4.2 Article

Anti-biofilm efficacy of single and binary treatments based on plant essential oils against Escherichia coli persistent in food-processing facilities

期刊

FOOD SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 385-393

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1082013219826817

关键词

Escherichia coli biofilms; pepper-rosmarin; thyme; craveiro; peracetic acid; sodium hypochlorite

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil [001]
  2. Sao Paulo Research Foundation [FAPESP 2014/20590-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The efficacy of single and combined treatments based on plant essential oils was investigated against Escherichia coli strains persistent in food-processing facilities. Surface materials (stainless steel and polystyrene), disinfectants (peracetic acid and sodium hypochlorite), and conditions (25 celcius, frequency of sanitizing of 24 h) commonly present in the food industry were also used to reach a more realistic approach. Thyme and pepper-rosmarin oils were significantly (P < 0.05) very effective against planktonic cells and biofilms formed by strains E6 and E7, respectively, followed by peracetic acid. Meanwhile, craveiro oil showed an efficacy that is significantly (P < 0.05) higher than sodium hypochlorite. All these disinfectants except sodium hypochlorite were able to kill 99.99% of biofilm cells in the range of concentrations tested (0.1%-3% v/v). However, binary treatments were needed to decrease the doses of these essential oils significantly (P < 0.05) for the control of E. coli biofilms. The effectiveness of peracetic acid against E. coli biofilms was also improved by blending with these essential oils. In particular, blends of pepper-rosmarin with thyme or peracetic acid demonstrated a suitable effectiveness for the control of persistent E. coli present in food-related environments. The application of these treatments could also reduce the current environmental impact generated during food-processing sanitization.

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

4.2
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