4.7 Article

Bactericidal effects of high hydrostatic pressure treatment singly or in combination with natural antimicrobials on Staphylococcus aureus in rice pudding

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 19-24

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.04.045

关键词

Staphylococcus; Hydrostatic pressure; Bacteriocin; Cinnamon oil; Clove oil; Pudding

资金

  1. Junta de Andalucia (research group) [AGR230]
  2. University of Jaen
  3. Campus de Excelencia Internacional Agroalimentario [CeiA3]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus strains by high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatments applied singly or in combination with natural antimicrobials (nisin, enterocin AS-48, cinnamon oil and clove oil) was investigated in rice pudding. Treatments at 600 MPa for 10 min reduced initial populations of staphylococci (7.9 log CFU/g) below detectable levels of 1 log CFU/g in the puddings. Treatments at 500 MPa for 5 min (achieving a 2.9-log reduction of viable counts) were investigated singly or in combination with nisin (200 and 500 IU/g), enterocin AS-48 (25 and 50 mu g/g), cinnamon oil (0.2%, vol/wt) or clove oil (0.25% vol/wt). The combined treatment of enterocin AS-48 (50 mu g/g) and HHP caused a non-significant reduction of 0.4-0.6 log cycles compared to HHP alone. Additional reductions of 0.87,1.3 and 1.8 log cycles were recorded for the combined HHP treatments with nisin (500 IU/g), cinnamon oil (0.2%) and clove oil (0.25%), respectively. During refrigeration storage for one week, viable counts in puddings from combined treatments were significantly lower compared to the single HHP treatments, e.g. 1.5 -2.7 log cycles for HHP-nisin (500 IU/g), 1.1-1.3 log cycles for HHP-AS-48 (50 mu g/g) or approx. 1.5 log cycles for HHP-cinnamon oil (0.2%). These results suggest that the time and intensity of HHP treatments required for inactivation of S. aureus in puddings can be reduced when HHP is applied in combination with selected natural antimicrobials. (C) 2012 Elsevier 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

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