4.4 Article

Kinetics of Bacillus cereus Spore Inactivation in Cooked Rice by Combined Pressure-Heat Treatment

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 76, 期 4, 页码 616-623

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-447

关键词

-

资金

  1. Center for Advance Processing and Packaging Studies
  2. Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of pressure-heat treatment was evaluated for the inactivation of Bacillus cereus spores in cooked rice. The spores of B. cereus ATCC 9818 were inoculated (1.1 x 10(8) CFU/g) in a parboiled rice product (pH 6.0, water activity of 0.95) and inactivated to an undetectable level (<10 CFU/g) by treatment of 600 MPa and process temperatures of 60 to 85 degrees C or 0.1 MPa and 85 degrees C. Kinetic inactivation parameters were estimated with linear and nonlinear models. The potential recovery of injured bacteria was also evaluated during storage of the treated product for 4 weeks at 4 and 25 degrees C. Depending on the process temperature, a 600-MPa treatment inactivated spores by 2.2 to 3.4 log during the 30-s pressure come-up time, and to below the detection limit after 4- to 8-min pressure-holding times. In contrast, a 180-min treatment time was required to inactivate the spores to an undetectable level at 0.1 MPa and 85 degrees C. The decimal reduction time of spores inactivated by combined pressure-heat treatment ranged from 1.08 to 2.36 min, while it was 34.6 min at 85 degrees C under atmospheric conditions. The nonlinear Weibull model scale factor increased, and was inversely related to the decimal reduction time, and the shape factor decreased with increasing pressure or temperature. The recovery of injured spores was influenced by the extent of pressure-holding time and process temperature. This study suggests that combined pressure-heat treatment could be used as a viable alternative to inactivate B. cereus spores in cooked rice and extend the shelf life of the product.

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