4.1 Article

Modeling Heat-Resistance of Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris in Different Fruit Juices: Combined Effects of pH and Temperature

期刊

出版社

INST TECNOLOGIA PARANA
DOI: 10.1590/1678-4324-2023220566

关键词

inactivation model; D-values; spoilage; thermoacidophilic bacteria

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the efficacy of pH and temperature on the thermal resistance of Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris endospores in different fruit juices. The results showed that the fruit juice matrix influenced the resistance of the endospores, with the highest heat resistance found in passion fruit juice and the greatest thermal destruction observed in papaya juice. Regardless of the fruit juice, endospores were more effectively destroyed at 95 degrees C. The pH had a more pronounced effect on reducing the heat resistance in papaya juice. The interaction of pH and temperature had the greatest impact on the reduction of endospores' thermal resistance.
This study evaluated the efficacy of pH and temperature on the thermal resistance of Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris endospores in different fruit juices. A polynomial equation was used to describe the pH x temperature impact on the D-values of endospores. Endospore resistance was influenced by fruit juice matrices. Maximum heat resistance was found in passion fruit juice (D value 24.7 +/- 2.8 min, 90 oC, pH 4.5) and the greatest thermal destruction was observed in papaya juice (D value 1.7 +/- 2.8 min, 95 degrees C, pH 2.5). Regardless of the fruit juice, endospore thermal destruction was more effective at 95 degrees C. In both temperatures analyzed, the effect of pH on the reduction of heat resistance was more pronounced in papaya juice. According to the mathematical models, the interaction pH x temperature had the greatest impact on endospores thermal reduction. These results emphasize the relevance of time forward slash temperature binomials to prevent spoilage by A. acidoterrestris in thermal treated fruit juices.

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

4.1
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