4.6 Article

Thermal inactivation of nonproteolytic Clostridium botulinum type E spores in model fish media and in vacuum-packaged hot-smoked fish products

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 7, 页码 4029-4036

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.69.7.4029-4036.2003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Thermal inactivation of nonproteolytic Clostridium botulinum type E spores was investigated in rainbow trout and whitefish media at 75 to 93degreesC. Lysozyme was applied in the recovery of spores, yielding biphasic thermal destruction curves. Approximately 0.1% of the spores were permeable to lysozyme, showing an increased measured heat resistance. Decimal reduction times for the heat-resistant spore fraction in rainbow trout medium were 255, 98, and 4.2 min at 75, 85, and 93degreesC, respectively, and those in whitefish medium were 55 and 7.1 min at 81 and 90degreesC, respectively. The z values were 10.4degreesC in trout medium and 10.1degreesC in whitefish medium. Commercial hot-smoking processes employed in five Finnish fish-smoking companies provided reduction in the numbers of spores of nonproteolytic C. botulinum of less than 10(3). An inoculated-pack study revealed that a time-temperature combination of 42 min at 85degreesC (fish surface temperature) with >70% relative humidity (RH) prevented growth from 106 spores in vacuum-packaged hot-smoked rainbow trout fillets and whole whitefish stored for 5 weeks at 8degreesC. In Finland it is recommended that hot-smoked fish be stored at or below 3degreesC, further extending product safety. However, heating whitefish for 44 min at 85degreesC with 10% RH resulted in growth and toxicity in 5 weeks at 8degreesC. Moist heat thus enhanced spore thermal inactivation and is essential to an effective process. The sensory qualities of safely processed and more lightly processed whitefish were similar, while differences between the sensory qualities of safely processed and lightly processes rainbow trout were observed.

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

4.6
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