MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010253668 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.15072

Effect of in‐package atmospheric cold plasma discharge on microbial safety and quality of ready‐to‐eat ham in modified atmospheric packaging during storage

2020· article· en· W3010253668 on OpenAlexafffund
Barun Yadav, Ana Claudia Neves Franco Spinelli, N.N. Misra, Ying Y. Tsui, Lynn M. McMullen, M. S. Roopesh

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMicrobial Inactivation Methods
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyAlberta InnovatesAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsListeria monocytogenesModified atmosphereFood sciencePreservativeSodium lactateChemistryPopulationCold storageShelf lifeMicrobiologySodiumBiologyBacteriaHorticultureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Listeria monocytogenes is often responsible for postprocessing contamination of ready‐to‐eat (RTE) products including cooked ham. As an emerging technology, atmospheric cold plasma (ACP) has the potential to inactivate L. monocytogenes in packaged RTE meats. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of treatment time, modified atmosphere gas compositions (MAP), ham formulation, and post‐treatment storage (1 and 7 days at 4 °C) on the reduction of a five‐strain cocktail of L. monocytogenes and quality changes in ham subjected to in‐package ACP treatment. Initial average cells population on ham surfaces were 8 log CFU/cm 2 . The ACP treatment time and gas composition significantly ( P < 0.05) influenced the inactivation of L. monocytogenes , irrespective of ham formulations. When MAP1 (20% O 2 + 40% CO 2 + 40% N 2 ) was used, there was a significantly higher log reduction (>2 log reduction) in L. monocytogenes on ham in comparison to MAP2 (50% CO 2 + 50% N 2 ) and MAP3 (100% CO 2 ), irrespective of ham formulation. Addition of preservatives (that is, 0.1% sodium diacetate and 1.4% sodium lactate) or bacteriocins (that is, 0.05% of a partially purified culture ferment from Carnobacterium maltaromaticum UAL 307) did not significantly reduce cell counts of L. monocytogenes after ACP treatment. Regardless of type of ham, storage of 24 hr after ACP treatment significantly reduced cells counts of L. monocytogenes to approximately 4 log CFU/cm 2 . Following 7 days of storage after ACP treatment, L. monocytogenes counts were below the detection limit (>6 log reduction) when samples were stored in MAP1. However, there were significant changes in lipid oxidation and color after post‐treatment storage. In conclusion, the antimicrobial efficacy of ACP is strongly influenced by gas composition inside the package and post‐treatment storage. Practical Application Surface contamination of RTE ham with L. monocytogenes may occur during processing steps such as slicing and packaging. In‐package ACP is an emerging nonthermal technology, which can be used as a postpackaging decontamination step in industrial settings. This study demonstrated the influence of in‐package gas composition, treatment time, post‐treatment storage, and ham formulation on L. monocytogenes inactivation efficacy of ACP. Results of present study will be helpful to optimize in‐package ACP treatment and storage conditions to reduce L. monocytogenes , while maintaining the quality of ham.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations58
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicMicrobial Inactivation MethodsFrench-language works237,207