CA2656397A1 - Antimicrobial coatings - Google Patents
Antimicrobial coatings Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- CA2656397A1 CA2656397A1 CA002656397A CA2656397A CA2656397A1 CA 2656397 A1 CA2656397 A1 CA 2656397A1 CA 002656397 A CA002656397 A CA 002656397A CA 2656397 A CA2656397 A CA 2656397A CA 2656397 A1 CA2656397 A1 CA 2656397A1
- Authority
- CA
- Canada
- Prior art keywords
- antimicrobial
- coating
- oil
- starch
- hydrophilic polymer
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Abandoned
Links
- 238000000576 coating method Methods 0.000 title claims abstract description 197
- 230000000845 anti-microbial effect Effects 0.000 title claims abstract description 86
- 239000011248 coating agent Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 159
- 229920002472 Starch Polymers 0.000 claims abstract description 138
- 239000008107 starch Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 136
- 235000019698 starch Nutrition 0.000 claims abstract description 135
- 239000010678 thyme oil Substances 0.000 claims abstract description 96
- XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N water Substances O XLYOFNOQVPJJNP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims abstract description 66
- 235000013305 food Nutrition 0.000 claims abstract description 60
- 229920001477 hydrophilic polymer Polymers 0.000 claims abstract description 24
- 230000000844 anti-bacterial effect Effects 0.000 claims abstract description 9
- 239000001488 sodium phosphate Substances 0.000 claims description 80
- RYFMWSXOAZQYPI-UHFFFAOYSA-K trisodium phosphate Chemical compound [Na+].[Na+].[Na+].[O-]P([O-])([O-])=O RYFMWSXOAZQYPI-UHFFFAOYSA-K 0.000 claims description 80
- 235000019801 trisodium phosphate Nutrition 0.000 claims description 80
- 229910000406 trisodium phosphate Inorganic materials 0.000 claims description 80
- 240000004713 Pisum sativum Species 0.000 claims description 69
- 235000010582 Pisum sativum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 69
- 238000000034 method Methods 0.000 claims description 29
- MGSRCZKZVOBKFT-UHFFFAOYSA-N thymol Chemical compound CC(C)C1=CC=C(C)C=C1O MGSRCZKZVOBKFT-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 18
- -1 thujanol Chemical compound 0.000 claims description 16
- UKLNMMHNWFDKNT-UHFFFAOYSA-M sodium chlorite Chemical compound [Na+].[O-]Cl=O UKLNMMHNWFDKNT-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 claims description 15
- 229960002218 sodium chlorite Drugs 0.000 claims description 15
- 238000011109 contamination Methods 0.000 claims description 14
- GLZPCOQZEFWAFX-UHFFFAOYSA-N Geraniol Chemical compound CC(C)=CCCC(C)=CCO GLZPCOQZEFWAFX-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 10
- 238000001035 drying Methods 0.000 claims description 10
- 239000005844 Thymol Substances 0.000 claims description 9
- 230000000813 microbial effect Effects 0.000 claims description 9
- 229960000790 thymol Drugs 0.000 claims description 9
- RECUKUPTGUEGMW-UHFFFAOYSA-N carvacrol Chemical compound CC(C)C1=CC=C(C)C(O)=C1 RECUKUPTGUEGMW-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 8
- HHTWOMMSBMNRKP-UHFFFAOYSA-N carvacrol Natural products CC(=C)C1=CC=C(C)C(O)=C1 HHTWOMMSBMNRKP-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 8
- 235000007746 carvacrol Nutrition 0.000 claims description 8
- WYXXLXHHWYNKJF-UHFFFAOYSA-N isocarvacrol Natural products CC(C)C1=CC=C(O)C(C)=C1 WYXXLXHHWYNKJF-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 8
- CDOSHBSSFJOMGT-UHFFFAOYSA-N linalool Chemical compound CC(C)=CCCC(C)(O)C=C CDOSHBSSFJOMGT-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 8
- 244000215068 Acacia senegal Species 0.000 claims description 6
- 229920000084 Gum arabic Polymers 0.000 claims description 6
- 229920000881 Modified starch Polymers 0.000 claims description 6
- 235000010489 acacia gum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 6
- 239000000679 carrageenan Substances 0.000 claims description 6
- 229920001525 carrageenan Polymers 0.000 claims description 6
- 229940113118 carrageenan Drugs 0.000 claims description 6
- 239000003921 oil Substances 0.000 claims description 6
- 239000005792 Geraniol Substances 0.000 claims description 5
- GLZPCOQZEFWAFX-YFHOEESVSA-N Geraniol Natural products CC(C)=CCC\C(C)=C/CO GLZPCOQZEFWAFX-YFHOEESVSA-N 0.000 claims description 5
- WUOACPNHFRMFPN-UHFFFAOYSA-N alpha-terpineol Chemical compound CC1=CCC(C(C)(C)O)CC1 WUOACPNHFRMFPN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 5
- SQIFACVGCPWBQZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N delta-terpineol Natural products CC(C)(O)C1CCC(=C)CC1 SQIFACVGCPWBQZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 claims description 5
- 229940113087 geraniol Drugs 0.000 claims description 5
- 229940116411 terpineol Drugs 0.000 claims description 5
- 239000001490 (3R)-3,7-dimethylocta-1,6-dien-3-ol Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- CDOSHBSSFJOMGT-JTQLQIEISA-N (R)-linalool Natural products CC(C)=CCC[C@@](C)(O)C=C CDOSHBSSFJOMGT-JTQLQIEISA-N 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000010619 basil oil Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000010634 clove oil Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 229930007744 linalool Natural products 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000010661 oregano oil Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000001814 pectin Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000010987 pectin Nutrition 0.000 claims description 4
- 229920001277 pectin Polymers 0.000 claims description 4
- 239000010668 rosemary oil Substances 0.000 claims description 4
- 235000006491 Acacia senegal Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 244000106483 Anogeissus latifolia Species 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000011514 Anogeissus latifolia Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000004375 Dextrin Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920001353 Dextrin Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920002148 Gellan gum Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920002907 Guar gum Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000001922 Gum ghatti Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920002774 Maltodextrin Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000005913 Maltodextrin Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000006679 Mentha X verticillata Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000002899 Mentha suaveolens Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000001636 Mentha x rotundifolia Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920000168 Microcrystalline cellulose Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000004368 Modified starch Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000004373 Pullulan Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920001218 Pullulan Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000205 acacia gum Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940018006 basil oil Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000019425 dextrin Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000010642 eucalyptus oil Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940044949 eucalyptus oil Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000010492 gellan gum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000216 gellan gum Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000010417 guar gum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000665 guar gum Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229960002154 guar gum Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000019314 gum ghatti Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940035034 maltodextrin Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940016286 microcrystalline cellulose Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000019813 microcrystalline cellulose Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000008108 microcrystalline cellulose Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000019426 modified starch Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940060184 oil ingredients Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940111617 oregano oil Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000019423 pullulan Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940058206 rosemary oil Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000010677 tea tree oil Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940111630 tea tree oil Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 229920001285 xanthan gum Polymers 0.000 claims description 3
- 235000010493 xanthan gum Nutrition 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000230 xanthan gum Substances 0.000 claims description 3
- 229940082509 xanthan gum Drugs 0.000 claims description 3
- 239000000203 mixture Substances 0.000 abstract description 13
- 239000000499 gel Substances 0.000 description 92
- 239000000243 solution Substances 0.000 description 87
- 210000003491 skin Anatomy 0.000 description 84
- 235000013330 chicken meat Nutrition 0.000 description 81
- 241000287828 Gallus gallus Species 0.000 description 76
- 229920000615 alginic acid Polymers 0.000 description 57
- 235000010443 alginic acid Nutrition 0.000 description 56
- FHVDTGUDJYJELY-UHFFFAOYSA-N 6-{[2-carboxy-4,5-dihydroxy-6-(phosphanyloxy)oxan-3-yl]oxy}-4,5-dihydroxy-3-phosphanyloxane-2-carboxylic acid Chemical compound O1C(C(O)=O)C(P)C(O)C(O)C1OC1C(C(O)=O)OC(OP)C(O)C1O FHVDTGUDJYJELY-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 55
- 229940072056 alginate Drugs 0.000 description 55
- 241000607142 Salmonella Species 0.000 description 45
- JVTAAEKCZFNVCJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N lactic acid Chemical compound CC(O)C(O)=O JVTAAEKCZFNVCJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 40
- 239000004599 antimicrobial Substances 0.000 description 38
- 238000011282 treatment Methods 0.000 description 38
- 239000000017 hydrogel Substances 0.000 description 32
- 239000007787 solid Substances 0.000 description 32
- 241000894006 Bacteria Species 0.000 description 31
- 241000589876 Campylobacter Species 0.000 description 30
- 229920000642 polymer Polymers 0.000 description 29
- 238000003860 storage Methods 0.000 description 28
- 230000000694 effects Effects 0.000 description 27
- FAPWRFPIFSIZLT-UHFFFAOYSA-M Sodium chloride Chemical compound [Na+].[Cl-] FAPWRFPIFSIZLT-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 description 25
- 238000007654 immersion Methods 0.000 description 24
- 235000013594 poultry meat Nutrition 0.000 description 21
- 241000186779 Listeria monocytogenes Species 0.000 description 20
- 238000011081 inoculation Methods 0.000 description 20
- 239000004310 lactic acid Substances 0.000 description 20
- 235000014655 lactic acid Nutrition 0.000 description 20
- 229920001817 Agar Polymers 0.000 description 19
- 241000589516 Pseudomonas Species 0.000 description 19
- 235000010419 agar Nutrition 0.000 description 19
- 244000144977 poultry Species 0.000 description 19
- 235000010410 calcium alginate Nutrition 0.000 description 18
- 239000000648 calcium alginate Substances 0.000 description 18
- 229960002681 calcium alginate Drugs 0.000 description 18
- OKHHGHGGPDJQHR-YMOPUZKJSA-L calcium;(2s,3s,4s,5s,6r)-6-[(2r,3s,4r,5s,6r)-2-carboxy-6-[(2r,3s,4r,5s,6r)-2-carboxylato-4,5,6-trihydroxyoxan-3-yl]oxy-4,5-dihydroxyoxan-3-yl]oxy-3,4,5-trihydroxyoxane-2-carboxylate Chemical compound [Ca+2].O[C@@H]1[C@H](O)[C@H](O)O[C@@H](C([O-])=O)[C@H]1O[C@H]1[C@@H](O)[C@@H](O)[C@H](O[C@H]2[C@H]([C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@H](O2)C([O-])=O)O)[C@H](C(O)=O)O1 OKHHGHGGPDJQHR-YMOPUZKJSA-L 0.000 description 18
- 241000186781 Listeria Species 0.000 description 17
- 239000008272 agar Substances 0.000 description 17
- 238000012545 processing Methods 0.000 description 17
- 230000001580 bacterial effect Effects 0.000 description 16
- 235000013372 meat Nutrition 0.000 description 16
- 238000010521 absorption reaction Methods 0.000 description 15
- 241000196324 Embryophyta Species 0.000 description 13
- 239000000463 material Substances 0.000 description 13
- 239000000523 sample Substances 0.000 description 13
- 229920000856 Amylose Polymers 0.000 description 12
- 239000010408 film Substances 0.000 description 12
- 239000007788 liquid Substances 0.000 description 12
- 230000009467 reduction Effects 0.000 description 12
- 230000035899 viability Effects 0.000 description 12
- 239000000341 volatile oil Substances 0.000 description 12
- 241000589875 Campylobacter jejuni Species 0.000 description 11
- 230000002829 reductive effect Effects 0.000 description 11
- 238000012360 testing method Methods 0.000 description 11
- PEDCQBHIVMGVHV-UHFFFAOYSA-N Glycerine Chemical compound OCC(O)CO PEDCQBHIVMGVHV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 9
- 206010034203 Pectus Carinatum Diseases 0.000 description 9
- 238000009792 diffusion process Methods 0.000 description 9
- 244000005700 microbiome Species 0.000 description 9
- 238000004806 packaging method and process Methods 0.000 description 9
- 230000008961 swelling Effects 0.000 description 9
- 241000293869 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Typhimurium Species 0.000 description 8
- 230000002401 inhibitory effect Effects 0.000 description 8
- 239000010410 layer Substances 0.000 description 8
- 239000011159 matrix material Substances 0.000 description 8
- IXPNQXFRVYWDDI-UHFFFAOYSA-N 1-methyl-2,4-dioxo-1,3-diazinane-5-carboximidamide Chemical compound CN1CC(C(N)=N)C(=O)NC1=O IXPNQXFRVYWDDI-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 7
- 238000004458 analytical method Methods 0.000 description 7
- 230000015572 biosynthetic process Effects 0.000 description 7
- 230000003247 decreasing effect Effects 0.000 description 7
- 239000003814 drug Substances 0.000 description 7
- 238000005259 measurement Methods 0.000 description 7
- 229920003023 plastic Polymers 0.000 description 7
- 239000004033 plastic Substances 0.000 description 7
- 235000010413 sodium alginate Nutrition 0.000 description 7
- 239000000661 sodium alginate Substances 0.000 description 7
- 229940005550 sodium alginate Drugs 0.000 description 7
- 239000000126 substance Substances 0.000 description 7
- 229920000945 Amylopectin Polymers 0.000 description 6
- UXVMQQNJUSDDNG-UHFFFAOYSA-L Calcium chloride Chemical compound [Cl-].[Cl-].[Ca+2] UXVMQQNJUSDDNG-UHFFFAOYSA-L 0.000 description 6
- 229940079593 drug Drugs 0.000 description 6
- 230000005764 inhibitory process Effects 0.000 description 6
- 244000052769 pathogen Species 0.000 description 6
- 239000000047 product Substances 0.000 description 6
- 238000011084 recovery Methods 0.000 description 6
- 239000011780 sodium chloride Substances 0.000 description 6
- 210000001519 tissue Anatomy 0.000 description 6
- 210000000689 upper leg Anatomy 0.000 description 6
- 108010053775 Nisin Proteins 0.000 description 5
- NVNLLIYOARQCIX-MSHCCFNRSA-N Nisin Chemical compound N1C(=O)[C@@H](CC(C)C)NC(=O)C(=C)NC(=O)[C@@H]([C@H](C)CC)NC(=O)[C@@H](NC(=O)C(=C/C)/NC(=O)[C@H](N)[C@H](C)CC)CSC[C@@H]1C(=O)N[C@@H]1C(=O)N2CCC[C@@H]2C(=O)NCC(=O)N[C@@H](C(=O)N[C@H](CCCCN)C(=O)N[C@@H]2C(NCC(=O)N[C@H](C)C(=O)N[C@H](CC(C)C)C(=O)N[C@H](CCSC)C(=O)NCC(=O)N[C@H](CS[C@@H]2C)C(=O)N[C@H](CC(N)=O)C(=O)N[C@H](CCSC)C(=O)N[C@H](CCCCN)C(=O)N[C@@H]2C(N[C@H](C)C(=O)N[C@@H]3C(=O)N[C@@H](C(N[C@H](CC=4NC=NC=4)C(=O)N[C@H](CS[C@@H]3C)C(=O)N[C@H](CO)C(=O)N[C@H]([C@H](C)CC)C(=O)N[C@H](CC=3NC=NC=3)C(=O)N[C@H](C(C)C)C(=O)NC(=C)C(=O)N[C@H](CCCCN)C(O)=O)=O)CS[C@@H]2C)=O)=O)CS[C@@H]1C NVNLLIYOARQCIX-MSHCCFNRSA-N 0.000 description 5
- 241000246358 Thymus Species 0.000 description 5
- 235000007303 Thymus vulgaris Nutrition 0.000 description 5
- AVKUERGKIZMTKX-NJBDSQKTSA-N ampicillin Chemical compound C1([C@@H](N)C(=O)N[C@H]2[C@H]3SC([C@@H](N3C2=O)C(O)=O)(C)C)=CC=CC=C1 AVKUERGKIZMTKX-NJBDSQKTSA-N 0.000 description 5
- 229960000723 ampicillin Drugs 0.000 description 5
- 239000001110 calcium chloride Substances 0.000 description 5
- 229910001628 calcium chloride Inorganic materials 0.000 description 5
- 235000011148 calcium chloride Nutrition 0.000 description 5
- 230000003111 delayed effect Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000011534 incubation Methods 0.000 description 5
- 230000009878 intermolecular interaction Effects 0.000 description 5
- 230000007246 mechanism Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000002156 mixing Methods 0.000 description 5
- 239000004309 nisin Substances 0.000 description 5
- 235000010297 nisin Nutrition 0.000 description 5
- 229920001282 polysaccharide Polymers 0.000 description 5
- 239000005017 polysaccharide Substances 0.000 description 5
- 150000004804 polysaccharides Chemical class 0.000 description 5
- 238000002360 preparation method Methods 0.000 description 5
- 230000008569 process Effects 0.000 description 5
- 238000012552 review Methods 0.000 description 5
- 238000005070 sampling Methods 0.000 description 5
- 239000000725 suspension Substances 0.000 description 5
- 241000588724 Escherichia coli Species 0.000 description 4
- 241001646719 Escherichia coli O157:H7 Species 0.000 description 4
- 238000000692 Student's t-test Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000013459 approach Methods 0.000 description 4
- 235000013871 bee wax Nutrition 0.000 description 4
- 235000015278 beef Nutrition 0.000 description 4
- 239000012166 beeswax Substances 0.000 description 4
- 229920001222 biopolymer Polymers 0.000 description 4
- 230000008859 change Effects 0.000 description 4
- 239000003795 chemical substances by application Substances 0.000 description 4
- 238000012864 cross contamination Methods 0.000 description 4
- 230000003628 erosive effect Effects 0.000 description 4
- RRAFCDWBNXTKKO-UHFFFAOYSA-N eugenol Chemical compound COC1=CC(CC=C)=CC=C1O RRAFCDWBNXTKKO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 4
- 238000002474 experimental method Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000009472 formulation Methods 0.000 description 4
- 229920002521 macromolecule Polymers 0.000 description 4
- 235000013613 poultry product Nutrition 0.000 description 4
- 238000012353 t test Methods 0.000 description 4
- 239000001585 thymus vulgaris Substances 0.000 description 4
- 238000012384 transportation and delivery Methods 0.000 description 4
- 238000005406 washing Methods 0.000 description 4
- QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-N Acetic acid Chemical compound CC(O)=O QTBSBXVTEAMEQO-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- BHPQYMZQTOCNFJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Calcium cation Chemical compound [Ca+2] BHPQYMZQTOCNFJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 241000272194 Ciconiiformes Species 0.000 description 3
- LFQSCWFLJHTTHZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Ethanol Chemical compound CCO LFQSCWFLJHTTHZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- LYCAIKOWRPUZTN-UHFFFAOYSA-N Ethylene glycol Chemical compound OCCO LYCAIKOWRPUZTN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 229910019142 PO4 Inorganic materials 0.000 description 3
- 239000001888 Peptone Substances 0.000 description 3
- 108010080698 Peptones Proteins 0.000 description 3
- 241000589517 Pseudomonas aeruginosa Species 0.000 description 3
- 241000607726 Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Heidelberg Species 0.000 description 3
- HEMHJVSKTPXQMS-UHFFFAOYSA-M Sodium hydroxide Chemical compound [OH-].[Na+] HEMHJVSKTPXQMS-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 description 3
- 108010046377 Whey Proteins Proteins 0.000 description 3
- 102000007544 Whey Proteins Human genes 0.000 description 3
- 239000000654 additive Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000003078 antioxidant effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 244000052616 bacterial pathogen Species 0.000 description 3
- 230000027455 binding Effects 0.000 description 3
- 238000009739 binding Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000009835 boiling Methods 0.000 description 3
- 229910001424 calcium ion Inorganic materials 0.000 description 3
- 230000015556 catabolic process Effects 0.000 description 3
- 229910001919 chlorite Inorganic materials 0.000 description 3
- 229910052619 chlorite group Inorganic materials 0.000 description 3
- KRKNYBCHXYNGOX-UHFFFAOYSA-N citric acid Chemical compound OC(=O)CC(O)(C(O)=O)CC(O)=O KRKNYBCHXYNGOX-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 3
- 238000006731 degradation reaction Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000011161 development Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000007598 dipping method Methods 0.000 description 3
- 239000006185 dispersion Substances 0.000 description 3
- 238000004090 dissolution Methods 0.000 description 3
- 238000010894 electron beam technology Methods 0.000 description 3
- 230000007613 environmental effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 210000002615 epidermis Anatomy 0.000 description 3
- 239000000284 extract Substances 0.000 description 3
- 238000001879 gelation Methods 0.000 description 3
- 239000004615 ingredient Substances 0.000 description 3
- 150000002632 lipids Chemical class 0.000 description 3
- 239000012528 membrane Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000002906 microbiologic effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 230000003534 oscillatory effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 235000019319 peptone Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 239000010452 phosphate Substances 0.000 description 3
- 230000002035 prolonged effect Effects 0.000 description 3
- 235000018102 proteins Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- 102000004169 proteins and genes Human genes 0.000 description 3
- 108090000623 proteins and genes Proteins 0.000 description 3
- 230000006641 stabilisation Effects 0.000 description 3
- 239000001974 tryptic soy broth Substances 0.000 description 3
- 108010050327 trypticase-soy broth Proteins 0.000 description 3
- 235000021119 whey protein Nutrition 0.000 description 3
- HNSDLXPSAYFUHK-UHFFFAOYSA-N 1,4-bis(2-ethylhexyl) sulfosuccinate Chemical compound CCCCC(CC)COC(=O)CC(S(O)(=O)=O)C(=O)OCC(CC)CCCC HNSDLXPSAYFUHK-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- NPBVQXIMTZKSBA-UHFFFAOYSA-N Chavibetol Natural products COC1=CC=C(CC=C)C=C1O NPBVQXIMTZKSBA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- VEXZGXHMUGYJMC-UHFFFAOYSA-M Chloride anion Chemical compound [Cl-] VEXZGXHMUGYJMC-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 description 2
- 206010009866 Cold sweat Diseases 0.000 description 2
- IAZDPXIOMUYVGZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N Dimethylsulphoxide Chemical compound CS(C)=O IAZDPXIOMUYVGZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 206010013786 Dry skin Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 108090000790 Enzymes Proteins 0.000 description 2
- 102000004190 Enzymes Human genes 0.000 description 2
- 239000005770 Eugenol Substances 0.000 description 2
- 102000016943 Muramidase Human genes 0.000 description 2
- 108010014251 Muramidase Proteins 0.000 description 2
- 108010062010 N-Acetylmuramoyl-L-alanine Amidase Proteins 0.000 description 2
- 241000199919 Phaeophyceae Species 0.000 description 2
- UVMRYBDEERADNV-UHFFFAOYSA-N Pseudoeugenol Natural products COC1=CC(C(C)=C)=CC=C1O UVMRYBDEERADNV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 241001138501 Salmonella enterica Species 0.000 description 2
- 241000191967 Staphylococcus aureus Species 0.000 description 2
- 208000021017 Weight Gain Diseases 0.000 description 2
- 239000002253 acid Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000002378 acidificating effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000009471 action Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000013543 active substance Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000009452 anti-microbial packaging Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000007864 aqueous solution Substances 0.000 description 2
- HUMNYLRZRPPJDN-UHFFFAOYSA-N benzaldehyde Chemical compound O=CC1=CC=CC=C1 HUMNYLRZRPPJDN-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 239000012620 biological material Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000005540 biological transmission Effects 0.000 description 2
- 210000000988 bone and bone Anatomy 0.000 description 2
- 229940015062 campylobacter jejuni Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 150000001720 carbohydrates Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 235000014633 carbohydrates Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 125000003178 carboxy group Chemical group [H]OC(*)=O 0.000 description 2
- 150000001768 cations Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 238000012512 characterization method Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000000460 chlorine Substances 0.000 description 2
- QBWCMBCROVPCKQ-UHFFFAOYSA-N chlorous acid Chemical compound OCl=O QBWCMBCROVPCKQ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 229940077239 chlorous acid Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 239000011247 coating layer Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000000084 colloidal system Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000000875 corresponding effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000013461 design Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000000839 emulsion Substances 0.000 description 2
- 229940088598 enzyme Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 229960002217 eugenol Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 239000000834 fixative Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000012530 fluid Substances 0.000 description 2
- 244000078673 foodborn pathogen Species 0.000 description 2
- 125000000524 functional group Chemical group 0.000 description 2
- 238000011194 good manufacturing practice Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000008187 granular material Substances 0.000 description 2
- 239000001257 hydrogen Substances 0.000 description 2
- 229910052739 hydrogen Inorganic materials 0.000 description 2
- 238000010348 incorporation Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000002054 inoculum Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000012417 linear regression Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000004325 lysozyme Substances 0.000 description 2
- 235000010335 lysozyme Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 229960000274 lysozyme Drugs 0.000 description 2
- 238000012986 modification Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000004048 modification Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000009448 modified atmosphere packaging Methods 0.000 description 2
- 230000003287 optical effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 150000007524 organic acids Chemical class 0.000 description 2
- 235000005985 organic acids Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- HFPZCAJZSCWRBC-UHFFFAOYSA-N p-cymene Chemical compound CC(C)C1=CC=C(C)C=C1 HFPZCAJZSCWRBC-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 230000001717 pathogenic effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 239000008188 pellet Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000035699 permeability Effects 0.000 description 2
- WTJKGGKOPKCXLL-RRHRGVEJSA-N phosphatidylcholine Chemical compound CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC(=O)OC[C@H](COP([O-])(=O)OCC[N+](C)(C)C)OC(=O)CCCCCCCC=CCCCCCCCC WTJKGGKOPKCXLL-RRHRGVEJSA-N 0.000 description 2
- 239000002504 physiological saline solution Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000007747 plating Methods 0.000 description 2
- 235000013824 polyphenols Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000015277 pork Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 239000011148 porous material Substances 0.000 description 2
- 238000003307 slaughter Methods 0.000 description 2
- 235000021055 solid food Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 235000013599 spices Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- 238000005507 spraying Methods 0.000 description 2
- 238000011105 stabilization Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000013589 supplement Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000004083 survival effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000002459 sustained effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 230000001052 transient effect Effects 0.000 description 2
- 238000004148 unit process Methods 0.000 description 2
- 239000003981 vehicle Substances 0.000 description 2
- 230000004584 weight gain Effects 0.000 description 2
- 235000019786 weight gain Nutrition 0.000 description 2
- KJPRLNWUNMBNBZ-QPJJXVBHSA-N (E)-cinnamaldehyde Chemical compound O=C\C=C\C1=CC=CC=C1 KJPRLNWUNMBNBZ-QPJJXVBHSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 240000003291 Armoracia rusticana Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000011330 Armoracia rusticana Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000271566 Aves Species 0.000 description 1
- 108010062877 Bacteriocins Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 241001474374 Blennius Species 0.000 description 1
- 244000056139 Brassica cretica Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000003351 Brassica cretica Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000003343 Brassica rupestris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- BCZXFFBUYPCTSJ-UHFFFAOYSA-L Calcium propionate Chemical compound [Ca+2].CCC([O-])=O.CCC([O-])=O BCZXFFBUYPCTSJ-UHFFFAOYSA-L 0.000 description 1
- ZAMOUSCENKQFHK-UHFFFAOYSA-N Chlorine atom Chemical compound [Cl] ZAMOUSCENKQFHK-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- WTEVQBCEXWBHNA-UHFFFAOYSA-N Citral Natural products CC(C)=CCCC(C)=CC=O WTEVQBCEXWBHNA-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- KRKNYBCHXYNGOX-UHFFFAOYSA-K Citrate Chemical compound [O-]C(=O)CC(O)(CC([O-])=O)C([O-])=O KRKNYBCHXYNGOX-UHFFFAOYSA-K 0.000 description 1
- 244000119308 Coleus amboinicus Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000004094 Coleus amboinicus Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 102000008186 Collagen Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 108010035532 Collagen Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 101100285408 Danio rerio eng2a gene Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 229920000219 Ethylene vinyl alcohol Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 241000192125 Firmicutes Species 0.000 description 1
- 102000020897 Formins Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 108091022623 Formins Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 238000005033 Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy Methods 0.000 description 1
- 229940123457 Free radical scavenger Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 241000233866 Fungi Species 0.000 description 1
- 239000004366 Glucose oxidase Substances 0.000 description 1
- 108010015776 Glucose oxidase Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 239000007836 KH2PO4 Substances 0.000 description 1
- 240000005183 Lantana involucrata Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000013628 Lantana involucrata Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 240000002129 Malva sylvestris Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000006770 Malva sylvestris Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241001465754 Metazoa Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000006677 Monarda citriodora ssp. austromontana Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000282337 Nasua nasua Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000007594 Oryza sativa Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000007164 Oryza sativa Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 241000228143 Penicillium Species 0.000 description 1
- 239000004698 Polyethylene Substances 0.000 description 1
- 244000178231 Rosmarinus officinalis Species 0.000 description 1
- 240000004808 Saccharomyces cerevisiae Species 0.000 description 1
- 241000277331 Salmonidae Species 0.000 description 1
- 229910000831 Steel Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 244000223014 Syzygium aromaticum Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000016639 Syzygium aromaticum Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 206010053615 Thermal burn Diseases 0.000 description 1
- 244000157222 Thymus zygis Species 0.000 description 1
- 235000017826 Thymus zygis Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229920002494 Zein Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 230000002411 adverse Effects 0.000 description 1
- 241001148470 aerobic bacillus Species 0.000 description 1
- 238000013019 agitation Methods 0.000 description 1
- IAJILQKETJEXLJ-QTBDOELSSA-N aldehydo-D-glucuronic acid Chemical compound O=C[C@H](O)[C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@H](O)C(O)=O IAJILQKETJEXLJ-QTBDOELSSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000000783 alginic acid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229960001126 alginic acid Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 150000004781 alginic acids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 229910001420 alkaline earth metal ion Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 229910052782 aluminium Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- XAGFODPZIPBFFR-UHFFFAOYSA-N aluminium Chemical compound [Al] XAGFODPZIPBFFR-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 210000003484 anatomy Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 239000010868 animal carcass Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000003042 antagnostic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000843 anti-fungal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000427 antigen Substances 0.000 description 1
- 108091007433 antigens Proteins 0.000 description 1
- 102000036639 antigens Human genes 0.000 description 1
- 239000012736 aqueous medium Substances 0.000 description 1
- 125000003118 aryl group Chemical group 0.000 description 1
- 238000003556 assay Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000000429 assembly Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000000712 assembly Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004630 atomic force microscopy Methods 0.000 description 1
- QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N atomic oxygen Chemical compound [O] QVGXLLKOCUKJST-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- OGBUMNBNEWYMNJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N batilol Chemical class CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCOCC(O)CO OGBUMNBNEWYMNJ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000009286 beneficial effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008901 benefit Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000010233 benzoic acid Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 150000001559 benzoic acids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 229920002988 biodegradable polymer Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 239000004621 biodegradable polymer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000009141 biological interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- QKSKPIVNLNLAAV-UHFFFAOYSA-N bis(2-chloroethyl) sulfide Chemical compound ClCCSCCCl QKSKPIVNLNLAAV-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000008280 blood Substances 0.000 description 1
- 210000004369 blood Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 210000004556 brain Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 235000010331 calcium propionate Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000004330 calcium propionate Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229940041514 candida albicans extract Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 229960001927 cetylpyridinium chloride Drugs 0.000 description 1
- YMKDRGPMQRFJGP-UHFFFAOYSA-M cetylpyridinium chloride Chemical compound [Cl-].CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC[N+]1=CC=CC=C1 YMKDRGPMQRFJGP-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 235000013351 cheese Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 229910052801 chlorine Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 238000004587 chromatography analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 229940117916 cinnamic aldehyde Drugs 0.000 description 1
- KJPRLNWUNMBNBZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N cinnamic aldehyde Natural products O=CC=CC1=CC=CC=C1 KJPRLNWUNMBNBZ-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 229940043350 citral Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 229920001436 collagen Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 150000001875 compounds Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 239000000470 constituent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000001816 cooling Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002596 correlated effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000004132 cross linking Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000002425 crystallisation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005520 cutting process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000013365 dairy product Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000007405 data analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000009849 deactivation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000001419 dependent effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 210000004207 dermis Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 238000000502 dialysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000014113 dietary fatty acids Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000003085 diluting agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000012153 distilled water Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000009826 distribution Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012377 drug delivery Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000013399 edible fruits Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000002500 effect on skin Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000003792 electrolyte Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000009881 electrostatic interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000003480 eluent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000010828 elution Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005516 engineering process Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003623 enhancer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000004715 ethylene vinyl alcohol Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000000194 fatty acid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229930195729 fatty acid Natural products 0.000 description 1
- 150000004665 fatty acids Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 210000003746 feather Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 230000002550 fecal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000007888 film coating Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000009501 film coating Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000000796 flavoring agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000019634 flavors Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000009920 food preservation Methods 0.000 description 1
- WTEVQBCEXWBHNA-JXMROGBWSA-N geranial Chemical compound CC(C)=CCC\C(C)=C\C=O WTEVQBCEXWBHNA-JXMROGBWSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000011521 glass Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229940116332 glucose oxidase Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 235000019420 glucose oxidase Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 125000002791 glucosyl group Chemical group C1([C@H](O)[C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@H](O1)CO)* 0.000 description 1
- 238000000227 grinding Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011059 hazard and critical control points analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000036541 health Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003505 heat denaturation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000008216 herbs Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 235000015143 herbs and spices Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- RZXDTJIXPSCHCI-UHFFFAOYSA-N hexa-1,5-diene-2,5-diol Chemical compound OC(=C)CCC(O)=C RZXDTJIXPSCHCI-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000004128 high performance liquid chromatography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000000265 homogenisation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000019692 hotdogs Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 244000052637 human pathogen Species 0.000 description 1
- 239000000416 hydrocolloid Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002209 hydrophobic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003384 imaging method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000006872 improvement Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002779 inactivation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000001802 infusion Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000003112 inhibitor Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000007924 injection Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000002347 injection Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003993 interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002452 interceptive effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008863 intramolecular interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005342 ion exchange Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000004255 ion exchange chromatography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 150000002500 ions Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 150000002540 isothiocyanates Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 238000002386 leaching Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000001665 lethal effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- TWNIBLMWSKIRAT-VFUOTHLCSA-N levoglucosan Chemical group O[C@@H]1[C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@H]2CO[C@@H]1O2 TWNIBLMWSKIRAT-VFUOTHLCSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 230000003859 lipid peroxidation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000011344 liquid material Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000011068 loading method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000014759 maintenance of location Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007726 management method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000013622 meat product Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000002609 medium Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002503 metabolic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 229910021645 metal ion Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 239000011859 microparticle Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000005012 migration Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013508 migration Methods 0.000 description 1
- 229910000402 monopotassium phosphate Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 235000019796 monopotassium phosphate Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000006872 mrs medium Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000010460 mustard Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000007935 neutral effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000006386 neutralization reaction Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000002547 new drug Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000011017 operating method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000005457 optimization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000003204 osmotic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000001301 oxygen Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229910052760 oxygen Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
- 230000020477 pH reduction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000012858 packaging process Methods 0.000 description 1
- QNGNSVIICDLXHT-UHFFFAOYSA-N para-ethylbenzaldehyde Natural products CCC1=CC=C(C=O)C=C1 QNGNSVIICDLXHT-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 238000009931 pascalization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000009928 pasteurization Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002688 persistence Effects 0.000 description 1
- 150000002989 phenols Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- NBIIXXVUZAFLBC-UHFFFAOYSA-K phosphate Chemical compound [O-]P([O-])([O-])=O NBIIXXVUZAFLBC-UHFFFAOYSA-K 0.000 description 1
- 230000000704 physical effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000010399 physical interaction Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000000419 plant extract Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000004014 plasticizer Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229920002401 polyacrylamide Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 229920000867 polyelectrolyte Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 229920000573 polyethylene Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 229920006254 polymer film Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 229920002451 polyvinyl alcohol Polymers 0.000 description 1
- 238000012805 post-processing Methods 0.000 description 1
- GNSKLFRGEWLPPA-UHFFFAOYSA-M potassium dihydrogen phosphate Chemical compound [K+].OP(O)([O-])=O GNSKLFRGEWLPPA-UHFFFAOYSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 230000003389 potentiating effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000036316 preload Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000003755 preservative agent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000002335 preservative effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000003672 processing method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000002797 proteolythic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000005588 protonation Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000506 psychotropic effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- ARIWANIATODDMH-UHFFFAOYSA-N rac-1-monolauroylglycerol Chemical compound CCCCCCCCCCCC(=O)OCC(O)CO ARIWANIATODDMH-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 239000002516 radical scavenger Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000000384 rearing effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 239000004627 regenerated cellulose Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000000611 regression analysis Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000012958 reprocessing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000011160 research Methods 0.000 description 1
- 230000004044 response Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000008458 response to injury Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000000717 retained effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 235000009566 rice Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 238000012502 risk assessment Methods 0.000 description 1
- 235000012780 rye bread Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000012266 salt solution Substances 0.000 description 1
- 150000003839 salts Chemical group 0.000 description 1
- 239000012047 saturated solution Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000014102 seafood Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000001953 sensory effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013207 serial dilution Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000010802 sludge Substances 0.000 description 1
- 150000003384 small molecules Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 239000000779 smoke Substances 0.000 description 1
- 159000000000 sodium salts Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- MSXHSNHNTORCAW-WTFUTCKNSA-M sodium;(2s,3s,4s,5s,6r)-3,4,5,6-tetrahydroxyoxane-2-carboxylate Chemical compound [Na+].O[C@@H]1O[C@H](C([O-])=O)[C@@H](O)[C@H](O)[C@@H]1O MSXHSNHNTORCAW-WTFUTCKNSA-M 0.000 description 1
- 235000008983 soft cheese Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000002904 solvent Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000007921 spray Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000000087 stabilizing effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000007619 statistical method Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000001256 steam distillation Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000010959 steel Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000008223 sterile water Substances 0.000 description 1
- 210000000438 stratum basale Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 210000000434 stratum corneum Anatomy 0.000 description 1
- 239000000758 substrate Substances 0.000 description 1
- 230000003746 surface roughness Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000013268 sustained release Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000012730 sustained-release form Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000008399 tap water Substances 0.000 description 1
- 235000020679 tap water Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000008685 targeting Effects 0.000 description 1
- 230000002277 temperature effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 150000003505 terpenes Chemical class 0.000 description 1
- 235000007586 terpenes Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 239000010409 thin film Substances 0.000 description 1
- 238000012876 topography Methods 0.000 description 1
- 231100000167 toxic agent Toxicity 0.000 description 1
- 239000003440 toxic substance Substances 0.000 description 1
- KXSDPILWMGFJMM-UHFFFAOYSA-N trans-sabinene hydrate Natural products CC1(O)CCC2(C(C)C)C1C2 KXSDPILWMGFJMM-UHFFFAOYSA-N 0.000 description 1
- 235000013311 vegetables Nutrition 0.000 description 1
- 230000000007 visual effect Effects 0.000 description 1
- 238000005303 weighing Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000001238 wet grinding Methods 0.000 description 1
- 238000009736 wetting Methods 0.000 description 1
- 239000012138 yeast extract Substances 0.000 description 1
- 239000005019 zein Substances 0.000 description 1
- 229940093612 zein Drugs 0.000 description 1
- NWONKYPBYAMBJT-UHFFFAOYSA-L zinc sulfate Chemical compound [Zn+2].[O-]S([O-])(=O)=O NWONKYPBYAMBJT-UHFFFAOYSA-L 0.000 description 1
- 229960001763 zinc sulfate Drugs 0.000 description 1
- 229910000368 zinc sulfate Inorganic materials 0.000 description 1
Classifications
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C09—DYES; PAINTS; POLISHES; NATURAL RESINS; ADHESIVES; COMPOSITIONS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; APPLICATIONS OF MATERIALS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- C09D—COATING COMPOSITIONS, e.g. PAINTS, VARNISHES OR LACQUERS; FILLING PASTES; CHEMICAL PAINT OR INK REMOVERS; INKS; CORRECTING FLUIDS; WOODSTAINS; PASTES OR SOLIDS FOR COLOURING OR PRINTING; USE OF MATERIALS THEREFOR
- C09D5/00—Coating compositions, e.g. paints, varnishes or lacquers, characterised by their physical nature or the effects produced; Filling pastes
- C09D5/14—Paints containing biocides, e.g. fungicides, insecticides or pesticides
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N25/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests
- A01N25/08—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators, characterised by their forms, or by their non-active ingredients or by their methods of application, e.g. seed treatment or sequential application; Substances for reducing the noxious effect of the active ingredients to organisms other than pests containing solids as carriers or diluents
- A01N25/10—Macromolecular compounds
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N65/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing material from algae, lichens, bryophyta, multi-cellular fungi or plants, or extracts thereof
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N65/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing material from algae, lichens, bryophyta, multi-cellular fungi or plants, or extracts thereof
- A01N65/08—Magnoliopsida [dicotyledons]
- A01N65/22—Lamiaceae or Labiatae [Mint family], e.g. thyme, rosemary, skullcap, selfheal, lavender, perilla, pennyroyal, peppermint or spearmint
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A01—AGRICULTURE; FORESTRY; ANIMAL HUSBANDRY; HUNTING; TRAPPING; FISHING
- A01N—PRESERVATION OF BODIES OF HUMANS OR ANIMALS OR PLANTS OR PARTS THEREOF; BIOCIDES, e.g. AS DISINFECTANTS, AS PESTICIDES OR AS HERBICIDES; PEST REPELLANTS OR ATTRACTANTS; PLANT GROWTH REGULATORS
- A01N65/00—Biocides, pest repellants or attractants, or plant growth regulators containing material from algae, lichens, bryophyta, multi-cellular fungi or plants, or extracts thereof
- A01N65/08—Magnoliopsida [dicotyledons]
- A01N65/28—Myrtaceae [Myrtle family], e.g. teatree or clove
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
- A23B—PRESERVING, e.g. BY CANNING, MEAT, FISH, EGGS, FRUIT, VEGETABLES, EDIBLE SEEDS; CHEMICAL RIPENING OF FRUIT OR VEGETABLES; THE PRESERVED, RIPENED, OR CANNED PRODUCTS
- A23B4/00—General methods for preserving meat, sausages, fish or fish products
- A23B4/14—Preserving with chemicals not covered by groups A23B4/02 or A23B4/12
- A23B4/18—Preserving with chemicals not covered by groups A23B4/02 or A23B4/12 in the form of liquids or solids
- A23B4/20—Organic compounds; Microorganisms; Enzymes
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
- A23L—FOODS, FOODSTUFFS, OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NOT COVERED BY SUBCLASSES A21D OR A23B-A23J; THEIR PREPARATION OR TREATMENT, e.g. COOKING, MODIFICATION OF NUTRITIVE QUALITIES, PHYSICAL TREATMENT; PRESERVATION OF FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS, IN GENERAL
- A23L3/00—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs
- A23L3/34—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals
- A23L3/3454—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals in the form of liquids or solids
- A23L3/3463—Organic compounds; Microorganisms; Enzymes
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
- A23L—FOODS, FOODSTUFFS, OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NOT COVERED BY SUBCLASSES A21D OR A23B-A23J; THEIR PREPARATION OR TREATMENT, e.g. COOKING, MODIFICATION OF NUTRITIVE QUALITIES, PHYSICAL TREATMENT; PRESERVATION OF FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS, IN GENERAL
- A23L3/00—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs
- A23L3/34—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals
- A23L3/3454—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals in the form of liquids or solids
- A23L3/3463—Organic compounds; Microorganisms; Enzymes
- A23L3/3472—Compounds of undetermined constitution obtained from animals or plants
-
- A—HUMAN NECESSITIES
- A23—FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS; TREATMENT THEREOF, NOT COVERED BY OTHER CLASSES
- A23L—FOODS, FOODSTUFFS, OR NON-ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, NOT COVERED BY SUBCLASSES A21D OR A23B-A23J; THEIR PREPARATION OR TREATMENT, e.g. COOKING, MODIFICATION OF NUTRITIVE QUALITIES, PHYSICAL TREATMENT; PRESERVATION OF FOODS OR FOODSTUFFS, IN GENERAL
- A23L3/00—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs
- A23L3/34—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals
- A23L3/3454—Preservation of foods or foodstuffs, in general, e.g. pasteurising, sterilising, specially adapted for foods or foodstuffs by treatment with chemicals in the form of liquids or solids
- A23L3/3463—Organic compounds; Microorganisms; Enzymes
- A23L3/3562—Sugars; Derivatives thereof
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C09—DYES; PAINTS; POLISHES; NATURAL RESINS; ADHESIVES; COMPOSITIONS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; APPLICATIONS OF MATERIALS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- C09D—COATING COMPOSITIONS, e.g. PAINTS, VARNISHES OR LACQUERS; FILLING PASTES; CHEMICAL PAINT OR INK REMOVERS; INKS; CORRECTING FLUIDS; WOODSTAINS; PASTES OR SOLIDS FOR COLOURING OR PRINTING; USE OF MATERIALS THEREFOR
- C09D103/00—Coating compositions based on starch, amylose or amylopectin or on their derivatives or degradation products
- C09D103/02—Starch; Degradation products thereof, e.g. dextrin
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C09—DYES; PAINTS; POLISHES; NATURAL RESINS; ADHESIVES; COMPOSITIONS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; APPLICATIONS OF MATERIALS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- C09D—COATING COMPOSITIONS, e.g. PAINTS, VARNISHES OR LACQUERS; FILLING PASTES; CHEMICAL PAINT OR INK REMOVERS; INKS; CORRECTING FLUIDS; WOODSTAINS; PASTES OR SOLIDS FOR COLOURING OR PRINTING; USE OF MATERIALS THEREFOR
- C09D105/00—Coating compositions based on polysaccharides or on their derivatives, not provided for in groups C09D101/00 or C09D103/00
-
- C—CHEMISTRY; METALLURGY
- C09—DYES; PAINTS; POLISHES; NATURAL RESINS; ADHESIVES; COMPOSITIONS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; APPLICATIONS OF MATERIALS NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- C09D—COATING COMPOSITIONS, e.g. PAINTS, VARNISHES OR LACQUERS; FILLING PASTES; CHEMICAL PAINT OR INK REMOVERS; INKS; CORRECTING FLUIDS; WOODSTAINS; PASTES OR SOLIDS FOR COLOURING OR PRINTING; USE OF MATERIALS THEREFOR
- C09D105/00—Coating compositions based on polysaccharides or on their derivatives, not provided for in groups C09D101/00 or C09D103/00
- C09D105/06—Pectin; Derivatives thereof
Landscapes
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Wood Science & Technology (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Microbiology (AREA)
- Zoology (AREA)
- Plant Pathology (AREA)
- Environmental Sciences (AREA)
- General Chemical & Material Sciences (AREA)
- Materials Engineering (AREA)
- Food Science & Technology (AREA)
- Organic Chemistry (AREA)
- Agronomy & Crop Science (AREA)
- Natural Medicines & Medicinal Plants (AREA)
- Chemical Kinetics & Catalysis (AREA)
- Dentistry (AREA)
- Polymers & Plastics (AREA)
- Mycology (AREA)
- Nutrition Science (AREA)
- Biotechnology (AREA)
- Botany (AREA)
- Pest Control & Pesticides (AREA)
- Toxicology (AREA)
- Agricultural Chemicals And Associated Chemicals (AREA)
- Materials For Medical Uses (AREA)
- Medicinal Preparation (AREA)
Abstract
An antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial is used to coat surfaces of perishable foods. In some embodiments, the coating is a mixture of gelatinized pea starch and thyme oil.
Description
ANTIMICROBIAL COATINGS
PRIOR APPLICATION INFORMATION
The present application claims the benefit of US Provisional Application 60/824,479, filed September 5, 2006, US Provisional Patent Application 60/939,698, filed May 23, 2007 and US Provisional Application 60/940,428, filed May 28, 2007.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Raw poultry products can serve as a source of human pathogens such as Salmonella and Campylobacter that may cross-contaminate other foods. When appropriate rearing and shipping practices are followed, most poultry contamination by these organisms occurs during or after slaughter and processing (Slader et al., 2002;
Zhao et al., 2001). Carcass washing with approved antimicrobials (AMs) has had limited success because many microorganisms are physically hidden in the feather follicles and skin folds which protect them from the action of AMs (Mehyar et al., 2005;
Schneider et al., 2002; Wang et al., 1997; Xiong et al., 1998). Furthermore, increased line speed reduces the antimicrobial contact time with target microorganisms, and the moisture on chicken skin surface can act as a diluent, reducing antimicrobial effectiveness (Oyarzabal et al., 2004). An alternative approach to extending the contact time would be increasing the effectiveness of AMs. To obtain improved effectiveness without changing process speeds in the plant, edible gels containing AMs could be sprayed on chicken surfaces. In theory, the agents would gradually diffuse from the gels or coating material into skin irregularities and if applied early (after defeathering), provide increased contact time with target microorganisms and yield improved effectiveness. Most food-related antimicrobial coatings have been tested only for their quantitative antimicrobial effectiveness (Janes et al., 2002; Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000a,b; Siragusa and Dickson, 1992). No report has been found which relates the antimicrobial activity of the coatings to their surface properties or absorption into contaminated foods. Studying these physio-chemical properties will help in determining the minimum quantities of AMs required to eliminate pathogens from foods using methods which have beneficial economic and environmental consequences.
Chicken skin consists of two layers, the upper layer called the epidermis and the lower layer called the dermis (Lucas and Stettenheim, 1972). The epidermis is divided into the Stratum corneum (cuticle) and Stratum germinativum. The cuticle of the epidermis consists of waxy material which covers the skin surface, whereas the lower region is composed of cell layers that can be differentiated to become a part of the cuticle in
PRIOR APPLICATION INFORMATION
The present application claims the benefit of US Provisional Application 60/824,479, filed September 5, 2006, US Provisional Patent Application 60/939,698, filed May 23, 2007 and US Provisional Application 60/940,428, filed May 28, 2007.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Raw poultry products can serve as a source of human pathogens such as Salmonella and Campylobacter that may cross-contaminate other foods. When appropriate rearing and shipping practices are followed, most poultry contamination by these organisms occurs during or after slaughter and processing (Slader et al., 2002;
Zhao et al., 2001). Carcass washing with approved antimicrobials (AMs) has had limited success because many microorganisms are physically hidden in the feather follicles and skin folds which protect them from the action of AMs (Mehyar et al., 2005;
Schneider et al., 2002; Wang et al., 1997; Xiong et al., 1998). Furthermore, increased line speed reduces the antimicrobial contact time with target microorganisms, and the moisture on chicken skin surface can act as a diluent, reducing antimicrobial effectiveness (Oyarzabal et al., 2004). An alternative approach to extending the contact time would be increasing the effectiveness of AMs. To obtain improved effectiveness without changing process speeds in the plant, edible gels containing AMs could be sprayed on chicken surfaces. In theory, the agents would gradually diffuse from the gels or coating material into skin irregularities and if applied early (after defeathering), provide increased contact time with target microorganisms and yield improved effectiveness. Most food-related antimicrobial coatings have been tested only for their quantitative antimicrobial effectiveness (Janes et al., 2002; Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000a,b; Siragusa and Dickson, 1992). No report has been found which relates the antimicrobial activity of the coatings to their surface properties or absorption into contaminated foods. Studying these physio-chemical properties will help in determining the minimum quantities of AMs required to eliminate pathogens from foods using methods which have beneficial economic and environmental consequences.
Chicken skin consists of two layers, the upper layer called the epidermis and the lower layer called the dermis (Lucas and Stettenheim, 1972). The epidermis is divided into the Stratum corneum (cuticle) and Stratum germinativum. The cuticle of the epidermis consists of waxy material which covers the skin surface, whereas the lower region is composed of cell layers that can be differentiated to become a part of the cuticle in
2 response to damage. Scalding at high temperature removes the cuticle layer from the skin which will affect skin adhesiveness characteristics (Lucas and Stettenheim, 1972). Indeed, a thinner cuticle layer increases skin hydrophilicity and makes microbial contamination more likely whereby organisms may be deposited within the skin and its folds (Suderman and Cunningham, 1980). The contact angle of a liquid drop on a smooth surface has been used to characterize the surface energies of solids (Choi and Han, 2002; Han and Krochta, 1999). In this study, this surface chemistry has been used to measure the adhesion force of coatings to the skin. In addition, it is also known that the contact angle of a liquid drop is affected by the extent of roughness of the target surface, and such effects could be substantial on a rough surface like chicken skin. The determination of contact angles can be used to explain solid surface properties in terms of both surface energy and roughness (Han and Krochta, 2001). The dermal layer of chicken skin contains collagen which readily absorbs water from the skin surface and swells, causing changes in skin microtopography (Thomas and McMeekin, 1982). Liquid absorption rate and maximum absorptiveness can be measured to reflect how fast and how much of an applied liquid penetrates and is absorbed by the skin.
Consumer interest in unprocessed foods preserved with natural ingredients has significantly increased recently (Cagri et al., 2004; Debeaufort et al., 1998). Development of edible films and coatings which have comparable properties with synthetic preservative ingredients is an approach taken to satisfy this interest (Mehyar and Han, 2004). Both starch and alginate have been shown to be structurally compatible with alkaline and acidic agents (Siragusa and Dickson, 1992; Ratnayake et al., 2002). The goal of the present work was to model the effectiveness of trisodium phosphate (TSP) and acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) in pea starch (PS) and alginate coatings, when applied to broiler carcasses during processing for their ability to reduce surface contamination by Salmonella. Since current standards require that carcasses should be free of any residual additives before shipping from the processing plant, the effect of these chemical applications on skin pH
and persistence of coatings on the chicken skin were also determined, targeting 60 min for completion of carcass chilling and neutralization of the additives.
Hydrogel is a network of hydrophilic polymer chains which are able to hold up water but are kept from dissolution by either physical or chemical cross-links. There has been an increasing interest in physically cross-linked hydrogel, in lieu of chemically cross-linked hydrogel, which may involve the use of toxic agents. Several physical interactions have been exploited in the design of hydrogel, such as electrostatic attraction (Bodmeier and Wang, 1993, J Pharmaceut Sci 82: 191-194; Bodmeier et al., 1989, Pharmaceut Res 6: 413-417; Doria-Serrano et al., 2001 Biomacromolecules 2: 568-574; Grant et al, 1973,
Consumer interest in unprocessed foods preserved with natural ingredients has significantly increased recently (Cagri et al., 2004; Debeaufort et al., 1998). Development of edible films and coatings which have comparable properties with synthetic preservative ingredients is an approach taken to satisfy this interest (Mehyar and Han, 2004). Both starch and alginate have been shown to be structurally compatible with alkaline and acidic agents (Siragusa and Dickson, 1992; Ratnayake et al., 2002). The goal of the present work was to model the effectiveness of trisodium phosphate (TSP) and acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) in pea starch (PS) and alginate coatings, when applied to broiler carcasses during processing for their ability to reduce surface contamination by Salmonella. Since current standards require that carcasses should be free of any residual additives before shipping from the processing plant, the effect of these chemical applications on skin pH
and persistence of coatings on the chicken skin were also determined, targeting 60 min for completion of carcass chilling and neutralization of the additives.
Hydrogel is a network of hydrophilic polymer chains which are able to hold up water but are kept from dissolution by either physical or chemical cross-links. There has been an increasing interest in physically cross-linked hydrogel, in lieu of chemically cross-linked hydrogel, which may involve the use of toxic agents. Several physical interactions have been exploited in the design of hydrogel, such as electrostatic attraction (Bodmeier and Wang, 1993, J Pharmaceut Sci 82: 191-194; Bodmeier et al., 1989, Pharmaceut Res 6: 413-417; Doria-Serrano et al., 2001 Biomacromolecules 2: 568-574; Grant et al, 1973,
3 FEBS Lett 32: 195-198; Seely and Hart, 1974, Macromolecules 7: 706-701; Ortega and Perez-Mateos, 1998, J Chem Technol Biotechnol 73: 7-12), hydrogen bonding (Durrani and Donald, 1995, Polym Gels Networks 3: 1-27; Goodfellow and Wilson, 1990, Biopolymers 30: 1183-1189; Ring et al., 1987, Carbohydr Res 162: 277-293; Liu and Han, 2005, J Food Sci 70: E31-E36), and antigen-antibody binding (Miyata et al., 1999, Macromolecules 32: 2082-2084). Basically, it is required that polymers possess an abundance of functional groups (e.g. -OH, -COO", -NH, -SH) to achieve inter-and intra-molecular interactions in the formation of hydrogel.
As a major storage polysaccharide in plants, starch is a compound of amylose and amylopectin, with its composition depending on the plant origin. Amylose is a nearly linear polymer of ^-1,4 anhydroglucose units, with molecular weight of 105-106 (Durrani and Donald, 1995; Galliard and Bowler, 1987 in Starch: Properties and Potential (Galliard, ed;
John Wiley and Sons: New York, p 57-78)). In contrast, amylopectin is a highly branched polymer consisting of short a-1,4 chains linked by a-1,6 glucosidic branching points occurring every 25-30 glucose units, with molecular weight of 107-109 (Durrani and Donald, 1995; Galliard and Bowler, 1987). When heated in water at 60 C or above, starch granules gelatinize, characterized by granular swelling, amylose exudation and disruption of long-order crystalline structure (Liu, 2005 in Innovations in Food Packaging (J.H. Han ed., Academic Press: New York, p318-337)). Suspension of gelatinized starch starts gelling upon cooling as a result of inter- and intra-molecular hydrogen bonding of amylose and linear branches on amylopectin (Goodfellow and Wilson, 1990; Liu and Han, 2005).
Macroscopically, starch gel is a three-dimensional network constructed mainly by spring-like strands of polymeric chains (Ring et al., 1987).
Alginate in a form of free acid or sodium salt is a collective term for a family of polysaccharide prepared mostly from brown algae (Smidsrod and Grasdalen, 1984, Hydrobiologia 116-117: 19-28). Chemically, alginate is a mixture of poly(P-D-mannuronate), poly((x-L-guluronate), and poly(R-D-mannuronate (X-L-guluronate), with its exact composition depending on algal source. Similar to starch gel, alginate gel features a 3-D network structure (Ahearne et al., 2005, J R Soc Interface 2: 455-463;
Doria-Serrano et al., 2001; Decho, 1999, Carbohydr Res 315: 330-333; Walkenstrom et al., 2003, Food Hydrocol 17: 593-603). However, alginate forms hydrogel by polymeric chains interacting with Ca2+ and other divalent and trivalent metal ions (Donati et al., 2005, Biomacromolecules 6: 1031-1040; Rees and Samuel, 1967, J Chem Soc C Organic 22:
2295-2298), according to the so-called "egg-box" model (Grant et al., 1973).
As a result of ionic interaction, the presence of di- or multivalent cations enable the formation of junction
As a major storage polysaccharide in plants, starch is a compound of amylose and amylopectin, with its composition depending on the plant origin. Amylose is a nearly linear polymer of ^-1,4 anhydroglucose units, with molecular weight of 105-106 (Durrani and Donald, 1995; Galliard and Bowler, 1987 in Starch: Properties and Potential (Galliard, ed;
John Wiley and Sons: New York, p 57-78)). In contrast, amylopectin is a highly branched polymer consisting of short a-1,4 chains linked by a-1,6 glucosidic branching points occurring every 25-30 glucose units, with molecular weight of 107-109 (Durrani and Donald, 1995; Galliard and Bowler, 1987). When heated in water at 60 C or above, starch granules gelatinize, characterized by granular swelling, amylose exudation and disruption of long-order crystalline structure (Liu, 2005 in Innovations in Food Packaging (J.H. Han ed., Academic Press: New York, p318-337)). Suspension of gelatinized starch starts gelling upon cooling as a result of inter- and intra-molecular hydrogen bonding of amylose and linear branches on amylopectin (Goodfellow and Wilson, 1990; Liu and Han, 2005).
Macroscopically, starch gel is a three-dimensional network constructed mainly by spring-like strands of polymeric chains (Ring et al., 1987).
Alginate in a form of free acid or sodium salt is a collective term for a family of polysaccharide prepared mostly from brown algae (Smidsrod and Grasdalen, 1984, Hydrobiologia 116-117: 19-28). Chemically, alginate is a mixture of poly(P-D-mannuronate), poly((x-L-guluronate), and poly(R-D-mannuronate (X-L-guluronate), with its exact composition depending on algal source. Similar to starch gel, alginate gel features a 3-D network structure (Ahearne et al., 2005, J R Soc Interface 2: 455-463;
Doria-Serrano et al., 2001; Decho, 1999, Carbohydr Res 315: 330-333; Walkenstrom et al., 2003, Food Hydrocol 17: 593-603). However, alginate forms hydrogel by polymeric chains interacting with Ca2+ and other divalent and trivalent metal ions (Donati et al., 2005, Biomacromolecules 6: 1031-1040; Rees and Samuel, 1967, J Chem Soc C Organic 22:
2295-2298), according to the so-called "egg-box" model (Grant et al., 1973).
As a result of ionic interaction, the presence of di- or multivalent cations enable the formation of junction
4 zones between helical chains of guluronic blocks, those of mannuronic blocks, and those of mannuronic-guluronic blocks (Donati et al., 2005).
In addition to many other biomedical applications such as enzyme immobilization (Ortega and Perez-Mateos, 1998) and tissue engineering (Ahearne et al., 2005;
Li et al., 2005, Biomaterials 26: 3919-3928), hydrogel is useful for drug release (Rajaonarivony et al., 1993, J Pharmaceut Sci 82: 912-917; Bodmeier and Wang, 1993). Drug release from hydrogel occurs mainly due to gel swelling, which can be controlled by the formulation chemistry of polymeric network (e.g., functional groups, degree of cross-linking) and by the environmental conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, ionic strength, etc.) (Peppas et al., 2000, Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2: 9-29). The swelling of hydrogel in water permits the entrapped drug to diffuse throughout the entire network and release from the gel. The release rate is primarily determined the degree of swelling (Prokop et al., 2002, Adv Polym Sci 160: 119-173).
Due to its ability to sustain the release of antimicrobials, hydrogel has become a potent carrier of antimicrobials in the meat and poultry industries (Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000, J Food Prot 63: 1189-1196; Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000, J Food Prot 63:
1272). Herein, the swelling and rheological properties of starch and alginate hydrogels in physiological saline and the release of antimicrobials from the hydrogels to the saline solution, which simulates the fluidic condition on the surfaces of chicken skin, pork and beef.
Quality of fresh poultry offered at retail depends greatly on the microbiological quality of fresh eviscerated chicken (Mehyar and others 2005). Most research has been concerned with the contamination of chicken carcasses and poultry products by Salmonella or Campylobacter which are predominant pathogens, and Pseudomonas which are the major psychotropic spoilage bacteria of refrigerated poultry products (Smith and others 2005a; Mehyar and others 2005; Uyttendaele and others 2006). A
Belgian survey in 2001, as an example, showed that 18% of chicken fillets and 35% of chicken carcasses were contaminated by Campylobacter, and this number has remained at a high level (Uyttendaele and others 2006). Campylobacter numbers on poultry are much higher than that of Salmonella, which are estimated to be 102 - 107 and 1- 102 cfu/bird, respectively (Jorgensen and others 2002; Zhao and others 2001). Poultry processing lines operate at high-speed, often processing over 150 bird/min. At this high speed poultry meat is very vulnerable to cross-contamination. Consequently, much effort is spent to maintain good sanitation during processing, and these efforts involve optimization of specific unit operating procedures, and adoption of good manufacturing practice (GMP) and HACCP-based quality systems.
Various processing methods are used to reduce levels of undesired microorganisms on broiler carcasses in poultry processing lines. Among them, one of the important unit processes is washing using an inside-outside bird washer before immersion or air chilling (Smith and others 2005a; 2005b). Recently, immersion at 75 -80 C before cold water immersion chilling (Corry and others 2007), extended immersion time (24 h) in cold chlorine water (Cason and others 2006), and the use of large amounts of cold water during immersion chilling (Northcutt and others 2006) have been tried to reduce poultry carcass contamination. However, hot water immersion and day-long cold immersion, or the use of a large quantity of water are not commercially feasible processes although these approaches reduced the numbers of some pathogens. It appears that after washing followed by chilling, there is no unit process in use which can satisfactorily remove pathogens or spoilage microorganisms from poultry carcasses.
An attractive antimicrobial procedure would be one where a nonthermal treatment was used to reduce the number of microorganisms just prior to or during the packaging process. Such nonthermal treatments may include combinations of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) with antagonistic cultures, electron beam irradiation, high pressure processing, or antimicrobial packaging/coating (Han 2007). MAP of pre-cooked chicken meats inhibited spoilage microorganisms (i.e., Pseudomonas, yeast and molds) compared to air packaging (Patsias and others 2006). Electron beam treatment also reduced the number of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in chicken meat products and has the potential to control other pathogens (Black and Jaczynski 2006).
Edible coatings are produced from edible biopolymers and food-grade additives.
Film-forming biopolymers can be selected from proteins, polysaccharides (carbohydrates and gums), or lipids (Gennadios and others 1997). Various antimicrobial agents may be incorporated into edible coating materials to produce antimicrobial coating systems, as they allow a slow migration of the antimicrobial agents from the coating materials and extend the shelf-life of coated foods. Common edible antimicrobial agents include organic acids (e.g., acetic acid, and fatty acids), phenolics (e.g., benzoic acids and cinnamaldehyde), bacteriocins (e.g., nisin, lacticin and others), enzymes (e.g., lysozyme and glucose oxidase), monoglycerides (e.g., monolaurin and monocaprin), and various plant extracts from herbs and spices (Han 2003; 2005).
A variety of antimicrobial coating systems have been applied to chicken carcasses and poultry meat products. Starch and calcium alginate gels incorporating trisodium phosphate and acidified sodium chlorite, respectively, effectively inhibited an inoculated Salmonella cocktail on chicken wings (Mehyar and others 2007). Nisin was mixed with protein and carbohydrate coating materials and reduced the number of Salmonella and Listeria on chicken meats (Janes and others 2002; Natrajan and Sheldon 2000a, b).
Edible polymers in coating materials carrying active agents increased the viscosity of coating materials. The agents extended the contact time of incorporated agents when placed against chicken surfaces, and consequently improved the antimicrobial efficiency of the coating systems against pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms.
Among available antimicrobial agents, oils of plant or spice extracts are attractive since they are natural ingredients (which require no or a reduced label declaration), are accepted by consumers (Cagri and others 2004; Debeaufort and others 1998; Han 2003, 2005) and they can be extracted easily from herbs, spices and aromatic plants by solvents or steam distillation. Many of these essential oils contain antimicrobial as well as antioxidant activity. Examples include rosemary, clove, thyme, oregano and basil oils, plus horseradish and mustard extracts. They are mostly phenolics or terpenes while the latter two contain isothiocyanates (Burt 2004; Holley and Patel 2005).
Thyme oil mainly contains thymol, p-cymene and carvacrol, which demonstrate antimicrobial and antioxidant activities (Kaloustian and others 2005; Sasso and others 2006; Youdim and others 2002). Thyme oil has been reported to inhibit the growth of Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Penicillium spp. and many other bacteria (Friedman and others 2006;
Smith and others 2001; Sasso and others 2006; Singh and others 2003; Suhr and Nielsen 2003). The antimicrobial activity of thyme oil was adversely affected by food composition, especially lipid content (Singh and others 2003; Smith and others 2001).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial.
According to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of protecting a perishable food surface from microbial contamination comprising:
providing an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial; and applying the antimicrobial coating to the perishable food surface wherein the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Figure 1. Application of coatings to chicken drumettes: A) 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch (PS) containing 10 % (w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP): B) 1%(w/v) alginate containing 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC). Solution (a) contained 1(w/v) %
CaCI2 plus ASC; solution (b) contained 1%(w/v) sodium alginate.
Figure 2. Effect of inclusion of commercial AMs in polymeric coatings on survival of inoculated Salmonella on chicken skin during storage at 4 C for 5 d. TSP =
trisodium phosphate, ASC = acidified sodium chlorite, PS = pea starch. Columns with different letters at the same sampling time are significantly (P <_ 0.05) different.
Figure 3. Surface pH of chicken drumettes dipped in 10 %(w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP) and 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) with and without inclusion in 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch (PS) or 1.0 % (w/v) calcium alginate (Algn), respectively during storage at 4 C.
Figure 4. Effect of antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) coating viscosity (prepared with different concentrations of PS) on the initial contact angle of coating drops applied to the chicken skin surface.
Figure 5. Effect of pea starch (PS) concentration change in the antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) coatings on the initial contact angle of the coating drops on the chicken skin surface.
Figure 6 Schematic assembly used for preparing calcium alginate gel Figure 7 Dimensionless mass of solids (Ms/Mso) in starch gels (a) and aiginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution, with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 8 Dimensionless mass of water (M,N/Mo) in starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution, with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 9 Concentration of antimicrobials (C) released from PS+TSP and ALG+ASC
gels into the saline solution, as a function of immersion time (t), with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 10 Dimensionless storage moduli (G'/G'o) for starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution Figure 11 Dimensionless solids content (SC/SCo) of starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution Figure 12 Consistency profile of pea starch gels with and without thyme oil at 25 C.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, the preferred methods and materials are now described. All publications mentioned hereunder are incorporated herein by reference.
Described herein is an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial.
In some embodiments, as discussed below, the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating comprises 0.1-10% or 0.1-
In addition to many other biomedical applications such as enzyme immobilization (Ortega and Perez-Mateos, 1998) and tissue engineering (Ahearne et al., 2005;
Li et al., 2005, Biomaterials 26: 3919-3928), hydrogel is useful for drug release (Rajaonarivony et al., 1993, J Pharmaceut Sci 82: 912-917; Bodmeier and Wang, 1993). Drug release from hydrogel occurs mainly due to gel swelling, which can be controlled by the formulation chemistry of polymeric network (e.g., functional groups, degree of cross-linking) and by the environmental conditions (e.g., pH, temperature, ionic strength, etc.) (Peppas et al., 2000, Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2: 9-29). The swelling of hydrogel in water permits the entrapped drug to diffuse throughout the entire network and release from the gel. The release rate is primarily determined the degree of swelling (Prokop et al., 2002, Adv Polym Sci 160: 119-173).
Due to its ability to sustain the release of antimicrobials, hydrogel has become a potent carrier of antimicrobials in the meat and poultry industries (Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000, J Food Prot 63: 1189-1196; Natrajan and Sheldon, 2000, J Food Prot 63:
1272). Herein, the swelling and rheological properties of starch and alginate hydrogels in physiological saline and the release of antimicrobials from the hydrogels to the saline solution, which simulates the fluidic condition on the surfaces of chicken skin, pork and beef.
Quality of fresh poultry offered at retail depends greatly on the microbiological quality of fresh eviscerated chicken (Mehyar and others 2005). Most research has been concerned with the contamination of chicken carcasses and poultry products by Salmonella or Campylobacter which are predominant pathogens, and Pseudomonas which are the major psychotropic spoilage bacteria of refrigerated poultry products (Smith and others 2005a; Mehyar and others 2005; Uyttendaele and others 2006). A
Belgian survey in 2001, as an example, showed that 18% of chicken fillets and 35% of chicken carcasses were contaminated by Campylobacter, and this number has remained at a high level (Uyttendaele and others 2006). Campylobacter numbers on poultry are much higher than that of Salmonella, which are estimated to be 102 - 107 and 1- 102 cfu/bird, respectively (Jorgensen and others 2002; Zhao and others 2001). Poultry processing lines operate at high-speed, often processing over 150 bird/min. At this high speed poultry meat is very vulnerable to cross-contamination. Consequently, much effort is spent to maintain good sanitation during processing, and these efforts involve optimization of specific unit operating procedures, and adoption of good manufacturing practice (GMP) and HACCP-based quality systems.
Various processing methods are used to reduce levels of undesired microorganisms on broiler carcasses in poultry processing lines. Among them, one of the important unit processes is washing using an inside-outside bird washer before immersion or air chilling (Smith and others 2005a; 2005b). Recently, immersion at 75 -80 C before cold water immersion chilling (Corry and others 2007), extended immersion time (24 h) in cold chlorine water (Cason and others 2006), and the use of large amounts of cold water during immersion chilling (Northcutt and others 2006) have been tried to reduce poultry carcass contamination. However, hot water immersion and day-long cold immersion, or the use of a large quantity of water are not commercially feasible processes although these approaches reduced the numbers of some pathogens. It appears that after washing followed by chilling, there is no unit process in use which can satisfactorily remove pathogens or spoilage microorganisms from poultry carcasses.
An attractive antimicrobial procedure would be one where a nonthermal treatment was used to reduce the number of microorganisms just prior to or during the packaging process. Such nonthermal treatments may include combinations of modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) with antagonistic cultures, electron beam irradiation, high pressure processing, or antimicrobial packaging/coating (Han 2007). MAP of pre-cooked chicken meats inhibited spoilage microorganisms (i.e., Pseudomonas, yeast and molds) compared to air packaging (Patsias and others 2006). Electron beam treatment also reduced the number of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in chicken meat products and has the potential to control other pathogens (Black and Jaczynski 2006).
Edible coatings are produced from edible biopolymers and food-grade additives.
Film-forming biopolymers can be selected from proteins, polysaccharides (carbohydrates and gums), or lipids (Gennadios and others 1997). Various antimicrobial agents may be incorporated into edible coating materials to produce antimicrobial coating systems, as they allow a slow migration of the antimicrobial agents from the coating materials and extend the shelf-life of coated foods. Common edible antimicrobial agents include organic acids (e.g., acetic acid, and fatty acids), phenolics (e.g., benzoic acids and cinnamaldehyde), bacteriocins (e.g., nisin, lacticin and others), enzymes (e.g., lysozyme and glucose oxidase), monoglycerides (e.g., monolaurin and monocaprin), and various plant extracts from herbs and spices (Han 2003; 2005).
A variety of antimicrobial coating systems have been applied to chicken carcasses and poultry meat products. Starch and calcium alginate gels incorporating trisodium phosphate and acidified sodium chlorite, respectively, effectively inhibited an inoculated Salmonella cocktail on chicken wings (Mehyar and others 2007). Nisin was mixed with protein and carbohydrate coating materials and reduced the number of Salmonella and Listeria on chicken meats (Janes and others 2002; Natrajan and Sheldon 2000a, b).
Edible polymers in coating materials carrying active agents increased the viscosity of coating materials. The agents extended the contact time of incorporated agents when placed against chicken surfaces, and consequently improved the antimicrobial efficiency of the coating systems against pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms.
Among available antimicrobial agents, oils of plant or spice extracts are attractive since they are natural ingredients (which require no or a reduced label declaration), are accepted by consumers (Cagri and others 2004; Debeaufort and others 1998; Han 2003, 2005) and they can be extracted easily from herbs, spices and aromatic plants by solvents or steam distillation. Many of these essential oils contain antimicrobial as well as antioxidant activity. Examples include rosemary, clove, thyme, oregano and basil oils, plus horseradish and mustard extracts. They are mostly phenolics or terpenes while the latter two contain isothiocyanates (Burt 2004; Holley and Patel 2005).
Thyme oil mainly contains thymol, p-cymene and carvacrol, which demonstrate antimicrobial and antioxidant activities (Kaloustian and others 2005; Sasso and others 2006; Youdim and others 2002). Thyme oil has been reported to inhibit the growth of Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, Penicillium spp. and many other bacteria (Friedman and others 2006;
Smith and others 2001; Sasso and others 2006; Singh and others 2003; Suhr and Nielsen 2003). The antimicrobial activity of thyme oil was adversely affected by food composition, especially lipid content (Singh and others 2003; Smith and others 2001).
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
According to a first aspect of the invention, there is provided an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial.
According to a second aspect of the invention, there is provided a method of protecting a perishable food surface from microbial contamination comprising:
providing an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial; and applying the antimicrobial coating to the perishable food surface wherein the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
Figure 1. Application of coatings to chicken drumettes: A) 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch (PS) containing 10 % (w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP): B) 1%(w/v) alginate containing 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC). Solution (a) contained 1(w/v) %
CaCI2 plus ASC; solution (b) contained 1%(w/v) sodium alginate.
Figure 2. Effect of inclusion of commercial AMs in polymeric coatings on survival of inoculated Salmonella on chicken skin during storage at 4 C for 5 d. TSP =
trisodium phosphate, ASC = acidified sodium chlorite, PS = pea starch. Columns with different letters at the same sampling time are significantly (P <_ 0.05) different.
Figure 3. Surface pH of chicken drumettes dipped in 10 %(w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP) and 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) with and without inclusion in 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch (PS) or 1.0 % (w/v) calcium alginate (Algn), respectively during storage at 4 C.
Figure 4. Effect of antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) coating viscosity (prepared with different concentrations of PS) on the initial contact angle of coating drops applied to the chicken skin surface.
Figure 5. Effect of pea starch (PS) concentration change in the antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) coatings on the initial contact angle of the coating drops on the chicken skin surface.
Figure 6 Schematic assembly used for preparing calcium alginate gel Figure 7 Dimensionless mass of solids (Ms/Mso) in starch gels (a) and aiginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution, with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 8 Dimensionless mass of water (M,N/Mo) in starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution, with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 9 Concentration of antimicrobials (C) released from PS+TSP and ALG+ASC
gels into the saline solution, as a function of immersion time (t), with fitted curves based on Fikian diffusion Figure 10 Dimensionless storage moduli (G'/G'o) for starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution Figure 11 Dimensionless solids content (SC/SCo) of starch gels (a) and alginate gels (b) as a function of time (t) of immersion in saline solution Figure 12 Consistency profile of pea starch gels with and without thyme oil at 25 C.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
Unless defined otherwise, all technical and scientific terms used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the invention belongs. Although any methods and materials similar or equivalent to those described herein can be used in the practice or testing of the present invention, the preferred methods and materials are now described. All publications mentioned hereunder are incorporated herein by reference.
Described herein is an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial.
In some embodiments, as discussed below, the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating comprises 0.1-10% or 0.1-
5%
hydrophilic polymer and 0.1-25% or 0.5-25% or 1-25% antimicrobial.
The hydrophilic polymer may be selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, (pre-)gelatinized starch, modified starch, dextrin, maltodextrin, pectin, iota-carrageenan, lambda-carrageenan, gum arabic, gum acacia, gum ghatti, guar gum, xanthan gum, gellan gum, pullulan and combinations thereof. As discussed below, in a preferred embodiment, the hydrophilic polymer is pea starch.
As will be apparent to one of skill in the art, in the instant invention, the polymer allows for the slow release of antimicrobials (or sanitizers) which in turn extends the effective antimicrobial period. Thus, the polymer provides sustained delivery of antimicrobial agents using gel type coating materials consisting of edible polymers. In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating is used for covering perishable food surfaces, thereby protecting the foods from contamination by environmental microbial hazards, and also eliminating microorganisms which may have previously existed on the food surfaces.
It is of note that animal carcasses are one example of a perishable food surface.
However the antimicrobial coating may be used for any perishable solid foods or any foods which are susceptible to surface contamination during processing through cross-contamination. In addition to meat products, these include any solid foods which are subject to reprocessing or post-processing such as shredding, slicing, cutting, grinding and the like. These include for example but by no means limited to cheeses, fruits, vegetables, and any frozen/refrigerated foods.
In some embodiments, as discussed below, the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating comprises 0.1-10% or 0.1-5%
hydrophilic polymer and 0.1-25% antimicrobial.
As discussed below, in some embodiments, the antibacterial is preferably thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol, terpineol or a combination thereof.
As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, many natural oils are high in thymol and pinene, for example but by no means limited to thyme oil, rosemary oil, clove oil, basil oil, mint oil, Eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil and oregano oil. In the examples discussed below, thyme oil is used but it is to be understood that any suitable source of thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol-4, and/or terpineol may be used within the invention. In other embodiments, the antimicrobial is trisodium phosphate (TSP), acidified sodium chlorite or another such suitable antimicrobial known in the art as discussed herein.
As discussed below, it is believed that the thymol, carvacrol, iinalool, geraniol, thujanol, and terpineol in thyme oil enhances the intermolecular interaction of the polymer, for example, high-amylose pea starch, resulting in a film solution which has much higher yield stress.
In the present study, thyme oil was incorporated into a polymer, for example, high-amylose pea starch gel and applied on chicken breast meats pre-inoculated with spoilage or pathogenic microoranisms. The objective was to characterize: (1) the rheological characteristics of the starch-based coating material with and without thyme oil; and (2) the antimicrobial effectiveness of thyme oil in a starch-based coating material against food borne pathogens and spoilage bacteria on chicken meat. The goal of this project was to determine whether the formation of an antimicrobial coating containing thyme oil applied to chicken carcasses would be suitable to reduce the effects of contamination by a high-speed poultry line, enhance the safety of poultry products and extend their shelf-life.
Fresh chickens are processed at plants using high-speed processing lines which are vulnerable to rapid cross-contamination of large amounts of product.
Antimicrobial coating on chicken carcasses may reduce the effects of this contamination during processing and improve product shelf-life and safety. Thyme oil, a natural antimicrobial flavor, was mixed at 0.5% (v/v) with a pre-gelatinized pea starch coating solution. The coating solution was spread on chicken breast meat after inoculation with Salmonella Typhimurium plus S. Heidelberg, and also Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, or Pseudominas aeruginosa. After inoculation at 6 log cfu/g, the chicken meats were packaged in plastic bags and stored at 4 C. During 12 d storage, total aerobic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria and inoculated organisms were counted at 4 d intervals.
Thyme oil treatments reduced the viability of Salmonella as well as the growth of Listeria and Pseudomonas by 2 log cfu/g, and appeared to eliminate inoculated Campylobacter during storage. The addition of thyme oil increased the viscosity of the pre-gelatinized pea starch solution, but these effects may be minimized by the use of a suitable washer pressure at application. The results suggested that thyme oil inclusion in an edible starch coating may be a satisfactory delivery system to enhance the safety of processed fresh meat.
Thyme oil reduced C. jejuni viability below detectable levels, significantly inhibited the growth of S. enterica serovars as well as L. monocytogenes, and delayed the growth of P. aeruginosa on chicken breast meats. Pea starch coating was used as a delivery vehicle for thyme oil and also served as a viscosity enhancer to extend the contact of thyme oil with the chicken meat surface. This study has shown that thyme oil either alone or in a gelatinized pea starch coating was effective in delaying growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria on chicken meat surfaces during refrigerated storage.
These treatments were effective in essentially eliminating large numbers of C.
jejuni from the chicken meat and significantly reduced the viability of S. Typhimurium. The pea starch coating may be a useful vehicle for application of natural antimicrobials to control undesirable organisms on chicken carcasses.
Antimicrobial Effectiveness, Drumette Weight and Surface pH Changes PS+TSP and alginate+ASC coatings on chicken appeared clear, continuous and homogenous (Figure 1). Alginate+ASC coating imparted a pale yellowish color to the drumettes while the PS+TSP coating did not induce any noticeable visual changes. Figure 2 shows the reduction in Salmonella on drumettes over 120 h at 4 C. PS not only maintained the antimicrobial activity of TSP longer but also increased its antimicrobial activity compared to the TSP treatment without PS. Because of the viscosity of PS, the TSP + PS solution has longer contact time to chicken surface compared to the TSP
solution without PS. This extended contact time increased the effectiveness of TSP.
Enhanced antimicrobial activity was also exhibited in the alginate+ASC
coating. Coatings with TSP and ASC had significantly (P <_ 0.05) greater antimicrobial activity than the corresponding solutions without polymers after 24 h. AMs in aqueous solution and in antimicrobial-free coatings were unable to cause > 1.0 log cfu/g reductions.
Most (88 %) of the PS+TSP coating containing TSP appeared to drip from the skin within 1 h (Table 1), whereas the coating without TSP was better retained on the surface for 24h. This suggests that TSP may have reduced the viscosity of the PS
coatings and accelerated its drip from the skin, which could have occurred as a result of starch degradation under alkaline conditions (BeMiller 1965). Calcium alginate coatings with and without ASC were more stable throughout incubation. Initial weight gains of 7.9 and 6.9 %
during alginate treatments were also greater than that of untreated controls (water) at the end of the tests (Table 1). It was suggested that the acidic nature (pH 5.0) of ASC
increased the viscosity of the alginate matrix by enhanced charging of calcium ions and protonation of carboxyl groups (King 1982). Under these conditions calcium ions can more readily form bridges with the negatively-charged alginate matrix and the repulsion between protonated carboxyl groups of alginate is lowered, which promotes the formation of cross-linked networks (King 1982).
Figure 3 shows that TSP increased and ASC decreased the initial pH of the chicken skin. Although AMs in solution caused significant (P <_ 0.05) initial changes in the skin pH, the effects were transient and did not last more than 24 h. TSP and ASC in coatings significantly changed the surface pH which was maintained up to 120 h and 72 h, respectively (Figure 3). Gelatinized starch is soluble in aqueous environments (Ratnayake et al., 2002). It slowly dissolves within the pores and follicles of the skin and ostensibly releases TSP into skin, which improves its antimicrobial action. The alginate matrix seemed to be more stable but chlorous acid (HCfO2) which is formed by sodium chlorite acidification during ASC formulation, may gradually diffuse inside the matrix.
As it reaches the higher pH of the skin, chlorous acid is dissolved into the skin structure (King 1982;
Oyarzabal et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 2002). From the results of this study, it is shown that the PS and alginate coatings can prolong the exposure of surface bacteria to the TSP
and ASC at high and low pH, respectively, thereby interfering with cell metabolic activity (Siragusa and Dickson, 1992).
Coating Absorptiveness Both the rate and amount in absorption of PS+TSP and alginate+ASC coatings to the skin depended on the polymer content of the coatings (Table 2 and 3). At concentrations > 3.5 % PS and > 0.5 % alginate, the absorptiveness was significantly (P <_ 0.05) reduced during 60 min possibly because the polymers are hydrophilic. At the lowest PS concentration (0.5 %), the amount of coating absorbed by the skin was higher than that of water (Table 2) because the polymers are diluted and do not exist as a separate layer on the skin. At low concentration, the hydrophilic polymers adhered on the chicken skin and increased the water absorptiveness. In addition, these values are comparable to the amounts of absorbed water during commercial immersion chilling for 30 min (Thomas and McMeekin, 1984). Retention of residual polymers inside skin crevices, folds and follicles which would not be removed by surface wiping may have contribution to extra weight gain. PS+TSP coatings were absorbed quicker than alginate+ASC coating as indicated by the higher absorption rate values (i.e., the slope of the absorption curve) in Table 3. Both the rate and quantity of PS absorbed was higher compared to alginate at concentrations that exerted antimicrobial effectiveness (3.5 % and 1.0 %, respectively) (Table 2 and 3). This may explain the higher and more prolonged (120 h) antimicrobial effectiveness of the PS+TSP coating compared to the alginate+ASC coating (Figure 2).
This may also explain the greater antimicrobial activity of TSP in aqueous media against Salmonella on chicken skin (Mehyar et al., 2005). In addition, gelatinized PS
at low viscosity may more easily fill skin follicles and pores, bringing TSP directly in contact with more surface bacteria that may have been protected by irregularities in skin surface topography. Alginate+ASC exhibited higher antimicrobial activity than ASC
alone only at <_ 72 h of treatment (Figure 2B). This could have been due to the method of its application when the skin was first dipped in calcium chloride solution with ASC followed by dipping in an aqueous solution of sodium alginate. The formation of an ASC gradient in the alginate coating may have occurred which altered the amount of ASC exposed to targeted bacteria.
Coating Adhesion and Skin Wetting Properties Although the contact angle technique was successfully used to determine the critical surface energy of solids such as coated paper surfaces using probe liquids (Han and Krochta 2001), the method was less successful on chicken skin. None of the probe solutions formed drops on the skin regardless of their surface tension values which indicates that other factors beside surface energy, such as surface roughness, affected the initial contact angle. Nonetheless, measurements of initial contact angle were successfully used to determine adhesion of liquid materials to food surfaces (Michalski et al., 1997). In the present tests, the formation of discrete drops by the PS+TSP coating solution allowed contact angle measurement. However, stable drops with measurable angles were unobtainable from alginate+ASC coatings. Due to low viscosity calcium chloride and sodium alginate solutions diffused over the skin and yielded a thin film. This means that the contact angle method was not available to measure the surface energy of chicken skins. However, this indicates that any hydrophilic coating layer can adhere on the surface of chicken and form a film structure with surface covering.
PS+TSP coating at low viscosity (below 0.37 N s m"z) linearly affected the contact angle. At higher viscosity PS+TSP formed a gel at room temperature and the contact angle was no longer dependent on the viscosity (Figure 4). When the concentration of polymers is very high in the coating solution, the coating solution turns into what is effectively a gel. It is hard to use this gelled coating solution for the coating process. To obtain better coating, the coating solution should be a viscous solution when it is coated on the surface, and form a gel as it dries. Therefore, the coating solution should contain polymers at the concentration lower than the gelation concentration for coating process.
The effect of PS concentrations on the contact angle as an indicator of coating adhesiveness to the skin is shown in Figure 5. In general, increasing the PS
concentration increased coating adhesion to the skin. At a low concentration of PS (< 0.5 %) the measurement of the contact angle was not possible, but between 0.5 and 1.5 %
PS, the contact angle increased with concentration. At PS levels ranging from 1.5 %
through 3.5 %, the contact angle was not affected (P > 0.05). At 4.0 %, the contact angle increased to 70 , whereas at higher concentrations the solutions began to gelatinize to form a soft solid, which invalidated estimation of adhesion by contact angle measurement.
Several factors could influence the changes in the initial contact angles shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Skin roughness was believed to be responsible for generating unstable liquid drops of the PS+TSP coating solution at low PS concentrations (< 0.5 %). Under these conditions the drops were quickly absorbed and disappeared in the skin. Increasing the PS
concentration from 0.5 % to 1.5 % increased the coating viscosity from 0.004 to 0.37 N S m-2, which resulted in proportional increases in the initial contact angle.
The increase in viscosity gave the coating drops the strength to overcome the effects of skin roughness and become stabilized on the surface. At 1.5 % to 3.5 % PS the initial contact angle was not affected by the increases in viscosity (from 0.37 to 1.0 N s m Z) and the resulting contact angle could account for the difference in the surface energies between the skin and the coating solution. In order for the probe solutions to accurately measure critical surface energy of the skin, they should have a viscosity in the range of 0.37 to 1.0 N s m"z. At high levels of PS (> 4.0 %) the solutions started to gelatinize and the initial contact angle measured was independent of the surface energy difference.
Overall, the adhesion of the coating to the skin depended on PS concentration and solution viscosity. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, just a reduction of polymer concentration can decrease viscosity. The polymer concentration is the main factor to control the viscosity of the antimicrobial coating layer and effectiveness of the antimicrobial activity.
Stabilizing TSP and ASC in PS and alginate coatings, respectively, enhanced their antimicrobial activity against Salmonella on chicken skin. PS+TSP caused significant reductions of the bacterial numbers for longer periods than alginate+ASC. This could have been caused by several factors including: distribution of the AMs within the coatings;
prolonged effects of the treatments on skin pH; coating absorptiveness; and coating adhesion to the skin. Although PS+TSP was more effective, it was less stable on the skin.
The coating tended to drip from the skin but also absorbed quicker than the alginate+ASC
coating. Since they had transient (<_ 60 min) stability on the skin surface, but had good skin adhesion, with low absorption and significant antimicrobial activity, 5 - 15 %
TSP in coatings of 1 - 5 % (w/v) PS may be of industrial value in applications to reduce numbers of Salmonella on poultry skin.
Solids loss and water uptake Hydrogels in contact with solution lose solids and take up water (Figs.7 and 8).
After immersion in the saline solution for 3 hr, hydrogels lost 40% or more of the initial solids while absorbing more water at the same time. The solids loss and water uptake were largely a process of Fickian diffusion, as shown by good fittings.
However, the noticeable scattering of data points about the Fickian curves may imply the concurrent gel erosion and swelling in an oscillatory manner (Makino et al., 1996, Colloids Surf B
Biointerfaces 8: 93-100). The presence of TSP in starch gel aggravated the loss of solids (Fig.7a), whereas ASC made little difference in the solids loss of alginate gels (Fig.7b). In contrast, the presence of TSP or ASC in the gel substantially affected the degree of water uptake (Fig.8). For example, gels with antimicrobials absorbed about 45% more water than those without antimicrobials after 3-hr immersion in the saline solution.
Due to their high charge density, phosphate anions also tend to structure water by hydrogen bonding (Jane, 1993, Starch/Starke 45: 161-166), and facilitate the water uptake of starch gel. It is likely that those electrolytes by electrostatic interactions open up the cross-linked gel structures, which become more accessible to water molecules. Meanwhile, more solids would be lost in a more open gel structure, since it imposes less hindrance for small molecules (e.g. antimicrobials) and/or dangling clusters to leach out.
Antimicrobial release As shown in Fig. 9, the release of antimicrobials from hydrogels into the saline solution followed Fikian diffusion. All R-squared values for the non-linear fitting were greater than 0.95. The apparent diffusivity for TSP in starch gel was 2.72X10-9 mz/s, much lower than the apparent diffusivity of the solids (10.3x10-9 mZ/s) but close to the water diffusivity (2.88x10-9 m2/s). Similarly, the apparent diffusivity for ASC
(6.58X10-9 m2/s) in alginate gel was lower than the apparent diffusivity of the solids (9.22X10-9 m2/s) but fairly close to the water diffusivity (5.21 X 10-9 m2/s). On this basis, the antimicrobials were most likely unattached to polymer chains in the gel, but rather liberated in the water phase.
Therefore, the release of antimicrobials TSP and ASC resulted from the osmotic pressure, rather than dissolution of solids. Due to higher solids content of the starch gel compared to the alginate gel, the denser gel structure imposes a greater block for the antimicrobial to get out (or water to get in), resulting in a slower release rate of TSP.
Therefore, the PS+TSP gel would be of particular interest to applications where sustained release of the antimicrobial agent is needed.
Storage modulus of hydrogel The dimensionless storage modulus (G'/G'o) of hydrogel in the saline solution decreased with immersion time in a trend of exponential decay (Fig.10).
Substantielly decreased solids content (Fig.11) due to both solids loss (Fig.7) and water uptake (Fig.8) was largely responsible for the softening of gels as the immersion prolonged.
Since the solids content of PS+TSP gel decreased faster than that of the PS-TSP gel (Fig.11a), it is not unexpected that storage modulus of the PS+TSP gel decreased faster than that of the PS-TSP gel (Fig.10a). However, the ALG+ASC gel showed significantly slower modulus reduction than the ALG-ASC gel (Fig.10b), even though both gels had little difference in the change in dimensionless solids content with time (Fig.11 b). The stabilization effect of ASC on the alginate gel presumably results from the immobilization of Caz+ in the gel by citrate from ASC. Otherwise CaZ+ would be prone to ion exchange with Na+ in the saline solution, as in the ALG-ASC gel.
The presence of antimicrobials substantially influenced the rheological properties of hydrogels by accelerating solids loss and water gain. Since the release of antimicrobials was slower than the loss of total solids in the gel, and antimicrobiais and water had the same level of diffusivity, it is suggested that the release of antimicrobial TSP in starch gel or ASC in alginate gel is largely controlled by osmotic-pressure-induced gel swelling (water in and ions out), rather than dissolution of polymer chains in the gel structure. This work implies that water diffusivity in hydrogel could be used as a monitor of drug release when the drug is known not to strongly interact with polymer chains in the hydrogel. There are two main mechanisms of release (1) diffusion and (2) erosion. Most gels may have either one or a combination of these two mechanisms. Diffusion is the release of active agent from the matrix gels through diffusion, and erosion means that the release is caused by the degradation of the matrix gels. Since all biodegradable polymers will be eroded eventually, the mechanism of early stage release is important to control the release rate so as to maximize effectiveness.
Antimicrobial Coatings A 100 ml dispersion of 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch was prepared in cold water. The mixture was heated to boiling with mixing and held for 5 min to complete starch gelatinization. The solution was then cooled to room temperature and trisodium phosphate (TSP) was added (10 % w/v), mixed and homogenized by a Powergen-700 for 5 s at 20000 rpm. This yielded PS+TSP coating solution.
Calcium alginate coating (alginate+ASC) consisted of two solutions of 100 ml each.
Solution (a) was 1%(w/v) calcium chloride in acidified sodium chlorite (ASC, 1200 ppm) prepared by mixing equal portions of the acid and salt parts of Sanova provided by Alcide Corp. This solution was used within 30 min as recommended by Alcide Corp.
Solution (b) contained 1%(w/v) sodium alginate dissolved in water and mixed. Coatings free of AMs were prepared following the same procedures but without TSP addition to PS and without ASC addition to alginate. PS+TSP solutions containing 0.5, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, 4.0 or 4.8 %
(w/v) PS, and alginate+ASC with 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 % (w/v) alginate were prepared as outlined above. These solutions were used for absorptiveness, initial contact angle and viscosity measurements.
Chicken Treatment Unchilled chicken thighs and drumettes (Mehyar et al., 2005) were obtained from a local processing plant immediately after slaughtering and used within 30 min after their arrival. The warm thighs were used for contact angle tests. The drumettes were inoculated with an ampicillin-resistant Salmonella cocktail. Bacterial cultures used to inoculate drumettes were: Salmonella entericia serovars Typhimurium (# 02-8425 and # 02-8421) and Heidelberg (# 271). The three strains were grown separately in tryptic soy broth (TSB) for 24 h at 37 C. Cultures were standardized to an OD600 of 0.80 using sterile TSB to yield about 9 log cfu/mi and were combined in equal portions. Inoculations were performed by dipping drumettes in triplicate into 300 ml bacterial suspension containing 7 log cfu/ml for s 15 sec. The drumettes were hung for 10 min to allow bacterial attachment before being dipped for 0.25 min in one of the following solutions: (1) TSP (10% w/v); (2) ASC (1200 ppm); (3) PS+TSP coating; (4) calcium chloride in ASC (solution a) then dipped in sodium alginate solution (solution b) to form the alginate+ASC coating; (5) coatings of 3.5 %(w/v) PS without AMs; or (6) 1 % (w/v) calcium alginate without AMs. Drumettes were weighed before and directly after dipping using a digital balance ( 0.00005 g). The drumettes were hung inside a covered glass chamber with 85 % relative humidity and incubated at 4 C for 120 h. Samples were withdrawn in triplicate for testing after 1, 24, 72 and 120 h incubation.
Changes in Drumette pH, Weight and Viable Salmonella after Coating At each sampling day, the surface pH of the coated drumettes was measured at three different locations using a pH meter equipped with an Isfet surface probe and their average values were recorded. Drumettes were then weighed and their skins were excised and placed in stomacher bags with buffered peptone water (10 g peptone, 5 g NaCI, 3.5 g NaZHPO4, 1.5 g KH2PO4 per liter) and homogenized for 3 min to prepare 10"' homogenates. The homogenates were then serially diluted and plated on pre-poured XLD
agar containing 100 ppm ampicillin. Salmonella were counted after 24 h at 35 C.
Logarithmic reductions were determined by calculating the differences in Salmonella numbers between the control and the treated samples.
Coating Absorptiveness The method of Han and Krochta (1999) was modified to measure the coating absorption into chicken skin. A plastic ring specimen holder with four screws, similar to that used by Han and Krochta (1999), was used to fix skin samples. Skins of unchilled chicken thighs were excised and used within 10 min. The outer surface of the skin was placed between the base and the ring (diameter 5.8 cm) facing upward in the holder and the ring was secured with screws. The holder with the skin was then weighed (Wo) and 5 mi of the PS+TSP coating solution, or 2.5 ml of 1%(w/v) caicium chloride in ASC
(solution a) and 2.5 ml of solution b were applied on the top of the skin.
Nine samples were prepared for each coating and the holding units were placed on a flat plate at room temperature to allow the skin samples to absorb the coating solutions. Samples were withdrawn in triplicate at 10, 30 and 60 min after application. Absorption was terminated by wiping away the excess coating solutions which remained on the skin surface with a tissue at each sampling time. The weights of the apparatus holding the skin were recorded before (Wwet) and after drying (Wdry). The absorptiveness (% At) was defined as:
% At =(Wwet - Wdry)/(Wo - We) x 100 where We is the weight of an empty apparatus without skin.
Contact Angle and Skin Wetting Properties The initial contact angles for the various probe liquids and the coating solutions on the skin were used to determine critical surface energy of skin and absorption profile of coating solutions, respectively. Fresh, unchilled chicken thighs were used and their surfaces were wiped by a dry tissue to remove any residual water. The thighs were cut on one side lengthwise to the bone with a razor blade and a portion of the skin and flesh was removed from the thigh. For testing, the specimens were placed on a rack with adjustable height, and attached to the rack using plastic putty. A digital microscope (10 X
magnification) was aimed horizontally to observe the cut chicken surface.
Drops of 10 pL
of the probe liquids or coating solutions were placed on the skin surface using a microsyringe and the side images of the liquid drops were recorded by a computer after confirming the horizontal level position of samples. In order to account for any asymmetry of the image caused from improper leveling, the contact angles of both sides of each liquid drop were measured and the average values were recorded. All measurements were done inside a closed chamber equipped with an electric fan to circulate the internal air which was equilibrated to 85 % relative humidity with a saturated solution of zinc sulfate. The probe liquids used were HPLC grade water, glycerol, ethylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide. In order to study the effect of PS viscosity on the contact angle, the dynamic viscosity of PS+TSP solutions with different PS concentrations was determined using a rheometer. The instrument was operated with parallel plate geometry (plate diameter = 20 mm and gap = 1 mm). Samples were placed in the apparatus and allowed to equilibrate at 25 C prior to analysis. Measurements were conducted at 3 Pa shear stress and 1 Hz frequency. The relationships between the initial contact angle and PS
concentration of PS+TSP coating solution, and between the initial contact angle and the PS+TSP
coating solution viscosity were determined.
Flow properties of starch-based coating solution Figure 12 shows the shear stress-strain curve of the pea starch coating solution with and without thyme oil. From this figure the consistency index and power law flow behavior index were calculated, and these results are summarized in Table 4.
The consistency of the gelatinized pea starch coating solution was affected significantly by the presence of thyme oil, which caused increased viscosity at low shear rate range. The addition of thyme oil decreased the power law flow behavior index and made the starch gel more viscous and pseudoplastic.
Figure 12 shows that both starch coating solutions, regardless of thyme oil addition, exhibited shear-thinning pseudoplastic behavior below 100 s-1 of shear rate.
However, above 100 s-1, the pseudoplastic characteristics were converted to Newtonian behavior, specifically Bingham flow. Starch solutions possess intermolecular interactions and form elastic starch gels when the deformation is not significant, such as occurred below 100 s-1 of shear. However, above this critical shear, the intermolecular interaction of starch gels could not be maintained and were converted from an elastic gel to a viscous solution. The corresponding critical shear stresses of 100 s-1 shear rate were approximately 20 Pa and 5 Pa for pea starch with and without thyme oil, respectively.
Yield stresses (the Y-intercept of Bingham) were 22.4903 Pa and 5.3486 Pa for pea starch solutions with and without thyme oil, respectively, which reflects the dramatic increase in the yield stress of the starch solutions caused by thyme oil addition. This result implies that thyme oil enhanced the intermolecular interaction of starch, perhaps by the formation of starch (amylose)-lipid complexes. Han and others (2006) found that the addition of beeswax to gelatinized pea starch did not change the starch structure and related characteristics until 30% (w/w) of beeswax had been added to the starch gel.
Therefore, the changes in visco-elastic properties of pea starch gels by 5% thyme oil are remarkable.
Thyme oil contains mostly phenolic compounds that have very small molecular weight compared to those of beeswax. It is hypothesized that the small hydrophobic molecules can be incorporated within the amylose helix much easier than macromolecular lipids, and consequently form a high-degree amylose-lipid complex. For the practical application of a thyme oil-starch coating for poultry processing, it is suggested that an inside-outside bird washer be used. The washer would spray the starch coating solution at both high pressure and high speed feeding rate. Therefore, within the practical operating range of feeding, which will be definitely over 100 s-1 shear rate, the thyme oil-starch solution will behave as a Bingham fluid. A minimum 22.49 Pa of pressure is required for the bird washer to initiate the flow of the starch coating containing thyme oil. The higher yield stress produces a thicker coating weight, Since the yield stress of the coating solution increased 5 times after thyme oil addition, theoretically on a smooth surface hanging vertically (e.g., chicken carcass on an overhead conveyor), the thickness of the coating containing thyme oil will be 5 times greater than that of a starch coating without thyme oil. Therefore, understanding the effects of yield stress upon coating viscosity is critical to optimize coating application and uniformity. After washing, chicken carcasses are warm and the antimicrobial coating solution can be sprayed at ambient processing room temperature.
Microbial viability on Salmonella-inoculated chicken Application of the starch coating to chicken cubes had little effect on the numbers of total organisms, the lactic acid bacteria present, and the viability of inoculated (ampicillin resistant) Salmonella during 12 d storage at 4 C (Table 5).
Numbers of total organisms (psychrotrophs) and lactic acid bacteria increased similarly in the presence or absence of the starch coating. MRS agar is a non-selective enriched medium and Salmonella were able to form colonies on this agar. Salmonella numbers decreased by about 1 log cfu/g during refrigerated storage in treatments with and without the starch coating. Inclusion of thyme oil in the coating delayed the growth of psychrotrophs until day 4 and the lactic acid bacteria until after day 8. Thyme oil inclusion in the coating had a significant negative effect on Salmonella viability with recoveries being 2 log cfu/g lower at day 4 and this reduction was increased to 3 log cfu/g at days 8 and 12.
Microbial viability on Campylobacter-inoculated chicken As with the previously reported trial (Table 5), the starch coating had essentially no effect on the growth of psychrotrophs and lactic acid bacteria during storage of the chicken meat at 4 C for 12 d (Table 6). However, addition of starch coating containing thyme oil significantly reduced the extent of both psychrotrophic and lactic acid bacterial growth by 2 and 3 log cfu/g at days 8 and 12, respectively. Direct addition of thyme oil as a water emulsion without the coating caused a similar delay in psychrotrophic bacterial growth, but had a greater initial inhibitory effect on the lactic acid bacteria. These latter recovered by day 8 to reach about the same numbers as were present on chicken coated with starch containing thyme oil. These latter levels were 2 to 3 log cfu/g less than in treatments where thyme oil was not used. Campylobacter were absent from the chicken meat used in this study, and following inoculation their numbers were relatively stable during storage at 4 C. A very slight reduction in Campylobacter viability was noted in response to starch coating at day 12, but use of thyme oil alone or use of thyme oil following its incorporation into the starch coating caused an immediate reduction in Campylobacter viability to below detectable levels, and this inhibitory or lethal effect was maintained for the remainder of the study (Table 6).
Microbial viability on Listeria-inoculated chicken As noted in Tables 5 and 6, psychrotrophic and lactic acid bacteria naturally present on uninoculated chicken grew rapidly and reached 7 to 8 log cfu/g by 12 d of storage at 4 C (Tables 7 and 8). There was little difference in bacterial recoveries (psychrotrophs, lactic acid bacteria or inoculated L. monocytogenes) among the media used when starch-coated chicken (with or without L. monocytogenes inoculation) was stored at 4 C for 12 d. L. monocytogenes was able to grow on the MRS medium used for lactic acid bacteria recovery, and contributed to the number of colonies recovered as lactic acid bacteria.
The extent of bacterial growth on BHI and MRS agars was reduced in treatments containing thyme oil, and inhibition caused by direct addition of thyme oil was only slightly greater than that caused by the thyme oil-starch coating (Table 7). The inhibitory effects were not as great as noted with Campylobacter (Table 6).
L. monocytogenes was not recovered on Listeria selective agar from uninoculated chicken during storage, but following its inoculation the organism increased one log cfu/g during storage. In addition, growth of L. monocytogenes was unaffected by the presence of the starch coating as noted with Salmonella and Campylobacter. Thyme oil alone or when incorporated into the starch coating was inhibitory to L. monocytogenes (on Listeria agar) to about the same extent (> 1 log cfu/g reduction) by 12 d storage.
Microbial viability on Pseudomonas-inoculated chicken The microbial growth profile on chicken inoculated with P. aeroginosa as monitored on BHI and MRS agars (Table 8) did not differ from results obtained with the other inoculated organisms when thyme oil was not used (Tables 5, 6 and 7). In addition, the pea starch coating did not further alter bacterial recoveries on these media or Pseudomonas agar during storage at 4 C. Thyme oil along or when incorporated in the pea starch coating significantly delayed the growth of bacteria on chicken monitored with all three media. These differences were from one to 2 log cfu/g and were noted at 12 d of storage (Table 8), however, there was no significant difference in effectiveness of thyme oil action before or after incorporation in the starch coating.
Antimicrobial effectiveness of thyme oil Thyme oil has been shown to one of several potently antimicrobial essential oils during tests against a range of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. Its major component, thymol, was as effective as eugenol and carvacrol against most of the pathogens tested in the present study (Burt 2004). Generally, essential oils are more effective against Gram positive bacteria, but Gram negative bacteria can be vulnerable (Burt 2004;
Holley and Patel 2005). In the present work delayed growth of aerobic psychrotrophs and lactic acid bacteria was not unexpected. Inhibition of L. monocytogenes growth and reduction in Salmonella viability in the presence of thyme oil reported here are consistent with the results from other studies where different substrates and temperatures of incubation were used (Burt 2004). The delayed growth of P. aeroginosa reported here is a positive finding since'Pseudomonas frequently show resistance to essential oil treatment (Holley and Patel 2005), however, it is likely that during longer storage P. aeroginosa would recover from the inhibitory effects of thyme oil exposure. One of the more important observations made here was the drastic reductions in numbers of C. jejuni which occurred immediately upon exposure to thyme oil alone or to the starch-thyme oil coating, which was sustained during 12 d storage. Surprisingly little work is reported in the literature concerning C. jejuni inhibition by thyme oil. In a study by Friedman and others (2002) thyme oil was found to be as effective as cinnamaidehyde, eugenol, carvacrol, citral, geranol, and benzaldehyde against C. jejuni in a microplate assay.
In the C. jejuni and L. monocytogenes tests reported here where thyme oil was directly added to the chicken meat surface, a more immediate inhibitory effect was found against the lactic acid bacteria, however, this difference was not evident at 12 d storage.
In P. aeruginosa tests the starch-thyme oil coating initially showed a greater inhibitory effect but this difference was resolved by day 8 of storage. In a separate test it was found that Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, and P. aeruginosa were able to form small colonies on MRS agar. Thus, lactic acid bacterial recoveries may have been over-estimated to some extent. However, this observation does not affect the overall conclusions from the study.
Statistical Analysis Data obtained were the average values of three replicates for treatments. Each treatment was conducted twice in separate experiments. The statistical analytical system was used to compare means of the replicates at each sampling time. A
significance level of 5 % was used for all analyses. Linear regression analysis for absorption rate was conducted using the data analysis option of a spread sheet for the absorption curves (weight vs. time).
Preparation of starch and alginate hydrogels 3 grams of pea starch (PS, 37% amylose, Nutri-Pea Ltd., Portage-la-Prairie, MB) was dispersed in 100 ml cold water. The dispersion was heated to boiling with mixing and held for 5 min when starch granules were almost fully gelatinized. The solution was then cooled to room temperature (23 C), and 10 grams of trisodium phosphate (TSP, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) was added in, followed by homogenization with a Powergen-700 (Fisher Scientific International Inc., Whitby, ON) for 5 s at 20,000 rpm.
The solution was then poured into two 200 ml beakers, with 50 ml solution in each beaker, and left overnight at room temperature to allow the stabilization of gel structure. PS
hydrogel without TSP was also prepared and used as control.
Two solutions were used to prepare calcium alginate (ALG) hydrogel. Solution (a) was an acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) solution containing 1% w/v of calcium chloride (CaCl2, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO). The ASC solution was prepared by mixing equal portions of citric acid solution (900 ppm) and sodium chlorite solution (1100 ppm) (Sanova, Alcide Corp., Redmond, WA), and was used within 30 min after preparation.
Solution (b) contained 0.5% w/v sodium alginate (Product No.180947, CAS 9005-38-3, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) dissolved in water at room temperature.
Calcium alginate gel was prepared using a plastic assembly consisting of a mold and two fixative rings (Fig.6). A piece of CaCI2 permeable membrane (Dialysis Tubing, Fisher Brand regenerated cellulose, Fisher Scientific, Nepean, ON) was first attached onto the mold by one fixative ring. Solution (b) of 50m1 was poured into the mold, and the mold was covered by another piece of the membrane, which was fixed onto the mold using the other ring. Two assemblies containing the sodium alginate solution were then immersed in solution (a) of 500 ml and taken out after 24h. Self-standing calcium alginate gels containing ASC were obtained after the removal of the rings and membranes.
Calcium alginate gels without ASC were also prepared by the same procedure except that solution (a) used was a pure CaC12 solution with the same concentration of 1% w/v.
Rheological properties of hydrogels in air and in saline Freshly prepared hydrogel was cut into a cylinder using a plastic borer with a height of 10 mm and internal diameter of 20 mm. The gel cylinder was then sliced into specimens with a thickness of 5 mm by a sharp blade. Rheological analysis was carried out using a controlled stress rheometer (AR-1000, TA Instruments Inc., New Castle, DE) with 20-mm parallel plate geometry. After a specimen was centered on the base platen, the upper platen was programmed to move down at a decelerating speed until it came in contact with the specimen in order to avoid any pre-loading deformation.
Oscillatory stress sweeps from 0.1 Pa to 10 Pa at a frequency of 1 Hz were done at a temperature of 25 C
to determine the linear viscoelastic range for hydrogels in air. Since both gels exhibited linear elastic regions at stress below 2 Pa, a stress of 1 Pa was chosen for the following time-sweep experiments.
A physiological saline was prepared by dissolving 0.8 g of sodium chloride (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) in 100 ml tap water, followed by adjusting pH to
hydrophilic polymer and 0.1-25% or 0.5-25% or 1-25% antimicrobial.
The hydrophilic polymer may be selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, (pre-)gelatinized starch, modified starch, dextrin, maltodextrin, pectin, iota-carrageenan, lambda-carrageenan, gum arabic, gum acacia, gum ghatti, guar gum, xanthan gum, gellan gum, pullulan and combinations thereof. As discussed below, in a preferred embodiment, the hydrophilic polymer is pea starch.
As will be apparent to one of skill in the art, in the instant invention, the polymer allows for the slow release of antimicrobials (or sanitizers) which in turn extends the effective antimicrobial period. Thus, the polymer provides sustained delivery of antimicrobial agents using gel type coating materials consisting of edible polymers. In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating is used for covering perishable food surfaces, thereby protecting the foods from contamination by environmental microbial hazards, and also eliminating microorganisms which may have previously existed on the food surfaces.
It is of note that animal carcasses are one example of a perishable food surface.
However the antimicrobial coating may be used for any perishable solid foods or any foods which are susceptible to surface contamination during processing through cross-contamination. In addition to meat products, these include any solid foods which are subject to reprocessing or post-processing such as shredding, slicing, cutting, grinding and the like. These include for example but by no means limited to cheeses, fruits, vegetables, and any frozen/refrigerated foods.
In some embodiments, as discussed below, the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying.
In a preferred embodiment, the antimicrobial coating comprises 0.1-10% or 0.1-5%
hydrophilic polymer and 0.1-25% antimicrobial.
As discussed below, in some embodiments, the antibacterial is preferably thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol, terpineol or a combination thereof.
As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, many natural oils are high in thymol and pinene, for example but by no means limited to thyme oil, rosemary oil, clove oil, basil oil, mint oil, Eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil and oregano oil. In the examples discussed below, thyme oil is used but it is to be understood that any suitable source of thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol-4, and/or terpineol may be used within the invention. In other embodiments, the antimicrobial is trisodium phosphate (TSP), acidified sodium chlorite or another such suitable antimicrobial known in the art as discussed herein.
As discussed below, it is believed that the thymol, carvacrol, iinalool, geraniol, thujanol, and terpineol in thyme oil enhances the intermolecular interaction of the polymer, for example, high-amylose pea starch, resulting in a film solution which has much higher yield stress.
In the present study, thyme oil was incorporated into a polymer, for example, high-amylose pea starch gel and applied on chicken breast meats pre-inoculated with spoilage or pathogenic microoranisms. The objective was to characterize: (1) the rheological characteristics of the starch-based coating material with and without thyme oil; and (2) the antimicrobial effectiveness of thyme oil in a starch-based coating material against food borne pathogens and spoilage bacteria on chicken meat. The goal of this project was to determine whether the formation of an antimicrobial coating containing thyme oil applied to chicken carcasses would be suitable to reduce the effects of contamination by a high-speed poultry line, enhance the safety of poultry products and extend their shelf-life.
Fresh chickens are processed at plants using high-speed processing lines which are vulnerable to rapid cross-contamination of large amounts of product.
Antimicrobial coating on chicken carcasses may reduce the effects of this contamination during processing and improve product shelf-life and safety. Thyme oil, a natural antimicrobial flavor, was mixed at 0.5% (v/v) with a pre-gelatinized pea starch coating solution. The coating solution was spread on chicken breast meat after inoculation with Salmonella Typhimurium plus S. Heidelberg, and also Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, or Pseudominas aeruginosa. After inoculation at 6 log cfu/g, the chicken meats were packaged in plastic bags and stored at 4 C. During 12 d storage, total aerobic bacteria, lactic acid bacteria and inoculated organisms were counted at 4 d intervals.
Thyme oil treatments reduced the viability of Salmonella as well as the growth of Listeria and Pseudomonas by 2 log cfu/g, and appeared to eliminate inoculated Campylobacter during storage. The addition of thyme oil increased the viscosity of the pre-gelatinized pea starch solution, but these effects may be minimized by the use of a suitable washer pressure at application. The results suggested that thyme oil inclusion in an edible starch coating may be a satisfactory delivery system to enhance the safety of processed fresh meat.
Thyme oil reduced C. jejuni viability below detectable levels, significantly inhibited the growth of S. enterica serovars as well as L. monocytogenes, and delayed the growth of P. aeruginosa on chicken breast meats. Pea starch coating was used as a delivery vehicle for thyme oil and also served as a viscosity enhancer to extend the contact of thyme oil with the chicken meat surface. This study has shown that thyme oil either alone or in a gelatinized pea starch coating was effective in delaying growth of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria on chicken meat surfaces during refrigerated storage.
These treatments were effective in essentially eliminating large numbers of C.
jejuni from the chicken meat and significantly reduced the viability of S. Typhimurium. The pea starch coating may be a useful vehicle for application of natural antimicrobials to control undesirable organisms on chicken carcasses.
Antimicrobial Effectiveness, Drumette Weight and Surface pH Changes PS+TSP and alginate+ASC coatings on chicken appeared clear, continuous and homogenous (Figure 1). Alginate+ASC coating imparted a pale yellowish color to the drumettes while the PS+TSP coating did not induce any noticeable visual changes. Figure 2 shows the reduction in Salmonella on drumettes over 120 h at 4 C. PS not only maintained the antimicrobial activity of TSP longer but also increased its antimicrobial activity compared to the TSP treatment without PS. Because of the viscosity of PS, the TSP + PS solution has longer contact time to chicken surface compared to the TSP
solution without PS. This extended contact time increased the effectiveness of TSP.
Enhanced antimicrobial activity was also exhibited in the alginate+ASC
coating. Coatings with TSP and ASC had significantly (P <_ 0.05) greater antimicrobial activity than the corresponding solutions without polymers after 24 h. AMs in aqueous solution and in antimicrobial-free coatings were unable to cause > 1.0 log cfu/g reductions.
Most (88 %) of the PS+TSP coating containing TSP appeared to drip from the skin within 1 h (Table 1), whereas the coating without TSP was better retained on the surface for 24h. This suggests that TSP may have reduced the viscosity of the PS
coatings and accelerated its drip from the skin, which could have occurred as a result of starch degradation under alkaline conditions (BeMiller 1965). Calcium alginate coatings with and without ASC were more stable throughout incubation. Initial weight gains of 7.9 and 6.9 %
during alginate treatments were also greater than that of untreated controls (water) at the end of the tests (Table 1). It was suggested that the acidic nature (pH 5.0) of ASC
increased the viscosity of the alginate matrix by enhanced charging of calcium ions and protonation of carboxyl groups (King 1982). Under these conditions calcium ions can more readily form bridges with the negatively-charged alginate matrix and the repulsion between protonated carboxyl groups of alginate is lowered, which promotes the formation of cross-linked networks (King 1982).
Figure 3 shows that TSP increased and ASC decreased the initial pH of the chicken skin. Although AMs in solution caused significant (P <_ 0.05) initial changes in the skin pH, the effects were transient and did not last more than 24 h. TSP and ASC in coatings significantly changed the surface pH which was maintained up to 120 h and 72 h, respectively (Figure 3). Gelatinized starch is soluble in aqueous environments (Ratnayake et al., 2002). It slowly dissolves within the pores and follicles of the skin and ostensibly releases TSP into skin, which improves its antimicrobial action. The alginate matrix seemed to be more stable but chlorous acid (HCfO2) which is formed by sodium chlorite acidification during ASC formulation, may gradually diffuse inside the matrix.
As it reaches the higher pH of the skin, chlorous acid is dissolved into the skin structure (King 1982;
Oyarzabal et al., 2004; Schneider et al., 2002). From the results of this study, it is shown that the PS and alginate coatings can prolong the exposure of surface bacteria to the TSP
and ASC at high and low pH, respectively, thereby interfering with cell metabolic activity (Siragusa and Dickson, 1992).
Coating Absorptiveness Both the rate and amount in absorption of PS+TSP and alginate+ASC coatings to the skin depended on the polymer content of the coatings (Table 2 and 3). At concentrations > 3.5 % PS and > 0.5 % alginate, the absorptiveness was significantly (P <_ 0.05) reduced during 60 min possibly because the polymers are hydrophilic. At the lowest PS concentration (0.5 %), the amount of coating absorbed by the skin was higher than that of water (Table 2) because the polymers are diluted and do not exist as a separate layer on the skin. At low concentration, the hydrophilic polymers adhered on the chicken skin and increased the water absorptiveness. In addition, these values are comparable to the amounts of absorbed water during commercial immersion chilling for 30 min (Thomas and McMeekin, 1984). Retention of residual polymers inside skin crevices, folds and follicles which would not be removed by surface wiping may have contribution to extra weight gain. PS+TSP coatings were absorbed quicker than alginate+ASC coating as indicated by the higher absorption rate values (i.e., the slope of the absorption curve) in Table 3. Both the rate and quantity of PS absorbed was higher compared to alginate at concentrations that exerted antimicrobial effectiveness (3.5 % and 1.0 %, respectively) (Table 2 and 3). This may explain the higher and more prolonged (120 h) antimicrobial effectiveness of the PS+TSP coating compared to the alginate+ASC coating (Figure 2).
This may also explain the greater antimicrobial activity of TSP in aqueous media against Salmonella on chicken skin (Mehyar et al., 2005). In addition, gelatinized PS
at low viscosity may more easily fill skin follicles and pores, bringing TSP directly in contact with more surface bacteria that may have been protected by irregularities in skin surface topography. Alginate+ASC exhibited higher antimicrobial activity than ASC
alone only at <_ 72 h of treatment (Figure 2B). This could have been due to the method of its application when the skin was first dipped in calcium chloride solution with ASC followed by dipping in an aqueous solution of sodium alginate. The formation of an ASC gradient in the alginate coating may have occurred which altered the amount of ASC exposed to targeted bacteria.
Coating Adhesion and Skin Wetting Properties Although the contact angle technique was successfully used to determine the critical surface energy of solids such as coated paper surfaces using probe liquids (Han and Krochta 2001), the method was less successful on chicken skin. None of the probe solutions formed drops on the skin regardless of their surface tension values which indicates that other factors beside surface energy, such as surface roughness, affected the initial contact angle. Nonetheless, measurements of initial contact angle were successfully used to determine adhesion of liquid materials to food surfaces (Michalski et al., 1997). In the present tests, the formation of discrete drops by the PS+TSP coating solution allowed contact angle measurement. However, stable drops with measurable angles were unobtainable from alginate+ASC coatings. Due to low viscosity calcium chloride and sodium alginate solutions diffused over the skin and yielded a thin film. This means that the contact angle method was not available to measure the surface energy of chicken skins. However, this indicates that any hydrophilic coating layer can adhere on the surface of chicken and form a film structure with surface covering.
PS+TSP coating at low viscosity (below 0.37 N s m"z) linearly affected the contact angle. At higher viscosity PS+TSP formed a gel at room temperature and the contact angle was no longer dependent on the viscosity (Figure 4). When the concentration of polymers is very high in the coating solution, the coating solution turns into what is effectively a gel. It is hard to use this gelled coating solution for the coating process. To obtain better coating, the coating solution should be a viscous solution when it is coated on the surface, and form a gel as it dries. Therefore, the coating solution should contain polymers at the concentration lower than the gelation concentration for coating process.
The effect of PS concentrations on the contact angle as an indicator of coating adhesiveness to the skin is shown in Figure 5. In general, increasing the PS
concentration increased coating adhesion to the skin. At a low concentration of PS (< 0.5 %) the measurement of the contact angle was not possible, but between 0.5 and 1.5 %
PS, the contact angle increased with concentration. At PS levels ranging from 1.5 %
through 3.5 %, the contact angle was not affected (P > 0.05). At 4.0 %, the contact angle increased to 70 , whereas at higher concentrations the solutions began to gelatinize to form a soft solid, which invalidated estimation of adhesion by contact angle measurement.
Several factors could influence the changes in the initial contact angles shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Skin roughness was believed to be responsible for generating unstable liquid drops of the PS+TSP coating solution at low PS concentrations (< 0.5 %). Under these conditions the drops were quickly absorbed and disappeared in the skin. Increasing the PS
concentration from 0.5 % to 1.5 % increased the coating viscosity from 0.004 to 0.37 N S m-2, which resulted in proportional increases in the initial contact angle.
The increase in viscosity gave the coating drops the strength to overcome the effects of skin roughness and become stabilized on the surface. At 1.5 % to 3.5 % PS the initial contact angle was not affected by the increases in viscosity (from 0.37 to 1.0 N s m Z) and the resulting contact angle could account for the difference in the surface energies between the skin and the coating solution. In order for the probe solutions to accurately measure critical surface energy of the skin, they should have a viscosity in the range of 0.37 to 1.0 N s m"z. At high levels of PS (> 4.0 %) the solutions started to gelatinize and the initial contact angle measured was independent of the surface energy difference.
Overall, the adhesion of the coating to the skin depended on PS concentration and solution viscosity. As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art, just a reduction of polymer concentration can decrease viscosity. The polymer concentration is the main factor to control the viscosity of the antimicrobial coating layer and effectiveness of the antimicrobial activity.
Stabilizing TSP and ASC in PS and alginate coatings, respectively, enhanced their antimicrobial activity against Salmonella on chicken skin. PS+TSP caused significant reductions of the bacterial numbers for longer periods than alginate+ASC. This could have been caused by several factors including: distribution of the AMs within the coatings;
prolonged effects of the treatments on skin pH; coating absorptiveness; and coating adhesion to the skin. Although PS+TSP was more effective, it was less stable on the skin.
The coating tended to drip from the skin but also absorbed quicker than the alginate+ASC
coating. Since they had transient (<_ 60 min) stability on the skin surface, but had good skin adhesion, with low absorption and significant antimicrobial activity, 5 - 15 %
TSP in coatings of 1 - 5 % (w/v) PS may be of industrial value in applications to reduce numbers of Salmonella on poultry skin.
Solids loss and water uptake Hydrogels in contact with solution lose solids and take up water (Figs.7 and 8).
After immersion in the saline solution for 3 hr, hydrogels lost 40% or more of the initial solids while absorbing more water at the same time. The solids loss and water uptake were largely a process of Fickian diffusion, as shown by good fittings.
However, the noticeable scattering of data points about the Fickian curves may imply the concurrent gel erosion and swelling in an oscillatory manner (Makino et al., 1996, Colloids Surf B
Biointerfaces 8: 93-100). The presence of TSP in starch gel aggravated the loss of solids (Fig.7a), whereas ASC made little difference in the solids loss of alginate gels (Fig.7b). In contrast, the presence of TSP or ASC in the gel substantially affected the degree of water uptake (Fig.8). For example, gels with antimicrobials absorbed about 45% more water than those without antimicrobials after 3-hr immersion in the saline solution.
Due to their high charge density, phosphate anions also tend to structure water by hydrogen bonding (Jane, 1993, Starch/Starke 45: 161-166), and facilitate the water uptake of starch gel. It is likely that those electrolytes by electrostatic interactions open up the cross-linked gel structures, which become more accessible to water molecules. Meanwhile, more solids would be lost in a more open gel structure, since it imposes less hindrance for small molecules (e.g. antimicrobials) and/or dangling clusters to leach out.
Antimicrobial release As shown in Fig. 9, the release of antimicrobials from hydrogels into the saline solution followed Fikian diffusion. All R-squared values for the non-linear fitting were greater than 0.95. The apparent diffusivity for TSP in starch gel was 2.72X10-9 mz/s, much lower than the apparent diffusivity of the solids (10.3x10-9 mZ/s) but close to the water diffusivity (2.88x10-9 m2/s). Similarly, the apparent diffusivity for ASC
(6.58X10-9 m2/s) in alginate gel was lower than the apparent diffusivity of the solids (9.22X10-9 m2/s) but fairly close to the water diffusivity (5.21 X 10-9 m2/s). On this basis, the antimicrobials were most likely unattached to polymer chains in the gel, but rather liberated in the water phase.
Therefore, the release of antimicrobials TSP and ASC resulted from the osmotic pressure, rather than dissolution of solids. Due to higher solids content of the starch gel compared to the alginate gel, the denser gel structure imposes a greater block for the antimicrobial to get out (or water to get in), resulting in a slower release rate of TSP.
Therefore, the PS+TSP gel would be of particular interest to applications where sustained release of the antimicrobial agent is needed.
Storage modulus of hydrogel The dimensionless storage modulus (G'/G'o) of hydrogel in the saline solution decreased with immersion time in a trend of exponential decay (Fig.10).
Substantielly decreased solids content (Fig.11) due to both solids loss (Fig.7) and water uptake (Fig.8) was largely responsible for the softening of gels as the immersion prolonged.
Since the solids content of PS+TSP gel decreased faster than that of the PS-TSP gel (Fig.11a), it is not unexpected that storage modulus of the PS+TSP gel decreased faster than that of the PS-TSP gel (Fig.10a). However, the ALG+ASC gel showed significantly slower modulus reduction than the ALG-ASC gel (Fig.10b), even though both gels had little difference in the change in dimensionless solids content with time (Fig.11 b). The stabilization effect of ASC on the alginate gel presumably results from the immobilization of Caz+ in the gel by citrate from ASC. Otherwise CaZ+ would be prone to ion exchange with Na+ in the saline solution, as in the ALG-ASC gel.
The presence of antimicrobials substantially influenced the rheological properties of hydrogels by accelerating solids loss and water gain. Since the release of antimicrobials was slower than the loss of total solids in the gel, and antimicrobiais and water had the same level of diffusivity, it is suggested that the release of antimicrobial TSP in starch gel or ASC in alginate gel is largely controlled by osmotic-pressure-induced gel swelling (water in and ions out), rather than dissolution of polymer chains in the gel structure. This work implies that water diffusivity in hydrogel could be used as a monitor of drug release when the drug is known not to strongly interact with polymer chains in the hydrogel. There are two main mechanisms of release (1) diffusion and (2) erosion. Most gels may have either one or a combination of these two mechanisms. Diffusion is the release of active agent from the matrix gels through diffusion, and erosion means that the release is caused by the degradation of the matrix gels. Since all biodegradable polymers will be eroded eventually, the mechanism of early stage release is important to control the release rate so as to maximize effectiveness.
Antimicrobial Coatings A 100 ml dispersion of 3.5 % (w/v) pea starch was prepared in cold water. The mixture was heated to boiling with mixing and held for 5 min to complete starch gelatinization. The solution was then cooled to room temperature and trisodium phosphate (TSP) was added (10 % w/v), mixed and homogenized by a Powergen-700 for 5 s at 20000 rpm. This yielded PS+TSP coating solution.
Calcium alginate coating (alginate+ASC) consisted of two solutions of 100 ml each.
Solution (a) was 1%(w/v) calcium chloride in acidified sodium chlorite (ASC, 1200 ppm) prepared by mixing equal portions of the acid and salt parts of Sanova provided by Alcide Corp. This solution was used within 30 min as recommended by Alcide Corp.
Solution (b) contained 1%(w/v) sodium alginate dissolved in water and mixed. Coatings free of AMs were prepared following the same procedures but without TSP addition to PS and without ASC addition to alginate. PS+TSP solutions containing 0.5, 1.5, 2.0, 3.5, 4.0 or 4.8 %
(w/v) PS, and alginate+ASC with 0.5, 1.0 or 1.5 % (w/v) alginate were prepared as outlined above. These solutions were used for absorptiveness, initial contact angle and viscosity measurements.
Chicken Treatment Unchilled chicken thighs and drumettes (Mehyar et al., 2005) were obtained from a local processing plant immediately after slaughtering and used within 30 min after their arrival. The warm thighs were used for contact angle tests. The drumettes were inoculated with an ampicillin-resistant Salmonella cocktail. Bacterial cultures used to inoculate drumettes were: Salmonella entericia serovars Typhimurium (# 02-8425 and # 02-8421) and Heidelberg (# 271). The three strains were grown separately in tryptic soy broth (TSB) for 24 h at 37 C. Cultures were standardized to an OD600 of 0.80 using sterile TSB to yield about 9 log cfu/mi and were combined in equal portions. Inoculations were performed by dipping drumettes in triplicate into 300 ml bacterial suspension containing 7 log cfu/ml for s 15 sec. The drumettes were hung for 10 min to allow bacterial attachment before being dipped for 0.25 min in one of the following solutions: (1) TSP (10% w/v); (2) ASC (1200 ppm); (3) PS+TSP coating; (4) calcium chloride in ASC (solution a) then dipped in sodium alginate solution (solution b) to form the alginate+ASC coating; (5) coatings of 3.5 %(w/v) PS without AMs; or (6) 1 % (w/v) calcium alginate without AMs. Drumettes were weighed before and directly after dipping using a digital balance ( 0.00005 g). The drumettes were hung inside a covered glass chamber with 85 % relative humidity and incubated at 4 C for 120 h. Samples were withdrawn in triplicate for testing after 1, 24, 72 and 120 h incubation.
Changes in Drumette pH, Weight and Viable Salmonella after Coating At each sampling day, the surface pH of the coated drumettes was measured at three different locations using a pH meter equipped with an Isfet surface probe and their average values were recorded. Drumettes were then weighed and their skins were excised and placed in stomacher bags with buffered peptone water (10 g peptone, 5 g NaCI, 3.5 g NaZHPO4, 1.5 g KH2PO4 per liter) and homogenized for 3 min to prepare 10"' homogenates. The homogenates were then serially diluted and plated on pre-poured XLD
agar containing 100 ppm ampicillin. Salmonella were counted after 24 h at 35 C.
Logarithmic reductions were determined by calculating the differences in Salmonella numbers between the control and the treated samples.
Coating Absorptiveness The method of Han and Krochta (1999) was modified to measure the coating absorption into chicken skin. A plastic ring specimen holder with four screws, similar to that used by Han and Krochta (1999), was used to fix skin samples. Skins of unchilled chicken thighs were excised and used within 10 min. The outer surface of the skin was placed between the base and the ring (diameter 5.8 cm) facing upward in the holder and the ring was secured with screws. The holder with the skin was then weighed (Wo) and 5 mi of the PS+TSP coating solution, or 2.5 ml of 1%(w/v) caicium chloride in ASC
(solution a) and 2.5 ml of solution b were applied on the top of the skin.
Nine samples were prepared for each coating and the holding units were placed on a flat plate at room temperature to allow the skin samples to absorb the coating solutions. Samples were withdrawn in triplicate at 10, 30 and 60 min after application. Absorption was terminated by wiping away the excess coating solutions which remained on the skin surface with a tissue at each sampling time. The weights of the apparatus holding the skin were recorded before (Wwet) and after drying (Wdry). The absorptiveness (% At) was defined as:
% At =(Wwet - Wdry)/(Wo - We) x 100 where We is the weight of an empty apparatus without skin.
Contact Angle and Skin Wetting Properties The initial contact angles for the various probe liquids and the coating solutions on the skin were used to determine critical surface energy of skin and absorption profile of coating solutions, respectively. Fresh, unchilled chicken thighs were used and their surfaces were wiped by a dry tissue to remove any residual water. The thighs were cut on one side lengthwise to the bone with a razor blade and a portion of the skin and flesh was removed from the thigh. For testing, the specimens were placed on a rack with adjustable height, and attached to the rack using plastic putty. A digital microscope (10 X
magnification) was aimed horizontally to observe the cut chicken surface.
Drops of 10 pL
of the probe liquids or coating solutions were placed on the skin surface using a microsyringe and the side images of the liquid drops were recorded by a computer after confirming the horizontal level position of samples. In order to account for any asymmetry of the image caused from improper leveling, the contact angles of both sides of each liquid drop were measured and the average values were recorded. All measurements were done inside a closed chamber equipped with an electric fan to circulate the internal air which was equilibrated to 85 % relative humidity with a saturated solution of zinc sulfate. The probe liquids used were HPLC grade water, glycerol, ethylene glycol and dimethyl sulfoxide. In order to study the effect of PS viscosity on the contact angle, the dynamic viscosity of PS+TSP solutions with different PS concentrations was determined using a rheometer. The instrument was operated with parallel plate geometry (plate diameter = 20 mm and gap = 1 mm). Samples were placed in the apparatus and allowed to equilibrate at 25 C prior to analysis. Measurements were conducted at 3 Pa shear stress and 1 Hz frequency. The relationships between the initial contact angle and PS
concentration of PS+TSP coating solution, and between the initial contact angle and the PS+TSP
coating solution viscosity were determined.
Flow properties of starch-based coating solution Figure 12 shows the shear stress-strain curve of the pea starch coating solution with and without thyme oil. From this figure the consistency index and power law flow behavior index were calculated, and these results are summarized in Table 4.
The consistency of the gelatinized pea starch coating solution was affected significantly by the presence of thyme oil, which caused increased viscosity at low shear rate range. The addition of thyme oil decreased the power law flow behavior index and made the starch gel more viscous and pseudoplastic.
Figure 12 shows that both starch coating solutions, regardless of thyme oil addition, exhibited shear-thinning pseudoplastic behavior below 100 s-1 of shear rate.
However, above 100 s-1, the pseudoplastic characteristics were converted to Newtonian behavior, specifically Bingham flow. Starch solutions possess intermolecular interactions and form elastic starch gels when the deformation is not significant, such as occurred below 100 s-1 of shear. However, above this critical shear, the intermolecular interaction of starch gels could not be maintained and were converted from an elastic gel to a viscous solution. The corresponding critical shear stresses of 100 s-1 shear rate were approximately 20 Pa and 5 Pa for pea starch with and without thyme oil, respectively.
Yield stresses (the Y-intercept of Bingham) were 22.4903 Pa and 5.3486 Pa for pea starch solutions with and without thyme oil, respectively, which reflects the dramatic increase in the yield stress of the starch solutions caused by thyme oil addition. This result implies that thyme oil enhanced the intermolecular interaction of starch, perhaps by the formation of starch (amylose)-lipid complexes. Han and others (2006) found that the addition of beeswax to gelatinized pea starch did not change the starch structure and related characteristics until 30% (w/w) of beeswax had been added to the starch gel.
Therefore, the changes in visco-elastic properties of pea starch gels by 5% thyme oil are remarkable.
Thyme oil contains mostly phenolic compounds that have very small molecular weight compared to those of beeswax. It is hypothesized that the small hydrophobic molecules can be incorporated within the amylose helix much easier than macromolecular lipids, and consequently form a high-degree amylose-lipid complex. For the practical application of a thyme oil-starch coating for poultry processing, it is suggested that an inside-outside bird washer be used. The washer would spray the starch coating solution at both high pressure and high speed feeding rate. Therefore, within the practical operating range of feeding, which will be definitely over 100 s-1 shear rate, the thyme oil-starch solution will behave as a Bingham fluid. A minimum 22.49 Pa of pressure is required for the bird washer to initiate the flow of the starch coating containing thyme oil. The higher yield stress produces a thicker coating weight, Since the yield stress of the coating solution increased 5 times after thyme oil addition, theoretically on a smooth surface hanging vertically (e.g., chicken carcass on an overhead conveyor), the thickness of the coating containing thyme oil will be 5 times greater than that of a starch coating without thyme oil. Therefore, understanding the effects of yield stress upon coating viscosity is critical to optimize coating application and uniformity. After washing, chicken carcasses are warm and the antimicrobial coating solution can be sprayed at ambient processing room temperature.
Microbial viability on Salmonella-inoculated chicken Application of the starch coating to chicken cubes had little effect on the numbers of total organisms, the lactic acid bacteria present, and the viability of inoculated (ampicillin resistant) Salmonella during 12 d storage at 4 C (Table 5).
Numbers of total organisms (psychrotrophs) and lactic acid bacteria increased similarly in the presence or absence of the starch coating. MRS agar is a non-selective enriched medium and Salmonella were able to form colonies on this agar. Salmonella numbers decreased by about 1 log cfu/g during refrigerated storage in treatments with and without the starch coating. Inclusion of thyme oil in the coating delayed the growth of psychrotrophs until day 4 and the lactic acid bacteria until after day 8. Thyme oil inclusion in the coating had a significant negative effect on Salmonella viability with recoveries being 2 log cfu/g lower at day 4 and this reduction was increased to 3 log cfu/g at days 8 and 12.
Microbial viability on Campylobacter-inoculated chicken As with the previously reported trial (Table 5), the starch coating had essentially no effect on the growth of psychrotrophs and lactic acid bacteria during storage of the chicken meat at 4 C for 12 d (Table 6). However, addition of starch coating containing thyme oil significantly reduced the extent of both psychrotrophic and lactic acid bacterial growth by 2 and 3 log cfu/g at days 8 and 12, respectively. Direct addition of thyme oil as a water emulsion without the coating caused a similar delay in psychrotrophic bacterial growth, but had a greater initial inhibitory effect on the lactic acid bacteria. These latter recovered by day 8 to reach about the same numbers as were present on chicken coated with starch containing thyme oil. These latter levels were 2 to 3 log cfu/g less than in treatments where thyme oil was not used. Campylobacter were absent from the chicken meat used in this study, and following inoculation their numbers were relatively stable during storage at 4 C. A very slight reduction in Campylobacter viability was noted in response to starch coating at day 12, but use of thyme oil alone or use of thyme oil following its incorporation into the starch coating caused an immediate reduction in Campylobacter viability to below detectable levels, and this inhibitory or lethal effect was maintained for the remainder of the study (Table 6).
Microbial viability on Listeria-inoculated chicken As noted in Tables 5 and 6, psychrotrophic and lactic acid bacteria naturally present on uninoculated chicken grew rapidly and reached 7 to 8 log cfu/g by 12 d of storage at 4 C (Tables 7 and 8). There was little difference in bacterial recoveries (psychrotrophs, lactic acid bacteria or inoculated L. monocytogenes) among the media used when starch-coated chicken (with or without L. monocytogenes inoculation) was stored at 4 C for 12 d. L. monocytogenes was able to grow on the MRS medium used for lactic acid bacteria recovery, and contributed to the number of colonies recovered as lactic acid bacteria.
The extent of bacterial growth on BHI and MRS agars was reduced in treatments containing thyme oil, and inhibition caused by direct addition of thyme oil was only slightly greater than that caused by the thyme oil-starch coating (Table 7). The inhibitory effects were not as great as noted with Campylobacter (Table 6).
L. monocytogenes was not recovered on Listeria selective agar from uninoculated chicken during storage, but following its inoculation the organism increased one log cfu/g during storage. In addition, growth of L. monocytogenes was unaffected by the presence of the starch coating as noted with Salmonella and Campylobacter. Thyme oil alone or when incorporated into the starch coating was inhibitory to L. monocytogenes (on Listeria agar) to about the same extent (> 1 log cfu/g reduction) by 12 d storage.
Microbial viability on Pseudomonas-inoculated chicken The microbial growth profile on chicken inoculated with P. aeroginosa as monitored on BHI and MRS agars (Table 8) did not differ from results obtained with the other inoculated organisms when thyme oil was not used (Tables 5, 6 and 7). In addition, the pea starch coating did not further alter bacterial recoveries on these media or Pseudomonas agar during storage at 4 C. Thyme oil along or when incorporated in the pea starch coating significantly delayed the growth of bacteria on chicken monitored with all three media. These differences were from one to 2 log cfu/g and were noted at 12 d of storage (Table 8), however, there was no significant difference in effectiveness of thyme oil action before or after incorporation in the starch coating.
Antimicrobial effectiveness of thyme oil Thyme oil has been shown to one of several potently antimicrobial essential oils during tests against a range of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria. Its major component, thymol, was as effective as eugenol and carvacrol against most of the pathogens tested in the present study (Burt 2004). Generally, essential oils are more effective against Gram positive bacteria, but Gram negative bacteria can be vulnerable (Burt 2004;
Holley and Patel 2005). In the present work delayed growth of aerobic psychrotrophs and lactic acid bacteria was not unexpected. Inhibition of L. monocytogenes growth and reduction in Salmonella viability in the presence of thyme oil reported here are consistent with the results from other studies where different substrates and temperatures of incubation were used (Burt 2004). The delayed growth of P. aeroginosa reported here is a positive finding since'Pseudomonas frequently show resistance to essential oil treatment (Holley and Patel 2005), however, it is likely that during longer storage P. aeroginosa would recover from the inhibitory effects of thyme oil exposure. One of the more important observations made here was the drastic reductions in numbers of C. jejuni which occurred immediately upon exposure to thyme oil alone or to the starch-thyme oil coating, which was sustained during 12 d storage. Surprisingly little work is reported in the literature concerning C. jejuni inhibition by thyme oil. In a study by Friedman and others (2002) thyme oil was found to be as effective as cinnamaidehyde, eugenol, carvacrol, citral, geranol, and benzaldehyde against C. jejuni in a microplate assay.
In the C. jejuni and L. monocytogenes tests reported here where thyme oil was directly added to the chicken meat surface, a more immediate inhibitory effect was found against the lactic acid bacteria, however, this difference was not evident at 12 d storage.
In P. aeruginosa tests the starch-thyme oil coating initially showed a greater inhibitory effect but this difference was resolved by day 8 of storage. In a separate test it was found that Salmonella, L. monocytogenes, and P. aeruginosa were able to form small colonies on MRS agar. Thus, lactic acid bacterial recoveries may have been over-estimated to some extent. However, this observation does not affect the overall conclusions from the study.
Statistical Analysis Data obtained were the average values of three replicates for treatments. Each treatment was conducted twice in separate experiments. The statistical analytical system was used to compare means of the replicates at each sampling time. A
significance level of 5 % was used for all analyses. Linear regression analysis for absorption rate was conducted using the data analysis option of a spread sheet for the absorption curves (weight vs. time).
Preparation of starch and alginate hydrogels 3 grams of pea starch (PS, 37% amylose, Nutri-Pea Ltd., Portage-la-Prairie, MB) was dispersed in 100 ml cold water. The dispersion was heated to boiling with mixing and held for 5 min when starch granules were almost fully gelatinized. The solution was then cooled to room temperature (23 C), and 10 grams of trisodium phosphate (TSP, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) was added in, followed by homogenization with a Powergen-700 (Fisher Scientific International Inc., Whitby, ON) for 5 s at 20,000 rpm.
The solution was then poured into two 200 ml beakers, with 50 ml solution in each beaker, and left overnight at room temperature to allow the stabilization of gel structure. PS
hydrogel without TSP was also prepared and used as control.
Two solutions were used to prepare calcium alginate (ALG) hydrogel. Solution (a) was an acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) solution containing 1% w/v of calcium chloride (CaCl2, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO). The ASC solution was prepared by mixing equal portions of citric acid solution (900 ppm) and sodium chlorite solution (1100 ppm) (Sanova, Alcide Corp., Redmond, WA), and was used within 30 min after preparation.
Solution (b) contained 0.5% w/v sodium alginate (Product No.180947, CAS 9005-38-3, Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) dissolved in water at room temperature.
Calcium alginate gel was prepared using a plastic assembly consisting of a mold and two fixative rings (Fig.6). A piece of CaCI2 permeable membrane (Dialysis Tubing, Fisher Brand regenerated cellulose, Fisher Scientific, Nepean, ON) was first attached onto the mold by one fixative ring. Solution (b) of 50m1 was poured into the mold, and the mold was covered by another piece of the membrane, which was fixed onto the mold using the other ring. Two assemblies containing the sodium alginate solution were then immersed in solution (a) of 500 ml and taken out after 24h. Self-standing calcium alginate gels containing ASC were obtained after the removal of the rings and membranes.
Calcium alginate gels without ASC were also prepared by the same procedure except that solution (a) used was a pure CaC12 solution with the same concentration of 1% w/v.
Rheological properties of hydrogels in air and in saline Freshly prepared hydrogel was cut into a cylinder using a plastic borer with a height of 10 mm and internal diameter of 20 mm. The gel cylinder was then sliced into specimens with a thickness of 5 mm by a sharp blade. Rheological analysis was carried out using a controlled stress rheometer (AR-1000, TA Instruments Inc., New Castle, DE) with 20-mm parallel plate geometry. After a specimen was centered on the base platen, the upper platen was programmed to move down at a decelerating speed until it came in contact with the specimen in order to avoid any pre-loading deformation.
Oscillatory stress sweeps from 0.1 Pa to 10 Pa at a frequency of 1 Hz were done at a temperature of 25 C
to determine the linear viscoelastic range for hydrogels in air. Since both gels exhibited linear elastic regions at stress below 2 Pa, a stress of 1 Pa was chosen for the following time-sweep experiments.
A physiological saline was prepared by dissolving 0.8 g of sodium chloride (Sigma Chemical Co., St. Louis, MO) in 100 ml tap water, followed by adjusting pH to
6.8. After a gel specimen was centered in a bath (height 30 mm, inner diameter 34 mm, outer diameter 64 mm) glued to the base platen, a saline solution double the specimen's volume was filled inside the bath while the upper plate came in contact with the specimen.
Oscillatory time sweeps (1 Pa at 1 Hz) were run for all specimens in saline. A
series of dynamic storage moduli (G) as a function of immersion time (t) were obtained from the control software.
Determination of TSP and ASC concentrations in saline After the specimen was loaded, saline solution of 0.5 ml was withdrawn periodically and collected in a vial. The samples, diluted 1000 fold, were analyzed by an ion chromatography system (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The injection volume and flow rate were maintained at 50 NI and 1 ml/min, respectively, throughout the analysis.
External standards (0, 5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 Ng/mI) for both phosphate and chlorite anions were used for calibration. NaOH solution of 30 mM was used as eluent for all samples.
The concentration of antimicrobial (C) in the saline was determined by the peak area for the elution which was calculated by Chromeleon Chromatography Management Systems (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The concentration of ASC was determined by subtracting the peak area for chloride anions in the pre-load saline solution from the peak area for both chloride and chlorite anions in the samples containing ASC, since both chlorite anions from ASC and chloride anions from NaCI eluted at the same time (3 min).
The concentration of TSP was determined directly by the peak area for phosphate anions in the samples. The concentration of antimicrobial after 12-hr immersion in the saline solution was taken as the equilibrium concentration (C.).
Solids loss and water uptake during gel swelling A freshly prepared gel sample (diameter 20 mm and thickness 5 mm) was weighed before (M;) and after (Md) drying at 105 C to constant weight (about 5 hr).
The initial solids content (SCo) of the fresh gel was determined as MdIM;. A gel sample, after weighing (Mo), was immersed in a saline bath (the sample size, the inner diameter of the bath, the concentration and amount of the saline solution same as those used in the rheological determination) for a period of time up to 8 hr. The swollen gel was then weighed (MsW), followed by drying at 105 C to constant weight (Ms). The amount of solids (Mo) and water (M,,,,o) in the pre-swelling gel were MoSCo and Mo(1-SCo), respectively. The amount of solids (Ms) and water (Mw) in the post-swelling gel were MS and Msw M5, respectively. The solids content (SC) of the swollen gel was M/MS,. All samples are duplicated.
Apparent diffusivities of solids, water and antimicrobials Solids loss, water uptake and antimicrobial release were all assumed to follow Fikian diffusion. A simple form of the solution (Schwartzberg and Chao, 1982, Food Technol 36: 73-86) is:
X-X~ q;Dt =CiEXp(- Z ) (1) Xo - X. R
where X can be the amount of solids (Ms) or water (M,N), or the concentration of antimicrobial released (C), and the subscripts 0 and oo stand for at zero and infinite time, respectively. The constants c, and q, are correlated. For infinite cylinder qt = 4(a + 1)(a - c, ) l c, l a , where the stripping factor ^= 2 (the volume of saline solution divided by the volume of gel). R is the radius of gel sample (10mm), and t the immersion time. The apparent diffusivity (D) of solids, water and antimicrobial were obtained by 3-parameter non-linear fitting of Ms/MSo - t, MWIM o- t, and CIC. -t, based on Equation 1.
Air-chilled fresh chicken breast meats were obtained from a local poultry processing plant (Dunn-Rite, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) about 4 h before the experiment. The meats were cut into 2 cm x 2 cm cubes (10 g 1 g) with a knife disinfected in 70% ethanol. Starch extracted from Canadian yellow field peas (Pisum sativum L. Miranda) by a conventional wet milling process was supplied by Nutri-Pea Ltd.
(Portage-La-Prairie, Manitoba, Canada). Pea starch is a C-type starch containing 37 -40% amylose. One gram of phosphatidyl choline (Fisher Scientific, Nepean, Ontario, Canada) was dissolved in 15 mL of thyme oil (Sigma Chemicals Co., St. Louis, MO) and stored at 4 C until used.
Ampicillin resistant Salmonella entericia serovars (i.e., Typhimurium and Heidelberg) and Campylobacterjejuni were obtained from R. Ahmed, Canadian Centre for Human and Animal Health (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada). Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were obtained from the culture collections of the Department of Food Science and the Department of Microbiology, respectively, at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada).
Consistency profile of starch coating solution Fully gelatinized 2.5 % (w/v) aqueous starch solution (prepared by boiling 20 min) containing 1.25% (w/v) glycerol was mixed with 5% (v/v) thyme oil at room temperature, and its consistency was determined using a rheometer (AR1000, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE). The volume of samples was 0.99 mL. Operating conditions of the rheometer were 25 C using a 60 mm diameter 1 angle steel cone. Initial shear rate was 1.275 s-1 and was ramped to 1000 s-1. Shear rate was increased by steady state flow mode with a logarithmic ramp pattern. Consistency index and fluid behavior index were calculated using the power law equation by parameter estimate of regression analysis.
Each treatment was tested in triplicate.
Bacterial inoculum preparation All bacterial cultures were maintained in BHI (brain heart infusion) broth and enumerated on BHI agar (Difco Division, Becton Dickinson Co., Sparks, MD) after incubation at 35 C for 24 to 48 h. For Campylobacter culture BHI agar and broth media were used with 0.5% (w/v) yeast extract and 10% (w/v) laked horse blood (Oxoid Ltd., Nepean, Ontario, Canada), and were incubated at 35 C under microaerophilic conditions created by the CampyPak Plus system (Becton Dickinson Co., Cockeysville, MD) for 48 h.
Bacterial culture broth was centrifuged at 3000g for 15 min at 10 C (Sorvall Refrigerated Centrifuge, Du Pont, Newtown, CT). The sedimented culture pellet was suspended in 0.85% sterile saline solution to wash and was recentrifuged. The pellet was diluted to yield an optical density of 0.80 at 600 nm and the live bacterial population was determined using a spiral plating unit (Autoplate 4000, Spiral Biotech, Bethesda, MD). The equivalent number of bacteria for 0.8 optical density units was 109 cfu/mL.
The two Salmonella cultures were mixed at equal numbers of cells to obtain a cocktail of S.
Typhimurium and S. Heidelberg.
Antimicrobial pea starch coating Pea starch suspension was prepared by mixing 25 g pea starch and 12.5 g glycerol (Sigma-Aldrich Canada Ltd., Oakville, Ontario, Canada) in 1 L sterile cold distilled water. This suspension was boiled for 20 min with agitation to gelatinize pea starch, and cooied in a water bath at 50 C. The thyme oil and phosphatidyl choline mixture was blended into the pea starch coating solution to give a 5% (v/v) concentration and stirred for min.
Inoculation of chicken meat Chicken meat cubes (approximately 2 kg) were placed in a sterile aluminum tray and 2 L of inoculum containing 106 cfu/mL of each of the test organisms and the Salmonella cocktail were separately poured on the chicken cubes. The tray was shaken 2 to 3 times during 15 min exposure to allow the meat to adsorb bacteria, then the excess liquid was drained. The inoculated meats were dried for 5 min in the tray. One quarter of the inoculated cubes (approximately 0.5 kg) were enclosed in a high-barrier plastic bag (Deli*1, WinPak, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) composed of nyfon/ethylene vinyl alcohol/polyethylene, and heat-sealed. The film was 75 pm thick with an oxygen transmission rate of 2.3 cm3 m-z d"' at 23 C, and water vapor transmission rate of 7.8 g m-2 d" at 37.8 C and 98% relative humidity. The second quarter of the inoculated cubes was transferred onto a sterile tray and 1 L of pea starch coating solution was poured onto the cubes. After shaking for 1 to 2 min, the excess starch solution was drained.
The coated cubes were dried for 1 h in the tray, and each cube was packaged in the high-barrier plastic bag. The third quarter of inoculated cubes was placed in a sterile tray, and I L of pea starch coating solution containing 5% thyme oil was poured on the chicken cubes.
The last quarter of inoculated chicken cubes was mixed with 1 L sterile water containing 5% thyme oil. Both thyme oil treatments were mixed, dried and packaged as described earlier. Chicken meats without inoculation and coating were packaged as control samples (i.e., no treatment). All samples were stored at 4 C.
Viable numbers of bacteria At 0, 4, 8 and 12 d of storage after inoculation, three bags per treatment were opened aseptically and 90 mL of 0.1 % peptone water was added. This bag was placed in a stomacher and pummeled for 1 min. After appropriate serial dilutions, the samples were plated on agar media using the spiral plating unit, and incubated. All plates were counted in duplicate from each sample (total 6 analyses per treatment). Types of agar media used and incubation conditions used for inoculated bacteria were:
Total aerobes: BHI agar at 35 C for 24 h Lactic acid bacteria: MRS agar (Difco) at 32 C for 48 h Salmonella: XLD agar (Difco) containing 100 ppm ampicillin (Sigma-Aldrich) at 35 C for 24 h Campylobacter: Karmali agar (Oxoid Ltd.) containing a growth supplement (Oxoid SR 139) at 35 C for 48 h under microaerophilic conditions Listeria: Listeria selective agar (Oxford selective fomulation, Oxoid Ltd.) at 35 C for 24 h Pseudomonas: Pseudomonas agar (Oxoid Ltd.) with a supplement (Oxoid SR 103) at C for 24 h While the preferred embodiments of the invention have been described above, it will be recognized and understood that various modifications may be made therein, and the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications which may fall within the spirit and scope of the invention.
REFERENCES
BeMiller, J. N. 1965. Alkaline degradation of starch. Pages 521-532 in Starch:
Chemistry and Technology. R. L. Whistler and E. F. Paschall, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Cagri, A., Z. Ustunol, and E. T. Ryser. 2004. Antimicrobial edible films and coatings. J. Food Prot. 67:833-848.
Choi, W. S., and J. H. Han. 2002. Film-forming mechanism and heat denaturation effect on the physical and chemical properties of pea-protein-isolate edible films. J. Food Sci. 67:1399-1406.
Debeaufort, F., J. Quezada-Gallo, and A. Voilley. 1998. Edible films and coatings:
tomorrow's packaging: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 38:299-313.
Han, J. H., and J. M. Krochta. 2001. Physical properties and oil absorption of whey-protein-coated paper. J. Food Sci. 66:294-229.
Han, J. H., and J. M. Krochta. 1999. Wetting properties and water vapor permeability of whey-protein-coated paper. Trans. ASAE. 42:1375-1382.
Janes, M. E., S. Kooshesh, and M. G. Johnson. 2002. Control of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of refrigerated, ready-to-eat chicken coated with edible zein film coatings containing nisin and/or calcium propionate. J. Food Sci.
67:2754-2757.
King, A. H. 1982. Brown seaweed extracts (alginates). Pages 115-188 in Food Hydrocolloids. M. Glicksman, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Lucas, A. M., and P. R. S. Stettenheim. 1972. Microscopic structure of skin and derivatives. Pages 485-636 in Avian Anatomy Integument. A. M. Lucas and P. R.
S.
Stettenheim, ed. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Mehyar, G. F., G. Blank, J. H. Han, A. Hydamaka, and R. A. Holley. 2005.
Effectiveness of trisodium phosphate, lactic acid and commercial antimicrobials against pathogenic bacteria on chicken skin. Food Prot. Trends. 25:351-362.
Mehyar, G. F., and J. H. Han. 2004. Physical and mechanical properties of high amylose rice and pea starch films as affected by relative humidity and plasticizer. J. Food Sci. 69:E449-E454.
Michalski, M., S. Desobry, and J. Hardy. 1997. Food materials adhesion: a review.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 37:591-619.
Natrajan, N., and B. W. Sheldon. 2000a. Efficacy of nisin-coated polymer films to inactivate Salmonella Typhimurium on fresh broiler skin. J. Food Prot. 63:1189-1196.
Natrajan, N., and B. W. Sheldon. 2000b. Inhibition of Salmonella on poultry skin using protein- and polysaccharide-based films containing a nisin formulation.
J. Food Prot.
63:1268-1272.
Oyarzabal, O. A. C., C. Hawk, S. F. Bilgili, C. C. Warf, and G. K. Kemp. 2004.
Effects of postchill application of acidified sodium chlorite to control Campylobacter spp.
and Escherichia coli on commercial broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 67:2288-2291.
Ratnayake, W. S., R. Hoover, and T. Warkentin. 2002. Pea starch: composition, structure and properties - a review. Starch. 54:217-234.
Schneider, K. R., G. Kere-Kemp, and M. L. Aldrich. 2002. Acidified sodium chlorite antimicrobial treatment of air chilled broiler carcasses. Dairy Food Environ.
Sanit. 22:102-108.
Siragusa, G. R., and J. S. Dickson. 1992. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on beef tissue by application of organic acids immobilized in calcium alginate gel. J. Food Sci.
57:293-296.
Slader, J., G. Domingue, F. Jorgensen, K. McAlpine, R. J. Owen, F. J. Bolton, and T. J. Humphrey. 2002. Impact of transport crate reuse and of catching and processing on Campylobacter and Salmonella contamination of broiler chicken. Appi. Environ.
Microbiol.
68:713-719.
Suderman, D. R., and F. E. Cunningham. 1980. Factors affecting adhesion of coating to poultry skin, effect of age, method of chilling, and scald temperature on poultry skin ultrastructure. J. Food Sci. 45:444-449.
Thomas, C. J., and T. A. McMeekin. 1982. Effect of water immersion on the microtopography of the skin of chicken carcasses. J. Sci. Food Agric. 33:549-554.
Thomas, C. J., and T. A. McMeekin. 1984. Effect of water uptake by poultry tissues on contamination by bacteria during immersion in bacterial suspensions. J Food Prot.
47:398-402.
Wang, W., Y. Li, M. F. Slavik, and H. Xiong. 1997. Trisodium phosphate and cetylpyridinium chloride spraying on chicken to reduce attached Salmonella typhimurium.
J. Food Prot. 60:992-994.
Xiong, H., Y. Li, M. F. Slavik, and J. T. Walker. 1998. Spraying chicken skin with selected chemicals to reduce attached Salmonella typhimurium. J. Food Prot.
61:272-275.
Zhao, C., Ge Beilei, J. Villena, R. Sudler, E. Yeh, S. Zhao, D. G. White, D.
Wagner, and J. Meng. 2001. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork and beef from the greater Washington, DC area.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:5431-5436.
Bodmeier R, Wang JJ. Microencapsulation of drugs with aqueous colloidal polymer dispersions. J Pharmaceut Sci 1993;82(2):191-194.
Bodmeier R, Chen HG, Paeratakul O. A novel-approach to the oral delivery of micro-particles or nanoparticies. Pharmaceut Res 1989;6(5):413-417.
Doria-Serrano MC, Ruiz-Trevino FA, Rios-Arciga C, Hernandez-Esparza M, Santiago P. Physical characteristics of poly(vinyl alcohol) and calcium alginate hydrogels for the immobilization of activated sludge. Biomacromolecules 2001;2(2):568-574.
Grant GT, Morris ER, Rees DA, Smith PJC, Thom D. Biological interactions between polysaccharides and divalent cations: the egg box model. FEBS Left 1973;32(1):195-198.
Seely GR, Hart RL. The binding of alkaline earth metal ions to alginate.
Macromolecules 1974;7(5):706-710 Ortega NBMD, Perez-Mateos M. Stabilisation of ^-glucosidase entrapped in alginate and polyacrylamide gels towards thermal and proteolytic deactivation.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1998;73(1):7-12.
Durrani CM, Donald AM. Physical characterisation of amylopectin gels. Polym Gels Networks 1995;3(1):1-27.
Goodfellow BJ, Wilson RH. A Fourier transform infrared study of the gelation of amylose and amylopectin. Biopolymers 1990;30:1183-1189.
Ring SG, Colonna P, I'Anson KJ, Kalichevsky MT, Miles MJ, Morris VJ, Orford PD.
The gelation and crystallisation of amylopectin. Carbohydr Res 1987;162(2):277-293.
Liu Z, Han JH. Film-forming characteristics of starches. J Food Sci 2005;70(1):E31-E36.
Miyata T, Asami N, Uragami T. Preparation of an antigen-sensitive hydrogel using antigen-antibody bindings. Macromolecules 1999;32(6):2082-2084 Galliard T, Bowler P. Morphology and composition of starch. In: Galliard T, editor.
Starch: Properties and Potential. New York: John Wiley & Son, 1987. p. 55-78.
Liu Z. Edible films and coatings from starches. In: Han JH, editor.
Innovations in Food Packaging. New York: Academic Press, 2005. p. 318-337.
Smidsrrad 0, Grasdalen H. Polyelectrolytes from seaweeds. Hydrobiologia 1984;116-117:19-28 Ahearne M, Yang Y, El Haj AJ, Then KY, Liu KK. Characterizing the viscoelastic properties of thin hydrogel-based constructs for tissue engineering applications. J R Soc Interface 2005;2(5):455-463.
Decho AW. Imaging an alginate polymer gel matrix using atomic force microscopy.
Carbohydr Res 1999;315(3-4):330-333 Walkenstrom P, Kidman S, Hermansson AM, Rasmussen PB, Hoegh L.
Microstructure and rheological behaviour of alginate/pectin mixed gels. Food Hydrocol 2003;17(5):593-603.
Donati I, Holtan S, Morch YA, Borgogna M, Dentini M, Skjak-Braek G. New hypothesis on the role of alternating sequences in calcium-alginate gels.
Biomacromolecules 2005;6(2):1031-1040.
Rees DA, Samuel JWB. Structure of alginic acid. VI. Minor features and structural variations. J Chem Soc C Organic 1967;22:2295-2298.
Li Z, Ramay HR, Hauch KD, Xiao D, Zhang M. Chitosan-alginate hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2005;26(18):3919-3928 Rajaonarivony M, Vauthier C, Couarraze G, Puisieux F, Couvreur P. Development of a new drug carrier made from alginate. J Pharmaceut Sci 1993;82(9):912-917.
Peppas NA, Huang Y, Torres-Lugo M, Ward JH, Zhang J. Physicochemical foundations and structural design of hydrogels in medicine and biology. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2000;2:9-29.
Prokop A, Kozlov E, Carlesso G, Davidson JM. Hydrogel-based colloidal polymeric system for protein and drug delivery: physical and chemical characterization, permeability control and applications. Adv Polym Sci 2002;160:119-173.
Schwartzberg HG, Chao RY. Solute diffusivities in leaching processes. Food Technol 1982;36(2):73-86 Makino K, Idenuma R, Ohshima H. A model for erosion kinetics of a hydrogel matrix. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 1996;8(1-2):93-100.
Jane J. Mechanism of starch gelatinization in neutral salt solutions.
Starch/Starke 1993;45(5):161-166.
Black JL, Jaczynski J. 2006. Temperature effect on inactivation kinetics of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 by electron beam in ground beef, chicken breast meat, and trout fillets. J Food Sci 71(6): M221-227 Burt S. 2004. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods - a review. Int J Food Microbiol 94: 223-253 Cason JA, Berrang ME, Smith DP. 2006. Recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses rinsed zero and twenty-four hours after immersion chilling. Poultry Sci 85(2):
Corry JEL, James SJ, Purnell G, Barbedo-Pinto CS, Chochois Y, Howell M, James C. 2007. Surface pasteurization of chicken carcasses using hot water. J Food Eng 79(3):
Friedman M, Henika PR, Levin CE, Mandrell RE. 2006. Antimicrobial wine formulations active against the foodborne pathogens Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella enterica. J Food Sci 71(7): M245-251 Friedman M, Henika PR, Mandrell RE. 2002. Bactericidal activities of plant essential oils and some of their constituents against Campylobacterjejuni, E.
coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Typhimurium. J Food Prot 65(10): 1545-1560 Gennadios A, Hanna MA, Kurth LB. 1997. Application of edible coatings on meats, poultry and seafoods: a review. Lebensm Wiss u Technol 30(4): 337-350 Han JH. 2007. Packaging for nonthermal food processing: future. In: Packaging for Nonthermal Processing of Foods (Han JH, ed.). Blackwell Publishing Professionals, Ames, IA. p. 213-226 Han JH, Seo GH, Park IM, Kim GN, Lee DS. 2006. Physical and mechanical properties of pea starch edible films containing beeswax emulsions. J Food Sci 71(5):
Han, J.H. 2005. Antimicrobial packaging systems. In: Innovations in Food Packaging (Han JH, ed.). Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford, UK. p. 80-107 Han, J.H. 2003. Antimicrobial food packaging. In: Novel Food Packaging Techniques (Ahvenainen R, ed.). Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, UK. p. 50-Holley RA, Patel D. 2005. Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials. Food Microbiol 22: 273-292 Jorgensen F, Bailey R, Williams S, Henderson P, Wareing DRA, Bolton FJ, Frost JA, Ward L, Humphrey TL. 2002. Prevalence and numbers of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. on raw, whole chicken in relation to sampling methods. Int J Food Microbiol 76: 151-164 Kaloustian J, Abou L, Mikail C, Amiot MJ, Portugal H. 2005. Southern French thyme oils: chromatographic study of chemotypes. J Sci Food Agric 85(14): 2437-Mehyar GF, Han JH, Holley RA, Blank G, Hydamaka AW. 2007. Suitability of pea starch and calcium alginate as antimicrobial coatings on chicken skin. Poultry Sci 87(2):
Min SC, Harris LJ, Han JH, Krochta JM. 2005. Listeria monocytogenes inhibition by whey protein films and coatings incorporating lysozyme. J Food Prot 68(11):
Northcutt JK, Cason JA, Smith DP, Buhr RJ, Fletcher DL. 2006. Broiler carcass bacterial counts after immersion chilling using either a low or high volume of water. Poultry Sci 85(10): 1802-1806 Patsias A, Chouliara I, Badeka A, Savvaidis IN, Kontominas MG. 2006. Shelf-life of a chilled precooked chicken product stored in air and under modified atmospheres:
microbiological, chemical, sensory attributes. Food Microbiol 23(5): 423-429 Sasso M, Culici M, Brega PC, Guffanti EE, Mucci M. 2006. Thymol: inhibitory activity on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to human vaginal celis. J
Essential Oil Res 18(4): 455-461 Singh A, Singh RK, Bhunia AK, Singh N. 2003. Efficacy of plant essential oils as antimicrobial agents against Listeria monocytogenes in hotdogs. Lebensm Wissen u Technol 36(8): 787-794 Smith DP, Cason JA, Berrang ME. 2005a. Effect of fecal contamination and cross-contamination on numbers of coliform, Esherichia coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella on immersion-chilled broiler carcasses. J Food Prot 68(7): 1340-1345 Smith DP, Northcutt JK, Musgrove MT. 2005b. Microbiology of contaminated or visibly clean broiler carcasses processed with an inside-outside bird washer.
Int J Poultry Sci 4(12): 955-958 Smith PA, Stewart J, Fyfe L. 2001. The potential application of plant essential oils as natural food preservations in soft cheese. Food Microbiol 18(4): 463-470 Suhr KI, Nielson PV. 2003. Antifungal activity of essential oils evaluated by two different application techniques against rye bread spoilage fungi. J Appl Microbiol 94(4):
Uyttendaele M, Baert K, Ghafir Y, Daube G, De Zutter L, Herman L, Dierick K, Pierard D, Dubois JJ, Horion B, Debevere J. 2006. Quantitative risk assessment of Campylobacter spp. in poultry based meat preparations as one of the factors to support the development of risk-based microbiological criteria in Belgium. Int J Food Microbiol 111(2): 149-163 Youdim KA, Deans SG, Finlayson HJ. 2002. The antioxidant properties of thyme (Thymus zygis L.) essential oil: an inhibitor of lipid peroxidation and a free radical scavenger. J Essential Oil Res 14(3): 210-215 Table 1. Weight changes' of chicken drumettes dipped in 10 % (w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP) with or without 3%(w/v) pea starch (PS), or in 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) with or without 1%(w/v) calcium alginate during storage at 4 C
Treatment % weight change during storage (means SD) Oh lh 24h 72h 120h PS+TSP 5.12 0.48 0.62 0.2 0.12 0.19 0.35 0.14 -0.68 0.13 PS 4.84 0.49 3.86 0.37 3.64 0.36 0.91 0.31 0.89 0.31 TSP 1.49 0.18 0.52 0.21 -0.89 0.19 ND 2 ND
Alginate+ASC 7.86 0.84 5.32 1.0 5.25 1.07 3.98 0.814 4.05 1.2 Calcium alginate 6.88 0.47 4.98 0.29 4.1 0.30 2.5 0.19 2.6 0.11 ASC 1.43 0.15 1.25 0.16 -0.55 0.13 ND ND
Water (control) 1.47 0.04 1.66 1.1 -1.93 0.60 ND ND
' Weight gained or lost/ initial weight x 100.
2 Not determined.
Table 2. Percentage absorptiveness (% At)' of antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) and calcium alginate (alginate+ASC) coatings containing different polymer concentrations applied to chicken skin and held at room temperature for s 60 min Treatment Polymer concentration %At (means SD) after holding (min,) (% w/v) 10 30 60 PS+TSP 0.5 2.40 t 0.61 a 4.51 t 0.36 a 5.81 0.66 a 3.5 1.98t0.23a 3.81 0.55 ab 4.73t0.49a 4.8 0.93 0.20 b 1.23 0.26 1.61 t0.30b Alginate+ASC 0.5 0.98 f 0.26 b 1.15 0.15 1.21 t 0.65 b 1.0 0.62t0.15 0.75 0.15 0.92t0.30b 1.5 0.45t0.21 0.32t0.21d 0.51 t0.36b Water (control) 0.0 1.8 0.20 a 2.7 0.36 b 4.8 0.96 a 5 a-c Means within the same column with common letters are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.
'%A t= (Wwet'Wdry)/(Wo We) X 100; Wwet and Wdry are weights of absorptiveness apparatus holding the skin before and after drying, respectively; Wo initial weight of the skin; We weight of the empty apparatus.
Table 3. Linear regression analysis' of changes in weight of chicken skin coated with antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) and calcium alginate (alginate+ASC) coatings containing different polymer concentrations with time Treatment Polymer concentration Absorption rate Y-intercept R2 (% w/v) (g/min) (initial weight g) PS+TSP 0.5 0.066 2.00 0.94 3.5 0.053 1.74 0.91 4.8 0.013 0.81 0.99 Alginate+ASC 0.5 0.005 0.96 0.86 1.0 0.006 0.56 0.79 1.5 0.001 0.46 0.51 Water (control) 0.0 0.060 1.10 0.98 equation: Y = ax + b; Y is weight of sample; x is time in min.; a is absorption rate; b is initial absorption.
t ~ ~
~ m + 0 CD
~ CD
o ~.
~. V1 00 r.. bq + 1+ cn cn o O
O 00 ~
OG 01 Q, RR tA
~ O O (z Cl ~N
n w ~p (jq cn.
0 0 ~ u ~ o ~e o co' ~
cn fD 0~0 ( J tz 0 ^I~ N U~q [=~
a, 00 '-r `.
c~
N Vi O N W
r'~ CD
¾, 1+ GO
~, I+
y W N ~ 0 .., ~
v N
o 0 Table 5 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the numbers (log cfu/g) of Salmonella Typhimurium and S. Heidelberg on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 Total aerobes No treatment 3.1 0.2 4.6 0.1 6.1 0.2 6.6 0:3 Salmonella inoculation 4.7 0.0 5.0 0.1 6.6 0.5 7.1 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.05 5.2 0.3 7.0 0.4 7.5 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 4.0 0.05 a 3.4 0.5 b 5.8 0.3 7.2 0.4 Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.6 0.3 3.6 0.1 5.2 0.6 5.4 0.7 Salmonella inoculation 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.2 5.3 0.3 6.1 0.6 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 4.9 0.2 4.8 0.1 5.4 0.2 6.9 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 3.9 0.1b 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.7c 5.8 0.4a Thyme oil Salmonella Notreatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salmonella inoculation 5.2 0.0 a 4.5 0.1 b 4.3 0.2 b 4.2 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 5.1 0.1 a 4.2 0.2 b 4.4 0.2 b 3.9 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 4.3 0.4 a 2.9 0.2 b 2.0 1.7 b 2.2 0.4' Thyme oil Experiments with Salmonella + H20 + thyme oil treatment were not conducted.
Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Table 6 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the survival (log cfu/g) of Campylobacter jejuni on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12' Total aerobes Notreatment 3.2 0.0 5.0 0.1 7.7 0.1 7.5 0.1 Campylobacter inoculation 3.4 0.2 4.9 0.1 6.9 0.1 7.2 0.3 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 3.5 0.3 4.9 0.1 7.7 0.0 7.8 0.1 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil ND 3.4 0.4 5.3 0.5 5.3 0.6 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 5.0 0.05 5.7 1.0 + Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.4 0.1 4.3 0.0 6.3 0.2 6.9 0.0 Campylobacter inoculation 3.2 0.0 4.4 0.0 6.1 0.2 7.0 0.1 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 3.4 0.2 4.2 0.1 6.3 0.1 7.5 0.2 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil ND 2.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.1 0.5 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating ND ND 2.3 0.0 4.7 0.2 + Thyme oil Campylobacter jejuni Notreatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campylobacter inoculation 4.6 0.1 a 4.2 0.1 b 3.8 0.2 3.7 0.1 c Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 4.2 0.5 a 3.4 0.1 b 4.6 0.3 a 2.5 0.1 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n = 6, p < 0.05).
ND stands for not detectable (< 100 cfu/g).
Table 7- Effects of thyme oil treatments on the growth (log cfu/g) of Listeria monocytogenes on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 ' Total aerobes No treatment 3.0 0.6 4.6 0.1 6.8 0.1 7.7 0:0 Listeriainoculation 5.6 0.0 5.2 0.4 6.9 0.2 8.1 0.9 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.7 0.1 6.1 0.1 7.2 0.1 8.3 0.0 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 4.0 0.4a 3.5 O.lb 5.3 0.6 5.1 0.6 Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.5 0.3 5.1 0.1 5.9 0.8 6.8 0.5 Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria No treatment 2.5 0.5 4.6 0.1 6.7 0.2 .7.6 0.1 Listeria inoculation 5.5 0.1 5.6 0.0 6.9 0.2 7.7 0.2 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.8 0.2 7.0 0.4 7.8 0.1 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 3.9 0.4a 3.3 0.1b 3.9 0.6a 5.O O.lb Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.5 0.3 4.5 0.5 5.3 0.3 5.5 1.0 Thyme oil Listeria monocytogenes No treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Listeria inoculation 5.5 0.1 5.5 0.0 5.9 0.1 6.4 0.2 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.7 0.0 5.9 0.3 6.6 0.3 7.2 0.2 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 6.0 0.4a 3.1 0.0d 3.6 0.3c 5.1 0.0b Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.3 0.3 4.6 0.5 4.8 0.1 5.1 0.2 Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Table 8 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the growth (log cfu/g) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 ' Total aerobes Notreatment 3.2 0.1 5.5 0.0 6.9 0.2 7.9 0.2 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.1 0.1 5.6 0.6 7.0 0.3 7.5 0.6 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.5 0.6 6.9 0.1 8.2 0.1 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.2 0.0 4.6 0.5 4.9 0.6 6.8 0.4 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coati.ng 4.0 0.3 b 3.1 0.7 a 5.1 0.8 5.6 1.1 + Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.4 0.4 4.9 0.3 6.0 0.2 7.3 0.3 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.0 0.1 4.9 0.1 6.3 0.2 6.9 0.3 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.2 1.2 4.8 0.5 5.9 0.5 7.4 0.0 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.1 0.1 4.3 0.5 4.6 0.5 5.9 0.5 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 3.9 0.3 b 2.7 0.8 a 4.5 0.7 b 5.1 0.9 b,c + Thyme oil Pseudomonas aeruginosa Notreatment 3.2 0.1 5.0 0.2 7.6 0.1 7.9 0.5 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.1 0.2 5.3 0.3 7.8 0.0 7.7 0.2 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.2 0.3 7.6 0.1 8.4 0.1 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.1 0.0 4.5 0.5 6.0 0.6 6.8 0.1 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.0 0.2 b 2.8 0.9 a 5.6 1.9 6.0 1.0 c + Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Oscillatory time sweeps (1 Pa at 1 Hz) were run for all specimens in saline. A
series of dynamic storage moduli (G) as a function of immersion time (t) were obtained from the control software.
Determination of TSP and ASC concentrations in saline After the specimen was loaded, saline solution of 0.5 ml was withdrawn periodically and collected in a vial. The samples, diluted 1000 fold, were analyzed by an ion chromatography system (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The injection volume and flow rate were maintained at 50 NI and 1 ml/min, respectively, throughout the analysis.
External standards (0, 5, 25, 50, 75 and 100 Ng/mI) for both phosphate and chlorite anions were used for calibration. NaOH solution of 30 mM was used as eluent for all samples.
The concentration of antimicrobial (C) in the saline was determined by the peak area for the elution which was calculated by Chromeleon Chromatography Management Systems (Dionex Corporation, Sunnyvale, CA). The concentration of ASC was determined by subtracting the peak area for chloride anions in the pre-load saline solution from the peak area for both chloride and chlorite anions in the samples containing ASC, since both chlorite anions from ASC and chloride anions from NaCI eluted at the same time (3 min).
The concentration of TSP was determined directly by the peak area for phosphate anions in the samples. The concentration of antimicrobial after 12-hr immersion in the saline solution was taken as the equilibrium concentration (C.).
Solids loss and water uptake during gel swelling A freshly prepared gel sample (diameter 20 mm and thickness 5 mm) was weighed before (M;) and after (Md) drying at 105 C to constant weight (about 5 hr).
The initial solids content (SCo) of the fresh gel was determined as MdIM;. A gel sample, after weighing (Mo), was immersed in a saline bath (the sample size, the inner diameter of the bath, the concentration and amount of the saline solution same as those used in the rheological determination) for a period of time up to 8 hr. The swollen gel was then weighed (MsW), followed by drying at 105 C to constant weight (Ms). The amount of solids (Mo) and water (M,,,,o) in the pre-swelling gel were MoSCo and Mo(1-SCo), respectively. The amount of solids (Ms) and water (Mw) in the post-swelling gel were MS and Msw M5, respectively. The solids content (SC) of the swollen gel was M/MS,. All samples are duplicated.
Apparent diffusivities of solids, water and antimicrobials Solids loss, water uptake and antimicrobial release were all assumed to follow Fikian diffusion. A simple form of the solution (Schwartzberg and Chao, 1982, Food Technol 36: 73-86) is:
X-X~ q;Dt =CiEXp(- Z ) (1) Xo - X. R
where X can be the amount of solids (Ms) or water (M,N), or the concentration of antimicrobial released (C), and the subscripts 0 and oo stand for at zero and infinite time, respectively. The constants c, and q, are correlated. For infinite cylinder qt = 4(a + 1)(a - c, ) l c, l a , where the stripping factor ^= 2 (the volume of saline solution divided by the volume of gel). R is the radius of gel sample (10mm), and t the immersion time. The apparent diffusivity (D) of solids, water and antimicrobial were obtained by 3-parameter non-linear fitting of Ms/MSo - t, MWIM o- t, and CIC. -t, based on Equation 1.
Air-chilled fresh chicken breast meats were obtained from a local poultry processing plant (Dunn-Rite, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) about 4 h before the experiment. The meats were cut into 2 cm x 2 cm cubes (10 g 1 g) with a knife disinfected in 70% ethanol. Starch extracted from Canadian yellow field peas (Pisum sativum L. Miranda) by a conventional wet milling process was supplied by Nutri-Pea Ltd.
(Portage-La-Prairie, Manitoba, Canada). Pea starch is a C-type starch containing 37 -40% amylose. One gram of phosphatidyl choline (Fisher Scientific, Nepean, Ontario, Canada) was dissolved in 15 mL of thyme oil (Sigma Chemicals Co., St. Louis, MO) and stored at 4 C until used.
Ampicillin resistant Salmonella entericia serovars (i.e., Typhimurium and Heidelberg) and Campylobacterjejuni were obtained from R. Ahmed, Canadian Centre for Human and Animal Health (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada). Listeria monocytogenes and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were obtained from the culture collections of the Department of Food Science and the Department of Microbiology, respectively, at the University of Manitoba (Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada).
Consistency profile of starch coating solution Fully gelatinized 2.5 % (w/v) aqueous starch solution (prepared by boiling 20 min) containing 1.25% (w/v) glycerol was mixed with 5% (v/v) thyme oil at room temperature, and its consistency was determined using a rheometer (AR1000, TA Instruments, New Castle, DE). The volume of samples was 0.99 mL. Operating conditions of the rheometer were 25 C using a 60 mm diameter 1 angle steel cone. Initial shear rate was 1.275 s-1 and was ramped to 1000 s-1. Shear rate was increased by steady state flow mode with a logarithmic ramp pattern. Consistency index and fluid behavior index were calculated using the power law equation by parameter estimate of regression analysis.
Each treatment was tested in triplicate.
Bacterial inoculum preparation All bacterial cultures were maintained in BHI (brain heart infusion) broth and enumerated on BHI agar (Difco Division, Becton Dickinson Co., Sparks, MD) after incubation at 35 C for 24 to 48 h. For Campylobacter culture BHI agar and broth media were used with 0.5% (w/v) yeast extract and 10% (w/v) laked horse blood (Oxoid Ltd., Nepean, Ontario, Canada), and were incubated at 35 C under microaerophilic conditions created by the CampyPak Plus system (Becton Dickinson Co., Cockeysville, MD) for 48 h.
Bacterial culture broth was centrifuged at 3000g for 15 min at 10 C (Sorvall Refrigerated Centrifuge, Du Pont, Newtown, CT). The sedimented culture pellet was suspended in 0.85% sterile saline solution to wash and was recentrifuged. The pellet was diluted to yield an optical density of 0.80 at 600 nm and the live bacterial population was determined using a spiral plating unit (Autoplate 4000, Spiral Biotech, Bethesda, MD). The equivalent number of bacteria for 0.8 optical density units was 109 cfu/mL.
The two Salmonella cultures were mixed at equal numbers of cells to obtain a cocktail of S.
Typhimurium and S. Heidelberg.
Antimicrobial pea starch coating Pea starch suspension was prepared by mixing 25 g pea starch and 12.5 g glycerol (Sigma-Aldrich Canada Ltd., Oakville, Ontario, Canada) in 1 L sterile cold distilled water. This suspension was boiled for 20 min with agitation to gelatinize pea starch, and cooied in a water bath at 50 C. The thyme oil and phosphatidyl choline mixture was blended into the pea starch coating solution to give a 5% (v/v) concentration and stirred for min.
Inoculation of chicken meat Chicken meat cubes (approximately 2 kg) were placed in a sterile aluminum tray and 2 L of inoculum containing 106 cfu/mL of each of the test organisms and the Salmonella cocktail were separately poured on the chicken cubes. The tray was shaken 2 to 3 times during 15 min exposure to allow the meat to adsorb bacteria, then the excess liquid was drained. The inoculated meats were dried for 5 min in the tray. One quarter of the inoculated cubes (approximately 0.5 kg) were enclosed in a high-barrier plastic bag (Deli*1, WinPak, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada) composed of nyfon/ethylene vinyl alcohol/polyethylene, and heat-sealed. The film was 75 pm thick with an oxygen transmission rate of 2.3 cm3 m-z d"' at 23 C, and water vapor transmission rate of 7.8 g m-2 d" at 37.8 C and 98% relative humidity. The second quarter of the inoculated cubes was transferred onto a sterile tray and 1 L of pea starch coating solution was poured onto the cubes. After shaking for 1 to 2 min, the excess starch solution was drained.
The coated cubes were dried for 1 h in the tray, and each cube was packaged in the high-barrier plastic bag. The third quarter of inoculated cubes was placed in a sterile tray, and I L of pea starch coating solution containing 5% thyme oil was poured on the chicken cubes.
The last quarter of inoculated chicken cubes was mixed with 1 L sterile water containing 5% thyme oil. Both thyme oil treatments were mixed, dried and packaged as described earlier. Chicken meats without inoculation and coating were packaged as control samples (i.e., no treatment). All samples were stored at 4 C.
Viable numbers of bacteria At 0, 4, 8 and 12 d of storage after inoculation, three bags per treatment were opened aseptically and 90 mL of 0.1 % peptone water was added. This bag was placed in a stomacher and pummeled for 1 min. After appropriate serial dilutions, the samples were plated on agar media using the spiral plating unit, and incubated. All plates were counted in duplicate from each sample (total 6 analyses per treatment). Types of agar media used and incubation conditions used for inoculated bacteria were:
Total aerobes: BHI agar at 35 C for 24 h Lactic acid bacteria: MRS agar (Difco) at 32 C for 48 h Salmonella: XLD agar (Difco) containing 100 ppm ampicillin (Sigma-Aldrich) at 35 C for 24 h Campylobacter: Karmali agar (Oxoid Ltd.) containing a growth supplement (Oxoid SR 139) at 35 C for 48 h under microaerophilic conditions Listeria: Listeria selective agar (Oxford selective fomulation, Oxoid Ltd.) at 35 C for 24 h Pseudomonas: Pseudomonas agar (Oxoid Ltd.) with a supplement (Oxoid SR 103) at C for 24 h While the preferred embodiments of the invention have been described above, it will be recognized and understood that various modifications may be made therein, and the appended claims are intended to cover all such modifications which may fall within the spirit and scope of the invention.
REFERENCES
BeMiller, J. N. 1965. Alkaline degradation of starch. Pages 521-532 in Starch:
Chemistry and Technology. R. L. Whistler and E. F. Paschall, ed. Academic Press, New York.
Cagri, A., Z. Ustunol, and E. T. Ryser. 2004. Antimicrobial edible films and coatings. J. Food Prot. 67:833-848.
Choi, W. S., and J. H. Han. 2002. Film-forming mechanism and heat denaturation effect on the physical and chemical properties of pea-protein-isolate edible films. J. Food Sci. 67:1399-1406.
Debeaufort, F., J. Quezada-Gallo, and A. Voilley. 1998. Edible films and coatings:
tomorrow's packaging: A review. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 38:299-313.
Han, J. H., and J. M. Krochta. 2001. Physical properties and oil absorption of whey-protein-coated paper. J. Food Sci. 66:294-229.
Han, J. H., and J. M. Krochta. 1999. Wetting properties and water vapor permeability of whey-protein-coated paper. Trans. ASAE. 42:1375-1382.
Janes, M. E., S. Kooshesh, and M. G. Johnson. 2002. Control of Listeria monocytogenes on the surface of refrigerated, ready-to-eat chicken coated with edible zein film coatings containing nisin and/or calcium propionate. J. Food Sci.
67:2754-2757.
King, A. H. 1982. Brown seaweed extracts (alginates). Pages 115-188 in Food Hydrocolloids. M. Glicksman, ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Lucas, A. M., and P. R. S. Stettenheim. 1972. Microscopic structure of skin and derivatives. Pages 485-636 in Avian Anatomy Integument. A. M. Lucas and P. R.
S.
Stettenheim, ed. Agricultural Research Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.
Mehyar, G. F., G. Blank, J. H. Han, A. Hydamaka, and R. A. Holley. 2005.
Effectiveness of trisodium phosphate, lactic acid and commercial antimicrobials against pathogenic bacteria on chicken skin. Food Prot. Trends. 25:351-362.
Mehyar, G. F., and J. H. Han. 2004. Physical and mechanical properties of high amylose rice and pea starch films as affected by relative humidity and plasticizer. J. Food Sci. 69:E449-E454.
Michalski, M., S. Desobry, and J. Hardy. 1997. Food materials adhesion: a review.
Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 37:591-619.
Natrajan, N., and B. W. Sheldon. 2000a. Efficacy of nisin-coated polymer films to inactivate Salmonella Typhimurium on fresh broiler skin. J. Food Prot. 63:1189-1196.
Natrajan, N., and B. W. Sheldon. 2000b. Inhibition of Salmonella on poultry skin using protein- and polysaccharide-based films containing a nisin formulation.
J. Food Prot.
63:1268-1272.
Oyarzabal, O. A. C., C. Hawk, S. F. Bilgili, C. C. Warf, and G. K. Kemp. 2004.
Effects of postchill application of acidified sodium chlorite to control Campylobacter spp.
and Escherichia coli on commercial broiler carcasses. J. Food Prot. 67:2288-2291.
Ratnayake, W. S., R. Hoover, and T. Warkentin. 2002. Pea starch: composition, structure and properties - a review. Starch. 54:217-234.
Schneider, K. R., G. Kere-Kemp, and M. L. Aldrich. 2002. Acidified sodium chlorite antimicrobial treatment of air chilled broiler carcasses. Dairy Food Environ.
Sanit. 22:102-108.
Siragusa, G. R., and J. S. Dickson. 1992. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on beef tissue by application of organic acids immobilized in calcium alginate gel. J. Food Sci.
57:293-296.
Slader, J., G. Domingue, F. Jorgensen, K. McAlpine, R. J. Owen, F. J. Bolton, and T. J. Humphrey. 2002. Impact of transport crate reuse and of catching and processing on Campylobacter and Salmonella contamination of broiler chicken. Appi. Environ.
Microbiol.
68:713-719.
Suderman, D. R., and F. E. Cunningham. 1980. Factors affecting adhesion of coating to poultry skin, effect of age, method of chilling, and scald temperature on poultry skin ultrastructure. J. Food Sci. 45:444-449.
Thomas, C. J., and T. A. McMeekin. 1982. Effect of water immersion on the microtopography of the skin of chicken carcasses. J. Sci. Food Agric. 33:549-554.
Thomas, C. J., and T. A. McMeekin. 1984. Effect of water uptake by poultry tissues on contamination by bacteria during immersion in bacterial suspensions. J Food Prot.
47:398-402.
Wang, W., Y. Li, M. F. Slavik, and H. Xiong. 1997. Trisodium phosphate and cetylpyridinium chloride spraying on chicken to reduce attached Salmonella typhimurium.
J. Food Prot. 60:992-994.
Xiong, H., Y. Li, M. F. Slavik, and J. T. Walker. 1998. Spraying chicken skin with selected chemicals to reduce attached Salmonella typhimurium. J. Food Prot.
61:272-275.
Zhao, C., Ge Beilei, J. Villena, R. Sudler, E. Yeh, S. Zhao, D. G. White, D.
Wagner, and J. Meng. 2001. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli and Salmonella serovars in retail chicken, turkey, pork and beef from the greater Washington, DC area.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 67:5431-5436.
Bodmeier R, Wang JJ. Microencapsulation of drugs with aqueous colloidal polymer dispersions. J Pharmaceut Sci 1993;82(2):191-194.
Bodmeier R, Chen HG, Paeratakul O. A novel-approach to the oral delivery of micro-particles or nanoparticies. Pharmaceut Res 1989;6(5):413-417.
Doria-Serrano MC, Ruiz-Trevino FA, Rios-Arciga C, Hernandez-Esparza M, Santiago P. Physical characteristics of poly(vinyl alcohol) and calcium alginate hydrogels for the immobilization of activated sludge. Biomacromolecules 2001;2(2):568-574.
Grant GT, Morris ER, Rees DA, Smith PJC, Thom D. Biological interactions between polysaccharides and divalent cations: the egg box model. FEBS Left 1973;32(1):195-198.
Seely GR, Hart RL. The binding of alkaline earth metal ions to alginate.
Macromolecules 1974;7(5):706-710 Ortega NBMD, Perez-Mateos M. Stabilisation of ^-glucosidase entrapped in alginate and polyacrylamide gels towards thermal and proteolytic deactivation.
J Chem Technol Biotechnol 1998;73(1):7-12.
Durrani CM, Donald AM. Physical characterisation of amylopectin gels. Polym Gels Networks 1995;3(1):1-27.
Goodfellow BJ, Wilson RH. A Fourier transform infrared study of the gelation of amylose and amylopectin. Biopolymers 1990;30:1183-1189.
Ring SG, Colonna P, I'Anson KJ, Kalichevsky MT, Miles MJ, Morris VJ, Orford PD.
The gelation and crystallisation of amylopectin. Carbohydr Res 1987;162(2):277-293.
Liu Z, Han JH. Film-forming characteristics of starches. J Food Sci 2005;70(1):E31-E36.
Miyata T, Asami N, Uragami T. Preparation of an antigen-sensitive hydrogel using antigen-antibody bindings. Macromolecules 1999;32(6):2082-2084 Galliard T, Bowler P. Morphology and composition of starch. In: Galliard T, editor.
Starch: Properties and Potential. New York: John Wiley & Son, 1987. p. 55-78.
Liu Z. Edible films and coatings from starches. In: Han JH, editor.
Innovations in Food Packaging. New York: Academic Press, 2005. p. 318-337.
Smidsrrad 0, Grasdalen H. Polyelectrolytes from seaweeds. Hydrobiologia 1984;116-117:19-28 Ahearne M, Yang Y, El Haj AJ, Then KY, Liu KK. Characterizing the viscoelastic properties of thin hydrogel-based constructs for tissue engineering applications. J R Soc Interface 2005;2(5):455-463.
Decho AW. Imaging an alginate polymer gel matrix using atomic force microscopy.
Carbohydr Res 1999;315(3-4):330-333 Walkenstrom P, Kidman S, Hermansson AM, Rasmussen PB, Hoegh L.
Microstructure and rheological behaviour of alginate/pectin mixed gels. Food Hydrocol 2003;17(5):593-603.
Donati I, Holtan S, Morch YA, Borgogna M, Dentini M, Skjak-Braek G. New hypothesis on the role of alternating sequences in calcium-alginate gels.
Biomacromolecules 2005;6(2):1031-1040.
Rees DA, Samuel JWB. Structure of alginic acid. VI. Minor features and structural variations. J Chem Soc C Organic 1967;22:2295-2298.
Li Z, Ramay HR, Hauch KD, Xiao D, Zhang M. Chitosan-alginate hybrid scaffolds for bone tissue engineering. Biomaterials 2005;26(18):3919-3928 Rajaonarivony M, Vauthier C, Couarraze G, Puisieux F, Couvreur P. Development of a new drug carrier made from alginate. J Pharmaceut Sci 1993;82(9):912-917.
Peppas NA, Huang Y, Torres-Lugo M, Ward JH, Zhang J. Physicochemical foundations and structural design of hydrogels in medicine and biology. Annu Rev Biomed Eng 2000;2:9-29.
Prokop A, Kozlov E, Carlesso G, Davidson JM. Hydrogel-based colloidal polymeric system for protein and drug delivery: physical and chemical characterization, permeability control and applications. Adv Polym Sci 2002;160:119-173.
Schwartzberg HG, Chao RY. Solute diffusivities in leaching processes. Food Technol 1982;36(2):73-86 Makino K, Idenuma R, Ohshima H. A model for erosion kinetics of a hydrogel matrix. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces 1996;8(1-2):93-100.
Jane J. Mechanism of starch gelatinization in neutral salt solutions.
Starch/Starke 1993;45(5):161-166.
Black JL, Jaczynski J. 2006. Temperature effect on inactivation kinetics of Escherichia coli 0157:H7 by electron beam in ground beef, chicken breast meat, and trout fillets. J Food Sci 71(6): M221-227 Burt S. 2004. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods - a review. Int J Food Microbiol 94: 223-253 Cason JA, Berrang ME, Smith DP. 2006. Recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses rinsed zero and twenty-four hours after immersion chilling. Poultry Sci 85(2):
Corry JEL, James SJ, Purnell G, Barbedo-Pinto CS, Chochois Y, Howell M, James C. 2007. Surface pasteurization of chicken carcasses using hot water. J Food Eng 79(3):
Friedman M, Henika PR, Levin CE, Mandrell RE. 2006. Antimicrobial wine formulations active against the foodborne pathogens Escherichia coli 0157:H7 and Salmonella enterica. J Food Sci 71(7): M245-251 Friedman M, Henika PR, Mandrell RE. 2002. Bactericidal activities of plant essential oils and some of their constituents against Campylobacterjejuni, E.
coli, Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella Typhimurium. J Food Prot 65(10): 1545-1560 Gennadios A, Hanna MA, Kurth LB. 1997. Application of edible coatings on meats, poultry and seafoods: a review. Lebensm Wiss u Technol 30(4): 337-350 Han JH. 2007. Packaging for nonthermal food processing: future. In: Packaging for Nonthermal Processing of Foods (Han JH, ed.). Blackwell Publishing Professionals, Ames, IA. p. 213-226 Han JH, Seo GH, Park IM, Kim GN, Lee DS. 2006. Physical and mechanical properties of pea starch edible films containing beeswax emulsions. J Food Sci 71(5):
Han, J.H. 2005. Antimicrobial packaging systems. In: Innovations in Food Packaging (Han JH, ed.). Elsevier Academic Press, Oxford, UK. p. 80-107 Han, J.H. 2003. Antimicrobial food packaging. In: Novel Food Packaging Techniques (Ahvenainen R, ed.). Woodhead Publishing Ltd., Cambridge, UK. p. 50-Holley RA, Patel D. 2005. Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials. Food Microbiol 22: 273-292 Jorgensen F, Bailey R, Williams S, Henderson P, Wareing DRA, Bolton FJ, Frost JA, Ward L, Humphrey TL. 2002. Prevalence and numbers of Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. on raw, whole chicken in relation to sampling methods. Int J Food Microbiol 76: 151-164 Kaloustian J, Abou L, Mikail C, Amiot MJ, Portugal H. 2005. Southern French thyme oils: chromatographic study of chemotypes. J Sci Food Agric 85(14): 2437-Mehyar GF, Han JH, Holley RA, Blank G, Hydamaka AW. 2007. Suitability of pea starch and calcium alginate as antimicrobial coatings on chicken skin. Poultry Sci 87(2):
Min SC, Harris LJ, Han JH, Krochta JM. 2005. Listeria monocytogenes inhibition by whey protein films and coatings incorporating lysozyme. J Food Prot 68(11):
Northcutt JK, Cason JA, Smith DP, Buhr RJ, Fletcher DL. 2006. Broiler carcass bacterial counts after immersion chilling using either a low or high volume of water. Poultry Sci 85(10): 1802-1806 Patsias A, Chouliara I, Badeka A, Savvaidis IN, Kontominas MG. 2006. Shelf-life of a chilled precooked chicken product stored in air and under modified atmospheres:
microbiological, chemical, sensory attributes. Food Microbiol 23(5): 423-429 Sasso M, Culici M, Brega PC, Guffanti EE, Mucci M. 2006. Thymol: inhibitory activity on Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus adhesion to human vaginal celis. J
Essential Oil Res 18(4): 455-461 Singh A, Singh RK, Bhunia AK, Singh N. 2003. Efficacy of plant essential oils as antimicrobial agents against Listeria monocytogenes in hotdogs. Lebensm Wissen u Technol 36(8): 787-794 Smith DP, Cason JA, Berrang ME. 2005a. Effect of fecal contamination and cross-contamination on numbers of coliform, Esherichia coli, Campylobacter, and Salmonella on immersion-chilled broiler carcasses. J Food Prot 68(7): 1340-1345 Smith DP, Northcutt JK, Musgrove MT. 2005b. Microbiology of contaminated or visibly clean broiler carcasses processed with an inside-outside bird washer.
Int J Poultry Sci 4(12): 955-958 Smith PA, Stewart J, Fyfe L. 2001. The potential application of plant essential oils as natural food preservations in soft cheese. Food Microbiol 18(4): 463-470 Suhr KI, Nielson PV. 2003. Antifungal activity of essential oils evaluated by two different application techniques against rye bread spoilage fungi. J Appl Microbiol 94(4):
Uyttendaele M, Baert K, Ghafir Y, Daube G, De Zutter L, Herman L, Dierick K, Pierard D, Dubois JJ, Horion B, Debevere J. 2006. Quantitative risk assessment of Campylobacter spp. in poultry based meat preparations as one of the factors to support the development of risk-based microbiological criteria in Belgium. Int J Food Microbiol 111(2): 149-163 Youdim KA, Deans SG, Finlayson HJ. 2002. The antioxidant properties of thyme (Thymus zygis L.) essential oil: an inhibitor of lipid peroxidation and a free radical scavenger. J Essential Oil Res 14(3): 210-215 Table 1. Weight changes' of chicken drumettes dipped in 10 % (w/v) trisodium phosphate (TSP) with or without 3%(w/v) pea starch (PS), or in 1200 ppm acidified sodium chlorite (ASC) with or without 1%(w/v) calcium alginate during storage at 4 C
Treatment % weight change during storage (means SD) Oh lh 24h 72h 120h PS+TSP 5.12 0.48 0.62 0.2 0.12 0.19 0.35 0.14 -0.68 0.13 PS 4.84 0.49 3.86 0.37 3.64 0.36 0.91 0.31 0.89 0.31 TSP 1.49 0.18 0.52 0.21 -0.89 0.19 ND 2 ND
Alginate+ASC 7.86 0.84 5.32 1.0 5.25 1.07 3.98 0.814 4.05 1.2 Calcium alginate 6.88 0.47 4.98 0.29 4.1 0.30 2.5 0.19 2.6 0.11 ASC 1.43 0.15 1.25 0.16 -0.55 0.13 ND ND
Water (control) 1.47 0.04 1.66 1.1 -1.93 0.60 ND ND
' Weight gained or lost/ initial weight x 100.
2 Not determined.
Table 2. Percentage absorptiveness (% At)' of antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) and calcium alginate (alginate+ASC) coatings containing different polymer concentrations applied to chicken skin and held at room temperature for s 60 min Treatment Polymer concentration %At (means SD) after holding (min,) (% w/v) 10 30 60 PS+TSP 0.5 2.40 t 0.61 a 4.51 t 0.36 a 5.81 0.66 a 3.5 1.98t0.23a 3.81 0.55 ab 4.73t0.49a 4.8 0.93 0.20 b 1.23 0.26 1.61 t0.30b Alginate+ASC 0.5 0.98 f 0.26 b 1.15 0.15 1.21 t 0.65 b 1.0 0.62t0.15 0.75 0.15 0.92t0.30b 1.5 0.45t0.21 0.32t0.21d 0.51 t0.36b Water (control) 0.0 1.8 0.20 a 2.7 0.36 b 4.8 0.96 a 5 a-c Means within the same column with common letters are not significantly (P > 0.05) different.
'%A t= (Wwet'Wdry)/(Wo We) X 100; Wwet and Wdry are weights of absorptiveness apparatus holding the skin before and after drying, respectively; Wo initial weight of the skin; We weight of the empty apparatus.
Table 3. Linear regression analysis' of changes in weight of chicken skin coated with antimicrobial pea starch (PS+TSP) and calcium alginate (alginate+ASC) coatings containing different polymer concentrations with time Treatment Polymer concentration Absorption rate Y-intercept R2 (% w/v) (g/min) (initial weight g) PS+TSP 0.5 0.066 2.00 0.94 3.5 0.053 1.74 0.91 4.8 0.013 0.81 0.99 Alginate+ASC 0.5 0.005 0.96 0.86 1.0 0.006 0.56 0.79 1.5 0.001 0.46 0.51 Water (control) 0.0 0.060 1.10 0.98 equation: Y = ax + b; Y is weight of sample; x is time in min.; a is absorption rate; b is initial absorption.
t ~ ~
~ m + 0 CD
~ CD
o ~.
~. V1 00 r.. bq + 1+ cn cn o O
O 00 ~
OG 01 Q, RR tA
~ O O (z Cl ~N
n w ~p (jq cn.
0 0 ~ u ~ o ~e o co' ~
cn fD 0~0 ( J tz 0 ^I~ N U~q [=~
a, 00 '-r `.
c~
N Vi O N W
r'~ CD
¾, 1+ GO
~, I+
y W N ~ 0 .., ~
v N
o 0 Table 5 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the numbers (log cfu/g) of Salmonella Typhimurium and S. Heidelberg on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 Total aerobes No treatment 3.1 0.2 4.6 0.1 6.1 0.2 6.6 0:3 Salmonella inoculation 4.7 0.0 5.0 0.1 6.6 0.5 7.1 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.05 5.2 0.3 7.0 0.4 7.5 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 4.0 0.05 a 3.4 0.5 b 5.8 0.3 7.2 0.4 Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.6 0.3 3.6 0.1 5.2 0.6 5.4 0.7 Salmonella inoculation 4.7 0.0 4.7 0.2 5.3 0.3 6.1 0.6 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 4.9 0.2 4.8 0.1 5.4 0.2 6.9 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 3.9 0.1b 3.0 0.0 2.8 0.7c 5.8 0.4a Thyme oil Salmonella Notreatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Salmonella inoculation 5.2 0.0 a 4.5 0.1 b 4.3 0.2 b 4.2 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating 5.1 0.1 a 4.2 0.2 b 4.4 0.2 b 3.9 0.1 Salmonella + Pea starch coating + 4.3 0.4 a 2.9 0.2 b 2.0 1.7 b 2.2 0.4' Thyme oil Experiments with Salmonella + H20 + thyme oil treatment were not conducted.
Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Table 6 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the survival (log cfu/g) of Campylobacter jejuni on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12' Total aerobes Notreatment 3.2 0.0 5.0 0.1 7.7 0.1 7.5 0.1 Campylobacter inoculation 3.4 0.2 4.9 0.1 6.9 0.1 7.2 0.3 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 3.5 0.3 4.9 0.1 7.7 0.0 7.8 0.1 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil ND 3.4 0.4 5.3 0.5 5.3 0.6 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.1 5.0 0.05 5.7 1.0 + Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.4 0.1 4.3 0.0 6.3 0.2 6.9 0.0 Campylobacter inoculation 3.2 0.0 4.4 0.0 6.1 0.2 7.0 0.1 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 3.4 0.2 4.2 0.1 6.3 0.1 7.5 0.2 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil ND 2.0 0.0 2.3 0.0 4.1 0.5 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating ND ND 2.3 0.0 4.7 0.2 + Thyme oil Campylobacter jejuni Notreatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campylobacter inoculation 4.6 0.1 a 4.2 0.1 b 3.8 0.2 3.7 0.1 c Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 4.2 0.5 a 3.4 0.1 b 4.6 0.3 a 2.5 0.1 Campylobacter + H20 + Thyme oil 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Campylobacter + Pea starch coating 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 + Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n = 6, p < 0.05).
ND stands for not detectable (< 100 cfu/g).
Table 7- Effects of thyme oil treatments on the growth (log cfu/g) of Listeria monocytogenes on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 ' Total aerobes No treatment 3.0 0.6 4.6 0.1 6.8 0.1 7.7 0:0 Listeriainoculation 5.6 0.0 5.2 0.4 6.9 0.2 8.1 0.9 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.7 0.1 6.1 0.1 7.2 0.1 8.3 0.0 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 4.0 0.4a 3.5 O.lb 5.3 0.6 5.1 0.6 Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.5 0.3 5.1 0.1 5.9 0.8 6.8 0.5 Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria No treatment 2.5 0.5 4.6 0.1 6.7 0.2 .7.6 0.1 Listeria inoculation 5.5 0.1 5.6 0.0 6.9 0.2 7.7 0.2 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.8 0.2 7.0 0.4 7.8 0.1 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 3.9 0.4a 3.3 0.1b 3.9 0.6a 5.O O.lb Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.5 0.3 4.5 0.5 5.3 0.3 5.5 1.0 Thyme oil Listeria monocytogenes No treatment 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Listeria inoculation 5.5 0.1 5.5 0.0 5.9 0.1 6.4 0.2 Listeria + Pea starch coating 4.7 0.0 5.9 0.3 6.6 0.3 7.2 0.2 Listeria + H20 + Thyme oil 6.0 0.4a 3.1 0.0d 3.6 0.3c 5.1 0.0b Listeria + Pea starch coating + 4.3 0.3 4.6 0.5 4.8 0.1 5.1 0.2 Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Table 8 Effects of thyme oil treatments on the growth (log cfu/g) of Pseudomonas aeruginosa on chicken breast meat at 4 C.
Treatments Day 0 Day 4 Day 8 Day 12 ' Total aerobes Notreatment 3.2 0.1 5.5 0.0 6.9 0.2 7.9 0.2 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.1 0.1 5.6 0.6 7.0 0.3 7.5 0.6 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.5 0.6 6.9 0.1 8.2 0.1 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.2 0.0 4.6 0.5 4.9 0.6 6.8 0.4 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coati.ng 4.0 0.3 b 3.1 0.7 a 5.1 0.8 5.6 1.1 + Thyme oil Lactic acid bacteria Notreatment 2.4 0.4 4.9 0.3 6.0 0.2 7.3 0.3 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.0 0.1 4.9 0.1 6.3 0.2 6.9 0.3 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.2 1.2 4.8 0.5 5.9 0.5 7.4 0.0 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.1 0.1 4.3 0.5 4.6 0.5 5.9 0.5 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 3.9 0.3 b 2.7 0.8 a 4.5 0.7 b 5.1 0.9 b,c + Thyme oil Pseudomonas aeruginosa Notreatment 3.2 0.1 5.0 0.2 7.6 0.1 7.9 0.5 Pseudomonas inoculation 5.1 0.2 5.3 0.3 7.8 0.0 7.7 0.2 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.8 0.1 5.2 0.3 7.6 0.1 8.4 0.1 Pseudomonas + H20 + Thyme oil 4.1 0.0 4.5 0.5 6.0 0.6 6.8 0.1 Pseudomonas + Pea starch coating 4.0 0.2 b 2.8 0.9 a 5.6 1.9 6.0 1.0 c + Thyme oil Different superscripts indicate a significant difference of values in rows (t-test, n 6, p < 0.05).
Claims (16)
1 An antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial
2 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 wherein the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying
3 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 comprising 0 1-10%
hydrophilic polymer and 0 1-25% antimicrobial
hydrophilic polymer and 0 1-25% antimicrobial
4 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 wherein the hydrophilic polymer is selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, (pre-)gelatinized starch, modified starch, dextrin, maltodextrin, pectin, iota-carrageenan, lambda-carrageenan, gum arabic, gum acacia, gum ghatti, guar gum, xanthan gum, gellan gum, pullulan and combinations thereof
The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 wherein the hydrophilic polymer is gelatinized pea starch
6 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial is selected from the group consisting of thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol, terpineol, and combinations thereof
7 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 1 wherein the antimicrobial is selected from the group consisting of thyme oil, rosemary oil, clove oil, basil oil, mint oil, eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil, trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite and oregano oil
8 The antimicrobial coating according to claim 5 wherein the antimicrobial is thyme oil
9 A method of protecting a perishable food surface from microbial contamination comprising providing an antibacterial coating comprising a hydrophilic polymer and a hydrophilic water soluble antimicrobial, and applying the antimicrobial coating to the perishable food surface wherein the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying
The method according to claim 9 wherein the concentration of the hydrophilic polymer is such that it forms a solution that is viscous during coating and forms a gel during drying
11 The method according to claim 9 comprising 0 1-10% hydrophilic polymer and 0 1-25% antimicrobial
12 The method according to claim 9 wherein the hydrophilic polymer is selected from the group consisting of microcrystalline cellulose, (pre-)gelatinized starch, modified starch, dextrin, maltodextrin, pectin, iota-carrageenan, lambda-carrageenan, gum arabic, gum acacia, gum ghatti, guar gum, xanthan gum, gellan gum, pullulan and combinations thereof.
13 The method according to claim 9 wherein the hydrophilic polymer is gelatinized pea starch
14 The method according to claim 9 wherein the antimicrobial is selected from the group consisting of thymol, carvacrol, linalool, geraniol, thujanol, terpineol, and combinations thereof
The method according to claim 9 wherein the antimicrobial is selected from the group consisting of thyme oil, rosemary oil, clove oil, basil oil, mint oil, eucalyptus oil, tea tree oil trisodium phosphate, acidified sodium chlorite and oregano oil
16 The method according to claim 13 wherein the antimicrobial is thyme oil
Applications Claiming Priority (7)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US82447906P | 2006-09-05 | 2006-09-05 | |
US60/824,479 | 2006-09-05 | ||
US93969807P | 2007-05-23 | 2007-05-23 | |
US60/939,698 | 2007-05-23 | ||
US94042807P | 2007-05-28 | 2007-05-28 | |
US60/940,428 | 2007-05-28 | ||
PCT/CA2007/001547 WO2008028278A1 (en) | 2006-09-05 | 2007-08-31 | Antimicrobial coatings |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
CA2656397A1 true CA2656397A1 (en) | 2008-03-13 |
Family
ID=39156765
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
CA002656397A Abandoned CA2656397A1 (en) | 2006-09-05 | 2007-08-31 | Antimicrobial coatings |
Country Status (2)
Country | Link |
---|---|
CA (1) | CA2656397A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2008028278A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP4156929A4 (en) * | 2020-05-27 | 2023-12-06 | Vacopak Industries Ltd. | Antimicrobial coating for food packaging |
Families Citing this family (15)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
CN102186341B (en) | 2008-10-20 | 2013-12-25 | 荷兰联合利华有限公司 | Antimicrobial composition |
EA019746B1 (en) | 2009-09-24 | 2014-05-30 | Юнилевер Нв | Disinfecting agent comprising eugenol, terpineol and thymol and method of disinfecting a surface |
US20110300265A1 (en) * | 2010-06-08 | 2011-12-08 | Caravan Ingredients Inc. | Pan release compositions for preparation of long shelf life, bakery products |
EP2460409A1 (en) * | 2010-12-03 | 2012-06-06 | Nestec S.A. | Delivery carrier for antimicrobial essential oils |
EA022986B1 (en) | 2010-12-07 | 2016-04-29 | Юнилевер Нв | Oral care composition |
CN103998011B (en) | 2011-11-03 | 2016-11-23 | 荷兰联合利华有限公司 | Personal cleaning compositions |
ES2431442B1 (en) * | 2012-04-24 | 2014-09-09 | Manuel CARBALLO DE SALES | Procedure and obtaining a regenerative product of vital organs and by-product of cutaneous use |
SE537668C2 (en) * | 2013-04-26 | 2015-09-29 | Stora Enso Oyj | Process for treating a food product with a solution comprising a nanofibrillated polysaccharide and mono-treated product |
US20160242428A1 (en) * | 2015-02-13 | 2016-08-25 | Hydromer, Inc. | Antimicrobial formulations and methods for sanitizing meat products |
MX2017011299A (en) * | 2015-03-05 | 2018-01-23 | Dow Global Technologies Llc | Material for packaging comprising antimicrobial composition. |
WO2017158607A1 (en) * | 2016-03-17 | 2017-09-21 | Technion Research & Development Foundation Ltd. | Antimicrobial compositions and use thereof |
CN109454945B (en) * | 2018-09-28 | 2020-12-22 | 华南理工大学 | Double-layer bidirectional controlled-release antioxidant antibacterial film and preparation method and application thereof |
CN114025614A (en) * | 2019-05-06 | 2022-02-08 | 液封控股有限公司 | Edible coating composition for coating freshly harvested product |
US20210155777A1 (en) * | 2019-11-27 | 2021-05-27 | The United States Of America, As Represented By The Secretary Of Agriculture | Natural packaging composition |
CN111387216A (en) * | 2020-04-15 | 2020-07-10 | 广东爱锝医药技术研究院有限公司 | Air sterilization and disinfection composition |
Family Cites Families (8)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
MXPA96003950A (en) * | 1995-09-08 | 2009-03-25 | Union Carbide Chem Plastic | Biostatic coatings and processes. |
US6054504A (en) * | 1997-12-31 | 2000-04-25 | Hydromer, Inc. | Biostatic coatings for the reduction and prevention of bacterial adhesion |
US6203812B1 (en) * | 1998-06-29 | 2001-03-20 | Hydromer, Inc. | Hydrophilic polymer blends used to prevent cow skin infections |
US6596298B2 (en) * | 1998-09-25 | 2003-07-22 | Warner-Lambert Company | Fast dissolving orally comsumable films |
US7067116B1 (en) * | 2000-03-23 | 2006-06-27 | Warner-Lambert Company Llc | Fast dissolving orally consumable solid film containing a taste masking agent and pharmaceutically active agent at weight ratio of 1:3 to 3:1 |
CN1302707C (en) * | 2001-01-04 | 2007-03-07 | 拜奥特罗尔股份有限公司 | Anti-microbial composition |
WO2004058231A2 (en) * | 2002-12-26 | 2004-07-15 | University Of Manitoba | Dissolving film comprising a therapeutically active agent within the film or in a pouch formed by the film |
US20060051384A1 (en) * | 2004-09-07 | 2006-03-09 | 3M Innovative Properties Company | Antiseptic compositions and methods of use |
-
2007
- 2007-08-31 WO PCT/CA2007/001547 patent/WO2008028278A1/en active Application Filing
- 2007-08-31 CA CA002656397A patent/CA2656397A1/en not_active Abandoned
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
EP4156929A4 (en) * | 2020-05-27 | 2023-12-06 | Vacopak Industries Ltd. | Antimicrobial coating for food packaging |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
WO2008028278A1 (en) | 2008-03-13 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
CA2656397A1 (en) | Antimicrobial coatings | |
Duan et al. | Chitosan as a preservative for fruits and vegetables: a review on chemistry and antimicrobial properties | |
Muppalla et al. | Carboxymethyl cellulose–polyvinyl alcohol films with clove oil for active packaging of ground chicken meat | |
Dutta et al. | Perspectives for chitosan based antimicrobial films in food applications | |
Campos et al. | Development of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity | |
Zinoviadou et al. | Physical and thermo-mechanical properties of whey protein isolate films containing antimicrobials, and their effect against spoilage flora of fresh beef | |
Kristo et al. | Thermal, mechanical and water vapor barrier properties of sodium caseinate films containing antimicrobials and their inhibitory action on Listeria monocytogenes | |
Boyacı et al. | Development of flexible antimicrobial zein coatings with essential oils for the inhibition of critical pathogens on the surface of whole fruits: Test of coatings on inoculated melons | |
Cutter | Opportunities for bio-based packaging technologies to improve the quality and safety of fresh and further processed muscle foods | |
Krasniewska et al. | Substances with antibacterial activity in edible films-a review | |
Zhang et al. | Physical and antibacterial properties of alginate films containing cinnamon bark oil and soybean oil | |
Lacroix et al. | Edible films and coatings from nonstarch polysaccharides | |
Takala et al. | Antibacterial effect of biodegradable active packaging on the growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes in fresh broccoli stored at 4 C | |
EP1732399B1 (en) | Lysozyme-chitosan films | |
Luangapai et al. | Biopolymer films for food industries: Properties, applications, and future aspects based on chitosan | |
Leyva-Jiménez et al. | Comprehensive review of natural based hydrogels as an upcoming trend for food packing | |
JP2020506988A (en) | Food coating | |
Khezerlou et al. | Plant gums as the functional compounds for edible films and coatings in the food industry: A review | |
KR20190119501A (en) | Antimicrobial hydrogel for preserving freshness of food | |
Yang et al. | Preparation of three-layer flaxseed gum/chitosan/flaxseed gum composite coatings with sustained-release properties and their excellent protective effect on myofibril protein of rainbow trout | |
Kapetanakou et al. | Application of edible films and coatings on food | |
Wang et al. | Preservation effect of meat product by natural antioxidant tea polyphenol | |
Vargas et al. | Edible chitosan coatings for fresh and minimally processed foods | |
Badawy et al. | Current applications in food preservation based on marine biopolymers | |
Wang et al. | Physical properties and antimicrobial activity of chilled meat pads containing sodium carboxymethyl cellulose |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
EEER | Examination request | ||
FZDE | Discontinued |
Effective date: 20150205 |