3.8 Article

Efficacy of chlorine dioxide, ozone, and thyme essential oil or a sequential washing in killing Escherichia coli O157 : H7 on lettuce and baby carrots

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1006/fstl.2002.0933

关键词

chlorine dioxide; ozone; thyme oil; E. coli O157 : H7; lettuce; baby carrots

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chlorine dioxide (ClO2), ozone, and thyme essential oil has been found to he effective in reducing pathogens, including Escherichia coli O157:H7, on selected produce. The efficacy of these sanitizers was evaluated, alone or through their sequential washing to achieve a 3 or more log reduction of mixed strains of E. coli O157:H7 on shredded lettuce and baby carrots. Samples sprinkle inoculated with mixed strains of E. coli O157:H7 were air-dried for 1 h at 22 +/- 2 degreesC in a biosafety cabinet, stored at 4 degreesC for 24 h, and then treated with different concentrations of disinfectants and exposure time. Sterile deionized water washing resulted in approximately Hog reduction of E. coli O157:H7 after 10 min washing of lettuce and baby carrots. Gaseous treatments resulted in higher log reductions in comparison to aqueous washing. However, decolorization of lettuce leaves was observed during long exposure time. A logarithmic reduction of 1.48-1.97 log(10) cfu/g was obtained using aqueous ClO2 (10.0 mg/L for 10 min) ozonated water (9.7 mg/L for 10 min) or thyme oil suspension (1.0 mL/L for 5 min) on lettuce and baby carrots. Of the three sequential washing treatments used in this study, thyme oil followed by aqueous ClO2/ozonated water, or ozonated water/aqueous ClO2 were significantly (P<0.05) more effective in reducing E. coli O157:H7 (3.75 and 3.99log, and 3.83 and 4.34 log reduction) on lettuce and baby carrots, respectively. The results obtained from this study indicate that sequential washing treatments could achieve 3-4log reduction of E. coli O157:H7 on shredded lettuce and baby carrots. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. 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

3.8
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