Mini review: Antimicrobial strategies in the production of fresh

Transcription

Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Mini review: Antimicrobial strategies in the production of fresh-cut
lettuce products
Ö. Tirpanalan , M. Zunabovic, K. J. Domig and W.Kneifel
Department of Food Science and Technology, BOKU - University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna
As the consumer attitudes shift to healthier, low caloric value as well as to convenience products, the demand for whole
and fresh-cut produce has proportionally increased over the last decade [19, 53, 55]. Together with the grown market, an
increased number of outbreaks associated with fresh-cut produce brought the necessity to deal with microbial
decontamination methods of the fresh-cut lettuce products. Between 1994 and 2011, more than twenty alerts have been
notified through the RASFF portal of the EU regarding hazardous pathogenic microorganisms associated with fresh
lettuce. Most frequently involved pathogens are Salmonella serotypes followed by Campylobacter spp. and Norovirus
genotypes. Additionally, Listeria monocytogenes, E. coliO157:H7 and Shigellasonnei were reported as sources of
outbreaks. The microbial load of naturally occurring spoilage or even pathogenic microorganisms associated with these
products may belong to a broad diversity depending on the production hygiene, storage conditions and on the fact whether
whole or fresh-cut vegetables are considered [1].
The fresh-cut produce manufacture has recognized the application of chlorine solutions as one of the most common
techniques for the treatment of vegetables [20, 54]. However, health- and environment-related concerns regarding the
carcinogenic by-products of chlorine have promoted the search for alternative methods to decontaminate fresh-cut
products [48, 54]. Nevertheless, difficulties have been observed to develop sufficiently standardized applications of
chemicals as sanitizing agents for the washing of vegetables, as different concentrations of chemical sanitizers were
suggested. Hence, the use of chlorine for food disinfection is generally tolerated without being authorized [8]. In parallel,
the application time and the temperature of the disinfectant and its combinations with other chemicals or physical methods
may exert various effects on microbial reduction of different spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms [7, 20]. As an
alternative, chlorine dioxide has been applied. The advantage of this compound is not to form chloramines that are reactive
with organic matter [50, 65]. Hydrogen peroxide, ozone and organic acids are still not commonly applied in the industry in
this context. However, there are several scientific studies illustrating their efficacy and applicability [7, 20, 50, 54].
Additionally, the scientific community is wondering if antimicrobials naturally occurring in plants or of animal and
microbial origins are useful as decontamination agents applied to vegetables through washing procedures. A totally
different branch of decontamination treatment is the use of irradiation technologies [51]. Only recently, the Scientific
Committee on Food of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has published an updated scientific opinion regarding
safety concerns related to irradiated food (EFSA, 2011). UV treatment is also suggested as a useful technique for reducing
the microbial load of the product. Last but not least, the application of electrolyzed water that forms free oxidants without
adding chemicals other than sodium chloride has been considered [48].
In conclusion, there is some growing need for having a survey of scientific data and practical experiences related to the
various decontamination techniques, their efficacy and usefulness in being applied to control the microbial load of freshcut produce. Therefore this chapter will evaluate the available knowledge also providing some information on their
advantages and disadvantages in industrial application.
Keywords: fresh-cut lettuce; decontamination; chlorine solution; irradiation; E. coli O157:H7; Listeria monocytogenes;
Introduction
Consumption of fresh produces has gained demand over the last decade [8]. This is mainly due to the fact that, today´s
consumers are more aware of the nutritional and health benefits of fresh produces. As the consumption rate of fresh
vegetables increases, the space devoted in supermarkets to these products increases proportionally [48]. Especially in
recent years the market of minimally processed vegetable (MPV) has grown rapidly due to its convenience degree.
Together with the reduced time for preparation, lower transportation and less storage cost make MPV favorable, not
only for the home consumption but also for the gastronomy. However, the pH of the lettuce (5.5-6.0) together with the
high aw-value and cut/broken surfaces/tissues serve ideal conditions for the microbial growth that reduces the shelf life.
MPV industry aims to serve the consumer an extended shelf-life product together with the ensured safety and
maintained nutritional and sensorial values. As a definition, minimal processing does not cover intense preservation
steps on the production line, such as heat sterilization, freezing or drying, thus, physiological activities of food, like
respiration, continue throughout the shelf-life. Minimal processing for the fresh-cut iceberg lettuce includes the steps of
harvesting, cold storage, trimming, shredding, washing/rinsing, draining, packaging, cold storage and finally
distribution [8]. The storage temperature plays a critical role in preserving safety and quality of the product. The cold
۫ [8]. Indeed, the French
chain throughout the processing, distribution and storage should be kept at below 10 ◌C
۫ and the U.K. Food Hygiene Regulation directs it as
regulation requires keeping the fresh-packed products at 0-4 ◌C
176
©FORMATEX 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
۫ [17], while the German Society for Hygiene and Microbiology (DGHM) advises to keep the product below
below 8 ◌C
۫
6 ◌C emphasizing that 6 days should not be exceeded the use-by-date.
The main decontamination step of MPV is washing. Conventionally processed fresh-cut lettuce has the washing step
after shredding/slicing/cutting, generally by dropping into a washing tank containing sanitizer [8]. The application
parameters such as time, temperature, pH vary regarding the antimicrobial added to water. Among the sanitizers added
to washing water the most common one in the industry is chlorine. Chlorine is added generally in the amount of 50-200
ppm as free chlorine [8,18, 32]. Nevertheless, in some European countries like Germany, Switzerland, Denmark and
Belgium, the application of chlorine for the production of food as wash water disinfectant is restricted [32, 48, 54].
Thus, washing with warm water is also an accepted method on the decontamination of MPV. The United States Code of
Federal Regulation suggests the ozone in the processing of food as a safe antimicrobial agent. Furthermore, chlorine
dioxide is also accepted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the use in washing vegetables. In spite of the
high bactericidal and sporicidal activity of hydrogen peroxide, it is not preferred by the fresh-cut industry because of its
negative effect to severely browning of the lettuce leaves [54]. Recently, organic acids especially ascorbic acid, citric
acid and lactic acid are tempted to be utilized as the decontamination agent for vegetables. The combination of chlorine
with organic acids has promoted the efficacy compared with either one of them. The application of organic acid
decreases the pH of the chlorine solution making it more effective but also more corrosive to the food equipment and
less stable [69].
Among the physical methods it is reported that acidic electrolyzed water has a similar activity with chlorine and a
greater effect than ozone on lettuce [36]. Similarly, application of gamma ray irradiation which is another physical
method, promises to extend the shelf life of MPV [7, 54]. The application of irradiation with a maximum level of 4.0
kilogray (kGy) on lettuce and spinach is approved by FDA. Nonetheless, the recently updated scientific opinion of
EFSA permits the application of irradiation to vegetables with a maximum level of 1 kGy. Applied kGy doses to
different produces play a critical role regarding the amount of log unit and the type of organisms that are reduced.
Although 1 kGy is enough to eliminate the risk of pathogenic vegetative bacteria, viruses are more resistant to the
treatment, having D10 values around 3 kGy [13].In the mentioned opinion of the scientific committee of EFSA, it is also
pointed out that the dose above 0.5 kGy causes softening on lettuce [44]. Regarding the physical method through UV
application there is only limited data clarifying the efficacy of the method to decontaminate the lettuce. More data are
available regarding the UV application on smooth surface vegetables such as, potatoes, apples and tomatoes [4].
Available data show that the inhibition on the microbiological load depends on the dose of UV treatment. Short length
UV light is more effective at higher doses, however, as the dose increases the respiration rate of the lettuce increases
proportionally, resulting in a decrease in the sensory quality [4].
1. Chemical Sanitizers
1.1 Chlorine
The common form of chlorine that is used in the food industry is sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). The outputs of the
sodium hypochlorite-water reaction are hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and the further
dissociation of hypochlorous acid is the hypochlorite ion (OCl-). The term of free chlorine does not include combined
chlorine compounds that are not available for the oxidative reactions such as chloramines [7]. Although hypochlorous
acid (HOCl) is more effective than the hypochlorite ion (OCl-), under alkaline conditions which are promoted by the
formation of NaOH the equilibrium shifts to the hypochlorite ion (OCl-) [32]. It is reported that at pH 7.0, which is the
target pH for the fresh-cut industry, the percentages of HOCl and OClare 78% and 22% respectively [12]. Despite the
fact that the concentration of HOCl increases as the pH decreases, the solution becomes corrosive to the food contact
equipments at lower pH values [8, 32].
The applied commercial amount is between 50 and 200 ppm of free chlorine with a variable contact time from 1 to
10 min or even longer, at chilling temperatures [8, 18, 32]. Nevertheless, many studies have reported that the reduction
of the microbiological load is accomplished mainly in the first minute and further reduction with increased contact time
is not significant [32, 51]. There are several parameters influencing the efficacy of hypochlorite based washing systems
such as the application temperature, the pH of the solution, washing time and the amount of organic matter present.
Chlorine can bind organic material and form bound chlorine which is less effective than the free chlorine as biocide. If
the amount of the organic material in the produce is increasing the efficacy of the washing system is reduced [32].
Therefore the inconsistency of reduction levels of strains belonging to the same species with the same application
amount might result from the surface area of cut lettuce pieces, due to the processing, altering the amount of free
chlorine in the solution. Apart from that, the initial microbiological loads in the lettuce as well as the applied
temperature are also parameters affecting its efficacy. Moreover, the experiments, in which the microorganisms are
cultured and inoculated in the laboratory environment, demonstrate greater efficacy than those investigating the
reduction of naturally present microorganisms. The reason of easier inactivation of artificially inoculated cell cultures
has been suggested as stronger cell attachment of the natural microbiota [34].
©FORMATEX 2011
177
______________________________________________________________________________
The biggest concern of chlorine based systems is the formation of by-products like haloketons, haloacetic acids,
trihalomethans, and their effect on the environment and on human health [20]. These by-products are recognized as
carcinogenic, although negative health effects on human are not investigated and described in detail. For that reason the
use of chlorine for the ready-to-use food products is prohibited in some European countries like Germany, Switzerland,
the Netherlands, Denmark and Belgium [32, 48, 54]. Nonetheless, in many other European countries there is a lack of
regulatory issues specifying the application technique of chlorine for food. Furthermore, it has been reported that there
is a lack of knowledge in the industry how to fully optimize these systems regarding the pH and free chlorine amount
which is affected by the organic matter present [58]. On the contrary, the powerful oxidizing effect of chlorine, being
soluble in water, easy to apply and its relative low cost make it one of the most widely used sanitizers among the U.S.
and some European countries, to decontaminate the fresh produce [7, 8, 32, 54].
Table 1: Relative efficacy of chlorine (Cl2) wash applications for the decontamination of lettuce
Type of
microorganism
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
[14]
200
5
10
1
5
10
~2
~3
1.3
0.7
0.9
1.1
~1
100
1
0.7
[26]
L. monocytogenes(81-861,
Scott A, 537, 540, 845)
E. coli O157:H7
200
1.3
1.8
1.7
[32]
5
10
[69]
200
10
1.2
[35]
E. coli O157:H7
(C9490, ATCC 35150)
E. coli ATCC 25922
Staphylococcus aureus
FDA 209P
300
600
100
200
3
3
2
10
~ 0.5
~ 0.5
2.5
1.4
[45]
Yersinia
enterocolitica
Total aerobic count
Salmonella
Salmonella Typhimurium
DT104
L. monocytogenes
(NTCT 7973,NCTC 5214,
ATCC 19116,
LM 206, LM 168)
L. monocytogenes
Amount of
free chlorine
(ppm)
100
300
200
100
Application
time
(min)
10
[62]
[7]
[32]
[35]
[50]
[35]
1.2 Chlorine dioxide
Chlorine dioxide (ClO2), as a sanitizing agent causes reduction in microbial population by disrupting the protein
synthesis and membrane permeability of the bacterial cell [9]. It has been used since 1944 for the treatment of water and
in 1998 aqueous chlorine dioxide was permitted by FDA for the use as sanitizing agent for fruits and vegetables [59]. In
the Code of Federal Regulation document (FDA, title 21, part 173.300) it is stated that the amount should not exceed 3
ppm as residual chlorine dioxide, additionally it is directed that the treatment with chlorine dioxide should be followed
by rinsing with potable water.
The information about the efficacy of aqueous chlorine dioxide is quite limited compared to the hypochlorite
solutions. As in the case of HOCl solution, for the chlorine dioxide the reduction on microbiological load also depends
on the application parameters (See table 2).
Chlorine dioxide has several advantages over chlorine solutions; one of those is not being affected by pH.
Additionally, it has reduced cross-reactivity with organic materials [32, 51, 54, 59]. It does not form chloramines by
reacting with ammonia and compared to chlorine fewer organohalogens are formed as reaction products of ClO2 [9].
Furthermore, it has 2.5 times greater oxidizing power compared to chlorine. However, chlorine dioxide is unstable;
therefore it must be generated on site, additionally, it can be explosive at high concentrations and it decomposes when it
۫ [9, 32]. Another disadvantage observed for chlorine dioxide is
is exposed to light at a temperature higher than 30 ◌C
the fact that the application of 5 mg/L gaseous chlorine dioxide for 14.5 min caused deterioration on visual quality [7].
Adverse changes have also been reported in the sensory quality of lettuce on the 3rd day of storage after the treatment
with 1.4 mg/L chlorine dioxide for 10.5 min [60].
178
©FORMATEX 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
Table 2: Relative Efficacy of Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) wash applications for the decontamination of lettuce
Type of
microorganism
L. monocytogenes
(81-861,Scott A, 537,
540, 845)
E. coli O157:H7
(C7927, EDL933, 204P)
Total aerobic count
Amount of
ClO2(ppm)
5
3
3
5
5
10
10
20
20
1.5 (gaseous)
Application
time (min)
10
10
5
10
5
5
10
5
10
5
Log10cfu/g
reduction
1.1
0.4
0.4
1.2
0.98
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.7
2.5
Reference
[69]
[59]
[62]
1.3 Hydrogen peroxide
Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) has the ability of generating cytotoxic oxidizing agents like hydroxyl radicals which oxidize
the cell membrane, biomolecules and DNA of microorganisms, therefore it possesses bactericidal and sporicial
activities [51]. Hydrogen peroxide has been used as sterilizing agent for food contact surfaces, packaging material and
aseptic filling. It is classified as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) and it is allowed for the use of water and surface
disinfection.
Several studies show that hydrogen peroxide is effective to reduce the microbiological load on some fresh cut produces
such as, alfalfa sprouts, bell peppers, cucumber, cantaloupe, without altering the sensory quality [9, 52]. Nevertheless,
the dipping treatment in the solution of H2O2 resulted in severely browning to shredded lettuce [51]. Thus, it is not
preferred to decontaminate fresh-cut lettuce. The main advantage of hydrogen peroxide is that it is degraded into water
and oxygen, therefore does not leave critical residues, however the degree of degradation, accordingly amount of
residues, depend on the amount of catalase enzyme (peroxidase) available in the produce item [51, 57].
Alternatively to H2O2 , the microbiological efficacy of peroxyacetic acid, (the equilibrium mixture of acetic acid and
hydrogen peroxide) to decontaminate the lettuce, has been studied [26, 47, 55]. Furthermore, it is suggested that
peroxyacetic acid is more effective than chlorine with similar contact times at killing some pathogens [7]. The effect of
aerosolized peroxyacetic acid on L. monocytogenes, SalmonellaTyphimurium and E. coli O157:H7 has been examined.
(See table 3) [47]. Applications demonstrated drastically increased log reduction values as the time increased from 10 to
30 min. In the same experiment, a 60 min treatment resulted in even higher reduction values. However, application of
the agent for longer residence time is not appropriate and realistic for the industry.
Table 3: Relative efficacy of peroxyacetic acid wash applications for the decontamination of shredded lettuce
Type of
microorganism
L. monocytogenes
(ATCC 19113, ATCC 19114,
ATCC 7644)
L. monocytogenes
(NTCT 7973,
NCTC 5214,
ATCC 19116,
LM 206, LM 168)
L. monocytogenes
(CWD 95,CWD 201,
CWD 249)
E. coli O157:H7
(ATCC 35150,
ATCC 43889, ATCC43890)
E. coli O157:H7
(AR,AD305,AD317)
Salmonella Typhimurium
(ATCC 19858,
ATCC 43174, ATCC 363755)
Total aerobic count
Amount of
H2O2(mg/L)
40
(aerosolized)
Application
time (min)
10
30
Log10cfu/g
reduction
2.5
2.7
Reference
50
1
1.7
[26]
80
5
4.6
[55]
40
(aerosolized)
10
30
0.8
2.2
[47]
80
5
4.3
[55]
40
(aerosolized)
10
30
0.3
3.3
[47]
80
250
5
~1
2.4
[62]
©FORMATEX 2011
[47]
179
______________________________________________________________________________
1.4 Ozone
Ozone (O3), which is naturally occurring as triatomic oxygen molecule, has a strong oxidation-reduction potential that
can inactivate the contaminants by reacting directly as molecular ozone or through the derived free radicals [32, 50].
Ozone has been used for water treatment for many years and in 1997 the U.S. expert panel classified ozone as Generally
Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for the use in food processing [21]. Its antimicrobial action results from the cell membrane
oxidation, also it has about 50% greater oxidation capacity than chlorine. Ozone decomposes into oxygen, not forming
any by-products [32, 34]. In the presence of organic matter it forms aldehydes, ketones, carboxylic acid causing less
regulatory concerns [24].
There are several studies investigating the different application methods (bubbling ozone, ozonation with low and
high speed stirring, gaseous ozone, aqueous ozone, ozonation combined with sonication) to maximize the
decontamination efficacy of ozone (See table 4). Among the different application methods bubbling ozone has been
found the most effective one [34, 50]. As the temperature decreases the solubility of the ozone in water is increasing.
Therefore ozone is more effective on inactivating the microorganisms at lower temperatures [50]. It is reported that the
log reduction of artificiallyinoculated E. coli indicates a difference depending on the incubation time [50]. For instance,
E. coli incubated for 6 hours after the treatment with bubbling ozone show a 2.54 log reduction while incubated for 18
hours E. coli show a 2.18 log reduction after the same treatment. The reason of this modest decrease can be explained
by increased attachment of cells to lettuce surface over time. This also contributes to the suggestion that the
combination of ozone treatment with mechanical force such as bubbling, stirring, gives higher log reductions due to the
loosening of the cell attachment [34]. It is reported that a concentration of 3 ppm for 5 min reduced the L.
monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 counts below the detection limit when it is applied to the whole lettuce with initial
counts of 5.9 log cfu/g as well as to the shredded lettuce with initial counts of 6.0 log cfu/g L. monocytogenes and
E.coliO157:H7 in different batches. The same application resulted in a 4 and a 1.6 log cfu/g reduction to the mesophilic
bacteria and yeast counts respectively (See table 4). Although molds were below the detection limit, on the 5th day of
storage at 4 °C counts reached the initial load [55]. The main disadvantage of ozone treatment in food processing is the
safety of employees. Possible health risks may result from intense exposure to ozone. Therefore, adequate ventilation
systems are necessary to prevent accidental inhalation of ozone [50]. The possibility of discoloration and deterioration
of the product flavor is pointed out [51]. Additionally, appropriate system adaption generating ozone results in high
initial capital cost [54].
Table 4: Relative efficacy of ozone (O3) wash applications for the decontamination of lettuce products
Type of
microorganism
Application Amount of
strategy
O3
Natural contaminating
microbiota
Total aerobic count
Bubbling
ozone
Ozonated
water
Ozonated
water
Bubbling
ozone
Ozonated
water
Ozone by
spraying
49 mg/L0.5 L/min
5 ppm
10
1.5 ppm
2
30 g/h
2
5 ppm
5
3 ppm
5
Ozonated
water
Gaseous
Ozone
9.7 ppm
16.5 ppm
5.2 ppm
10
E. coli
E. coli O157:H7
E. coli O157:H7
(AR, AD305,
AD317)
E. coli O157:H7
7.6 ppm
L. monocytogenes
(CWD95,CWD201,
CWD 249)
Total aerobic count
Yeast count (natural)
Mold count (natural)
180
Ozonated
water by
spraying
3ppm
Application
time
[min]
5
15
10
15
5 min
©FORMATEX 2011
Fresh
produce
type
Shredded
lettuce
Whole
lettuce
Lettuce
leaves
Lettuce
leaves
Shredded
lettuce
Whole and
shredded
lettuce
Shredded
lettuce
Whole&
Shredded
lettuce
Shredded
lettuce
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
1.9
[34]
1.5
[36]
1.2
[50]
2.0
1.1
[68]
Not
detectable
[55]
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.8
Not
detectable
[59]
4
1.6
2.4
[55]
_______________________________________________________________________________
2. Natural Antimicrobials
2.1 Organic acids
It is well known that many pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms cannot grow at low pH values. Organic acids have
antimicrobial properties by decreasing the pH of the applied solution. The dissociation of hydrogen ions causes
reduction in the internal cellular pH of the organism. Disruption in the ability of the cell maintaining the pH
homeostasis results in disruption of membrane permeability and substrate transport [32]. Organic acids (e.g. citric acid,
tartaric acid, malic acid, sorbic acid, lactic acid, acetic acid) are known as weak acids having different inhibitory effects
compared to strong acids. They acidify the cells´s interior by being lipophilic and penetrating the plasma membrane [3,
56]. The decline in intracellular pH results in inhibition of glycolysis and cell transport system [56]. Most of the
organic acids are approved as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for food treatment, although their application
percentages vary depending on the type of food. There are some studies investigating the efficacy of organic acids for
the vegetable treatment. It is reported that 10 min of 50 mMfumaric acid treatment at room temperature is more
effective than 200 ppm of chlorine treatment at the same temperature [35]. A comparable effect could be observed for
200 ppm of chlorine after 1 min treatment combined with a following heat treatment at 50°C. Nonetheless, the same
authors pointed out that fumaric acid treatment promoted browning of the lettuce. It is suggested that dipping lettuce for
2 min into 0.5 % citric acid or lactic acid could be as effective as chlorine treatment [4]. However, by parallel
investigation of different studies it might be suggested that the microbial reduction of the same species may vary with
the specific strains probably because of the strain specific acid tolerance (see table 5).
Table 5: Relative efficacy of organic acid wash applications for the decontamination of lettuce products
Type of
microorganism
Application
method
E. coli
(ATCC 25922)
Dipping in
lactic acid
Dipping in
citric acid
Application
amount
[%]
0.5
1
0.5
1
1
0.5
1
Application
time
[min]
2
5
L. monocytogenes
(ATCC 7644)
Dipping in
lactic acid
L. monocytogenes
(3 strains)
Dipping in
lactic acid
1
L. monocytogenes
(81-861, Scott A,
537, 540, 845)
Dipping in
lactic acid
Dipping in
acetic acid
Dipping in
citric acid
10
L. monocytogenes
(ATCC 7644)
L. monocytogenes
(3 strains)
E. coli O157:H7
(2 strains)
Dipping in
citric acid
Dipping
acetic acid
Dipping
acetic acid
Dipping
citric acid
Dipping
lactic acid
Fresh
produce type
Lettuce leaves
(iceberg)
2
Shredded
lettuce
(iceberg)
Shredded
lettuce
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.9
3.1
2
2.1
[4]
0.93
[68]
~ 0.5
[69]
~ 0.2
0.5
1
2
Lettuce leaves
(iceberg)
1
1.4
1.6
[4]
1.0
[68]
0.6
Shredded
lettuce
(iceberg)
0.2
0.8
1.1
©FORMATEX 2011
181
______________________________________________________________________________
2.2 Plant extracts
The negative side effects of chemical sanitizers together with the growing demand for organic food force the food
industry to look for alternative antimicrobials. Besides the organic acids, plant extracts possess a potential antimicrobial
activity. The inhibitory effects of different extracts vary depending on the target microorganism and on the type of food.
For instance, the hydrophilic cell wall of gram negative bacteria exhibits a greater resistance. The antimicrobial activity
of 12 different plant extracts on lettuce against Salmonella Typhimurium, E. coli O157:H7, and L. monocytogenes was
recently investigated [34]. As conclusion, more than 2 log reductions of S. Typhimurium and E. coli O157:H7 with 5 %
of clove extract treatment for 10 min could be achieved and more than 3 log reductions when 10 % of extract is applied
for 3 min. It is also pointed out that the sensory quality of lettuce is not affected significantly [34]. Furthermore, studies
reported about the application of 0.1 and 1 % of basil methyl chavicol (essential oil of basil) to the fresh cut lettuce
reducing the initial count of 105cfu/ml Aeromonashydrophilia below the detection limit [65]. Moreover,
Pseudomonasfluorescens could be reduced by 3 log units and also could the total viable count by 2 log cfu/ml for the
same application of basil methyl chavicol. The effect of thyme essential oil on the reduction of inoculated E. coli
O157:H7 to shredded lettuce was investigated [59]. Thyme essential oil is able to reduce E. coli O157:H7 counts in
shredded lettuce by 1.91 and 2.33 log when applied at concentrations of 1 mL/L and 10 mL/L, respectively.
The application of natural antimicrobials showed to promote the efficiency of chemical sanitizers. Some pathogens
and spoilage bacteria may not be inhibited by legally approved doses for chemical sanitizers. However, the combined
use of antimicrobials can increase the efficacy of microbial reduction by synergistic effects [56].
2.3 Protective cultures
Other than synergistic effects of combined antimicrobials, antagonistic effects of microorganisms are studied to
suppress the growth of pathogens. It is reported that the growth of Aeromonashydrophilia, L. monocytogenes,
SalmonellaTyphimurium, Staphylococcus aureus is inhibited on vegetable salads by certain lactic acid bacteria strains
[64]. Bacteriocins produced by Leuconostoc spp. have been studied to control the growthof L. monocytogenes in cut
iceberg lettuce without sensory alterations. However, the bioprotective potential of such protective cultures depends on
the relative concentration of both, the antagonistic cells and the present pathogens [61]. Moreover, it is reported that
washing fresh cut lettuce with a solution containing nisin, coagulin and a nisin–coagulin mixture reduced the viability
ofL. monocytogenes by 1.2-1.6 log units. Nevertheless, it has been reported that a bacteriocin treatment is only
minimally effective to control the growth of the pathogen during the storage period at 4 °C [6].
3. Physical decontamination methods
3.1 Irradiation
Food irradiation is exposing the food to ionizing radiation that generates free radicals from water by radiolysis. Water
molecules lose an electron and produce hydroxyl radicals (OH ֿ◌) and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) which interfere with
the bonds of nucleic acids and cause DNA damage [42].Gamma (γ) radiation applies the photon energy less than 106
kJ/Einstein with a wavelength of less than 0.1 nm whereas x-ray radiation has the photon energy between 106 and 2400
kJ/Einstein with a wavelength of between 0.1 and 50 nm [40]. A low dose irradiation (0.25-1.0 kGy) is proper for
vegetable decontamination strategies in order to delay the plant physiological processes [27]. Indeed, EFSA recently
reported that doses of 1.0 kGy are tolerated as the maximum level for the use on fruits and vegetables, pointing out that
the doses above 0.5 kGy induce the sensorial deterioration of lettuce [13]. In contrast to the decision of EFSA, FDA
approved in 2008 the utilization of ionizing irradiation for the iceberg lettuce with the limitation of maximum doses of
4.0 kGy [16]. The ionizing radiation has been suggested as an effective tool to reduce pathogenic microorganisms and
parasite populations present on raw fruits and vegetable surfaces [9]. There are limited studies investigating the lettuce
decontamination by irradiation processes. Nevertheless, published data reveal promising reductions on pathogens
especially for E. coli O157:H7 (see table 6).
The maximum allowed limit (1 kGy) may not be sufficient to ensure the low microbial population because it does not
penetrate the interior of the irradiation batch [25]. Indeed, it is reported that inner part of the whole lettuce received
about 0.2 kGy when 1kGy is applied to the surface [31]. Furthermore, chlorine treatment (200ppm) reduced E. coli
O157:H7 populations composed of six strains by 1-2 logs, whereas combined treatment with 0.55 kGy of γ-radiation
achieved 5.4 log cfu/g reductions when it is applied to shredded lettuce [17]. Although vegetative cells of pathogenic
bacteria and most of the foodborne parasites such as protozoa, cestodes and trematodes are quite sensitive to irradiation,
the D10 value to inactivate viruses is more than 10 fold higher [9]. There are limited scientific data available on the
safety of irradiated produce. This also results in different consumer perceptions to irradiated products [22].
Additionally, irradiation treatment requires high initial costs and an intensive ongoing management, which results in
higher prices of the marketed product. The sensory quality of irradiated food demonstrates differences regarding the
182
©FORMATEX 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
type of treated food [22]. In the case of lettuce, most of the publications reported an acceptable sensory quality during
the whole storage period [25, 42, 46, 70] with an increased antioxidant and phenol level after irradiation [15].
Table 6: Relative efficacy of irradiation strategies for the decontamination of shredded lettuce leaves
Type of microorganism
Strategy
of
irradiation
X-Ray
radiation
E. coli O157:H7
(C7927, EDL933, 204P)
L. monocytogenes
(Scott A, F5069, LCDC 81-861)
Salmonella (S. Enteritidis, S. Javianaa
S. Montevideo)
Shigellaflexneri
(ATCC 9199, ATCC 12022)
Total aerobic count
Gamma
radiation
E. coli O157:H7 (C9490,
Gamma
ATCC 35150, ATCC 43894)
radiation
Total aerobic count
Yeast count
E. coli O157:H7
(E0018, 43894, 932, 994, F4546,
H1730)
Gamma
radiation
Gamma
radiation
Application
dose
(kGy)
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
1
0.5
1
0.5
0.53 and
200 ppm
chlorine
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
1.3
4.4
1.6
4.1
1.0
4.8
1.4
4.4
2.4
(8th day of storage)
~ 2.3
[42]
~4
~ 3.3
~1.9
5.4
[70]
[46]
[24]
[17]
3.2 Ultraviolet (UV) treatment
Another physical preservation method is treating food with UV light irradiation. The UV spectrum is divided into three
categories depending on the wavelength. UV-A has the longest wavelength from 315 to 400 nm, UV-B extends from
280 to 315 nm and UV-C (100 to 280 nm) which is also known to be germicidal. Ultraviolet radiation causes membrane
depolarization and irregular ionic flow at the cell level, leading to the formation of so-called pyrimidine dimers in the
DNA strand. Due to the DNA mutations, transcription and replication of the cell is blocked resulting in cell death [4, 6].
DNA absorbance is maximal across the UV-C, which has the shortest wavelength but highest energy (Miller et al.,
1999), thus it is used in food processing for the purpose of non-thermal pasteurization and surface decontamination of
food [40].
FDA approved in 2000 the UV treatment as an alternative to thermal pasteurization of fresh juice products. In the
mentioned regulation it is pointed out that photochemical changes induced by UV treatment do not have any
toxicological significance. On the other hand, UV light is considered by the European Union (EU) as irradiation
technology. The irradiation process for food has not been harmonized so far and it is still in discussion which type of
food is allowed to be treated by radiation [38]. The inhibition of microorganisms by UV light treatments mainly
depends on the dose and the type of microorganism that may have varying resistances due to differing cell wall
structures and cell compositions [41]. Although the UV radiation is generally more effective at higher doses, it is
reported that it causes respiratory stress on vegetables and as the dose increases, so does the respiration rateof
lettuce[4,6]. It is reported that a dose of 7.11 kJ/m2 (the highest dose applied in the experiment)applied on different parts
of “red oak leaf” lettuce, induced a softening and increased browning of the product [6]. However, the application
strategy should be assessed for certain food matrices as the resulting quality parameters vary by the food and dose level
[4].
Regarding the yeast and molds level, the shelf life of minimally processed red oak lettuce is one day longer at doses
of 1.18 kJ/m2 and 3 days longer when applied at doses of 7.11kJ/m2 [6]. Also the reduction of lactic acid bacteria counts
at higher doses could be demonstrated (2.37 kJ/m2,7.11 kJ/m2). However, it is also stated that UV-C treatment seems to
stimulate the growth of lactic acid bacteria on lollorosso lettuce at highest doses (8.14 kJ/m2) [4].
The main disadvantage of the UV-C application is the limited scientific information about the microbial efficacy and
sensorial changes of the applied product. Relative low costs, lack of residual component and quick exposure times are
denoted as advantages [67].
©FORMATEX 2011
183
______________________________________________________________________________
Table 7: Relative efficacy of UV treatments (254 nm) for the decontamination of lettuce
Type of microorganism
Application
dose
(kJ/ m2)
Fresh
produce
type
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
Psychrotrophic bacteria
8.14
Whole
lettuce
(lollorosso)
~ 1.0*
[4]
Coliforms
Yeast count
Enterobacteriaceae
Total aerobic count
1.18
7.11
7.11
2.37
Shredded
lettuce
(Red oak)
~ 0.6*
~ 0.8*
~ 0.5*
[6]
~ 0.8*
~ 1.1*
* Microbiological reduction compared to untreated control after 9-10 days of storage at 5 °C under passive modified
atmosphere
3.3. Electrolyzed water
Electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW) has been suggested as an alternative decontamination technique due to its strong
bactericidal effect [20]. By electrolyzing the sodium chloride (NaCl) solution, EOW produces an electrolyzed acidic
solution containing hypochlorous acid (pH 2-3) at the anode side and electrolyzed alkaline solution containing sodium
hydroxide (pH 11-13) at the cathode side [30, 48]. The acidic solution contains 20-60 ppm of free chlorine possessing a
strong bactericidal effect against many pathogens including E. coli O157:H7, L. monocytogenes, Salmonella and also
spoilage bacteria such as Pseudomonas spp. [33, 48, 52]. Although some color changes on lettuce, as the indication of
browning have been observed, it is reported that the sensory quality is not significantly affected [62]. Acidic
electrolyzed water (AEW) has the advantage of being more effective than chlorine due to the combination of the low
pH value and the high oxidation reduction potential [33, 53]. Besides the AEW, the effectiveness of neutral electrolyzed
water (NEW) has been studied recently [2, 23]. NEW is generated similarly to AEW, but has a neutral pH (8.0±0.5)
which is accomplished by redirecting amounts of the hypochlorous acid solution from anode to cathode chamber and
therefore the application has shown to be less corrosive to the equipment and less irritative to the skin [2]. NEW with
approximately 50 ppm of free chlorine has an effect against Salmonella, L. innocua, Erwiniacarotovora and E.coli
O157:H7 similar to chlorinated water containing 120 ppm of free chlorine [2].
It is reported that after a 3 min treatment of AEW the microbial level of E. coli O157:H7 is reduced below the
detection limit [52]. Additionally, deionized water (DW) treatment followed by AEW reduced SalmonellaTyphimurium
below the detection limit after 5 minutes. The same authors compared the efficacies of AEW, Alkaline electrolyzed
water (AK-EW), sequential treatment of AK-EW+AEW and DW+AEW and concluded the reduction capacity on 3
pathogens (L. monocytogenes, SalmonellaTyphimurium, E. coli O157:H7) as follows: AEW>DW+AEW≈AKEW+AEW>AK-EW>DW. The reason of the inconsistency between some publications (see table 8) has been suggested
as the differences in the method of inoculation (spray-, spot-, drop-, dip-inoculation), and in the attachment of the
microbial cells on the lettuce [33, 37]. Furthermore, it is reported that the initial inoculation amount has an effect on the
reduction of microorganisms, especially on E. coli. The reduction by 1.6 log cfu/mL after the treatment of NEW
containing 52 ppm free chlorine has been investigated, after the lettuce has been dipped into a mixture of three strains
(107 cfu/mL Salmonella, E. coli, L. innocua). However, only 1 log reduction could be obtained after it is dipped into the
mixture of 105cfu/mL [2].
AEW has the advantage of being more effective than chlorine solutions due to the combination of low pH value and
the high oxidation reduction potential. Additionally, it is generated from the NaCl solution on-site and therefore it does
not pose danger for handling or storage practices, as well as adverse impacts on the environment [33, 53].
184
©FORMATEX 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
Table 8: Relative efficacy of electrolyzed water treatments for the decontamination of lettuce products
Type of
Microorganism
E. coli O157:H7
(ATCC 35150, ATCC 43889,
ATCC 43890)
S. Typhimurium
(ATCC 19585, ATCC
43174, ATCC 363755)
L. monocytogenes
(ATCC 19113,
ATCC 19114, ATCC 7644)
L. monocytogenes (ATCC
19117, 109, 201, 315,116)
E. coli O157:H7 (932, 994,
E0018, H1730, F4546)
E.coliO157:H7
(SEA 13B88)
Total aerobic count
Mold and Yeast count
Coliforms
Total aerobic count
E. coli O157:H7
(NCTC 12900)
Salmonella enterica
serotypechloreaesuis
L. innocua
(CECT-910)
Erwiniacarotovora
ssp. carotovora CECT-225
1)
Acidic Electrolyzed Water
Application
strategy
Amount
of
free
chlorine
(ppm)
Application
time
(min)
Fresh
produce
type
AEW1)
pH 2.6
37.5±2.5
1
Shredded
lettuce
Log10cfu/g
reduction
Reference
3.5
[53]
3.4
3
AEW1)
pH 2.5
45
1
AEW1)
pH 2.6
50
2
20
AEW1)
pH 2.6
30
10
NEW2)
pH 8.6
Whole
lettuce
(iceberg)
Shredded
lettuce
(iceberg)
Whole
lettuce
52±6
3
48±4
Shredded
lettuce
(iceberg)
2.6
[52]
2.4
0.7
1.0
[33]
~ 2.3
~ 1.5
~ 2.0
0.8
[36]
[2]
~1.2
~1.4
Inoculated
by dipping
108cfu/ml
~1.5
~ 1.2
2)
Neutral Electrolyzed Water
Discussion and Conclusion
Fresh vegetables are one of the essential constituents of the human diet. There is a relatively large number of evidences
associated with their nutritional and health benefits regarding vitamin, mineral and dietary fiber content [1, 2, 3, 17, 34,
35, 42, 52,56, 67]. Among the minimally processed vegetables (MPV), lettuce is one of the most popular vegetables
that is eaten without heating or cooking [1, 34]. Since MPV are not exposed to intense preservation treatments, it is
difficult to maintain the safety and quality aspects during production [35]. Hence, safety concerns emerge the necessity
to deal with the decontamination methods ensuring the safety of the fresh vegetables.
Among the decontamination strategies for vegetable processing, chlorine solutions containing between 50-200 ppm
free chlorine are the most commonly used commercial sanitizers [51, 55, 59]. However, the potential health impacts and
environmental effects regarding the by-products generated from the reaction with organic matters should be considered
[21, 55]. Additionally, its effect on microorganisms is regularly limited by 1-2 log reductions (see table 1). Chlorine
dioxide, the alternative to chlorine solution possesses comparable microbicidal decontamination properties (see table2).
Hydrogen peroxide showed unsatisfactory results due to sensorial product alterations [51]. On the other hand,
aerosolized peroxyacetic acid has been associated with more than 3 log reductions on SalmonellaTyphimurium, with
the application time of 30 min (see table 3) [47].
Physical preservation of food by UV-treatment is an approved technology in the U.S. (FDA, 2000). However in the
European Union this technology is considered as irradiation treatment and therefore harmonization for food approvals
are still in progress. Gamma irradiation demonstrated a valuable microbial reduction efficiency (4 log cfu/g) on
pathogens, such as E.coli O157:H7, and Shigellaflexneri(see table 6). However, product softening should be
©FORMATEX 2011
185
______________________________________________________________________________
encountered when doses of 1 kGy are applied. Studies on the effectiveness and sensorial impacts on fresh-cut lettuce by
UV-C treatment are still underrepresented.
Ozone with its strong oxidation-reduction potential has been used for water treatment for many years [21]. Bubbling
ozone treatment showed increased effects on microbial reduction due to mechanical forces weakening the attachment of
cells on vegetable surfaces (see table 4) [50].
Organic acid treatments demonstrate varied results ranging from 0 to 3 log reductions (see table 5). Lactic acid and
citric acid can be considered more effective than acetic acid for the fresh-cut lettuce decontamination. Fumaric acid
treatment (50mM) has been reported to be more effective than 200 ppm NaClO treatment, with a 1.4 log reduction on
the microbiota (see table 6). However, browning effects on the product after treatment could not be eliminated [34].
Combinations of chlorinated water, peroxyacetic acid, citric acid and water to reduce L. monocytogenesin lettuce
demonstrated different recoveries for certain strains. L. monocytogenes isolates obtained from lettuce were highly
recoverable [26].
In general, electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW) also demonstrates proper reduction results with minimal negative
effects on the product and human health issues. Nonetheless, some published trials indicate inconsistency in their results
(see table 8), probably due to the strain adaption to acidic environments.
In this review, the decontamination methods with different agents (chemical and natural origin) associated with
fresh-cut lettuce are discussed and their specific strengths and weaknesses are outlined. Through the investigation of
available scientific data, it can be concluded that the microbial reduction on (fresh-cut) lettuce depends on various
influence criteria as follows: the applied technology, temperature and duration of treatment, pH value and
concentration, type of microorganism and strain specific characteristics. Moreover, it can be asserted that the state of
attachment of a certain microorganism to the surface of the lettuce has a critical effect on the actual microbial reduction.
The state of attachment is interconnected with the incubation time of the inoculated target microorganism [34]. Legal
issues regarding the approval status of agents should be carefully inspected before implementing them in daily
manufacturing practice. Risk evaluations are still ongoing, as the recently published opinion on the irradiation of food
by the European Food Safety Authority [13].
In summary, being able to recommend a superior method on the basis of scientific literature, there is still a workload
outstanding to optimize method parameters to obtain reproducible treatments for the generation of microbiologically
safe, residue-free and acceptable fresh-cut produce.
References
[1] Abadias M, Usall J, Anguera M, Solsona C, Vinas I. Microbiological quality of fresh, minimally-processed fruit and
vegetables, and sprout from retail establishment. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007;123:121-129.
[2] Abadias M, Usall J, Olivera M, Alegre I, Vinas I. Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water (NEW) for reducing microbial
contamination on minimally-processed vegetables. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008;123:151-158.
[3] Akbas M Y, Ölmez H. Inactivating of Escherichia coli and Listeria monocytogenes on iceberg lettuce by dip wash
treatments with organic acids. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2007;44:619-624.
[4] Allende A, Artes F. UV-C radiation as a novel technique for keeping quality of fresh processed ‘LolloRosso’ lettuce. Food
Research International. 2003;36:739-746.
[5] Allende A, McEvoy J.L, Luo Y, Artes F, Wang C.Y. Effectiveness of two-sided UV-C treatments in inhibiting natural
microflora and extending the shelf-life of minimally processed ´Red Oak Leaf´ lettuce. Food Microbiology. 2006;23:241249
[6] Allende A, Martínez B, Selma V, Gil M I, Suárez J.E, Rodríguez A. Growth and bacteriocin production by lactic acid
bacteria in vegetable broth and their effectiveness at reducing Listeria monocytogenes in vitro and in fresh cut lettuce. Food
Microbiology. 2007;24:759–766.
[7] Ann A. Benefits and risks of the use of chlorine-containing disinfectants in food production and food processing: report of a
WHO/FAO expert meeting. MI, USA, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and World Health
Organization. 2008.
[8] Baur S. Quality improvement and shelf-life extension of minimally processed iceberg lettuce by innovative pre-washing
using cold and warm water or without sanitizers. Shaker Verlag, Aachen, Germany 2005.
[9] Beuchat L.R, Ryu J.H. Produce handling and processing practices; special issue. Emerging infectious diseases. 1997;3:459465.
[10] Beuchat L.R. Surface decontamination of fruits and vegetables eaten raw: A review, World Health Organization, Food
Safety. 1998.Unit.WHO/FSF/FaS/98-2.Available at:
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/surface_decon.pdfAccessed May 31, 2011
[11] Beuchat L.R, Adler B.B, Lang M.M. Efficacy of chlorine and peroxyacetic acid sanitizer in killing Listeria monocytogenes
on iceberg and romaine lettuce using simulated commercial processing conditions. Journal of Food Protection.
2004;67:1238–1242.
[12] Dawson D.J. The use of chlorine in fresh produce washing. CCFRA Guideline No.38, Chipping Campden, Glos., GL55
6LD. 2002.
[13] European Food Safety Authority; Statement Summarizing the Conclusions and Recommendations from the Opinions on the
safety of Irradiation of Food adopted by the BIOHAZ and CEF Panels. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(4): 2107. [155 pp.]
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011. 2107. Available at: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.Accessed April 15, 2011
186
©FORMATEX 2011
_______________________________________________________________________________
[14] Escuerda M.E, Velazquez L, Di Genero M.S, De Guzman A.S. Effectiveness of various disinfectants in the elimination of
Yersinia enterocolitica on fresh lettuce, Journal of Food Protection. 1999;64:665-669.
[15] Fan X. Antioxidant capacity of fresh-cut vegetables exposed to ionizing radiation. Journal of the Scienceof Food and
Agriculture. 2005;85:995-1000.
[16] FDA, 2008, Irradiation: A safe measure for safer iceberg lettuce and spinach, FDA Consumer health information, U.S.
Food and Drug Administration. Available at; www.fda.gov/consumer/updates/irradiation082208.html Accessed May 20,
2011
[17] Foley D.M, Dufour A, Rodriguez L, Caporaso F, Prakash A. Reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in shredded iceberg
lettuce by chlorination and gamma irradiation. Radiation Physics and Chemistry. 2002;63:391-396.
[18] Francis G.A, Thomas C, O Beirne D. The microbiological safety of minimally processed vegetables, International Journal
of food Science & Technology. 1999;34:1-22.
[19] Frank C, Faber M.S, Askar M, Bernard H, Frith A, Gilsdorf A, Höhle M, Karch H, Krause G, Prager R, Spode A, Werber
D. Large and ongoing haemolyticureamic syndrome. Germany, Eurosurveillance. 2011;16, Issue 21
[20] Gil M.I, Selma M.V, Lopez-Galvez F, Allende A. Fresh-cut product sanitation and wash water disinfection: problems and
solutions. International Journal of Food Safety. 2009;134:37-45.
[21] Graham D.M. Use of ozone for food processing. Food Technology. 1997;51:72-75.
[22] Growth E. Food irradiation for fresh produce; a critical issue report, The organic centre. 2007. Available at:
http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/IrradiationReport.pdf Accessed May 10, 2011.
[23] Guentzel J.L, Lam K.L, Callan M.A, Emmons S.A, Dunham V.L. Reduction of bacteria on spinach, lettuce, and surfaces
in food service areas using neutral electrolyzed oxidizing water. Food Microbiology. 2008;25:36-41.
[24] Guzel-Seydim Z.B, Greene A.K, Seydim A.C. Use of ozone in food industry. LWT Food Science and Technology. 2008;
37:453-460.
[25] Hagenmaier R.D, Baker A.R. Low-dose irradiation of cut iceberg lettuce in modified atmosphere packaging. Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry. 1997;45:2864-2868.
[26] Hellström S, Kervinen R, Lyly M, Rantala R.A, Korkeala H. Efficacy of disinfectants to reduce Listeria monocytogenes on
precut iceberg lettuce. Journal of Food Protection. 2006;69:1565–1570.
[27] ICGFI, Facts about food irradiation, A series of Fact Sheets from the International Consultative Group on Food
Irradiation, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture. 1999 Available at:
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/foodirradiation.pdf Accessed May 31, 2011.
[28] IFT, Institute of Food Technologists, Radiation Preservation of Foods. A Scientific Status Summary by the Institute of
Food Technologists´ Expert Panel of Food Safety and Nutrition, February 1983.
[29] ISO 21348 Process for Determining Solar Irradiances. Available at:http://www.spacewx.com/ISO_solar_standard.html
Accessed May 31, 2011.
[30] Izumi H. Electrolyzed water as a disinfectant for fresh cut vegetables. Journal of Food Science. 1999;64:536-539.
[31] Jeong S, Marks B.P, Ryser E.T, Moosekian S.R. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 on lettuce, using low-energy XRay irradiation, Journal of Food Protection. 2010;73:547-551.
[32] Jongen W. Alternatives to hypochlorite washing systems for the decontamination of fresh fruit and vegetables in;
Improving the safety of fresh fruit and vegetables, pp, 351-372, Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press, Cambridge,
England. 2005.
[33] Keskinen L.A, Burke A, Annous B.A. Efficacy of chlorine, acidic electrolyzed water andaqueous chlorine dioxide solutions
to decontaminate Escherichia coli O157:H7 from lettuce leaves. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
2009;132:134-140.
[34] Kim S Y, Kang D H, Kim J K, Ha J Y, Kim T, Lee S H. Antimicrobial acivity of plant extracts against Salmonella
typhimurium, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes on Fresh lettuce.Journal of Food Science.
2011;76:41-46.
[35] Kondo N, Murata M, Isshiki K. Efficiency of sodium hypochlorite, fumaric acid, and mild heat in killing native
microfloraand Escherichia coli O157:H7, SalmonellaTyphimurium DT104, and Staphylococcus aureus attached to freshcut lettuce. Journal of Food Protection. 2006;69:323–329.
[36] Koseki S, Yoshida K, Isobe S, Itoh K. Decontamination of lettuce using acidic electrolyzed water. Journal of Food
Protection. 2001;64:652-658.
[37] Koseki S, Yoshida K, Kamitani Y, Itoh K. Influence of inoculation method, spot inoculation sute, and inoculation size on
the efficacy of acidic electrolyzed water against pathogens on lettuce. Journal of Food Protection. 2003;66:2010-2016.
[38] Koutchma N T, Forney L J, Moraru J I. Current status of U.S. and international regulations, in: Ultraviolet light in food
technology, principles and applications, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 2009a; 25-27.
[39] Koutchma N T, Forney L J, Moraru J I. Shelf life and quality changes in fresh produce. Lettuce, in: Ultraviolet light in
food technology, principles and applications, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 2009b; 113.
[40] Koutchma N T, Forney L J, Moraru J I. Principles and applications of UV technology, in: Ultraviolet light in food
technology, principles and applications, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 2009c; 1-25.
[41] Koutchma N T, Forney L J, Moraru J I. Microbial inactivation by UV light, in: Ultraviolet light in food technology,
principles and applications, CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group. 2009d; 69-101.
[42] Mahmoud B S M. Effects of X-ray radiation on Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enteric,
and Shigellaflexneri inoculated on shredded iceberg lettuce, Food Microbiology. 2010;27:109-114.
[43] Miller R.V, Jeffrey W, Mitchell D, Elasri M. Bacterial responses to ultraviolet light, Am. Soc. Microbiology. 1999;65:535541.
[44] Niemira BA, Sommers CH and Fan X, Suspending lettuce type influences recoverability and radiation sensitivity of
Escherichia coli O157:H7. Journal of Food Protection. 2002;65:1388-1393.
©FORMATEX 2011
187
______________________________________________________________________________
[45] Niemira B.A. Relative efficacy of sodium hypochlorite wash versus irradiation to inactivate Escherichia coliO157:H7
internalized in leaves of romaine lettuce and baby spinach. Journal of Food Protection. 2007;70:2526–2532.
[46] NiemiraB.A. Irradiation compared with chlorination for elimination of Escherichia coli O157:H7 internalized in lettuce
leaves: influence of lettuce variety. Journal of food science. 2008;73:208-213.
[47] Oh S.W, Dancer G.I, Kang D.H. Efficacy of aerosolized peroxyacetic acid as a sanitizer of lettuce leaves. Journal of Food
Protection. 2005; 68:1743–1747.
[48] Ongeng D, Devlieghere F, Coosemans J, Ryckeboer J. The efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water for inactivating
spoilage microorganisms in process water and on minimally processed vegetables. International Journal of Food
Microbiology. 2006;109:187-197.
[49] Ölmez H, Kretzschmar U. Potential alternative disinfection methods for organic fresh-cut industry for minimizing water
consumption and environmental impact. LWT-Food Science and Technology. 2009;42:686-693.
[50] Ölmez H. Effect of different sanitizing methods and incubation time and temperature on inactivation of Escherichia coli on
Lettuce.Journal of Food Safety. 2010;30:228-299.
[51] Parish M E, Beuchat L R, Suslow T V, Harris L J, Garrett E.H, Farber J.N, Busta F.F. Methods to reduce/eliminate
pathogens from fresh and fresh-cut produce. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2003;2:161-173.
[52] Park C.M, Beuchat L.R. Evaluation of sanitizers for killing Escherchia Coli O157:H7, Salmonella and naturally occurring
microorganisms on cantaloupes, honeydew melons, and asparagus. Dairy, Food and environmental Sanitation.
1999;19:842-847.
[53] Park E J, Alexander E, Taylor G A, Costa R, Kang D H. Effect of electrolyzed water for reduction foodborne pathogens on
lettuce and spinach. Journal of Food Science. 2008;73:268-272.
[54] Rico D, Martin-Diana A B, Barat J M, Barry-Ryan C. Extending and measuring the quality of fresh-cut fruit and
vegetables: A review. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 2007;18:373-386.
[55] Rodgers S L, Cash L N, Siddiq M, Ryser E.T. A comparison of different chemical sanitizers for inactivating Escherichia
coli O157:H7 and Listeriamonocytogenes in solution and on apples, lettuce, strawberries, and cantaloupe. Journal of Food
Protection. 2004;67:721–731.
[56] Rosa M, Raybaudi-Masilia, Mosqueda-Melgar J, Soliva-Fortuny R, Martin-Belloso O. Control of pathogenic and spoilage
microorganisms in fresh-cut fruits and fruit juices bytraditional and alternative natural antimicrobials. Comprehensive
Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2009;8:157-180.
[57] Sarpers G M. Efficacy of washing and sanitizing methods. Food Technology and Biotechnology. 2001;39:305-311.
[58] Seymour I.J. Review of the current industry practice on fruit and vegetable decontamination, CCFRA Review No. 14,
Chipping, Campden, Glos., GL55 6LD. 1999.
[59] Singh N, Singh R.K, Bhunia A.K, Stroshine R L. Efficacy of chlorine dioxide ozone and thyme essential oil or a sequential
washing in killing Escherichia coli 0157:H7 on lettuce and baby carrots. LWT Food Science and Technology. 2002;35:720729.
[60] Sy K.V, Melinda B, Murray M, Harrison D, Beuchat L R. et al. Evaluation of gaseous chlorine dioxide as a sanitizer for
killing Salmonella, Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and yeasts and molds on fresh and fresh-cut
produce. Journal of Food Protection. 2005;68:1176–1187.
[61] Trias R, Badosa E, Montesinos E, Baneras L. BioprotectiveLeuconostoc strains againsListeria monocytogenes in fresh
fruits and vegetables. International Journal of Food microbiology. 2008;127:91-98.
[62] Vandekinderen I, Camp J V, Meulenaer B D, Veramme K, Bernaert N, Denon Q, Ragaert P, Devlieghere F. Moderate and
high doses of sodium hyochlorite, neutral electrolysed oxidizing water peroxyacetic acid and gaseous chlorine ioxide did
not affect the nutritional and sensory qualities of fresh-cut iceberg lettuce (Lactuca sativa vr. Capitata L.) after washing,
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2009;57:4195-4203.
[63] U.S. FDA. 2000, Irradiation in the production, processing and handling of food. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, part
179. Federal Register. 65: 71056–71058. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC. Available at:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&rgn=div5&view=text&node=21:3.0.1.1.10&idno=21 Accessed May
31, 2011
[64] Vescovo M, Torriani S, Orsi C, Macchiarola F, Scolari G. Applcation of antimicrobial-producing lactic acid bacteria to
control pathogens in ready to use vegetables. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. 1996;81:113-119.
[65] Wan J, Wilcock A, Coventry M J, The effect of essential oils of basil on the growth of Aeromonashydophila and
Pseudomonas fluorescens. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 1998; 84:152-158.
[66] White G C. Ozone, Handbook of chlorination and alternative disinfectants, 3rd ed., N.Y., Van Nostrand Reinhold.
1992;1046-1110.
[67] Yaun B R, Summer S S, Eifer J D, Marcy J.E. Inhibition of pathogens on fresh produce by ultraviolet energy. International
Journal of Food Microbiology. 2004;90:1-8.
[68] Yuk H G, Yoo M Y, Yoon J W, Moon K D, Marschall D.L., Oh, D.H. Effect of combined ozone and organic acid treatment
for control of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes on lettuce. Journal of Food Science. 2006;71:83-87.
[69] Zhang S, Farber J M. The effects of various disinfectants against Listeria monocytogenes on fresh-cut vegetables, Food
Microbiology. 1996;13:311-321.
[70] Zhang L, Zhaoxin L, Wang H. Effect of gamma irradiation on microbial growth and sensory quality of fresh-lettuce.
International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2005;106:348-351.
188
©FORMATEX 2011

Mini review: Antimicrobial strategies in the production of fresh

Transcription

Similar documents

Woody Chiton - City of Cannon Beach

Random Healthy Fact Food blogs to check out ds bulk to you diet

Bibimbap - Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank

Wildfire Chopped Salad - Jim and Nancy Beletti

Gluten-Free Menu - Juliano`s Online

E. coli in Spinach, Foodborne Illnesses, and Expectations about

Newsletter 4-14 - Blue Lagoon Organics

Lettuce Entertain Y ou Frequent Diner Newsletter

party guide

full moon lunch - The Full Moon Oyster Bar