Inactivation of Escherichia Coli and Salmonella Using 365 and 395 nm High Intensity Pulsed Light Emitting Diodes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High intensity pulsed light emitting diode (LED) treatment is a novel approach to inactivate foodborne pathogens. The objective of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial potential of high intensity 365 (UV-A) and 395 nm (NUV-Vis) LED treatments against Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica at high and low water activity (aw) conditions, and to understand the influence of different process parameters on their antibacterial efficacy. Bacteria at high (in phosphate buffer saline, PBS) and low aw (aw = 0.75) conditions were treated with both the LEDs with specific doses at a fixed distance from the LEDs. The 365 nm LED showed more effectiveness in reducing the dried bacteria compared to 395 nm LED. The dry E. coli showed more resistance to LED treatments compared to Salmonella. The 365 and 395 nm LED treatments with ~658 J/cm2 dose resulted in reductions of 0.79 and 1.76 log CFU/g of Salmonella, respectively, on 0.75 aw pet foods. The LED treatments increased the surface temperature, resulting in water loss in the treated samples. This study showed that the dose, duration of light exposure, bacterial strain, and aw played a major role in the antibacterial efficacy of the 365 and 395 nm LEDs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".