4.7 Article

Antifungal efficacy of sanitizers and electrolyzed waters against toxigenic Aspergillus

期刊

FOOD RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
卷 137, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodres.2020.109451

关键词

Toxigenic Aspergillus; Industrial sanitation; Sanitizer; Electrolyzed water; Aflatoxins; Ochratoxin A

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES) [001]
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq) [428454/2018-6, 303570/2019-9, 314727/2018-3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of mycotoxin-producing fungi in food production environments is a cause of concern since they can contaminate food products, synthesizing toxic compounds in later steps. To avoid this, an effective hygiene and sanitation process of the environment and equipment should be adopted, using sanitizing agents with adequate antifungal efficacy. This work evaluated the effectiveness of different chemical sanitizers: benzalkonium chloride (0.3%, 1.2%, 2%), biguanide (2%, 3.5%, 5%), iodine (0.2%, 0.6%, 1%), peracetic acid (0.3%, 0.6%, 1%), sodium hypochlorite (0.5%, 0.75%, 1%), besides a new non-polluting technology, the electrolyzed water, both the acid in the chlorine concentrations of 60, 85 and 121 ppm and the respective basic electrolyzed water formed against strains of toxigenic Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus nomius, Aspergillus parasiticus, Aspergillus carbonarius, Aspergillus niger, Aspergillus ochraceus and Aspergillus westerdijkiae through the methodology recommended by the European Committee for Standardization. Benzalkonium chloride and iodine were the most effective sanitizers to eliminate Aspergillus from the Flavi and Nigri section. Peracetic acid showed the best elimination of the growth of Aspergillus from Circumdati section. Sodium hypochlorite, biguanide, and electrolyzed water agents were the least effective, reducing less than 3 log from initial control, not being the most suitable agents for the control of toxigenic fungi in food industries.

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