Inhibitory Effect of Organic Acids upon Meat Spoilage Bacteria

Abstract

The relative ability of acetic, benzoic, citric, lactic, propionic, and sorbic acids to inhibit the growth of six common meat spoilage bacteria (Brochothrix thermosphacta, Carnobacterium piscicola, Lactobacillus curvatus, Lactobacillus sake, Pseudomonas fiuorescens, and Serratia liquefaciens) was compared under otherwise optimum conditions (BHI or MRS broths; 20°C). Because of their low solubility in the growth media, benzoic and sorbic acids could only be used in low concentrations (below 0.15% [wt/vol]) and did not efficiently inhibit bacterial growth. All other acids totally inhibited growth at concentrations ranging from 0.1 % to 1% (wt/vol). On a weight basis, acetic acid was found to be the most inhibitory, followed by propionic. lactic, and citric acid, while the order of efficiency was reversed (citric> lactic> propionic> acetic) when the acid concentrations were expressed on a molar basis or when the acid effectiveness was evaluated relative to the concentration of undissociated molecules. Overall, the lactobacilli were the bacteria most resistant to the action of organic acids, followed by P. fiuorescens and S. liquefaciens, while B. thermosphacta and C. piscicola were considerably more sensitive.

Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of two Juniperus species essential oils

“…Our results indicated more susceptibility of the Grampositive bacteria which have been reported by others (Ouattara et al, 1997;Shelef et al, 1980). The weak antibacterial activity against Gram-negative bacteria was related to the presence of an outer membrane (Mann et al, 2000;Gaunt et al, 2005).…”

Influence of the Natural Microbial Flora on the Acid Tolerance Response of Listeria monocytogenes in a Model System of Fresh Meat Decontamination Fluids

“…Based on preliminary characterization tests, these organisms were LAB because they were gram-positive, catalase-negative nonsporeformers and were able to grow and acidify (pH Ͻ5.0; 30°C, 24 h) MRS broth. The profound acid resistance of LAB compared to food spoilage gram-negative bacteria is well established (38). More than 80% of those isolates were cocci but not enterococci, because they did not grow on Enterococcus agar.…”

Wide‐spectrum antimicrobial packaging materials incorporating nisin and chitosan in the coating

“…Substantial growth inhibition of food pathogenic and spoilage organisms by acetic acid is well known. [22][23][24] Nisin can inhibit growth of Gram-positive bacteria such as L. monocytogenes but not Gramnegative bacteria such as E. coli, 5,19,20 which explains why the degree of microbial inhibition by the nisin-incorporated coating differed with the microbial strain (Figures 4 and 5). Because nisin has no antimicrobial activity against E. coli in aqueous solution, 5 the decrease in E. coli count with nisincoated paper is thought to come mainly from the migrated acetic acid.…”

“…There is also a possibility that acetic acid retained in the coating paper contributed to the inhibition of microbial growth in milk and orange juice because of its own antimicrobial effect. [22][23][24] The complexity of the microbial flora in the milk and orange juice makes it difficult to explain completely the phenomenon of the slowed microbial growth caused by the antimicrobial-coated paperboard. Sublethal injury of bacteria during pasteurization, contamination during sample preparation, and activity loss of nisin in the food have been suggested as reasons for the reduced difference in the effectiveness of the different coatings incorporated with nisin.…”