4.7 Article

Fate of Planktonic and Biofilm-Derived Listeria monocytogenes on Unwaxed Apples during Air and Controlled Atmosphere Storage

期刊

FOODS
卷 12, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/foods12193673

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; apple cultivar; Gala; Honeycrisp; Granny Smith; harvest year; biofilm; air storage; controlled atmosphere storage

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the survival of L. monocytogenes on apples under different conditions. The results showed that the storage atmosphere and apple cultivar had significant effects on L. monocytogenes survival. Biofilm-derived cells were found to survive longer on apples compared to planktonic cells.
Multiple recalls and outbreaks involving Listeria monocytogenes-contaminated apples have been linked to the post-harvest packing environment where this pathogen can persist in biofilms. Therefore, this study assessed L. monocytogenes survival on apples as affected by harvest year, apple cultivar, storage atmosphere, and growth conditions. Unwaxed Gala, Granny Smith, and Honeycrisp apples were dip-inoculated in an 8-strain L. monocytogenes cocktail of planktonic- or biofilm-grown cells (similar to 6.5 log CFU/mL), dried, and then examined for numbers of L. monocytogenes during air or controlled atmosphere (CA) (1.5% O-2, 1.5% CO2) storage at 2 degrees C. After 90 days, air or CA storage yielded similar L. monocytogenes survival (p > 0.05), regardless of harvest year. Populations gradually decreased with L. monocytogenes quantifiable in most samples after 7 months. Apple cultivar significantly impacted L. monocytogenes survival (p < 0.05) during both harvest years with greater reductions (p < 0.05) seen on Gala compared to Granny Smith and Honeycrisp. Biofilm-derived cells survived longer (p < 0.05) on L. monocytogenes-inoculated Gala and Honeycrisp apples compared to cells grown planktonically. These findings should aid in the development of improved L. monocytogenes intervention strategies for apple growers and packers.

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