| Literature DB >> 27350902 |
Phillip R Myer1, Kyle R Parker2, Andrew T Kanach2, Tengliang Zhu3, Mark T Morgan4, Bruce M Applegate5.
Abstract
Pasteurization has long been the standard method to extend the shelf-life of dairy products, as well as a means to reduce microbial load and the risk of food-borne pathogens. However, the process has limitations, which include cost effectiveness, high energy input, and reduction of product quality/organoleptic characteristics. In an effort to reduce these limitations and extend shelf-life, this study examined a novel low temperature, short time (LTST) method in which dispersed milk in the form of droplets was treated with low heat/pressure variation over a short treatment time, in conjunction with pasteurization. Lactobacillus fermentum and Pseudomonas fluorescens Migula were exposed to conventional pasteurization treatments with and without LTST. Using these organisms, the LTST addition was able to reduce microbial load below detection limits; 1.0 × 10(1) cfu/mL, from approximately 1.2 × 10(8) and 1.0 × 10(7) cfu/mL for L. fermentum and P. fluorescens Migula, respectively. In addition, the shelf-life of the treated, raw, and uninoculated product was prolonged from 14 to 35 days, compared with standard pasteurization, to as long as 63 days with the LTST amendment. Sensory analysis of samples also demonstrated equal or greater preference for LTST + pasteurization treated milk when compared to pasteurization alone (α = 0.05). Conventional pasteurization was effective at reducing the above mentioned microorganisms by as much as 5.0 log10 cfu/mL. However, LTST was able to achieve 7.0-8.0 log10 cfu/mL reduction of the same microorganisms. In addition, BActerial Rapid Detection using Optical scattering Technology detected and identified microorganisms isolated both pre- and post-treatment, of which the only organisms surviving LTST were Bacillus spp. Increased lethality, improved shelf-life, and equal or better organoleptic characteristics without increased energy consumption demonstrate the effectiveness of the incorporation of LTST. The improved shelf-life may potentially have major impacts in the dairy industry in terms of shipping and overall sustainability.Entities:
Keywords: BARDOT; LTST; Low temperature; MST; Pasteurization
Year: 2016 PMID: 27350902 PMCID: PMC4899401 DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-2250-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Fig. 1MST unit. a Schematic of the MST Process (LTST) or (MST). b Image of the MST unit (Millisecond Technologies, New York, NY)
LTST microbial reduction
| (A) | Run | Indicator organism | Micro counts (cfu/mL) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trial | Before processing (cfu/mL) | After pasteurizer (cfu/mL)1 | After MST (cfu/mL) | ||
| 1 | 1 | None | 5.7 × 104 a | NSb | NSb |
| 2 |
| 1.2 × 108 a | 5.0 × 106 b | NS | |
| 3 |
| 1.2 × 108 a | 1.2 × 107 b | NS | |
| 2 | 1 |
| 6.4 × 106 a | NSb | NSb |
| 2 |
| 9.0 × 106 a | 3.4 × 105 b | NSc | |
| 3 |
| 1.2 × 107 a | 1.1 × 106 b | NSc | |
A) The reduction of organisms inculcated into raw, prior-treated, milk before processing, after pasteurization, and after pasteurization + MST treatment. B) Process temperatures
a,b,c Means among the groups were compared using ANOVA and the Tukey’s Test. Within a row, means with a different superscript were different (P < 0.05)
1NS = No significant microorganisms recovered; populations were below the detection limit (101 cfu/mL)
2Process temperature (°C) means are of three readings (beginning, middle, and end) of each 30 min total run
3MST Temp In is approximately the same as pasteurizer temperature out
Recoverable microorganisms during refrigerated storage at 4 °C
|
| ||||||||
| Microbial growth in samples over time | ||||||||
| Duration (days) | 0 | 21 | 28 | 36 | 43 | 50 | 57 | 63 |
| After pasteurization (cfu/mL) | ||||||||
| Run 1 | 57a | 68a | 9a | 11a | 15a | 5 × 102 b | 5 × 103 c | 5 × 107 d |
| Run 2 | 17a | 9a | <1a | 3a | 14a | 22a | 3 × 105 b | 3 × 106 c |
| Run 3 | <1a | 54a | 21a | 3a | 8a | 3 × 103 b | 3 × 106 c | 3 × 107 d |
| After MST unit (cfu/mL) | ||||||||
| Run 1 | 2a | 3a | 8a | 5a | 7a | 7a | 3a | <1a |
| Run 2 | <1a | 8a | 4a | 5a | 7a | 4a | 4a | <1a |
| Run 3 | 7a | 6a | 6a | 7a | 5a | 57a | 3.02 × 102 b | 5 × 107 c |
a,b,c, dMeans among the groups were compared using ANOVA and the Tukey’s Test. Within a row, means with a different subscript were different (P < 0.05)
1Process temperature (°C) means are of three readings (beginning, middle, and end) of each 30 min total run
2MST Temp In is approximately the same as pasteurizer temperature out
Sensory evaluation of pasteurized and pasteurized + MST processed milk
| (A) Trial 3 | Sensory characteristics1 | Preference2 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Days after processing | Run | Color | Aroma | Taste | Aftertaste | |||||
| P | MST | P | MST | P | MST | P | MST | |||
| 21 | 1 | 7.49 | 7.42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | 7.16 | 7.28 | 5.12 | 5.30 |
|
|
|
| – | |
| 3 | 7.28 | 7.14 | 5.44 | 5.40 | 5.04 | 5.14 |
|
| – | |
| 28 | 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | 7.24 | 7.14 | 5.38 | 5.72 |
|
| 4.64 | 4.96 |
| |
| 3 | 6.90 | 7.02 | 5.32 | 5.40 | 4.90 | 5.34 | 4.74 | 5.18 |
| |
| 36 | 1 |
|
| 5.48 | 5.28 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 | 7.12 | 6.86 | 5.32 | 5.48 | 5.18 | 5.58 | 4.76 | 5.02 | – | |
| 3 | 6.73 | 6.86 | 5.26 | 5.24 | 5.38 | 5.54 | 4.82 | 4.92 |
| |
1Italic values were different (P < 0.05). Greater values indicate greater preference
2Preference; Indicates whether panelists preferred pasteurized sample (P) or pasteurized + MST sample
3Preference; Indicates whether panelists preferred pasteurized sample (P) or MST + pasteurized sample
4Process temperature (°C) means are of three readings (beginning, middle, and end) of each 30 min total run
5MST Temp in is approximately the same as pasteurizer temperature out
Fig. 2Identification of pasteurization + LTST survivors. Representative scatter images of bacterial species differentiated by BARDOT and identified by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Survivors were samples from before treatment, after pasteurization, and after LTST treatment
LTST method and pasteurization survivors designated by sampling location
| Organism | Sample location within treatment |
|---|---|
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
|
| Post-pasteurization + MST |
Fig. 3Phylogenetic analysis of microorganisms. Phylogenetic trees displaying the relationships among species identified in the a traditionally pasteurized treatment and b species surviving the pasteurization + MST treatment. Tree data was determined by the analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequences. The scale bar represents substitutions per site. Bootstrap values are shown at the nodes (based on 500 re-samplings). Survivors were sampled from before treatment, after pasteurization, and after pasteurization + MST treatment