4.7 Article

Survival of Listeria monocytogenes on a conveyor belt material with or without antimicrobial additives

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 142, 期 1-2, 页码 260-263

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.06.021

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; Survival; Conveyor belt material; Antimicrobial additives

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Survival of Listeria monocytogenes on a conveyor belt material with or without antimicrobial additives, in the absence or presence of food debris from meat, fish and vegetables and at temperatures of 10, 25 and 37 degrees C was investigated. The pathogen survived best at 10 degrees C, and better at 25 degrees C than at 37 degrees C on both conveyor belt materials. The reduction in the numbers of the pathogen on belt material with antimicrobial additives in the first 6 h at 10 degrees C was 0.6 log unit, which was significantly higher (P<0.05) than the reduction of 0.2 log unit on belt material without additives. Reductions were significantly less (P<0.05) in the presence of food residue. At 37 degrees C and 20% relative humidity, large decreases in the numbers of the pathogen on both conveyor belt materials during the first 6 h were observed. Under these conditions, there was no obvious effect of the antimicrobial substances. However, at 25 degrees C and 10 degrees C and high humidity (60-75% rh), a rapid decrease in bacterial numbers on the belt material with antimicrobial substances was observed. Apparently the reduction in numbers of L monocytogenes on belt material with antimicrobial additives was greater than on belt material without additives only when the surfaces were wet. Moreover, the presence of food debris neutralized the effect of the antimicrobials. The results suggest that the antimicrobial additives in conveyor belt material could help to reduce numbers of microorganisms on belts at low temperatures when food residues are absent and belts are not rapidly dried. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据