4.4 Article

Effect of Ozone Treatment on the Safety and Quality of Malting Barley

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 74, 期 12, 页码 2134-2141

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-193

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Agriculture National Research Initiative [2006-35201-16667]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Molds and their mycotoxins are an expensive problem for the malting and brewing industries. Deoxynivalenol (DON) is a mycotoxin that is associated with Fusarium spp. These fungi frequently cause Fusarium head blight in wheat and barley in the midwestem region of the United States; Manitoba, Canada; Europe; and China. Barley growers and malt producers would benefit from a postharvest control method for mold growth and DON production. We evaluated the use of gaseous ozone (O(3)) for preventing Fusarium growth and mycotoxin production while maintaining malt quality characteristics. Micromalting was performed in three replications under standard conditions. Ozone treatment was applied to malting barley during steeping via a submerged gas sparger. Ozone treatment conditions were 26 mg/cm(3) for 120 min after 2 and 6 h of steeping. The effects of gaseous ozone on DON, aerobic plate counts, Fusarium infection, and mold and yeast counts of barley throughout the malting process were measured. Various quality parameters of the malt were measured after kilning. Statistical tools were used to determine the significance of all results. Ozonation of malting barley during steeping did not lead to significant reductions in aerobic plate counts but did lead to a 1.5-log reduction in mold and yeast counts in the final malt. The influence of gaseous ozone on DON concentration was inconclusive because of the low initial concentrations of DON in the barley. Ozone significantly reduced Fusarium infection in germinated barley. Gaseous ozone did not negatively influence any aspect of malt quality and may have subtle beneficial effects on diastatic power and beta-glucan concentrations.

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

4.4
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