Effectiveness of a novel UV light emitting diode based technology for the microbial inactivation of Bacillus subtilis in model food systems

Abstract

Effectiveness of a novel UV light emitting diode based technology for the microbial inactivation of ., (2019), Bacillus subtilis in model food systems Food Control

Investigating the Use of Ultraviolet Light Emitting Diodes (UV-LEDs) for the Inactivation of Bacteria in Powdered Food Ingredients

“…Typhimurium were obtained after 40 s treatment. Nevertheless, despite the increased energy doses, the performance of the UVA-LED source for bacterial inactivation was inferior to that of the mercury lamp or the UVC-LED, findings which are in agreement with the literature [ 49 , 50 ].…”

“…However, as the fluence emitted from the UVA-LED used in the current study was significantly higher than that of the mercury lamp or the UVC-LED source, it was included to investigate whether these increased energy levels would result in a significant reduction in bacterial cell numbers within a short treatment period. Similar to the results observed Hinds et al (2019), the UVA-LED did not significantly reduce cell numbers of B. subtilis [ 49 ]; however, significant reductions (approximately 1-log 10 CFU) in cell numbers of L. monocytogenes , E. coli and S . Typhimurium were obtained after 40 s treatment.…”

“…Santos et al (2014) investigated the effect of different wavelengths (UVA, UVB and UVC) on the inactivation of nine different bacterial isolates in media, reporting that UVC light was most effective for bacterial inactivation, with the highest survival rates observed following UVA exposure [ 50 ]. Likewise, other researchers have made similar observations regarding the inefficacy of UVA light for bacterial inactivation compared to UVC radiation [ 49 , 51 ]. Although some studies have reported significant bacterial reductions in liquids and on food surfaces following UVA-LED treatment [ 32 , 35 , 36 , 52 , 53 ], long exposure times (30–180 min) were required, highlighting the time impracticalities of UVA-LED inactivation.…”

“…The results showed that the UVC-LED was at least as effective or in some cases, more effective than the mercury lamp. Kim et al (2016) reported similar findings, observing significantly higher reductions of E. coli O157:H7 in microbiological media with UV-LEDs emitting at 266 nm compared to a mercury lamp [ 24 ], while other authors have found similar success with UV-LEDs at wavelengths of 260–285 nm [ 29 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 ]. This highlights the advantage of using UV-LEDs which can be designed to produce specific wavelengths instead of mercury lamps which can only emit at a single wavelength of 254 nm and have a large environmental footprint.…”

Evaluation of UV-A LED technology on the reduction of spiked aflatoxin B1and aflatoxin M1in whole milk: toxicity analysis using liver hepatocellular cells

“…Various sources of ultraviolet light are commercially applied worldwide. Perhaps, these optical sources which are primarily lamps are unsustainable and have numerous drawbacks including footprint and production of mercury and other harmful waste (Hinds et al, 2020). As an alternative to UV mercury lamps, the application of light-emitting diodes (LEDs) has been under development (Shin et al, 2016).…”