...
首页> 外文期刊>Frontiers in Microbiology >Comparative Resistance of Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens to Non-thermal Technologies for Food Preservation
【24h】

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

机译:细菌食物中载病原体对食品保存非热技术的对比抗性

获取原文
           

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 a_(w)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:在本文中,对细菌食品载体对阳离子(MS),脉冲电场(PEF),高静水压力(HHP)和UV光(UV)的抗性进行了抗性。还比较了不同因素对这些技术对这些技术的细菌食源性病原体抗性的影响。仅考虑了在协调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大的结论。在此考虑的六种微生物中,金黄色葡萄球菌是MS和HHP和HHP中最耐食物中的病原体和UV的李斯特菌单核细胞增生。 PEF的靶微生物将根据治疗介质pH改变。因此,L.单核细胞增生是中性pH中最受耐药的微生物,但葡萄含量(大肠杆菌,沙门氏菌SPP。,Cronobacter Sakazakii,Campylobacter Jejuni)将在酸性pH下显示相似或甚至更高的抗性。应该注意的是,在酸性产物中,一些大肠杆菌菌株的脊痛与金黄色葡萄球菌的偏心率相当。影响细菌食品载体病原体抗性的因素,以及效果的大小,取决于所考虑的技术。微生物耐药性与PEF和HHP的间间差异远大于MS和UV。类似地,治疗介质的pH和A_(W)都高度条件是微生物耐药于PEF和HHP,但NO至MS或UV。生长期也急剧影响细菌HHP抗性。关于紫外线,到目前为止,培养基的光学性质是影响其致命功效的最有影响力的因素。最后,提高治疗温度导致四种技术的杀伤性显着增加,开启了包括热量的组合过程的可能性。对于PEF和HHP处理之后的核解受损细胞的外观也可以利用以设计组合过程。为了充分阐明这些技术的行动机制,并详尽表征在治疗前,期间和之后的所有因素的影响,将需要进一步的工作。这在流程优化和组合过程设计方面非常有用。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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