4.7 Article

Antifungal activity of commercial sanitizers against strains of Penicillium roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, Hyphopichia burtonii, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus: Bakery spoilage fungi

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue -, Pages 59-63

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2019.04.005

Keywords

Sanitizers; Fungal control; Spoilage; Bakeries products

Funding

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [309691/2015-0, 428454/2018-6]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul (FAPERGS)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Information on the sensitivity of spoilage fungi of bakery products to sanitizing agents is scarce in the literature. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the antifungal activity of different classes of commercial sanitizers, which have permitted use in the food industry, on the main fungi involved in spoiling bakery products. The tests were carried out according to the protocol for testing the antifungal effect of chemical sanitizers of the European Committee for Standardization (CEN), with adaptations. Different strains of six isolated fungal species responsible for spoiling bakery products (Penicillium roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, Hyphopichia burtonii, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus) were tested against five sanitizers at three concentrations: benzalkonium chloride (0.3%, 2.5%, 5%), biguanide (2%, 3.5%, 5%), peracetic acid (0.15%, 1.5%, 3%), quaternary ammonium (0.3%, 2.5%, 5%), and sodium hypochlorite (0.01%, 0.1%, 0.2%). Peracetic acid was the most effective sanitizes considering the genera, species, and concentrations evaluated, generally being capable of reductions between 2 and 4 logs of initial control tested. Biguanide should not be the compound of choice when the main goal of the bakery industry is fungal control.

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