4.7 Article

Effects of packaging type and storage temperature on the growth of foodborne pathogens on shredded 'Romaine' lettuce

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 375-380

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2009.11.014

关键词

Salmonella; Escherichia coli O157:H7; Listeria monocytogenes; Fresh-cut vegetables; Modified atmosphere packaging

资金

  1. Spanish Government [Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia, MEC] [AGL-2004-06027, RTA-2006-00061]
  2. FEDER (Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fresh produce can be a vehicle for the transmission of pathogens capable of causing human illnesses and some of them can grow on fresh-cut vegetables. The survival and growth of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes inoculated onto shredded lettuce was determined under modified atmosphere packaging conditions, at various storage temperatures. We also monitored changes in pH and gas atmospheres within the packages and the growth of psychrotrophic and mesophilic microorganisms. After pathogen inoculation, shredded lettuce was packaged in films of different permeability and stored at 5 and 25 degrees C. After 10 days at 5 degrees C populations of E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella decreased approximately 1.00 log unit while L. monocytogenes increased about 1.00 log unit, in all package films. Moreover, the pathogens level increased between 2.44 and 4.19 log units after 3 days at 25 degrees C. Psychrotrophic and mesophilic bacteria had similar growth at both temperatures with higher populations in air than in the other atmospheres. The composition of the storage atmosphere within the packaging of lettuce had no significant effect on the survival and growth of the pathogens used in this study at refrigeration temperatures. The results obtained can be considered as a warning indicator, which reinforces the necessity for corrective measures to avoid contamination of vegetables. (C) 2009 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