4.4 Article

Temperature and treatment time influence high hydrostatic pressure inactivation of feline calicivirus, a norovirus surrogate

期刊

JOURNAL OF FOOD PROTECTION
卷 68, 期 11, 页码 2389-2394

出版社

INT ASSOC FOOD PROTECTION
DOI: 10.4315/0362-028X-68.11.2389

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interest in high hydrostatic pressure processing as a nonthermal pasteurization process for foods continues to increase. Feline calicivirus (FCV), a propagable virus that is genetically related to the nonpropagable human noroviruses, was used for detailed evaluation of the high pressure processing parameters necessary for virus inactivation. Pressure inactivation curves of FCV strain KCD in Dulbecco's modified Eagle medium with 10% fetal bovine serum were obtained at 200 and 250 MPa as a function of time at room temperature. Pressure inactivation curves at 200 and 250 MPa also were determined as a function of temperature ranging from -10 to 50 degrees C at treatment times of 4 and 2 min, respectively. Tailing was observed for inactivation as a function of treatment time, indicating that the linear model was not adequate for describing these curves. The two nonlinear models, the log logistic and Weibull functions, consistently produced better fit to inactivation curves than did the linear model. The mean square errors were 0.381 for the log logistic model, 0.425 for the Weibull model, and 1.546 for the linear model. For inactivation as a function of temperature, FCV was most resistant to pressure at 20 degrees C. Temperatures above and below 20 degrees C significantly increased pressure inactivation of FCV. A 4-min treatment of 200 MPa at -10 and 50 degrees C reduced the titer of FCV by 5.0 and 4.0 log units, respectively; whereas at 20 degrees C the same treatment only reduced the titer by 0.3 log units. These novel results point to the potential for using temperatures above and particularly below room temperature to lower the pressure needed to cause the desired level of virus inactivation.

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

4.4
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