首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Comparative Resistance of Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens to Non-thermal Technologies for Food Preservation
【2h】

Comparative Resistance of Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens to Non-thermal Technologies for Food Preservation

机译:细菌性食源性病原菌对非热保鲜技术的抵抗力

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

In this paper the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens to manosonication (MS), pulsed electric fields (PEFs), high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), and UV-light (UV) is reviewed and compared. The influence of different factors on the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens to these technologies is also compared and discussed. Only results obtained under harmonized experimental conditions have been considered. This has allowed us to establish meaningful comparisons and draw significant conclusions. Among the six microorganisms here considered, Staphyloccocus aureus is the most resistant foodborne pathogen to MS and HHP and Listeria monocytogenes to UV. The target microorganism of PEF would change depending on the treatment medium pH. Thus, L. monocytogenes is the most PEF resistant microorganism at neutral pH but Gram-negatives (Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Cronobacter sakazakii, Campylobacter jejuni) would display a similar or even higher resistance at acidic pH. It should be noted that, in acidic products, the baroresistance of some E. coli strains would be comparable to that of S. aureus. The factors affecting the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens, as well as the magnitude of the effect, varied depending on the technology considered. Inter- and intra-specific differences in microbial resistance to PEF and HHP are much greater than to MS and UV. Similarly, both the pH and aw of the treatment medium highly condition microbial resistance to PEF and HHP but no to MS or UV. Growth phase also drastically affected bacterial HHP resistance. Regarding UV, the optical properties of the medium are, by far, the most influential factor affecting its lethal efficacy. Finally, increasing treatment temperature leads to a significant increase in lethality of the four technologies, what opens the possibility of the development of combined processes including heat. The appearance of sublethally damaged cells following PEF and HHP treatments could also be exploited in order to design combined processes. Further work would be required in order to fully elucidate the mechanisms of action of these technologies and to exhaustively characterize the influence of all the factors acting before, during, and after treatment. This would be very useful in the areas of process optimization and combined process design.
机译:本文综述并比较了细菌性食源性病原体对超声振动(MS),脉冲电场(PEFs),高静水压(HHP)和紫外线(UV)的抵抗力。比较和讨论了不同因素对细菌食源性病原体对这些技术的抵抗力的影响。仅考虑了在统一实验条件下获得的结果。这使我们能够建立有意义的比较并得出重要的结论。在这里考虑的六种微生物中,金黄色葡萄球菌是对MS和HHP最具抵抗力的食源性病原体,对单核细胞增生性李斯特菌具有抗性。 PEF的目标微生物会根据处理介质的pH值发生变化。因此,单核细胞增生李斯特氏菌在中性pH值下对PEF的抵抗力最高,但革兰氏阴性菌(大肠杆菌,沙门氏菌,阪崎肠杆菌,空肠弯曲菌)在酸性pH下表现出相似甚至更高的抗性。应该注意的是,在酸性产品中,某些大肠杆菌菌株的耐压性可与金黄色葡萄球菌相比。影响细菌食源性病原体抗药性的因素以及影响的程度因所考虑的技术而异。微生物对PEF和HHP的抗性间和种内差异远大于对MS和UV的抗性。类似地,处理介质的pH和aw都高度调节了微生物对PEF和HHP的抵抗力,而对MS或UV没有抵抗力。生长期也严重影响细菌对HHP的抵抗力。关于紫外线,到目前为止,介质的光学性质是影响其致命功效的最有影响力的因素。最后,提高处理温度会导致四种技术的致死率显着提高,这为开发包括加热在内的联合工艺提供了可能性。还可以利用PEF和HHP处理后出现的亚致死细胞破坏来设计联合过程。为了充分阐明这些技术的作用机理并详尽地表征治疗之前,之中和之后作用的所有因素的影响,将需要进一步的工作。这在过程优化和组合过程设计领域中将非常有用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号