4.6 Article

Control of Listeria Monocytogenes by Lauric Arginate on Frankfurters Formulated with or without Lactate/Diacetate

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 6, 页码 M237-M241

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01196.x

关键词

frankfurters; HACCP; lactate/diacetate; Lauric arginate; Listeria monocytogenes

资金

  1. A&B Ingredients Inc.,

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listeria monocytogenes (Lm) is a food safety concern that can be associated with ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and poultry products because of its persistence in the processing environment. Listeriosis has a fatality rate of 28% in immuno-compromised individuals. RTE meats receive a lethal heat treatment but may become contaminated by Lm after this treatment. Federal regulators and manufacturers of RTE meats are working to find additional ways to control postprocess contamination by Lm in RTE meats. This research was initiated to validate combinations of antimicrobials that would produce an immediate lethality of at least 1 log of Lm on artificially contaminated frankfurters, and also suppress Lm growth to less than 2 logs throughout the extended shelf life at refrigerated temperatures (4 degrees C). Based on our studies, 22-ppm lauric arginate (LAE, ethyl-N-dodecanoyl-L-arginate hydrochloride) gave more than a 1-log reduction of Lm surface inoculated onto frankfurters within 12 h. The combination of either 1.8%/0.13% or 2.1%/0.15% potassium lactate/sodium diacetate (L/D) in combination with 22 ppm LAE caused more than a 2-log reduction at 12 h. Storage studies revealed that complementary interactions of L/D and LAE also met the 2nd requirement. This combination initially reduced Lm by 2 logs and suppressed growth to less than 2 logs even at the end of the 156-d storage life for frankfurters. These results confirmed that the combination of L/D with LAE as a postprocessing-prepackaging application could be useful in complying with the USDA's Alternative 1 that requires validation for the control of Lm on RTE frankfurters.

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

4.6
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