4.7 Article

Inactivation and changes in metabolic profile of selected foodborne bacteria by 460 nm LED illumination

Journal

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
Volume 63, Issue -, Pages 12-21

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2016.10.032

Keywords

Foodborne bacteria; Light emitting diode; Endogenous metabolites; Oxidative stress; Photo-inactivation

Funding

  1. A*STAR Nutrition and Food Science grant [SERC 112 117 0035]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of 460 nm light-emitting diode (LED) on the inactivation of foodborne bacteria. Additionally, the change in the endogenous metabolic profile of LED illuminated cells was analyzed to understand the bacterial response to the LED illumination. Six different species of bacteria (Bacillus cereus, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella Typhimurium) were illuminated with 460 nm LED to a maximum dose of 4080 J/cm(2) at 4, 10 and 25 degrees C. Inactivation curves were modeled using Hom model. Metabolic profiling of the non-illuminated and illuminated cells was performed using a Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry system. Results indicate that the 460 nm LED significantly (p < 0.05) reduced the populations of all six bacterial species. For example, the population of S. aureus reached below detection limit within 7 h. B. cereus was most resistant to photo-inactivation and exhibited about 3-log reduction in 9 h. Metabolic profiling of the illuminated cells indicated that several metabolites e.g. 11-deoxycortisol, actinonin, coformycin, tyramine, chitobiose etc. were regulated during LED illumination. These results elucidate the effectiveness of 460 nm LED against foodborne bacteria and hence, its suitability as a novel antimicrobial control method to ensure food safety. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. 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