Microbial inactivation and shelf life comparison of ‘cold’ hurdle processing with pulsed electric fields and microfiltration, and conventional thermal pasteurisation in skim milk

Thermal pasteurisation (TP) is the established food technology for commercial processing of milk. However, degradation of valuable nutrients in milk and its sensory characteristics occurs during TP due to substantial heat exposure. Pulsed electric fields (PEF) and microfiltration (MF) both represent...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of food microbiology 2011-01, Vol.144 (3), p.379-386
Hauptverfasser: Walkling-Ribeiro, M., Rodríguez-González, O., Jayaram, S., Griffiths, M.W.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Thermal pasteurisation (TP) is the established food technology for commercial processing of milk. However, degradation of valuable nutrients in milk and its sensory characteristics occurs during TP due to substantial heat exposure. Pulsed electric fields (PEF) and microfiltration (MF) both represent emerging food processing technologies allowing gentle milk preservation at lower temperatures and shorter treatment times for similar, or better, microbial inactivation and shelf stability when applied in a hurdle approach compared to TP. Incubated raw milk was used as an inoculum for the enrichment of skim milk with native microorganisms before PEF, MF, and TP processing. Inoculated milk was PEF-processed at electric field strengths between 16 and 42kV/cm for treatment times from 612 to 2105μs; accounting for energy densities between 407 and 815kJ/L, while MF was applied with a transmembrane flux of 660L/h m2. Milk was TP-treated at 75°C for 24s. Comparing PEF, MF, and TP for the reduction of the native microbial load in milk led to a 4.6 log10 CFU/mL reduction in count for TP, which was similar to 3.7 log10 CFU/mL obtained by MF (P≥0.05), and more effective than the 2.5 log10 CFU/mL inactivation achieved by PEF inactivation (at 815kJ/L (P
ISSN:0168-1605
1879-3460
DOI:10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2010.10.023