## 3 Results and Discussion
On the other hand, there are studies that failed to show a straight correlation of the growth of _L. monocytogenes_ with serotype designation for the pathogen [23; 42]. Furthermore, [PERSON] et al. [43] already substantiated that _L. monocytogenes_ serotype 1/2a strains were more efficient at forming biofilms and predominated in mixed-culture biofilms against serotype 4b in biofilm communities, although this was not examined in the present study. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Storage Temp. (\({}^{\circ}\)C)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Storage Time (Days)**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Number of Isolated Strains**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Recoveries (\%) of _L. monocytogenes_ Strains 1**} \\ \cline{5-7}  & & & **ser. 1/2a** & **ser. 1/2b** & **ser. 1/2c** & **ser. 4b** \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{4} & 0 2  & 16 & 3 (18.8) & 4 (25.0) & 2 (12.5) & 7 (43.8) \\  & 13 & 42 & 6 (14.3) & 11 (26.2) & 12 (28.6) & 13 (31.0) \\  & 21 & 20 & 4 (20.0) & 5 (25.0) & 7 (35.0) & 4 (20.0) \\  & 29 & 32 & 8 (25.0) & 7 (21.9) & 14 (43.8) & 3 (9.4) \\  & Total number (\%) of strains per serotype & 110 & 21 (19.0) & 27 (24.6) & 35 (31.8) & 27 (24.6) \\ \hline \multirow{5}{*}{10} & 0 2  & 16 & 3 (18.8) & 4 (25.0) & 2 (12.5) & 7 (43.8) \\  & 2 & 24 & 7 (29.2) & 6 (25.0) & 4 (16.7) & 7 (29.2) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 7 & 27 & 8 (29.6) & 6 (22.2) & 10 (37.0) & 3 (11.1) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 9 & 41 & 7 (17.1) & 11 (26.8) & 18 (43.9) & 5 (12.2) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 15 & 28 & 3 (10.7) & 15 (53.6) & 7 (25.0) & 3 (10.7) \\ \cline{1-1}  & Total number (\%) of strains per serotype & 120 3  & 25 (20.8) & 38 (31.7) & 39 (32.5) & 18 (15.0) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Recoveries for _L. monocytogenes_ strains of different serotypes during the refrigerated at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C or temperature abused at 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C storage of an artificially contaminated RTE pork meat product. Figure 1: Bacterial counts of TVC (\(\blacksquare\)), LAB (\(\blacktriangle\)), _L. monocytogenes_ (\(\blacklozenge\)), and changes in pH (\(\bullet\)) during storage of an RTE cooked, cured meat product inoculated with a cocktail of _L. monocytogenes_ serotypes. (\(\blacklozenge\)) Storage of the meat product at 4 \({}^{\circ}\)C; (\(\blacklozenge\)) storage of the meat product at 10 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Symbols and error bars represent the average value and standard deviation, respectively, of three replicates. There is an assumption that selective and/or chromogenic plating media may play a role in the recovery of _L. monocytogenes_, and an effect of the composition and structure of the solid culture medium on the pathogen's strain recovery might exist. [PERSON] et al. [29], based on the findings from [PERSON] et al. [24] on minced pork meat, pointed out that serotype 1/2a was mostly recovered from agar Listeria acc. to [PERSON] and Agosti (ALOA), while RAPID'L.mono agar was able to recover all the serotype 4b strains isolated in the study. The spatial distribution, limited diffusion of inhibitors, and growth kinetics of the competing strains might be influenced by the microenvironment of the solid medium [36; 37; 40; 43], whereas agar concentration and oxygen availability may affect the extent of suppression in interstrain competition between different serotypes of _L. monocytogenes_[44]. Besides, the relatively low prevalence and recovery of serotype 1/2c recorded in the aforementioned study [29] could be explained by the different ecological niche of this specific serotype, which is different from those of serotypes 1/2a, 1/2b, and 4b, as suggested by [PERSON] et al. [16]. Finally, it should be noted that the role of possible LAB interaction with _L. monocytogenes_, through the production of specific bacterioxins [45], and the effect of pH changes on serotype prevalence during storage of the meat product remain relatively unclear in the present study, as their influence was not specifically addressed.