Every year hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of samples are collected and analyzed to assess microbial contamination in food and water. The concentration of pathogenic organisms at the end of the production process is low for most commodities, so a highly sensitive screening test is used to determine whether the organism of interest is present in a sample. In some applications, samples that test positive are subjected to quantitation. The most probable number (MPN) technique is a common method to quantify the level of contamination in a sample because it is able to provide estimates at low concentrations. This technique uses a series of dilution count experiments to derive estimates of the concentration of the microorganism of interest. An application for these data is food-safety risk assessment, where the MPN concentration estimates can be fitted to a parametric distribution to summarize the range of potential exposures to the contaminant. Many different methods (e.g., substitution methods, maximum likelihood and regression on order statistics) have been proposed to fit microbial contamination data to a distribution, but the development of these methods rarely considers how the MPN technique influences the choice of distribution function and fitting method. An often overlooked aspect when applying these methods is whether the data represent actual measurements of the average concentration of microorganism per milliliter or the data are real-valued estimates of the average concentration, as is the case with MPN data. In this study, we propose two methods for fitting MPN data to a probability distribution. The first method uses a maximum likelihood estimator that takes average concentration values as the data inputs. The second is a Bayesian latent variable method that uses the counts of the number of positive tubes at each dilution to estimate the parameters of the contamination distribution. The performance of the two fitting methods is compared for two data sets that represent Salmonella and Campylobacter concentrations on chicken carcasses. The results demonstrate a bias in the maximum likelihood estimator that increases with reductions in average concentration. The Bayesian method provided unbiased estimates of the concentration distribution parameters for all data sets. We provide computer code for the Bayesian fitting method.
Published by Elsevier B.V.