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 18: 1727-1750. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12487 ![]() |
[68] |
Gil MI, Selma MV, López-Gálvez F, et al. (2009) Fresh cut product sanitation and wash water disinfection: Problems and solutions. Int J Food Microbiol 134: 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.05.021 ![]() |
[69] |
Marín A, Tudela JA, Garrido Y, et al. (2020) Chlorinated wash water and pH regulators affect chlorine gas emission and disinfection byproducts. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 66: 102533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2020.102533 ![]() |
[70] |
Penteado AL, Castro MFPM, Rezende ACB (2014) Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis and Listeria monocytogenes in mango (Mangifera indica L.) pulp: growth, survival and cross-contamination. J Sci Food Agric 99: 2746-2751. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.6619 ![]() |
[71] |
Lehto M, Kuisma R, Maatta J, et al. (2011) Hygienic level and surface contamination in fresh-cut vegetable production plants. Food Control 22: 469-475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.09.029 ![]() |
[72] |
Cunault C, Faille C, Calabozo-Delgado A, et al. (2019) Structure and resistance to mechanical stress and enzymatic cleaning of Pseudomonas fluorescens biofilms formed in fresh-cut ready to eat washing tanks. J Food Eng 262: 154-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2019.06.006 ![]() |
[73] |
McCollum JT, Cronquist AB, Silk BJ, et al. (2013) Multistate outbreak of listeriosis associated with cantaloupe. N J Engl J Med 369: 944-953. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1215837 ![]() |
[74] |
Corbo MR, Campaniello D, D'Amato D, et al. (2005) Behaviour of Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in fresh-sliced cactus-pear fruit. J Food Safe 25: 157-172. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2005.00570.x ![]() |
[75] | Raybaudi-Massilia RM, Mosqueda-Melgar J, Sobrino-Lopez A, et al. (2009) Use of malic acid and other quality stabilizing compounds to assure the safety of fresh-cut “Fuji” apples by inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella Enteritidis and Escherichia coli O157:H7. J Food Safe 29: 239-252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4565.2009.00153.x |
[76] |
Erickson MC (2012) Internalization of fresh produce by foodborne pathogens. Annu Rev Food Sci Technol 3: 283-310. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-022811-101211 ![]() |
[77] |
Strobel G (2018) The emergence of endophytic microbes and their biological promise. J Fungi 4: 57-76. https://doi.org/10.3390/jof4020057 ![]() |
[78] |
Gibbs DS, Anderson GL, Beuchat LR, et al. (2005) Potential role of Diploscapter sp. strain LKC25, a bacterivorous nematode from soil, as a vector of food-borne pathogenic bacteria to preharvest fruits and vegetables. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 2433-2437. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.5.2433-2437.2005 ![]() |
[79] |
Lim JA, Lee DH, Heu S (2014) The interaction of human enteric pathogens with plants. Plant Pathol 30: 109-116. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.RW.04.2014.0036 ![]() |
[80] |
Cools D, Merckx R, Vlassak K, et al. (2001) Survival of E. coli and Enterococcus derived from pig slurry in soils with different texture. Appl Soil Ecol 17: 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00133-5 ![]() |
[81] |
López-Gálvez F, Gil MI, Truchado P, et al. (2010) Cross-contamination of fresh-cut lettuce after a short-term exposure during pre-washing cannot be controlled after subsequent washing with chlorine dioxide or sodium hypochlorite. Food Microbiol 27: 199-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2009.09.009 ![]() |
[82] |
Holden N, Pritchard L, Toth I (2009) Colonization out with the colon: plants as an alternative environmental reservoir for human pathogenic enterobacteria. FEMS Microbiol Rev 33: 689-703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2008.00153.x ![]() |
[83] |
Deering AJ, Mauer LJR, Pruitt RE (2012) Internalization of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella spp. in plants: A review. Food Res Int 45: 567-575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2011.06.058 ![]() |
[84] |
Gautam D, Dobhal S, Peyton ME, et al. (2014) Surface survival and internalization of Salmonella through natural cracks on developing cantaloupe fruits alone or in the presence of the melon wilt Erwinia tracheiphila. PLoS One 9: e105248. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105248 ![]() |
[85] |
Chen LQ, Hou B, Lalonde H, et al. (2010) Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468: 527-532. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09606 ![]() |
[86] |
Martínez-Vaz BM, Fink RC, Diez-Gonzalez F, et al. (2014) Enteric pathogen-plant interactions: molecular connections leading to colonization and growth and implications for foin od safety. Microbes Environ 29: 123-135. https://doi.org/10.1264/jsme2.ME13139 ![]() |
[87] | Fatima U, Senthil-Kumar M (2015) Plant and pathogen nutrient acquisition strategies. Front Plant Scien 6: 1-12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00750 |
[88] |
Oms-Oliu G, Rojas-Grau MA, Gonzalez LA, et al. (2010) Recent approaches using chemical treatments to preserve quality of fresh-cut fruit: A review. Postharvest Biol Tech 57: 139-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postharvbio.2010.04.001 ![]() |
[89] |
Luo Y, Nou X, Yang Y, et al. (2011) Determination of free chlorine concentrations needed to prevent Escherichia coli O157:H7 cross-contamination during fresh cut produce wash. J Food Prot 24: 352-358. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-10-429 ![]() |
[90] |
Beuchat LR (2002) Ecological factors influencing survival and growth of human pathogens on raw fruits and vegetables. Microbes Infect 4: 413-423. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1286-4579(02)01555-1 ![]() |
1. | Mirirai Chinyoka, Gift Muchatibaya, Prosper Jambwa, Mhosisi Masocha, Steady Mushayabasa, Assessing the potential impact of livestock immunisation and acaricide use on controlling the spread of East Coast fever, 2024, 25, 24056731, e00357, 10.1016/j.parepi.2024.e00357 | |
2. | Muhammad Asad Ullah, Nauman Raza, A simulation-based analysis of a novel HIV/AIDS transmission model with awareness and treatment, 2024, 112, 0924-090X, 22529, 10.1007/s11071-024-10228-3 |
Symbol | Description | Value | Units | Source |
ω | Proportion of exposed individuals who develop clinical signs of the disease | Dimensionless | 0.75 | [4] |
Λ | Per capita human recruitment rate | Day−1 | 20 | [25] |
α−1 | Incubation period | Day | 2 (2–14) | [25] |
φ | Vaccine efficacy | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0–1) | [25] |
κ | Rate of vaccination with first dose | Day−1 | 0.03 | [25] |
θ2 | Rate of vaccination with more than a single dose | Days−1 | 0.05 | [25] |
ϵ | Efficacy of NPIs | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0-1) | [25] |
δ1 | Rate of hospitalization of clinical patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
δ2 | Rate of hospitalization of asymptomatic patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
γ1 | Recover rate of asymptomatic humans | Day−1 | 0.004 | [25] |
γ2 | Recover rate of infected humans | Day−1 | 0.015 | [25] |
γ3 | Recover rate of hospitalized humans | Day−1 | 0.5 | [25] |
d | Disease induced death rate | Day−1 | 0.005 | [26] |
μ | Natural death rate | Day−1 | 5×10−6 | [26] |
β | Disease transmission rate | Day−1 | 5.4×10−6 | Fitting |
Symbol | Description | Value | Units | Source |
ω | Proportion of exposed individuals who develop clinical signs of the disease | Dimensionless | 0.75 | [4] |
Λ | Per capita human recruitment rate | Day−1 | 20 | [25] |
α−1 | Incubation period | Day | 2 (2–14) | [25] |
φ | Vaccine efficacy | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0–1) | [25] |
κ | Rate of vaccination with first dose | Day−1 | 0.03 | [25] |
θ2 | Rate of vaccination with more than a single dose | Days−1 | 0.05 | [25] |
ϵ | Efficacy of NPIs | Dimensionless | 0.5 (0-1) | [25] |
δ1 | Rate of hospitalization of clinical patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
δ2 | Rate of hospitalization of asymptomatic patients | Day−1 | 0.94 | [25] |
γ1 | Recover rate of asymptomatic humans | Day−1 | 0.004 | [25] |
γ2 | Recover rate of infected humans | Day−1 | 0.015 | [25] |
γ3 | Recover rate of hospitalized humans | Day−1 | 0.5 | [25] |
d | Disease induced death rate | Day−1 | 0.005 | [26] |
μ | Natural death rate | Day−1 | 5×10−6 | [26] |
β | Disease transmission rate | Day−1 | 5.4×10−6 | Fitting |