-
International journal of food microbiology 231 (2016): 48-53
The effect of acidic electrolyzed water (AEW) on inactivating Escherichia coli O104:H4, Listeria monocytogenes, Aeromonas hydrophila, Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Campylobacter jejuni in laboratory contaminated live clam (Venerupis philippinarum) and mussel (Mytilus edulis) was investigated. The initial levels of bacterial contamination were: in clam 4.9 to 5.7 log10 CFU/g, and in mussel 5.1 to 5.5 log10 CFU/g. Two types of AEW were used for treatment time intervals of 1 and 2 h: strong (SAEW) with an available chlorine concentration (ACC) of 20 mg/L, pH = 3.1, and an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) of 1150 mV, and weak (WAEW) at ACC of 10 mg/L, pH = 3.55 and ORP of 950 mV. SAEW and WAEW exhibited significant inhibitory activity against inoculated bacteria in both shellfish species with significant differences compared to saline solutions treatments (1–2% NaCl) and untreated controls (0 h). SAEW showed the largest inhibitory activity, the extent of reduction (log10 CFU/g) ranged from 1.4–1.7 for E. coli O104:H4; 1.0–1.6 for L. monocytogenes; 1.3–1.6 for A. hydrophila; 1.0–1.5 for V. parahaemolyticus; and 1.5–2.2 for C. jejuni in both types of shellfish. In comparison, significantly (P < 0.05) lower inhibitory effect of WAEW was achieved compared to SAEW, where the extent of reduction (log10 CFU/g) ranged from 0.7–1.1 for E. coli O104:H4; 0.6–0.9 for L. monocytogenes; 0.6–1.3 for A. hydrophila; 0.7–1.3 for V. parahaemolyticus; and 0.8–1.9 for C. jejuni in both types of shellfish. Among all bacterial strains examined in this study, AEW induced less bacterial injury (~ 0.1–1.0 log10 CFU/g) and more inactivation effect. This study revealed that AEW (10–20 mg/L ACC) could be used to reduce bacterial contamination in live clam and mussel, which may help control possible unhygienic practices during production and processing of shellfish without apparent changes in the quality of the shellfish.
- This study investigated the effect of electrolyzed water on pathogenic bacteria cell suspensions. Specifically, we evaluated the efficacy of strong and weak acidic electrolyzed waters (SACEW, WACEW) and strong and weak alkaline electrolyzed waters (SALEW, WALEW) on Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Listeria monocytogenes, Aeromonas hydrophila, Campylobacter jejuni, and Escherichia coli O104:H4 in suspensions of (107–109 CFU/mL) in 1% NaCl. SACEW and WACEW were applied at available chlorine concentrations (ACC) of 20 and 10 mg/mL, pH 3.1 and 3.55 and oxidation-reduction potentials (ORP) of 1150 and 950 mV, respectively. Results show that no viable cells were recovered for V. parahaemolyticus, L. monocytogenes, A. hydrophila, C. jejuni within 2 min at 20 °C. However, E. coli O104:H4 was significantly more resistant to ALEW compared to ACEW. Results also show that the bactericidal activity of SACEW (20 mg/mL ACC) was more effective than WACEW (10 mg/mL ACC) in terms of inactivating E. coli O104:H4. Alkaline-electrolyzed waters were found to reduce cell numbers by 1–3 log (P < 0.05). However, alkaline electrolyzed water was less effective (P < 0.05) than acidic electrolyzed treatment.
- This study investigated the effectiveness of spraying electrolysed water for reducing the numbers of Campylobacter on chicken carcasses. Previous studies have used solutions with free chlorine concentrations above 25 ppm and low pH to treat inoculated carcasses. The four trials described here were carried out at process plants treating naturally contaminated, hot, birds with electrolysed sodium chloride or sodium carbonate solutions, plain water, or no water. The birds were chilled after treatment. Free chlorine concentrations were all below 20 ppm, pH was 7 units or more, and redox potentials were below 830 mV. None of the treatments produced more than a 0.3-log reduction in Campylobacter numbers compared to counts on untreated carcasses. This study concludes that, at the low chlorine concentrations allowed in the EU, spraying with electrolysed water is not an effective method of reducing the number or prevalence of Campylobacter on chicken carcasses.
-
Poultry Science 84.11 (2005): 1778-1784
Poultry Science® is now Gold Open Access (OA). The article processing charge (APC) APC for Poultry Science is $1500 for Poultry Science Association members, and $2000 for non-members per article, The APC will be billed after peer review and manuscript acceptance. For more information please also view the answers to frequently asked questions. First self-published in 1921, Poultry Science is an internationally renowned monthly journal, known as the authoritative source for a broad range of poultry information and high-caliber research. The journal plays a pivotal role in the dissemination of preeminent poultry-related knowledge across all disciplines. Poultry Science is an Open Access journal with no subscription charges, meaning authors who publish here can make their research immediately, permanently, and freely accessible worldwide while retaining copyright to their work.An international journal, Poultry Science publishes original papers, research notes, symposium papers, and reviews of basic science as applied to poultry. This authoritative source of poultry information is consistently ranked by Clarivate’s Impact Factor as one of the top 10 agriculture, dairy and animal science journals to deliver high-caliber research. Currently it is the highest-ranked (by Impact Factor and Eigenfactor) journal dedicated to publishing poultry research. Subject areas include breeding, genetics, education, production, management, environment, health, behavior, welfare, immunology, molecular biology, metabolism, nutrition, physiology, reproduction, processing, and products.
- To date, the effectiveness of electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water against bacteria associated with fresh pork has not been determined. Using a hand-held, food-grade garden sprayer, distilled water (W), chlorinated water (CL; 25 ppm), 2% lactic acid (LA), acidic EO water (EOA), or “aged” acidic EO water (AEOA; stored at 4 °C for 24 h) was sprayed (15 s) onto pork bellies inoculated with feces containing Listeria monocytogenes (LM), Salmonella typhimurium (ST), and Campylobacter coli (CC). Remaining bacterial populations were determined immediately following treatment, after 2 days of aerobic storage, and again after 5 days of vacuum-packaged, refrigerated storage (day 7). While LA and EOA significantly reduced (p<0.05) populations of CC at days 0 and 7, there was no significant difference (p>0.05) between antimicrobial treatments when applied to pork inoculated with ST or LM. This study demonstrates that a 15-s spray with EOA has the ability to reduce CC associated with fresh pork surfaces. However, longer contact times may be necessary to reduce other microbial contaminants.
