↓ Skip to main content

Comparative Resistance of Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens to Non-thermal Technologies for Food Preservation

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative Resistance of Bacterial Foodborne Pathogens to Non-thermal Technologies for Food Preservation
Published in
Frontiers in Microbiology, May 2016
DOI 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00734
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guillermo Cebrián, Pilar Mañas, Santiago Condón

Abstract

In this paper the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens to manosonication (MS), pulsed electric fields (PEFs), high hydrostatic pressure (HHP), and UV-light (UV) is reviewed and compared. The influence of different factors on the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens to these technologies is also compared and discussed. Only results obtained under harmonized experimental conditions have been considered. This has allowed us to establish meaningful comparisons and draw significant conclusions. Among the six microorganisms here considered, Staphyloccocus aureus is the most resistant foodborne pathogen to MS and HHP and Listeria monocytogenes to UV. The target microorganism of PEF would change depending on the treatment medium pH. Thus, L. monocytogenes is the most PEF resistant microorganism at neutral pH but Gram-negatives (Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., Cronobacter sakazakii, Campylobacter jejuni) would display a similar or even higher resistance at acidic pH. It should be noted that, in acidic products, the baroresistance of some E. coli strains would be comparable to that of S. aureus. The factors affecting the resistance of bacterial foodborne pathogens, as well as the magnitude of the effect, varied depending on the technology considered. Inter- and intra-specific differences in microbial resistance to PEF and HHP are much greater than to MS and UV. Similarly, both the pH and aw of the treatment medium highly condition microbial resistance to PEF and HHP but no to MS or UV. Growth phase also drastically affected bacterial HHP resistance. Regarding UV, the optical properties of the medium are, by far, the most influential factor affecting its lethal efficacy. Finally, increasing treatment temperature leads to a significant increase in lethality of the four technologies, what opens the possibility of the development of combined processes including heat. The appearance of sublethally damaged cells following PEF and HHP treatments could also be exploited in order to design combined processes. Further work would be required in order to fully elucidate the mechanisms of action of these technologies and to exhaustively characterize the influence of all the factors acting before, during, and after treatment. This would be very useful in the areas of process optimization and combined process design.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Unknown 130 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 15%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 17 13%
Researcher 15 11%
Other 7 5%
Other 20 15%
Unknown 36 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 42 32%
Engineering 9 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 7%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 5%
Chemical Engineering 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 47 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 May 2016.
All research outputs
#13,394,990
of 22,873,031 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Microbiology
#10,391
of 24,889 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#171,879
of 333,293 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Microbiology
#272
of 573 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,873,031 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 24,889 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 333,293 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 573 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.