MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4363647774 · doi:10.3390/foods12081580

Physical Treatments to Control Clostridium botulinum Hazards in Food

2023· review· en· W4363647774 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Tanveer Munir, Narjes Mtimet, Laurent Guillier, François Meurens, Phillipe Fravalo, Michel Fédérighi, Pauline Kooh

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail
KeywordsClostridium botulinumSterilization (economics)SporeFood scienceBotulismEndosporeBacteriaFood poisoningFood productsMicrobiologyBiologyChemistryToxin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clostridium botulinum produces Botulinum neurotoxins (BoNTs), causing a rare but potentially deadly type of food poisoning called foodborne botulism. This review aims to provide information on the bacterium, spores, toxins, and botulisms, and describe the use of physical treatments (e.g., heating, pressure, irradiation, and other emerging technologies) to control this biological hazard in food. As the spores of this bacterium can resist various harsh environmental conditions, such as high temperatures, the thermal inactivation of 12-log of C. botulinum type A spores remains the standard for the commercial sterilization of food products. However, recent advancements in non-thermal physical treatments present an alternative to thermal sterilization with some limitations. Low- (<2 kGy) and medium (3–5 kGy)-dose ionizing irradiations are effective for a log reduction of vegetative cells and spores, respectively; however, very high doses (>10 kGy) are required to inactivate BoNTs. High-pressure processing (HPP), even at 1.5 GPa, does not inactivate the spores and requires heat combination to achieve its goal. Other emerging technologies have also shown some promise against vegetative cells and spores; however, their application to C. botulinum is very limited. Various factors related to bacteria (e.g., vegetative stage, growth conditions, injury status, type of bacteria, etc.) food matrix (e.g., compositions, state, pH, temperature, aw, etc.), and the method (e.g., power, energy, frequency, distance from the source to target, etc.) influence the efficacy of these treatments against C. botulinum. Moreover, the mode of action of different physical technologies is different, which provides an opportunity to combine different physical treatment methods in order to achieve additive and/or synergistic effects. This review is intended to guide the decision-makers, researchers, and educators in using physical treatments to control C. botulinum hazards.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations41
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicBotulinum Toxin and Related Neurological DisordersFrench-language works237,207