| Literature DB >> 35218028 |
Helen Onyeaka1, Ozioma Nwabor2, Siwon Jang1, KeChrist Obileke3, Abarasi Hart4, Christian Anumudu1, Taghi Miri1.
Abstract
As consumer needs change, innovative food processing techniques are being developed that have minimal impact on food quality and ensure its microbiological safety. Sous vide (SV) is an emerging technology of cooking foods in vacuum pouches at specific temperatures, which results in even heat distribution. Presented here is an overview of the current state of the art in the application of SV techniques for processing and preserving foods. Unlike the conventional thermal food processing approach, the precise nature of the SV method improves food quality, nutrition and shelf-life while destroying microorganisms. Foods processed by SV are usually subjected to temperatures between 50 and 100 °C. Although sufficient for food preparation/processing, its effectiveness in eliminating microbial pathogens, including viruses, parasites, vegetative and spore forms of bacteria, is limited. However, the inactivation of spore-forming microbes can be enhanced by combining the technique with other non-thermal methods that exert negligible impact on the nutritional, flavour and sensory characteristics of foods. In addition to exploring the mechanism of action of SV technology, the challenges related to its implementation in the food industry are also discussed. SV method potential, applications, and impacts on spore-forming microbes and spore inactivation are explored in this review. Through the debate and discussion presented, further research and industrial applications of this food processing method could be guided.Entities:
Keywords: food safety; shelf-life; sous vide; spore-forming microbes; spores
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35218028 PMCID: PMC9313622 DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.11836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Sci Food Agric ISSN: 0022-5142 Impact factor: 4.125
Figure 1A typical flow diagram of the SV technology cooking process.
Selected thermal processing time and temperature for SV
| Temperature and time | Type of food | Shelf‐life | Type of bacteria | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 70 °C for 40 min | Eggnog, crab cake and breast meat | 6 days shelf‐life |
|
|
| 70 °C for 100 min | Raw sausage, raw ham | 21 days shelf‐life |
|
|
| 70 °C for 1000 min | Thigh, wings and legs | 42 days shelf‐life |
|
|
| 70 °C for 2 min | Canned food, juice, beer | 5 days shelf‐life |
|
|
| 80 °C for 26 min | Sweet potatoes, chicken breast | Maximum of 8 days shelf‐life |
| |
| 70 °C for 2 min | Milk, low‐alcoholic beverages | Short shelf‐life reliable storage temperature |
|
|
| 80 °C for 4.6 min | Cup cakes | Maximum 10 days shelf‐life |
|
|
Types of hurdles for sous vide and cook–chill processes , , ,
| Physical hurdle | Physiochemical hurdle | Microbiological hurdle |
|---|---|---|
| Heat processing | Water activity | Competitive microflora |
| Storage temperature | pH | Starter culture/outlook |
| Packaging | Redox potential | Bacteriocins |
| Photodynamic inactivation | Salt | Mould and yeast |
| Ultrahigh‐pressure processing | CO2, O2 | Enterbacteriaceae and antibiotic |
| Ultrasonification | Organic acids, spices and herbs | Antibiotic |
Toxicity time of Clostridium botulinum in SV product with respect to storage temperature, sodium lactate and product type effects
| Sous vide product | Sodium lactate (g kg−1) | Rate of production of toxin (days) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 °C | 8 °C | 12 °C | 30 °C | ||
| Beef (65–70 °C; 22–25 min) | 0 | 90 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| 2.4 | >90 | 90 | >40 | 3 | |
| 4.8 | >90 | >90 | >40 | 6 | |
| Chicken (65–75 °C; 25–30 min) | 0 | 90 | 16 | 12 | 2 |
| 1.8 | >90 | 60 | >40 | 4 | |
| 3.6 | >90 | >90 | >40 | 6 | |
| Salmon (65–70 °C; 22–25 min) | 0 | 60 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| 2.4 | 90 | 12 | 6 | 2 | |
| 4.8 | >90 | >90 | >40 | 4 | |
Advantages and disadvantages of sous vide technology , ,
| Advantages of sous vide | Disadvantages of sous vide |
|---|---|
| Presence of centralized production | — |
| Decreases the cost of raw materials | — |
| Production range is enlargeable | — |
| Prolonged shelf‐life at 0–3 °C | Requires staff education cost |
| Maximum keeping of aroma, texture, flavour and nutrients | Cost of equipment is high |
| Diminished post‐process cross‐contamination risk | High psychotropic |