4.6 Article

Estimating non-isothermal bacterial growth in foods from isothermal experimental data

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 187-200

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02570.x

关键词

Escherichia coli; growth curves; kinetics; logistic growth; mathematical models; predictive microbiology; Pseudomonas spp

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To develop a mathematical method to estimate non-isothermal microbial growth curves in foods from experiments performed under isothermal conditions and demonstrate the method's applicability with published growth data. Methods and Results: Published isothermal growth curves of Pseudomonas spp. in refrigerated fish at 0-8 degrees C and Escherichia coli 1952 in a nutritional broth at 27.6-36 degrees C were fitted with two different three-parameter 'primary models' and the temperature dependence of their parameters was fitted by ad hoc empirical 'secondary models'. These were used to generate non-isothermal growth curves by solving, numerically, a differential equation derived on the premise that the momentary non-isothermal growth rate is the isothermal rate at the momentary temperature, at a time that corresponds to the momentary growth level of the population. The predicted non-isothermal growth curves were in agreement with the reported experimental ones and, as expected, the quality of the predictions did not depend on the 'primary model' chosen for the calculation. Conclusions: A common type of sigmoid growth curve can be adequately described by three-parameter 'primary models'. At least in the two systems examined, these could be used to predict growth patterns under a variety of continuous and discontinuous non-isothermal temperature profiles. Significance and Impact of the Study: The described mathematical method whenever validated experimentally will enable the simulation of the microbial quality of stored and transported foods under a large variety of existing or contemplated commercial temperature histories.

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