Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with other antimicrobial interventions to reduce pathogens on fresh pork

K. A. Fabrizio, Catherine Nettles Cutter

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

51 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To date, the effectiveness of electrolysed oxidizing (EO) water against bacteria associated with fresh pork has not been determined. Using a hand-held, food-grade garden sprayer, distilled water (W), chlorinated water (CL; 25 ppm), 2% lactic acid (LA), acidic EO water (EOA), or "aged" acidic EO water (AEOA; stored at 4°C for 24 h) was sprayed (IS s) onto pork bellies inoculated with feces containing Listeria monocytogenes (LM), Salmonella typhimurium (ST), and Campylobacter coli (CC). Remaining bacterial populations were determined immediately following treatment, after 2 days of aerobic storage, and again after 5 days of vacuum-packaged, refrigerated storage (day 7). While LA and EOA significantly reduced (p < 0.05) populations of CC at days 0 and 7, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between antimicrobial treatments when applied to pork inoculated with ST or LM. This study demonstrates that a 15-s spray with EOA has the ability to reduce CC associated with fresh pork surfaces. However, longer contact times may be necessary to reduce other microbial contaminants.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)463-468
Number of pages6
JournalMeat Science
Volume68
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2004

Fingerprint

pork
anti-infective agents
Water
pathogens
Campylobacter coli
water
Listeria monocytogenes
Salmonella typhimurium
Salmonella Typhimurium
lactic acid
Lactic Acid
pork bellies
food grades
microbial contamination
sprayers
Vacuum
Red Meat
Feces
gardens
hands

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Food Science

Cite this

@article{ccc50239f8574980b1b222b92942e8d0,
title = "Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with other antimicrobial interventions to reduce pathogens on fresh pork",
abstract = "To date, the effectiveness of electrolysed oxidizing (EO) water against bacteria associated with fresh pork has not been determined. Using a hand-held, food-grade garden sprayer, distilled water (W), chlorinated water (CL; 25 ppm), 2{\%} lactic acid (LA), acidic EO water (EOA), or {"}aged{"} acidic EO water (AEOA; stored at 4°C for 24 h) was sprayed (IS s) onto pork bellies inoculated with feces containing Listeria monocytogenes (LM), Salmonella typhimurium (ST), and Campylobacter coli (CC). Remaining bacterial populations were determined immediately following treatment, after 2 days of aerobic storage, and again after 5 days of vacuum-packaged, refrigerated storage (day 7). While LA and EOA significantly reduced (p < 0.05) populations of CC at days 0 and 7, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between antimicrobial treatments when applied to pork inoculated with ST or LM. This study demonstrates that a 15-s spray with EOA has the ability to reduce CC associated with fresh pork surfaces. However, longer contact times may be necessary to reduce other microbial contaminants.",
author = "Fabrizio, {K. A.} and Cutter, {Catherine Nettles}",
year = "2004",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.04.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "68",
pages = "463--468",
journal = "Meat Science",
issn = "0309-1740",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "3",

}

Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with other antimicrobial interventions to reduce pathogens on fresh pork. / Fabrizio, K. A.; Cutter, Catherine Nettles.

In: Meat Science, Vol. 68, No. 3, 01.11.2004, p. 463-468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with other antimicrobial interventions to reduce pathogens on fresh pork

AU - Fabrizio, K. A.

AU - Cutter, Catherine Nettles

PY - 2004/11/1

Y1 - 2004/11/1

N2 - To date, the effectiveness of electrolysed oxidizing (EO) water against bacteria associated with fresh pork has not been determined. Using a hand-held, food-grade garden sprayer, distilled water (W), chlorinated water (CL; 25 ppm), 2% lactic acid (LA), acidic EO water (EOA), or "aged" acidic EO water (AEOA; stored at 4°C for 24 h) was sprayed (IS s) onto pork bellies inoculated with feces containing Listeria monocytogenes (LM), Salmonella typhimurium (ST), and Campylobacter coli (CC). Remaining bacterial populations were determined immediately following treatment, after 2 days of aerobic storage, and again after 5 days of vacuum-packaged, refrigerated storage (day 7). While LA and EOA significantly reduced (p < 0.05) populations of CC at days 0 and 7, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between antimicrobial treatments when applied to pork inoculated with ST or LM. This study demonstrates that a 15-s spray with EOA has the ability to reduce CC associated with fresh pork surfaces. However, longer contact times may be necessary to reduce other microbial contaminants.

AB - To date, the effectiveness of electrolysed oxidizing (EO) water against bacteria associated with fresh pork has not been determined. Using a hand-held, food-grade garden sprayer, distilled water (W), chlorinated water (CL; 25 ppm), 2% lactic acid (LA), acidic EO water (EOA), or "aged" acidic EO water (AEOA; stored at 4°C for 24 h) was sprayed (IS s) onto pork bellies inoculated with feces containing Listeria monocytogenes (LM), Salmonella typhimurium (ST), and Campylobacter coli (CC). Remaining bacterial populations were determined immediately following treatment, after 2 days of aerobic storage, and again after 5 days of vacuum-packaged, refrigerated storage (day 7). While LA and EOA significantly reduced (p < 0.05) populations of CC at days 0 and 7, there was no significant difference (p > 0.05) between antimicrobial treatments when applied to pork inoculated with ST or LM. This study demonstrates that a 15-s spray with EOA has the ability to reduce CC associated with fresh pork surfaces. However, longer contact times may be necessary to reduce other microbial contaminants.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=9644295684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=9644295684&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.04.013

DO - 10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.04.013

M3 - Article

VL - 68

SP - 463

EP - 468

JO - Meat Science

JF - Meat Science

SN - 0309-1740

IS - 3

ER -