| Literature DB >> 35010248 |
Prasad Chavan1,2, Pallavi Sharma2, Sajeev Rattan Sharma2, Tarsem Chand Mittal2, Amit K Jaiswal3,4.
Abstract
The use of non-thermal processing technologies has grown in response to an ever-increasing demand for high-quality, convenient meals with natural taste and flavour that are free of chemical additions and preservatives. Food processing plays a crucial role in addressing food security issues by reducing loss and controlling spoilage. Among the several non-thermal processing methods, ultrasound technology has shown to be very beneficial. Ultrasound processing, whether used alone or in combination with other methods, improves food quality significantly and is thus considered beneficial. Cutting, freezing, drying, homogenization, foaming and defoaming, filtration, emulsification, and extraction are just a few of the applications for ultrasound in the food business. Ultrasounds can be used to destroy germs and inactivate enzymes without affecting the quality of the food. As a result, ultrasonography is being hailed as a game-changing processing technique for reducing organoleptic and nutritional waste. This review intends to investigate the underlying principles of ultrasonic generation and to improve understanding of their applications in food processing to make ultrasonic generation a safe, viable, and innovative food processing technology, as well as investigate the technology's benefits and downsides. The breadth of ultrasound's application in the industry has also been examined. This will also help researchers and the food sector develop more efficient strategies for frequency-controlled power ultrasound in food processing applications.Entities:
Keywords: cavitation; food processing; ultrasound; ultrasound-assisted extraction; ultrasound-assisted freezing
Year: 2022 PMID: 35010248 PMCID: PMC8750622 DOI: 10.3390/foods11010122
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1Classification of Ultrasound.
D values of microorganisms inactivated by using heat, ultrasound, thermosonication, monosonication, and manothermosonication.
| Temperature (°C) | Organism | D Value (min) | Reference | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heat | Ultrasound | Thermosonication | Monosonication/Manothermosonication (MTS) | |||
| 60 |
| 3.53 | 3.1(20 kHz, 124 μm) | 1.9 (1 min US, 55 °C) 0.73 (1 min US, 60 °C) | - | [ |
| 61 | 0.79 | 1.01 | 0.44 (100 kPa) | 0.40 (300 kPa)/0.27 (MTS 300 kPa 61 °C) | [ | |
| 56 |
| 0.86 | - | - | 0.28 (MTS-20 kHz, 117 μm, 200 kPa, 56 °C) | [ |
| 55 |
| 17.40 | - | 5.06 (120 μm) 4.94 (120 μm, 500 ppm vanillin (Vi)) 1.09 (120 μm, 500 ppm potassium sorbate (KS)) | [ | |
| 60 | 2.60 | - | 1.20 (120 μm) < 0.5 (120 μm, 500 ppm Vi) < 0.5 (120 μm, 500 ppm KS) | |||
| 50 |
| 25.42 | - | 9.59 (120 μm) 8.57 (120 μm, 500 ppm Vi) 7.15 (120 μm, 500 ppm KS) | [ | |
| 52.5 | 13.30 | - | 5.33 (120 μm) 6.47 (120 μm, 500 ppm Vi) 4.19 (120 μm, 500 ppm KS) | |||
| 63 |
| 30 | - | 10 (400 W, 24 kHz, 120 μm) | [ | |
| Ambient | Mesophilic aerobic, Lactic acid bacteria, Coliform bacteria, yeast | 750 W, 20 kHz, 6.8–126 μm | [ | |||
| 25 |
| 80 and 37 kHz, (330 W), pulsed modes, frequency amplitude (40% and 100%) | [ | |||
Figure 2Ultrasonic cutting system with cutting knife (reprinted with permission from Ref. [43] Copyright 2016 Elsevier).
Effect of ultrasound during drying.
| Drying Technique | Ultrasound Processing Parameters | Sample | Inference | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound-assisted osmotic drying | Indirect sonication: 25 kHz, 1.75 kW Osmotic solution: 70° Brix Immersion time: 60 min Air drying: 70 °C | Guava slices | Initial moisture content: 91.3 ± 0.6% wet basis (w.b.) Final moisture content: 19.5 ± 3 (w.b.) Total dehydration time: 300 min. Drying time reduced by 33%. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted convective drying | Ultrasound: 21.8 kHz, 60 W Air drying: 70 °C | Strawberry | Initial moisture content: 90.5 ± 0.27 (w.b.) Final moisture content: 23.07% (w.b.). Total drying time: 2.2 h. Drying time reduced by 44%. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted osmotic dehydration | Ultrasound: 25 kHz, 700 W | Cherries | It was proved that intermittent drying of cherries preceded by ultrasonic-assisted osmotic dehydration contributes to shorter drying time, better colour preservation, and smaller water activity. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted convective drying | Ultrasound: 21.8 kHz, 30.8 W Air drying: 70 °C | Passion fruit peel | Initial moisture content: 87.5± 1.9 (w.b.) Final moisture content: 32% (w.b.) Total drying time: 3.9 ± 0.7 h. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted radiation drying | Ultrasound: 1200 W, 20 kHz Sonication time: 5 s Drying: 62 °C | Carrot slices | Final moisture content: 10 ± 0.5% (d.b.) Drying time increased with increasing ultrasonic power levels. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted vacuum drying | Sonication time: 10 s Drying: 65–75 °C | Carrot slices | Final moisture content: 12–13% dry basis (d.b) Drying time was decreased by 53%. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted heating | 1000 W and 50 ℃ | Ham slices | Decrease of 0.65-fold in adhesiveness values. Population of free water increased from 2.71% to 11.35%. Decreased the content of rancid and sour compounds. Accelerated the formation of esters. | [ |
| Ultrasound-assisted microwave dryer | 28 kHz, 70 W, 30 min | Carrot slices | Reduction in drying time by 63%. | [ |
Figure 3Assembly of ultrasound freezing technique.
Effect of ultrasound during freezing.
| Processing Parameter | Nucleation Temperature Range | Sample | Inference | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound: −0.1 to −2.1 °C Ultrasound Intensity: 0.09 to 0.51 W/cm2 Sonication: 30 s | −3.43 to −2.36 °C | Strawberry | Nucleation temperature increased with increase of US temperature. No linear relationship between USI and the degree of super cooling. Shortest CFT observed at 0.51 W/cm2. | [ |
| Ultrasound: −0.5 to −2.0 °C | −1.6 to −2.75 °C | Radish | Nucleation temperature increased with increase of US temperature. Increasing USI, NT increases first and then decreases with increasing US duration. US 0.226 W/cm2 at −0.5 °C for 7 s is enough for commencement of nucleation. | [ |
| Ultrasound: 125–190 W; 20–30 kHz Sonication: 60 s | - | Broccoli | Higher freezing rate can be achieved at relatively low-power ultrasound. Shorter freezing times were observed at relatively lower ultrasound frequency. At relatively low power levels (125 W), the freezing time was found to be significantly shorter at 30 kHz than at 20 kHz, whereas at relatively high power levels (175 W), the freezing time at 30 kHz was significantly longer than at 20 kHz. | [ |
| Ultrasound: −30 °C; | −2 to −4 °C | Penaeus chinensis | Optimized ultrasonic parameters were power 191.97 W, 4.92 s on/3 s off. Optimized ultrasonic parameters provide an economic and effective way for obtaining high-quality frozen Penaeus chinensis. | [ |
Effect of ultrasound on extraction.
| Ultrasound Process Parameter | Extract | Solvent | Sample | Inference | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ultrasound: 100–250 W | Melanin | NaOH |
| Increasing US power, temperature, LSR, and duration may enhance the melanin yield. Optimum extraction conditions: (120.05 mg/g)−63 °C, 43 mL/g, 36 min, two extractions. | [ |
| Ultrasound: 80–120 W | Polysaccharide | Distilled water | Polysaccharide yield increases with increasing ultrasound power (USP 80–100 W, temperature: 40–50 °C, duration up to 40 min, LSR 20:1–30:1 mL/g), respectively, and then decreases accordingly. Optimum extraction conditions: (8.32%)–53 °C, 110 W, 41 min, 32:1 mL/g. | [ | |
| Ultrasound: 40–120 W; 40 kHz Temperature: 40–80 °C Enzyme concentration: 0.5 to 2.5% Time: 10–80 min. | Polysaccharides | Cellulose |
| Polysaccharide yield increases with increasing (USP 40–80 W, temperature: 40–60 °C, duration up to 20 min, Cellulose concentration: 0.5% to 2.0%), respectively, and then decreases accordingly. Optimum extraction conditions: (6.32%)–55.79 °C, 78.6 W, Cellulose concentration: 2.15%, 20.29 min. | [ |
| Fructo-oligosaccharides (1-kestone), Nystone, 1F- | Ethanol, Methanol and Acetone | Fruits (Blueberry, Nectarine, Raspberry, Watermelon) Vegetables (Garlic, Jerusalem Artichoke, Leek, Scallion, Spring Garlic, White Onion) | USAE was an efficient method for the extraction of oligosaccharides at extraction time of 10 min, temperature: 40 °C, and ethanol concentration 63% | [ | |
| Ultrasound: 37 kHz;Temperature: 60–80 °C Sonication time: 15 min | Pectin | Ammonium oxalate/oxalic acid | Tomato waste | At 60 °C, the pectin yield obtained was higher for the conventional extraction, which obtained a higher yield than ultrasound-assisted extraction. At 80 °C, the pectin yield obtained was comparable for both the methods, but better quality of pectin was obtained with ultrasound-assisted extraction. | [ |
Figure 4Schematic view of ultrasonic defoaming (reprinted with permission from Ref. [94] Copyright 2017 Elsevier).