4.7 Article

High hydrostatic pressure inactivation of murine norovirus and human noroviruses on green onions and in salsa

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.11.003

关键词

High hydrostatic pressure; Norovirus; Green onions; Salsa

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, NIFA [2011-68003-30005]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) was evaluated as an intervention for human noroviruses (HuNoVs) in green onions and salsa. To determine the effect of water during HHP treatment on virus inactivation, a HuNoV surrogate, murine norovirus 1 (MNV-1), was inoculated onto green onions and then HHP-treated at 350 MPa with or without water at 4 or 20 degrees C. The presence of water enhanced HHP inactivation of MNV-1 on green onions at 4 degrees C but not at 20 degrees C. To test the temperature effect on HHP inactivation of MNV-1, inoculated green onions were HHP-treated at 300 MPa at 1, 4 and 10 degrees C. As the temperature decreased, MNV-1 became more sensitive to HHP treatment. HHP inactivation curves of MNV-1 on green onions and salsa were obtained at 300 or 350 MPa for 0.5-3 min at 1 degrees C. All three inactivation curves showed a linear relationship between log reduction of MNV-1 and time. D values of HHP inactivation of MNV-1 on green onions were 1.10 and 0.61 min at 300 and 350 MPa, respectively. The D value of HHP inactivation of MNV-1 in salsa at 300 MPa was 0.63 min. HHP inactivation of HuNoV GI.1 and GII.4 on green onions and salsa was also conducted. To achieve >3 log reduction of HuNoV GI.1, HHP treatments for 2 min at 1 degrees C should be conducted at 600 MPa and 500 MPa for green onions and salsa, respectively. To achieve >3 log reduction of HuNoV GII.4, HHP treatments for 2 min at 1 degrees C should be conducted at 500 MPa and 300 MPa for green onions and salsa, respectively. (C) 2016 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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