4.7 Article

High hydrostatic pressure inactivation of total aerobic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria, yeasts in sour Chinese cabbage

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 142, Issue 1-2, Pages 180-184

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.020

Keywords

High hydrostatic pressure; Inactivation; Sour Chinese cabbage; Total aerobic bacteria; Lactic acid bacteria; Yeasts

Funding

  1. 863 High-Tech Plan of China [2007AA100405]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the inactivation of total aerobic bacteria (TAB), lactic acid bacteria (LAB), yeasts in sour Chinese cabbage (SCC) treated by high hydrostatic pressure (HHP). The pressure level ranged from 200 to 600 MPa and the treatment time were 10-30 min. All samples were stored at 4, 27 and 37 degrees C for 90 days. The pressure level of 200 MPa had no significant impact on these microorganisms. The counts of TAB were significantly reduced by 2.7-4.0 log(10) CFU/g at 400 MPa and 42-4.5 log(10) CFU/g at 600 MPa from 6.2 log(10) CFU/g; the counts of LAB were also reduced by 2.4-43 log(10) CFU/g at 400 MPa from 7.0 log(10) CFU/g and LAB was completely inactivated at 600 MPa; the counts of yeasts were reduced by 1.5-2.0 log(10) CFU/g at 400 and 600 MPa from 4.2 log(10) CFU/g. Storage temperatures significantly influenced the microbial proliferation in HHP-treated SCC depending on the pressure levels. The surviving TAB and LAB at 400 MPa equaled initial counts after 15-day storage at 27 and 37 degrees C. whereas they were inhibited at 4 degrees C up to 60 days. The surviving TAB at 600 MPa did not grow. Yeasts at 400 and 600 MPa decreased below detectable level after 2 days at all the three storage temperatures. From the microbial safety point of view, the result indicated that HHP at 600 MPa could be used as an alternative preservation method for SCC. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available