Summary
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the combined effects of slightly acidic electrolyzed water SAEW (pH range 5.06.5, oxidationreduction potential 6501000 mV, available chlorine concentration 1080 mg/L) containing 0, 15, and 30 ppm chlorine and 0, 50, and 100 min of ultrasound US (37 kHz, 380 W) using the central composite design (CCD) on the reductions of Escherichia coli and Vibrio parahaemolyticus (initial value, approximately 67 log10 colony forming unit (CFU) of E. coli or V. parahaemolyticus/g) and the sensory properties on freshly sliced shad (Konosirus punctatus), in comparison with SAEW or US alone. Another aim was to develop the response surface model for E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus in the shad treated with the combination of SAEW and US. Single treatments with SAEW (chlorine 15 ppm), SAEW (chlorine 30 ppm), or US for 50 min caused a much-less-than-1-log10 reduction in the number of both E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus in the shad. In contrast, the combination of SAEW (15 or 30 ppm chlorine) and US (50 or 100 min) caused >1-log10 reduction of E. coli numbers (1.041.86 log reduction) and V. parahaemolyticus (1.021.42 log reduction) in the shad. In addition, the sensory properties of the shad were not changed under the harshest conditions of the combination (SAEW with chlorine at 30 ppm and US for 100 min). Response surface models were developed for the population of E. coli (Y=6.153220.024732X 10.016486X 20.00015X 1 X 20.00024X 1 20.00007X 2 2) and V. parahaemolyticus (Y=5.676490.042598X 10.014013X 20.00003X 1 X 20.00006X 1 20.00062X 2 2 ), where Y is the bacterial population (log10 CFU), X 1 is ppm chlorine in SAEW, and X 2 is the duration of treatment (min) with US. The appropriateness of the models was verified by bias factor (B f 1.10 for E. coli, 1.03 for V. parahaemolyticus), accuracy factor (A f 1.11 for E. coli, 1.05 for V. parahaemolyticus), mean square error (MSE 0.0087 for E. coli, 0.0028 for V. parahaemolyticus), and coefficient of determination (R 2 0.976 for E. coli, 0.982 for V. parahaemolyticus). To produce a 1-log10 reduction of E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus, US treatment times for E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus were calculated within the maximum of 54 and 67 min, respectively, at chlorine 10 ppm in SAEW. SAEW chlorine concentrations (ppm) for E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus were calculated within the maximum of 38 and 41 ppm, respectively, at 20 min of US. Therefore, the resulting response surface models for E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus should be further validated on slices of other kinds of raw fish. Ultimately, the response surface quadratic polynomial equations may thus be used for predicting the combined treatments of SAEW and against E. coli and V. parahaemolyticus in raw fish production, processing, and distribution.
Study details
- Published in: Food and bioprocess technology 8.8 (2015): 1762-1770
- Microbes studied: Escherichia coli, Vibrio parahaemolyticus
Source
Source: Food and bioprocess technology 8.8 (2015): 1762-1770
Conditions tested
| Parameter | Value |
|---|---|
| Organisms | Escherichia coli, Vibrio spp. |
| Relevant sectors | Food Processing, Seafood |
| Publication | Food and bioprocess technology, 2015 |
Reading this responsibly
Published figures are obtained under controlled conditions, usually on clean surfaces or in defined matrices. Organic load, surface condition, temperature and application coverage all affect real-world performance. Use these numbers to design a protocol, then validate it on your own site with environmental swabbing.
Applying it
Concentrations in this range are within the adjustable output of every EcoloxTech commercial system, so implementing this protocol is a settings question rather than a procurement one. Where the claim needs to sit on a registered label, see HOCl-AS200, EPA Reg. No. 101112-1.