Microbial inactivation and quality of grapes treated by plasma-activated water combined with mild heat

Hsiao

et al. 2020

Foods

Eggs are one of the most commonly consumed food items. Currently, chlorine washing is the most common method used to sanitize shell eggs. However, chlorine could react with organic matters to form a potential carcinogen, trihalomethanes, which can have a negative impact on human health. Plasma-activated water (PAW) has been demonstrated to inactivate microorganisms effectively without compromising the sensory qualities of shell eggs. For this study, various amounts (250, 500, 750, or 1000 mL) of PAW were generated by using one or two plasma jet(s) at 60 watts for 20 min with an air flow rate at 6 or 10 standard liters per minute (slm). After being inoculated with 7.0 log CFU Salmonella Enteritidis, one shell egg was placed into PAW for 30, 60, or 90 s with 1 or 2 acting plasma jet(s). When 2 plasma jets were used in a large amount of water (1000 mL), populations of S. Enteritidis were reduced from 7.92 log CFU/egg to 2.84 CFU/egg after 60 s of treatment. In addition, concentrations of ozone, hydrogen peroxide, nitrate, and nitrite in the PAW were correlated with the levels of antibacterial efficacy. The highest concentrations of ozone (1.22 ppm) and nitrate (55.5 ppm) were obtained with a larger water amount and lower air flow rate. High oxidation reduction potential (ORP) and low pH values were obtained with longer activation time, more plasma jet, and a lower air flow rate. Electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) analyses demonstrated that reactive oxygen species (ROS) were generated in the PAW. The observation under the scanning electron microscope (SEM) revealed that bacterial cells were swollen, or even erupted after treatment with PAW. These results indicate that the bacterial cells lost control of cell permeability after the PAW treatment. This study shows that PAW is effective against S. Enteritidis on shell eggs in a large amount of water. Ozone, nitrate, and ROS could be the main causes for the inactivation of bacterial cells.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

The Antibacterial Efficacy and Mechanism of Plasma-Activated Water Against Salmonella Enteritidis (ATCC 13076) on Shell Eggs

Hsiao

et al. 2020

Foods

Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safe

“…It has been reported that the physicochemical properties of PAW after discharge can last from 7 days to 4 weeks (Hoentsch et al, 2014;Julák et al, 2012;Vlad & Anghel, 2017). It is also worth mentioning that the volume of water also affects the inactivation efficiency of PAW, with lower volume leading to a higher inactivation rate (Bai et al, 2020;Julák et al, 2012;Vlad & Anghel, 2017).…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, it should be noted that the storage temperature of PAW also affects the bactericidal efficiency, and a study has showed that lower storage temperature retained most of the bactericidal activity with a descending order of −80 • C, −20 • C, 4 • C, and 25 • C (Shen et al, 2016). In contrast, there are also reports showing that the combination of PAW with mild temperature can increase the inactivation efficiency, as the elevated temperature can intense the damage on microorganisms (Bai et al, 2020;Choi et al, 2019;Liao et al, 2019).…”

Section: 1mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the main advantages of PAW as a novel disinfection technology compared to other technologies is that it is capable of inactivating a wide range of microorganisms, including bacteria (Thirumdas et al, 2018), biofilms (Kam-gangYoubi et al, 2008;Los, Ziuzina, Boehm, Cullen, & Bourke, 2020;Smet et al, 2019), spores (Bai et al, 2020;Sun et al, 2012), molds Ma et al, 2016), yeasts (Guo et al, 2017;KamgangYoubi et al, 2009;Ryu et al, 2013), and even virus (Guo et al, 2018).…”

Section: Characteristics Of Microorganismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The presence of organic materials in water can markedly reduce the inactivation effectiveness of plasma treatment (Bai et al, 2020;Ryu et al, 2013;Xiang et al, 2019a;Zhang et al, 2016;Zhao, Ojha, Burgess, Sun, & Tiwari, 2020a). For instance, Ryu et al (2013) compared the effects of three different fluid backgrounds, that is, water, saline, and YPD (yeast extract, peptone, dextrose) on the inactivation efficiency of yeast after plasma treatment.…”

Section: Background Environment Of Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Plasma‐activated water: Physicochemical properties, microbial inactivation mechanisms, factors influencing antimicrobial effectiveness, and applications in the food industry

Zhao

Patange

Sun

et al. 2020

174

Novel nonthermal inactivation technologies have been increasingly popular over the traditional thermal food processing methods due to their capacity in maintaining microbial safety and other quality parameters. Plasma-activated water (PAW) is a cutting-edge technology developed around a decade ago, and it has attracted considerable attention as a potential washing disinfectant. This review aims to offer an overview of the fundamentals and potential applications of PAW in the agri-food sector. A detailed description of the interactions between plasma and water can help to have a better understanding of PAW, hence the physicochemical properties of PAW are discussed. Further, this review elucidates the complex inactivation mechanisms of PAW, including oxidative stress and physical effect. In particular, the influencing factors on inactivation efficacy of PAW, including processing factors, characteristics of microorganisms, and background environment of water are extensively described. Finally, the potential applications of PAW in the food industry, such as surface decontamination for various food products, including fruits and vegetables, meat and seafood, and also the treatment on quality parameters are presented. Apart from decontamination, the applications of PAW for seed germination and plant growth, as well as meat curing are also summarized. In the end, the challenges and limitations of PAW for scale-up implementation, and future research efforts are also discussed. This review demonstrates that PAW has the potential to be successfully used in the food industry.

Management strategies emphasizing advanced food processing approaches to mitigate food borne zoonotic pathogens in food system

2022

Foodborne zoonoses are the most neglected discipline due to a lack of awareness of potential health hazards, standardized detection methods, and identification of infectious host reservoirs. Food is the major carriage vehicle for the transmission of zoonotic pathogens and many outbreaks globally. Resilient surveillance and holistic intervention of effective mitigation strategies at both preharvest (bacteriophages, probiotics, vaccination, micronutrients, breeding, culling), postharvest (advanced food processing, biofilm removal, and disinfectant), retailer and consumer levels can reduce or prevent pathogens and cross-contamination. Rapid tracking of contamination sources and identification of the route of infection should be implemented using analytical techniques for targeted detection of causative organisms and microbiological risk assessment. An overview elaborating various farm-to-fork pathogenic mitigation strategies at different stages of the food chain is presented. However, special emphasis is placed on the application of advanced novel food processing and preservation techniques, such as high-pressure processing, pulsed light, ultrasound, ultraviolet light, ozone treatment, irradiation and other hurdle technologies for pathogen reduction and food quality assurance. This review will provide an overview of the overall scenario regarding foodborne pathogen-human health interactions and the possible prevention measures that would be helpful for producers, manufacturers, retailers, and consumers for the safer and sustainable development of food products.