4.7 Article

Fresh fruits and vegetables-An overview on applied methodologies to improve its quality and safety

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ifset.2013.07.002

关键词

Minimally processed fruits and vegetables; Sanitizing methods; Quality and safety

资金

  1. National Funds from FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia [PEst-OE/EQB/LA0016/2011]
  2. FCT
  3. Fundo Social Europeu (FSE) [SFRH/BD/42169/2007, SFRH/BPD/65041/2009, SFRH/BPD/41419/2007]
  4. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [SFRH/BD/42169/2007, SFRH/BPD/41419/2007] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The consumers' demand for fresh fruits and vegetables has increased in recent years. These foods may be consumed raw or minimally processed, and therefore can be a vehicle of several pathogens. The microorganisms most frequently linked to produce-related outbreaks include bacteria (Salmonella spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, and Shigella spp.), viruses and parasites. There are many traditional technologies to reduce/eliminate the microorganisms present in food products. However, further research on this topic is still required, since none of the methods reported can control all the parameters necessary to achieve produce with an extending shelf-life, without compromising its quality. In this paper, an analysis of the alternative and traditional methodologies is made, pointing out the significant advantage and limitations of each technique. Industrial relevance: The significant increase in the incidence of foodborne outbreaks caused by contaminated minimally processed produce in recent years has become of extreme importance. The extensive knowledge of gentle (non-thermal) processes to enhance safety, preservation and shelf-life of these products is crucial for the food industry. This manuscript presents non-thermal processes that have shown efficient microbial reductions on fresh produce and highlights some of their challenges and limitations. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据