Control of meat spoilage with ozone nano-bubbles: Insights from laboratory model systems and commercial scale treatments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ozone nanobubbles represent an environmentally friendly sanitation agent. In this study, we compared the bactericidal effect of ozone nanobubbles on pork muscle and adipose tissue to peracetic acid treatments. Pork samples were surface-inoculated with a cocktail of common meat-spoilage-associated microorganisms composed of Brochothrix thermosphacta , Latilactobacillus sakei , Leuconostoc gelidum , Carnobacterium maltaromaticum , Hafnia paralvei and Yersinia rohdei at a viable cell count of 10 2 CFU/cm 2 or 10 4 CFU/cm 2 . Both freshly inoculated and stored pork samples were treated with the two sanitation agents, followed by differential enumeration of viable bacteria. Ozone nanobubbles were comparable to peracetic acid solution, achieving a reduction between 1 and 2 log (CFU/cm 2 ), regardless of the initial inoculum concentration and sample type. The efficacy of ozone nanobubble increased with increased solution volume and flow rate. Moreover, the sanitizing agents differentially impacted the members of the microbiota and shifted the composition of tested strains during storage. Gram-negative Y. rohdei and H. paralvei were more sensitive to peracetic acid than Gram-positive strains. Microbial profiling using 16S rRNA gene amplicon analysis of samples that were treated at a commercial processing scale revealed that Serratia , Carnobacterium , Yersinia , Vagococcus , Morganella , Dellaglioa were the dominant taxa (relative abundance >1 %) on stored pork samples. The use of ozone nanobubbles significantly reduced the relative abundance of Vagococcus and Clostridium when compared to control samples. In summary, ozone nanobubbles are an effective tool to reduce bacterial counts on meat and show promise to extend the shelf life of fresh meat. • Lethality of ozone nanobubbles against meat spoilers was compared to peracetic acid. • Ozone nanobubbles reduced cell counts on meat by 0.5–1 log(CFU/cm 2 ). • The effect of ozone was comparable to peracetic acid for most target microbes. • Increased flow of ozone nanobubbles increased their lethality. • Laboratory results were validated for commercial-scale pork production.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".