4.3 Article

Engineering of pulsed electric field treatment using carbon materials as electrode and application to pasteurization of sake

期刊

JOURNAL OF ELECTROSTATICS
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.elstat.2020.103424

关键词

Pulsed electric field; Carbon material; Continuous-flow-type reactor; Sake; Lactobacillus homohiochus

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [16K06867, 19H05611]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [16K06867] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The engineering of pulsed electric field (PEF) reactors using carbon materials as the electrode was carried out to fundamentally eliminate the concern about the release of metallic ions into the treatment solution. PEF treatment using carbon cloth with a textile structure showed a strong inactivation effect on the inactivation Escherichia coil in a batch-type reactor. We also developed two continuous-flow-type PEF reactors: one allowed the treatment solution to flow parallel and the other perpendicular to the surface of the electrode. When the two reactors were compared, the latter showed higher sterilization capability. The effects of decreasing the flow rate of the treatment solution and increasing the electric field intensity on the inactivation of E. coli by PEF treatment were investigated. Although both improved the E. coif inactivation efficiency, the latter showed higher inactivation efficiency and a smaller increase in the temperature of the treatment solution. From the viewpoint of engineering for the pasteurization of liquid food, increasing the electric field intensity was more effective in the PEF treatment than decreasing the flow rate of the treatment solution. The continuous-flow-type PEF reactor with the carbon cloth electrode was applied to the pasteurization of sake, and although the sake yeast and Lactobacillus homohiochu in the sake were not inactivated to undetectable levels, they were significantly inactivated by continuous-flow PEF treatment.

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

4.3
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