4.7 Article

Physical and antibacterial properties of bacterial cellulose films supplemented with cell-free supernatant enterocin-producing Enterococcus faecium TJUQ1

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 99, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2021.103828

关键词

Bacterial cellulose; Cell-free supernatant; Composite films; Properties

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A composite film named BC-E was prepared using bacterial cellulose (BC) of Gluconacetobacter xylinus and cellfree supernatant (CFS) of Enterococcus faecium TJUQ1, showing significantly improved mechanical properties compared to BC. The BC-E film exhibited higher tensile strength, elongation at break, and water resistance than BC, and effectively reduced the number of Listeria monocytogenes and total mesophilic bacteria in ground meat during storage.
In this study, a composite film was prepared with bacterial cellulose (BC) of Gluconacetobacter xylinus and cellfree supernatant (CFS) of Enterococcus faecium TJUQ1, which was named BC-E. The optimum conditions for the preparation of the composite film with a minimal antibacterial activity were the soak of BC in 80 AU/mL CFS for 6 h. By scanning electron microscope observation, the surface network structure of BC-E was denser than that of BC. The tensile strength of BC and BC-E was 4.65 +/- 0.88 MPa and 16.30 +/- 0.92 MPa, the elongation at break of BC and BC-E was 3.33 +/- 0.89% and 31.60 +/- 1.15%, respectively, indicating the mechanical properties of BC-E were significantly higher than that of BC (P < 0.05). The swelling ratio of BC-E (456.67 +/- 7.20%) was lower than that of BC (1377.78 +/- 9.07%), demonstrating BC-E films presented better water resistance. BC-E films were soaked with 320 AU/mL CFS, and then used to pack the ground meat with 6.55 log10 CFU/g of Listeria monocytogenes. After 8 days of storage, the number of bacteria decreased by 3.16 log10 CFU/g. Similarly, total mesophilic bacterial levels in the ground meat decreased by 2.41 log10 CFU/g compared to control groups.

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

4.7
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