Applications of Power Ultrasound in Food Processing

Kentish, Sandra E.; Feng, Hao

doi:10.1146/annurev-food-030212-182537

Cited by 287 publications

(141 citation statements)

References 124 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

127

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our findings and those of Al Bsoul et al might be due to various effects on the medium through which these mechanisms offset each other. We also observed that the Gram-negative bacterium E. coli was more sensitive to ultrasound treatment than the Gram-positive bacterium S. aureus (Table 1), a finding that was in accordance with previously published studies (37)(38)(39)(40). According to the literature, this result might be due to the thicker and more tightly adherent layer of peptidoglycan in Gram-positive cells (41).…”

Section: Enumeration Of Surviving Cells By Plate Counts (Cultivability)supporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of Ultrasound-Induced Damage to Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus by Flow Cytometry and Transmission Electron Microscopy

Ahn

Liu

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

bAs a nonthermal sterilization technique, ultrasound has attracted great interest in the field of food preservation. In this study, flow cytometry and transmission electron microscopy were employed to investigate ultrasound-induced damage to Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. For flow cytometry studies, single staining with propidium iodide (PI) or carboxyfluorescein diacetate (cFDA) revealed that ultrasound treatment caused cell death by compromising membrane integrity, inactivating intracellular esterases, and inhibiting metabolic performance. The results showed that ultrasound damage was independent of initial bacterial concentrations, while the mechanism of cellular damage differed according to the bacterial species. For the Gram-negative bacterium E. coli, ultrasound worked first on the outer membrane rather than the cytoplasmic membrane. Based on the double-staining results, we inferred that ultrasound treatment might be an all-or-nothing process: cells ruptured and disintegrated by ultrasound cannot be revived, which can be considered an advantage of ultrasound over other nonthermal techniques. Transmission electron microscopy studies revealed that the mechanism of ultrasound-induced damage was multitarget inactivation, involving the cell wall, cytoplasmic membrane, and inner structure. Understanding of the irreversible antibacterial action of ultrasound has great significance for its further utilization in the food industry. With increasing demands for safe, nutritious, and minimally processed products, ultrasound has attracted great interest as an alternative nonthermal technology for microbial inactivation in food preservation (1, 2). Since the 1960s, many studies have been conducted to investigate the bactericidal effects and mechanisms of ultrasound (3-5). At present, acoustic cavitation is most widely accepted as the mechanism of sterilization by highpower ultrasound (frequencies between 18 kHz and 100 kHz). The formation, growth, and collapse of cavitation bubbles in liquid media cause mechanical effects (microstreaming, high shear force, shock waves) and sonochemical reactions (free radicals, hydrogen peroxide), eventually resulting in the impairment or disruption of bacterial cells (6-8). The inhibitory effects of ultrasound on microbial cells are multifactorial, including pore formation, cell wall thinning, cell membrane disruption, release of cytoplasm contents, and damage to DNA structure (9, 10). However, there is still no consensus about the primary effect of ultrasound that causes cell death. Most researchers have argued that the primary target of ultrasound is the cytoplasmic membrane, which consists of lipoprotein layers (11, 12). Ananta et al., on the other hand, suggested that ultrasound-induced cell death might not be related to cytoplasmic membrane damage (13).There have been numerous studies on the antimicrobial efficacy of ultrasound in the food industry, which have been reviewed by Awad et al. Unfortunately, in order to determine the impact of ultrasound treatment, most of...

show abstract

Section: Enumeration Of Surviving Cells By Plate Counts (Cultivability)supporting

confidence: 92%

Evaluation of Ultrasound-Induced Damage to Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus by Flow Cytometry and Transmission Electron Microscopy

Ahn

Liu

et al. 2016

Appl Environ Microbiol

151

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Numerous studies have shown that sonication causes various chemical and biological effects depending on sonication intensity and exposure duration [35]. Figure 2(a) illustrates the values of DH and ACE inhibitory activities hydrolysates obtained under different power and time followed by enzymatic hydrolysis of 120 min.…”

Section: Effect Of Ultrasonic Power and Time On Degree Of Hydrolysis mentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of Power Ultrasound on Antihypertensive Activity, Functional Properties, and Thermal Stability of Rapeseed Protein Hydrolysates

Wali

Shahnawaz

et al. 2017

Journal of Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of power ultrasound pretreatments on the degree of hydrolysis (DH), angiotensin-I-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitory activity, amino acid composition, surface hydrophobicity, protein solubility, and thermal stability of ACE inhibition of rapeseed protein hydrolysates were evaluated. Ultrasonic pretreatments before enzymolysis in terms of power and exposure time increased the DH and ACE inhibitory activities over the control (without sonication). In this study, maximum DH 22.07% and ACE inhibitory activity 72.13% were achieved at 600 W and 12 min pretreatment. Compared to the hydrolysates obtained without sonication, the amino acid profile of ultrasound pretreated hydrolysates showed significant changes particularly in the proline content and hydrophobic amino acids with an increased rate of 2.47% and 6.31%, respectively. Ultrasound pretreatment (600 watts, 12 min) improved functional properties of protein hydrolysates over control by enhancing surface hydrophobicity and solubility index with an increased rate of 130.76% and 34.22%. Moreover, the stability test showed that the ACE inhibitory activity remains stable against heat treatments. However, extensive heat, prolonged heating time, and alkaline conditions were not in the favor of stability test, while under mild heat and acidic conditions their ACE inhibitory activities were not significantly different from unheated samples.

show abstract

“…Excitation of oscillations is possible by generating sound vibrations [17] of the ap propriate frequency in a continuous gaseous medium inside the thermostat by appropriate devices (infrasound [18], ultrasonic [19], sound [20] generators, etc. ).…”

Section: Research Of Existing Solutions Of the Problemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of the air flow velocity relatively thermostat obturator on the effectiveness of induced heat and mass transfer

Pogozhikh

Пак

et al. 2017

TAPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Applications of Power Ultrasound in Food Processing

Cited by 287 publications

References 124 publications

Evaluation of Ultrasound-Induced Damage to Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus by Flow Cytometry and Transmission Electron Microscopy

Evaluation of Ultrasound-Induced Damage to Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus by Flow Cytometry and Transmission Electron Microscopy

Impact of Power Ultrasound on Antihypertensive Activity, Functional Properties, and Thermal Stability of Rapeseed Protein Hydrolysates

Influence of the air flow velocity relatively thermostat obturator on the effectiveness of induced heat and mass transfer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About