Universitat de Lleida, Departamento de Ciencia y Tecnología de Alimentos, XaRTA-Postharvest, Centro Agrotecnio, Rovira Roure 191, 25198 Lleida, Spain.
Institut de Recerca i Tecnologia Agroalimentàries (IRTA), XaRTA-Postharvest, Edifici Fruitcentre, Parc Científic i Tecnològic Agroalimentari de Lleida, Parc de Gardeny, 25003 Lleida, Spain.
Int J Food Microbiol. 2020 Dec 2;334:108810. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108810. Epub 2020 Aug 8.
Strawberries are often consumed fresh or only receive minimal processing, inducing a significant health risk to the consumer if contamination occurs anywhere from farm to fork. Outbreaks of foodborne illness associated with strawberries often involve a broad range of microbiological agents, from viruses (human norovirus) to bacteria (Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes). The addition of sanitizers to water washes is one of the most commonly studied strategies to remove or inactivate pathogens on berries as well as avoid cross contamination due to reuse of process wash water. The risk posed with the safety issues of by-products from chlorine disinfection in the fruit industry has led to a search for alternative sanitizers. We evaluated the applicability of different chemical sanitizers (peracetic acid (PA), hydrogen peroxide (HO), citric acid (CA), lactic acid (LA) and acetic acid (AA)) for the inactivation of S. enterica, L. monocytogenes and murine norovirus (MNV-1) on strawberries. A control treatment with chlorine (NaClO) (100 ppm) was included. For each sanitizer, different doses (40, 80 and 120 ppm for PA and 1, 2.5 and 5% for HO, LA, AA and CA) and time (2 and 5 min) were studied in order to optimize the decontamination washing step. The best concentrations were 80 ppm for PA, 5% for HO and 2.5% for organic acids (LA, AA and CA) after 2 min treatment. Results indicate that the sanitizers selected may be a feasible alternative to chlorine (100 ppm) for removing selected pathogenic microorganisms (P > 0.05), with reductions about ≥2 log for bacterial strains and ≥ 1.7 log for MNV-1. As the washing water may also increase the microbial counts by cross-contamination, we observed that no pathogenic bacteria were found in wash water after 5% HO and 80 ppm PA after 2 min treatment. On the other hand, we also reported reductions about total aerobic mesophyll (TAM) (0.0-1.4 log CFU/g) and molds and yeasts (M&Y) (0.3-1.8 log CFU/g) with all alternative sanitizers tested. Strawberries treated did not shown significant differences about physio-chemical parameters compared to the untreated samples (initial). For this study, the optimal sanitizer selected was PA, due to the low concentration and cost needed and its microbiocidal effect in wash water and fruit. Notwithstanding the results obtained, the effect of PA in combination with other non-thermal technologies such as water-assisted ultraviolet (UV-C) light should be studied in future research to improve the disinfection of strawberries.
草莓通常是新鲜食用或只经过最小限度的加工,如果从农场到叉子的任何地方都发生污染,都会对消费者造成重大健康风险。与草莓相关的食源性疾病暴发通常涉及多种微生物病原体,包括病毒(人类诺如病毒)和细菌(沙门氏菌和李斯特菌)。在水清洗中添加消毒剂是最常研究的策略之一,用于去除或灭活浆果上的病原体,并避免由于过程清洗水的再利用而导致的交叉污染。在水果行业中,氯消毒副产物的安全性问题带来的风险导致人们寻找替代消毒剂。我们评估了不同化学消毒剂(过氧乙酸(PA)、过氧化氢(HO)、柠檬酸(CA)、乳酸(LA)和乙酸(AA))对草莓上的肠炎沙门氏菌、李斯特菌和鼠诺如病毒(MNV-1)的灭活效果。包括用氯(NaClO)(100ppm)进行的对照处理。对于每种消毒剂,都研究了不同的剂量(PA 为 40、80 和 120ppm,HO 为 1、2.5 和 5%,LA、AA 和 CA 为 2.5%)和时间(2 和 5min),以优化去污清洗步骤。最佳浓度为 PA 80ppm,HO 5%,有机酸(LA、AA 和 CA)2.5%,处理时间 2min。结果表明,所选消毒剂可能是替代氯(100ppm)去除选定的致病微生物的可行选择(P>0.05),细菌菌株减少≥2 对数,MNV-1 减少≥1.7 对数。由于洗涤水也可能通过交叉污染增加微生物计数,我们观察到在 5%HO 和 80ppmPA 处理 2min 后,洗涤水中未发现致病性细菌。另一方面,我们还报告了用所有测试的替代消毒剂处理后,总需氧叶层(TAM)(0.0-1.4logCFU/g)和霉菌和酵母(M&Y)(0.3-1.8logCFU/g)的减少。与未处理的样品(初始)相比,处理过的草莓在生理化学参数上没有显示出显著差异。在本研究中,由于所需的低浓度和成本以及其在洗涤水和水果中的杀菌作用,选择了过氧乙酸(PA)作为最佳消毒剂。尽管取得了这些结果,但应在未来的研究中研究过氧乙酸与水辅助紫外线(UV-C)光等其他非热技术的组合效果,以改善草莓的消毒效果。