Next Article in Journal
A Computer-Assisted Approach Regarding the Optimization of the Geometrical Planning of Medial Opening Wedge High Tibial Osteotomy
Previous Article in Journal
Current Research in Food Safety and Biotechnology
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/app12136639
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of Electrolyzed Water in the Food Industry: A Review

by
Maksim Rebezov
1,
Kanza Saeed
2,
Adnan Khaliq
2,
Syed Junaid Ur Rahman
2,
Nimra Sameed
2,
Anastasia Semenova
1,
Mars Khayrullin
1,3,
Andrey Dydykin
1,
Yury Abramov
3,
Muthu Thiruvengadam
4,
Mohammad Ali Shariati
1,3,*,
Sneh Punia Bangar
5 and
Jose M. Lorenzo
6,7,*
1
Research Department, V. M. Gorbatov Federal Research Center for Food Systems, 26 Talalikhina Str., 109316 Moscow, Russia
2
Department of Food Science and Technology, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan 64200, Pakistan
3
Research Department, K. G. Razumovsky Moscow State University of Technologies and Management, 73-emlyanoy Val, 109004 Moscow, Russia
4
Department of Applied Bioscience, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Konkuk University, Seoul 05029, Korea
5
Department of Food, Nutrition and Packaging Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA
6
Centro Tecnológico de la Carne de Galicia, Adva. Galicia n° 4, Parque Tecnológico de Galicia, San Cibrao das Viñas, 32900 Ourense, Spain
7
Facultad de Ciencias de Ourense, Universidade de Vigo, Área de Tecnología de los Alimentos, 32004 Ourense, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2022, 12(13), 6639; https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136639
Submission received: 9 May 2022 / Revised: 20 June 2022 / Accepted: 27 June 2022 / Published: 30 June 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Electrolyzed water is a novel disinfectant and cleaner that has been widely utilized in the food sector for several years to ensure that surfaces are sterilized, and that food is safe. It is produced by the electrolysis of a dilute salt solution, and the reaction products include sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and hypochlorous acid. In comparison to conventional cleaning agents, electrolyzed water is economical and eco-friendly, easy to use, and strongly effective. Electrolyzed water is also used in its acidic form, but it is non-corrosive to the human epithelium and other organic matter. The electrolyzed water can be utilized in a diverse range of foods; thus, it is an appropriate choice for synergistic microbial control in the food industry to ensure food safety and quality without damaging the organoleptic parameters of the food. The present review article highlights the latest information on the factors responsible for food spoilage and the antimicrobial potential of electrolyzed water in fresh or processed plant and animal products.

1. Introduction

Around the globe, numerous foodborne aliments are prevalent [1]. These diseases are costing humans enormous suffering and posing survival challenges over time, and currently, the issues of food intoxication and acute food borne infections are reaching alarming rates in comparison to the past few decades [2], raising concerns for governments, regulatory authorities, and food processing industries [3]. Foodborne diseases caused by the consumption of unsafe food results in 600 million reported cases globally, with an annual death rate of 420,000 people out of 56 million total deaths each year [4]. A total of 600 million individuals suffering from foodborne illnesses account for 7.69% of the total world population (7.8 billion). Each year, 56 million people die due to various reasons, and 7.5% of these mortalities (420,000 death) occur solely due to foodborne diseases. According to statistics from the World Health organization, 23 million people in Europe suffer from foodborne illnesses with an annual mortality rate of 5000 individuals [5]. According to the data from Centers for Disease Control, in the USA, 1 out of 6 people are affected by the consumption of contaminated food or beverages, with annual death rate of 3000 individuals. As per the calculations of the United States Department of Agriculture, contaminated food and beverages costs more than 15.6 billion US dollars each year [6]. Scientific societies around the globe are continuously striving to establish safe and effective protocols and means to ensure food safety [7]. Food safety issues have always been a point of concern for food manufacturers, retailers, researchers, regularity authorities, and policymakers in developed as well as developing countries [8], such as Japan [9], the USA [10], Taiwan [11] and the United Kingdom [12]. Recent outbreaks in these countries have increased international concerns regarding the issue [13].
To date, numerous techniques have been designed to control incidences of food-borne diseases to ensure the provision of a safe food supply [14]. Most food processing establishments implement Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) in their systems as a preventive measure [15]. Incidences of food-borne illness outbreaks are still prevalent in the foodservice sector, including food stores, institutions, and fast-food restaurants, where food commodities receive multiple treatments to ensure their safety for consumption [16]. Even after implementing safety measures, the incidence of these issues indicates that hazards still exist in the food supply chain [17]. With increasing demands for processed food, the food chain is becoming complicated in terms of transportation, handling, storage, and processing, rendering the maintenance of a safe food supply a challenging task [13].
Another challenge is presented by the current environmental conditions that are increasing the urge to utilize natural resources [18]. To conserve energy and water resources [19], emerging technologies are being developed in an attempt to create reliable alternatives to restrict or eliminate the production of chemical residues produced during various operations [20]. These technologies, alternatives to the conventional methods, attempt to improve microbiological safety, physicochemical characteristics, and overall food quality [21]. Electrolyzed water technology, an invention of green chemistry, has gained popularity as a disinfection technique [22]. Electrolyzed oxidizing water, also regarded as Electrolyzed Strong Acid Aqueous Solution (ESAAS) [23] or Strong Acidic Electrolyzed Water (StAEW), is a novel antimicrobial that has been used globally for the past few years [24]. Numerous studies report the antimicrobial potential of electrolyzed water against a variety of microorganisms [25]. In the recent past, electrolyzed water has found its application in medicine, dentistry [26], agriculture, and the food industry [27]. In the various food industries, electrolyzed water is used as disinfectant for cutting tools, an antimicrobial agent for the carcasses of poultry birds [28], and for disinfecting eggs in the meat industry [29]. In the fruits and vegetable processing industries [30], lettuce [31], pears [32], peaches [33], sprouts [34], apples [35], tomatoes [36], alfalfa seeds [37], strawberries, and their respective forms of processing equipment are disinfected using electrolyzed water [38].
Electrolyzed water is not only inexpensive but is also far more effective than conventional cleaning agents [39]. Electrolyzed water kills pathogenic microorganisms [40] and protects the environment from the adverse impacts of hazardous chemical disinfectants [41]. Figure 1 shows a schematic diagram of electrolyzed water manufacturing. This process creates cheaper, safer, and more effective products compared to dangerous synthetic chemical preservatives such as acetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, and glutaraldehyde [42]. In this review, some of the important characteristics of electrolyzed water will be elucidated, i.e., its antimicrobial, physical, and chemical properties; functional characteristics; and its utilization in food industries such as poultry, fruits and vegetable, egg, and seafood processing.

2. Application of Electrolyzed Water in the Food Industry

The growth and sustainability of microorganisms depend upon the environmental conditions, food composition, storage conditions, and the processes the food undergoes during its keeping life [43,44]. There are two types of driving forces that impact the microbial safety of foods: intrinsic factors and extrinsic factors, i.e., food matrix inherent properties and the surrounding environment (the processing and storage conditions), respectively [45]. The food matrix and its surrounding environment undergo various changes from the time of harvest to consumption, which are considered potential contributors to product development [46]. To endure these changes, each microorganism has its own upper and lower threshold limits [47]. Each microbial species has its own optimum growth conditions in terms of intrinsic and extrinsic factors [48]. These optimum values are neither absolute nor specific; they vary from species to species [49]. When microorganisms grow in a food environment, they adapt to it and acquire essential nutrients required for their canal metabolism and energy synthesis [50]. Besides nutritional requirements, it is also essential to support the atmosphere and temperature [51]. To prevent these microbes from becoming food safety risks, it is important to understand the growth and metabolic requirements of the target spoilage agents [52]. Usually, unfavourable growth conditions are created to inhibit and inactivate pathogenic and food spoilage-capable microorganisms [53].

2.1. Main Factors Responsible for Food Spoilage

To enhance food safety and product quality, intrinsic and extrinsic factors are both naturally and artificially modulated. The adjustments made to these factors/conditions minimize and/or prevent the growth and establishment of microbial flora, which in turn escalates the shelf-life of food [54]. Figure 2 summarizes the factors responsible for food spoilage. The inherent or intrinsic factors include the chemical, physical, and biological makeup of the food matrix, i.e., water activity, pH, moisture content, food composition, redox potential (oxidation-reduction), biological structures, and antimicrobial components [55]. The external or extrinsic factors include a gaseous environment, temperature, the relative humidity, the processing operations, and the presence of other microorganisms [56]. Regulating these extrinsic and intrinsic factors ensures the adequate microbial safety of food [57], as these factors influence microbial growth and resistance [56,57]. Food storage and processing conditions can hinder maximum microbial growth by influencing their metabolic systems, the energy sources of food spoilage, and the proliferation conditions for pathogenic microorganisms [58,59]. These changes in the food system can be induced naturally and artificially to maintain food quality and safety. The advancing knowledge in the field helps predict microbial safety, food stability, and the design of new prevention techniques [60].

2.2. Types of Electrolyzed Water

Electrolyzed water has been regarded as an emerging sanitizer due to its antimicrobial activity against a wide range of microorganisms within a very short period of time. The production of electrolyzed water (EW) is carried out in an electrolysis chamber, which may contain dilute salt (NaCl) or a solution of hydrogen chloride (HCl) [61]. Electrolyzed water is produced by the electrolysis of dilute salt (NaCl) solution containing a diaphragm to separate the anode and cathode. Depending on the production conditions, the devices being used, and the electrolyte solution, the electrolyzed water can be categorized as alkaline, acidic, or neutral electrolyzed water. Electrolyzed oxidizing water (EOW) with a pH of 2–3, an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) greater than 1100 mV, and an available chlorine concentration (ACC) of 10–90 ppm is produced at the anode [62]. At the same time, alkaline electrolyzed water, basic electrolyzed water (BEW), or electrolyzed reduced water (ERW) with a pH of 10–13 and an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) from −800 to −900 is produced at the cathode. Alkaline electrolyzed water (ALEW) with a pH of 10–11.5 and an oxidation reduction potential 800–900 mV is produced at the cathode [63]. Other novel electrolyzed water forms include weak acidic electrolyzed water (WAEW), slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW), and neutral electrolyzed water (NEW). SAEW is produced in a single cell chamber with a pH of between 5.5 and 6.5, an oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) from 800 to 900 mV, and an available chlorine concentration (ACC) between 10 and 80 ppm [64]. SEAW is very popular in China, Japan, and Korea [64,65,66,67]. SAEW is produced solely by the electrolysis of HCl or in a single cell unit combined with NaCl [68]. NEW is generated by mixing OH- ions with anodic solutions [69]. The EW is stored in special material containers through conservation in dark conditions or by being converted to other forms, i.e., ice cubes for further use, and the water processing is shown in Figure 1 [70].
The systems for producing this electrolyzed water may be divided into those which may or may not contain a diaphragm to separate the anode and cathode. The machines containing a diaphragm generate acidic electrolyzed water (AEW) and alkaline electrolyzed water (ALEW), while those lacking a diaphragm produce slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) and neutral electrolyzed water (NEW) [71]. From a food safety perspective, AEW has strong antiseptic effects against food pathogenic microorganisms [71]. However, ALEW, owing to its strong reducing properties, finds its application in removing grease and dust from kitchen utensils, chopping boards, working kitchen surfaces, and others [65]. According to Ramírez Orejel and Cano-Biendía [72], AEW is a promising strategy to preserve different raw meat, ready-to-eat meat, chicken, fish, and others without affecting their sensory characteristics. In this regard, AEW can be applied to different types of food and against different pathogens. Moreover, a variety of products can be candidates for the application of AEW to increase shelf life and decrease the incidence of foodborne diseases [72]. Commercial generators for AEW are of mainly three types, depending upon the automatic controls the systems contain. In the first type, the user can adjust the brine flow rate, while the machine automatically calibrates and adjusts the voltage and amperage. In the second type of generator, the machine accordingly adjusts the brine flow rate while a user can revamp the voltage and amperage. In the third type, the user is allowed to regulate the chlorine concentration level. Thus, depending upon these settings, generators can adjust their voltage, brine flow rate, and amperage [65,71,73]. Various EW-producing systems are summarized in Table 1. The factors determining the physicochemical properties of EW include current values, electrolysis time, water flow during electrolysis, and sodium chloride concentration [74]. Currently, systems for the production of SAEW are developed that provide the basis for the development of domestic and commercial SAEW generators for household and industrial utilization [75]. The purity levels of the water from different purification sources is discussed below in Table 1.
EW has antimicrobial properties against food pathogenic microorganisms attached to cutting boards, kitchen surfaces, poultry and meat carcasses, cell suspensions, and vegetables [73]. The overall antimicrobial activity and action mechanism is not completely understood, and further research is required. Some researchers consider the chlorine present in EW as the major antimicrobial, while others regard ORP as the major factor responsible [73]. Other factors affecting the sanitization efficiency of EW include the water flow rate, current, salt concentration, electrolytes, hardness of the water, water temperature, and electrode material [73].
The effect of ORP, ACC, and pH on the antimicrobial properties of EW is strong, as pH influences the generation of chlorine species. The ORP and ACC of electrolyzed water decline sharply with the upsurge in pH from acidic (2.5) to alkaline (9.0). At pH 9, the antimicrobial efficiency ceased [77]. AEW, owing to its low pH, increases the vulnerability of bacteria towards chlorine in the form of HOCl and thus decreases bacterial growth. Some researchers have proposed that the increased ORP of AEW determines its antimicrobial efficiency [73]. An increasing ORP facilitates the oxidation of sulfhydryl mixtures in the bacterial cell, destroys metabolic pathways, and facilitates bacterial inactivation [73]. Thus, as per principle, a high ORP and low pH facilitate the inactivation of microorganisms.
On the other hand, an increased flow rate of water results in an upsurge in current due to the increased production of salts per unit time [65]. This “acidic electrolyzed water” can have its pH increased by mixing in the desired amount of hydroxide ion solution from the cathode compartment, yielding a solution of hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH). The varying amperage increase or decrease of the effectiveness of EW is due to its influence on the generation of the chlorine concentration. It has been reported that an increasing amperage improves the sanitizing efficiency of EW, for example, by increasing the current from 1.15 to 1.45 A, a log reduction between 4.9 and 5.6 CFU/mL for Listeria monocytogenes and E. Coli O157:H7 was found. Moreover, the ORP, ACC, and pH also increased by increasing amperage [78].
The storage conditions also influence the properties of EW. In open conditions, due to the evaporation of chlorine and the breakdown of HOCl, the sanitizing efficiency of EW is diminished [71]. In closed conditions, chlorine losses occur by self-decomposition, but these losses are lower than in open conditions. The ACC of low concentration electrolyzed water diminishes from 10 to 0 mg/L in 7 and 21 days, respectively, under open and closed conditions. However, the pH increases, the ORP decreases, and the bactericidal activity is better sustained in closed storage conditions (14 days). It was reported that the chlorine was lost completely in AEW stored in open conditions after 30-h agitation and 100 h at quiescent storage conditions. However, the lightening does not affect the chlorine retained in EW during storage. As far as the impact of temperature on storage is concerned, the storage of AEW at 4 °C results in a greater stability than at 25 °C.
EW properties and sanitizing efficiency are also affected by the type of electrode, material used, and electrolyte flow rate. It has been reported that the ACC value directly increased with the electrolyte concentration compared to the type of EW, and with an increasing concentration the sanitizing efficiency also positively increased [75]. An increased concentration results in an increased chlorine production, and thus an increased sanitizing efficiency. With an increasing concentration of NaCl, the pH increases and facilitates the production of SAEW within a satisfactory pH range [73]. The choice of electrode material improved the formation of oxidants and reactive species. HOCL, Cl−, OCl, OH−, H2O2, and O3 production was also positively influenced by the choice of material used. Moreover, the most significant parameter is the choice of electrode material that affects the production of oxidants [79]. In this regard, Ming et al. [80] studied the effect of electrode material (platinum, iridium, or ruthenium) on the physical and chemical parameters of EW water and concluded that the ruthenium electrode showed the highest value of available chlorine content, while the platinum electrode had the lowest value of available chlorine content.

2.3. Antimicrobial Properties of Electrolyzed Water

The antimicrobial efficacy of EW is affected by the water’s temperature and hardness level. In this regard, the microbial efficacy of SAEW improved with the increased temperature of the water [67,81]. The antimicrobial efficacy of AEW was evaluated against Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium at 4 °C and 25 °C. The results showed the maximum log reduction of more than 8 CFU/mL at 25 °C [82]. On the contrary, other results showed that preheated SAEW presented a greater log reduction against Listeria monocytogenes and E. coli O157:H7 compared to heated SAEW. The phenomenon has been attributed to the partial loss of ACC while heating [75]. Further research is required to determine the effect of hardness on the properties of EW as limited studies are available. It has been shown that by increasing the hardness level of water, both the free chlorine and the ORP increase, and the decrease in the pH results in the destruction of pathogenic microbes [83]. The increase in water hardness may increase the electrolyte concentration and the electric current or conductivity of the solution and resultantly increase the chlorine production. The factors that affect the properties of EW include voltage, salt concentration, and electrolyte flow rate [83]. It has been concluded that these factors influence the overall attributes of EW, including the sanitizing efficacy. There is a need to develop proper standard operating procedures for the manipulation of EW, and they must be implemented to obtain more benefits from the sanitizing properties of EW.
Compared to other toxic chemical sanitizers, EW has shown significant benefits in the food, agriculture, and pharmaceutical industries, as it is produced in an environmentally friendly manner from distilled water and common salt (NaCl). After usage, it returns to its original form without posing any threat to the environment or consumer [71]. EW is advantageous due to its onsite production. Therefore, it can be produced and used without storage. EW has significant antimicrobial properties against a broad range of bacteria and shows non-selective sanitizing properties. Electrolysis units that are sold for industrial and institutional disinfectant use and for municipal water-treatment are known as chlorine generators. It is also hypothesized that EW does not generate antimicrobial resistance in bacteria. As far as the sensory or organoleptic parameters of food are concerned, these remain unaffected while utilizing acidic electrolyzed water (AEW), neutral electrolyzed water (NEW), slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW), and strongly acidic electrolyzed water (StAEW) [66,71,73,77,78]. Moreover, the cost of EW is negligible compared to its counterparts. The operating cost involves the initial investment of purchasing a generator, along with the water, chemical salts, and electricity expenses [71].
There are a few disadvantages associated with EW, which limit its utilization and applications; hence, attention is required to its possible downsides as well. These downsides include: (i) The chlorine concentration in EW is reduced with time, reducing its bactericidal activity. The reason may be the increased storage time and temperature; therefore, it is suggested that the storage temperature must be low and in closed containers [73]. (ii) The initial investment of the equipment installation and the exhaust system is high, thus limiting the individual applications of EW [71]. (iii) Some generators, when operated below pH 5, release a pungent chlorine odour, which makes it uncomfortable for the operator; therefore, appropriate on-site ventilation is required during operation. (iv) If EW is not supplied continuously with the oxidants Cl2, HOCl, and H+ through electrolysis, the EW may start to lose its bactericidal potential at a much faster rate [74]. (v) EW may start losing its antimicrobial activity if it is stored inappropriately or in case of the presence of organic matter in the EW [73]. (vi) While dealing with AEW, corrosiveness, skin irritation on the hands, and phytotoxicity are the major concerns posed due to the high ORP and high free chlorine content [73]. (vii) There is still a need to study ACC after electrolysis, and there no doubt that chlorine is regarded as an active agent of EW. Another obstacle is the generation rate of the EW solutions.
Electrolyzed water is utilized to deactivate pathogenic microorganisms in freshly produced commodities. In 1999, electrolyzed water was used to clean freshly cut vegetables and fruits, particularly carrots, apples, oranges, bell peppers, peaches, spinach, cauliflower, radishes, potatoes, and tomatoes [84]. After thinly slicing the produce and their immersion, rinsing, or immersion/blowing with electrolyzed water (EO) (pH: 6.81, without 20.0 mg/L of Cl), the reduction of bacteria was between 0.5 and 2.8 log CFU/g. The electrolyzed water, constituting almost 50 mg/L Cl, strongly affects bacterial mortality, which is more effective than 15–30 mg/L Cl. This remedy will not cause the off-colouring of freshly produced commodities [85]. The rinsed freshly produced agricultural products are then re-treated with electrolyzed water (50 mg/L). Due to the cumulative effect of the sequential treatment, the use of purified water will not affect the reduction process of the bacteria. When rinsing with ER water (pH: 11.3, electrical conductivity: 870 mV) for 5 min and after a further dip in electrically oxidized water (pH: 2.6, electrical conductivity: 1130 mV, available Cl is 30.0 mg/L) for 5 min, the aerobic mesophilic bacteria are reduced. Compared with soaking in electrically oxidized water (30.0 mg/L available Cl), ozone (5.0 mg/L), or NaOCl solution (150 mg/L available Cl) only, this method of treatment reduces each colony by at least 2 log CFU. Hence, the 10 min in the study of the sequential washing process also provides an inference that lettuce implemented with electrically oxidized water for a time span of 1 min, preceded by water for 1 min, and only acidic EO water for 10 min, reduced aerobic bacteria by 2 log CFU/g; however, after each trial, electrically oxidized water processing did not involve a considerable increment in bacterial reduction [71,86]. According to a scientific study, salad was treated with moderately heated ER water (50 °C) for 5 min, followed by cooling at 4 °C for 5 min. The results inferred that this remedy can cause a reduction in the level of Salmonella and E. coli O157:H7 by 3.0–4.0 log CFU/g. During the study, freshly cut coriander washed with ozonized water for 5 min, followed by washing with electrically oxidized water (pH—2.45; electrical conductivity—1130 mV; available Cl—15.2 mg/L) for 5 min, effectively reduced the initial count of microbes and slowed down the growth of microbes during storage [87].
Eggshells can be used as a medium for the spread of human pathogens because eggshells may contain E. coli O157: H7, Yersinia enterocolitis, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella. Pathogenic bacteria in incubation plants are usually removed by using glutaraldehyde gases, formaldehyde, atomized hydrogen peroxide, or aldehyde. Hence, disinfecting agents can pose a health risk to chickens and human beings [87,88]. Electrically oxidized water (pH—2.2; electrical conductivity—1150 mV; available Cl—8.0 mg/L) while using an electrostatically intensified spray system can thoroughly remove Salmonella, Staphylococcus, and Listeria monocytogenes. A study was conducted under conditions where a 15 s wash time with an electrically oxidized spray to sterilize the animal’s stomach inducted with fecal material containing Listeria, Salmonella, and Campylobacter [89]. Recent studies showed that sprinkling with electrically oxidized water (pH—2.4, electrical conductivity—1160 mV, available Cl—50 mg/L) for 15 s could limit the proliferation of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and E. coli. The population capacity was 1.23, 1.67, and 1.81 log on the stainless-steel surface, and it was deduced that a longer contact time could increase the disinfection effect [66,90]. It was reported that in order to sterilize bovine hides before slaughter, electrically oxidized water constituting 70.0 mg/L of available Cl was sprayed sequentially at a temperature of 60 °C. Sprays can reduce the amount of anaerobic bacteria by 3.5 logs CFU/100 cm2 and the number of Enterobacter by 4.3 log CFU/100 cm2. Recently, soaked or sprayed Listeria monocytogenes and hams with electrically oxidized water (pH—2.3; electrical conductivity—1150 mV; available Cl—45 mg/L) and/or ER water. At a storage temperature of 4 °C for 7 days, no significant difference was found between the hunter sausages, Frankfurt sausages, and hams. Electrolyzed water has been used in the medical field for over a century. Before antibiotics were available, electrolyzed water was used to irrigate and disinfect wounds in World War I. The main challenge of using this disinfectant has been keeping it in a stable form for use as a disinfectant. Statistical results have shown that electrically oxidized water has no harmful “whitening” effect on the superficial layer of the instantly tested meat [91,92]. Table 2 shows food the safety applications of different types of electrolyzed water in the food industry.
Reports regarding the utilization of electrically oxidized water to inactivate bacterial cells in seafoods revealed that the treatment of raw salmon with electrically oxidized water (pH—2.6; electrically conductivity—1150 mV; available Cl—90.0 mg/L at 35 °C for 64 min, yielded 1.07 log CFU/g) and E. coli O157: H7 and Listeria reduced 1.12 log CFU/g. Recently, it was pointed out that gloves used for food handling to protect workers and sellers can become carriers of pathogenic bacteria sourced through contact with raw commodities and biologically contaminated food surfaces. Electrolyzing water and CO gas are used to extend the periods of the storage life and the refrigeration time of bluefin tuna (Thunnus albacares). It was reported that tuna processed with electrically oxidized water and CO gas constituting 100 mg/L Cl could immediately obtain the lowest level of aerobic plate count (APC) [92]. Totally natural, non-toxic, and completely safe for human use, electrolyzed water is already in use throughout many industries such as healthcare, food safety, and water treatment, as well as for general sanitation purposes. Hypochlorous acid is in fact naturally produced by white blood cells in mammals for healing and protective purposes. The application of electrically oxidized water constituting 50 mg/L or 100 mg/L Cl in tuna steak together with CO gas would be an effective method for improving the quality and freshness of meat and prolonging their refrigeration times. Researchers studied the effects of the electrical conductivity of water on the proliferation of Fennelella and Euglena catenoidea, and the results proved that the electrically oxidized water is an extremely effective tool for killing toxic algae and destroying toxicity [95].
EO water can be utilized for the disinfection of food processing plants. It was revealed that electrically oxidized water is an efficient method for removing foodborne pathogens from cutting boards. EO water (pH—2.53; electrically conductivity—1178 mV; available Cl—53.0 mg/L) can also cause a reduction in Enterobacter and golden grapes on the surface of the glass, steel, glazed plates, stainless steel, non-woven plates, and glass porcelain surfaces. Soaking the culture at different contact places in electrically oxidized water for 5 min under stirring 50 rpm can reduce the population of aerobic E. coli and Staphylococcus on a test surface to <1.0 CFU/cm2. Listeria is a food-borne and pathogenic bacterium that results in life-endangering listeriosis among high-risk groups [96]. Electrolyzed alkaline ionized water loses its potency fairly quickly, so it cannot be stored for long. Electrolysis machines can be (but are not necessarily) expensive. In some (but not all) instances, the electrolysis process needs to be monitored frequently for the correct potency. Outbreaks of Listeriosis disease are related to targeted foods, with the synthesis of the biofilm Listeria at the food processing plant as a significant source of pollution. The Listeria oriented biofilms have developed resistance against chlorine, acid anions, and tertiary diammonium sulphate, which are better suited to food processing surfaces and are clean and hygienic. An entire food manufacturing plant was studied against the proliferation of Listeria oriented biofilm on the surface of steel and electrically oxidized water and inferred that EO water application for 300 s on the surface of stainless steel could reduce Listeria monocytogenes from 1.89 CFU/cm2 to below the detectable level 5.0 CFU/cm2.
Moreover, exposure to a 200 mg/L chlorine solution for 300 s can acquire similar results [73]. In the relevant study, the biofilm of Listeria on the superficial layer of stainless steel was inactivated with electrically oxidized water. They also inferred that electrically oxidized water does not reduce the biofilm of Listeria. Via treatment with electrically oxidized water only, and with chemical purification, each sample reduces the living bacterial count in the biofilm by 4.1–5.3 log CFU (2 × 5 cm), while the mutual application of ER water and electrically oxidized water can be further reduced by 0.25–1.3 per Log CFU sample of each strain. Stainless steel is the most frequently used biofilm for different contact surfaces of the food industry [70]. It was reported that electrically oxidized water (pH—2.53; electrical conductivity—1077 mV; available Cl—50 mg/L) and chemically altered water (pH—6.12; electrical conductivity—774 mV; available Cl—50 mg/L) had no adverse effects on stainless steel within one week. The different qualities of water and ethylene oxide towards provoking a reduction of bacteria in the pipes of a milking system were studied [97]. Washing with 60 °C ER water for 10 min, and then with 62 °C electrically oxidized water for 10 min, tends to remove all pathogenic bacteria that can be detected on milk-oriented milk surfaces. So, all of these results indicate that electrically oxidized water tends to be used as a cleaning and disinfectant for clean-in-place scenarios (CIP) [81].
Electrically oxidized water is a potential disinfectant and cleaning agent for use by food processing plants in the future. Electrically oxidized water has been approved by US regulatory agencies to replace hazardous chemicals and can be used as an eco-friendly and sustainable remedy for households and industries [98]. Although electrically operated systems have been used in various fields in Ukraine, South Korea, Russia, Finland, Japan, and France for decades, they are gradually gaining popularity in the United States and other technologically advanced countries. Presently, the tendency to continuously grow e-commerce has been observed on a global scale. Electrolysis units that are sold for use as industrial and institutional disinfectants and for municipal water-treatment are known as chlorine generators. Alongside the significance of electrolyzed water, multiple types of industries have been installed to produce ionized water. These industries have asserted the provision of 100% pure, environment-friendly, non-toxic, and low-priced electrically ionized water for commercial, industrial, and domestic use. The EW trademark has been produced by UAE technologies and Empowered Water, an eco-friendly and efficient remedy for CIP industrial usage [99]. Especially in the food industry, CIP and processing applications can wash and sanitize fixed machinery during food processing and system start-up. In different parts of the world, there are differing views on the applications and disinfection regulations of electrolyzed water [100]. Although the field of electro-chemical activation (ECA) technology has existed for more than 40 years, companies producing such solutions have only recently approached the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency (accessed on 1 March 2021)) (EPA) seeking registration. Recently, several companies that manufacture electrolytic devices have sought and received EPA registration as a disinfectant. Due to its advantages, most industries can start using electrolyzed water in the near future. Electrolyzed water has a bright future. Due to its benefits, most food factories will start using electrolyzed water in the next decade [95,101]. Figure 3 shows the microorganisms responsible for food spoilage.

3. Conclusions

EW, an environment-friendly sanitizer, manifests strong antimicrobial properties in various industries, including the food, pharmaceutical, and agricultural industries. Through the development of novel EW such as Strongly Alkaline Electrolyzed Water (StALEW) and Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water (SAEW), many of the issues related to corrosiveness that were posed to StAEW and AEW have been resolved. The properties of EW depend on various parameters, such as the temperature of the water, ORP, ACC, electrolyte type, storage conditions, salt concentration, and water flow. The effect of water hardness on sanitizing efficiency needs to be researched further. EW can be utilized in a diverse range of food products and is thereby an appropriate choice for synergistic microbial control in the food industry to ensure food safety and quality without damaging the organoleptic parameters of the food. However, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and proper legislation are needed for direct contact with high porosity foods and equipment surfaces for microbial inactivation. Therefore, through proper research, a dynamic and advanced approach to ensuring sustainable food safety can be developed to overcome all the limitations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.S. and A.K.; methodology, S.J.U.R.; validation, N.S. and M.R.; collection of the literature, reviewing and editing, M.R., A.S., A.D., M.A.S., M.K., K.S., A.K., S.J.U.R., N.S., Y.A., M.T., S.P.B. and J.M.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for large scientific projects in priority areas of scientific and technological development (grant number 075-15-2020-775).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data may be available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are highly thankful to the Department of Food Science and Technology for their contribution, and all authors agreed to publish this final version of the manuscript. Thanks to GAIN (Axencia Galega de Innovación) for supporting this research (grant number IN607A2019/01).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ishaq, A.R.; Manzoor, M.; Hussain, A.; Altaf, J.; Javed, Z.; Afzal, I.; Noor, A.; Noor, F. Prospect of microbial food borne diseases in Pakistan: A review. Braz. J. Biol. 2021, 81, 940–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Bisht, A.; Kamble, M.P.; Choudhary, P.; Chaturvedi, K.; Kohli, G.; Juneja, V.K.; Sehgal, S.; Taneja, N.K. A surveillance of food borne disease outbreaks in India: 2009–2018. Food Control 2021, 121, 107630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Camino Feltes, M.M.; Arisseto-Bragotto, A.P.; Block, J.M. Food quality, food-borne diseases, and food safety in the Brazilian food industry. Food Qual. Saf. 2017, 1, 13–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lee, H.; Yoon, Y. Etiological agents implicated in foodborne illness world wide. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2021, 41, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. World Health Organization. Global Health Observatory Data Repository-Road Traffic Deaths Data by Country. 2020. Available online: https://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/traffic_deaths_number/en/ (accessed on 28 June 2020).
  6. Debuisson, N.; Gurevich, R.; Even, R. Bacterial and Viral contamination of table forks, table spoons, dessert forks and teaspoons in restaurants, coffee shops, and university/hospital cafeteria. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2021, 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fung, F.; Wang, H.S.; Menon, S. Food safety in the 21st century. Biomed. J. 2018, 41, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Kang, Y. Food safety governance in China: Change and continuity. Food Control 2019, 106, 106752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Maeda-Yamamoto, M. Development of functional agricultural products and use of a new health claim system in Japan. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 69, 324–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tolar, B.; Joseph, L.A.; Schroeder, M.N.; Stroika, S.; Ribot, E.M.; Hise, K.B.; Gerner-Smidt, P. An overview of PulseNet USA databases. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2019, 16, 457–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Wu, M.Y.; Hsu, M.Y.; Chen, S.J.; Hwang, D.K.; Yen, T.H.; Cheng, C.M. Point-of-care detection devices for food safety monitoring: Proactive disease prevention. Trends Biotechnol. 2017, 35, 288–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Nayak, R.; Waterson, P. Global food safety as a complex adaptive system: Key concepts and future prospects. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 91, 409–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. King, T.; Cole, M.; Farber, J.M.; Eisenbrand, G.; Zabaras, D.; Fox, E.M.; Hill, J.P. Food safety for food security: Relationship between global megatrends and developments in food safety. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 68, 160–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Davidson, R.K.; Antunes, W.; Madslien, E.H.; Belenguer, J.; Gerevini, M.; Perez, T.T.; Prugger, R. From food defence to food supply chain integrity. Br. Food J. 2017, 119, 52–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Panghal, A.; Chhikara, N.; Sindhu, N.; Jaglan, S. Role of food safety management systems in safe food production: A review. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Mun, S.G. The effects of ambient temperature changes on food-borne illness outbreaks associated with the restaurant industry. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 85, 102432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aung, M.M.; Chang, Y.S. Traceability in a food supply chain: Safety and quality perspectives. Food Control 2014, 39, 172–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Baloch, M.A.; Mahmood, N.; Zhang, J.W. Effect of natural resources, renewable energy and economic development on CO2 emissions in BRICS countries. Sci. Total Env. 2019, 678, 632–638. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cai, X.; Wallington, K.; Shafiee-Jood, M.; Marston, L. Understanding and managing the food-energy-water nexus–opportunities for water resources research. Adv. Water Resour. 2018, 111, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tomomewo, O.S.; Mann, M.D.; Ellafi, A.; Jabbari, H.; Tang, C.; Ba Geri, M.; Kolawole, O.; Ispas, I.; Onwumelu, C.; Alamooti, M. Creating value for the high-saline bakken produced water by optimizing its viscoelastic properties and proppant carrying tendency with high-viscosity friction reducers. In SPE Western Regional Meeting; OnePetro: Richardson, TX, USA, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  21. Chen, F.; Zhang, M.; Yang, C.H. Application of ultrasound technology in processing of ready-to-eat fresh food: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 63, 104953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Leães, Y.S.; Pinton, M.B.; de Aguiar Rosa, C.T.; Robalo, S.S.; Wagner, R.; de Menezes, C.R.; Barin, J.S.; Campagnol, P.C.; Cichoski, A.J. Ultrasound and basic electrolyzed water: A green approach to reduce the technological defects caused by NaCl reduction in meat emulsions. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2020, 61, 104830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Seiphetlheng, K.; Steyn, H.J.; Schall, R. Anolyte as an alternative bleach for stained cotton fabrics. J. Consum. Sci. 2017, 2, 12–23. [Google Scholar]
  24. Xuan, X.T.; Ding, T.; Li, J.; Ahn, J.H.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, S.G.; Ye, X.Q.; Liu, D.H. Estimation of growth parameters of Listeria monocytogenes after sublethal heat and slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) treatment. Food Control 2017, 71, 17–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhao, L.; Li, S.; Yang, H. Recent advances on research of electrolyzed water and its applications. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 41, 180–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yan, P.; Daliri, E.B.; Oh, D.H. New Clinical Applications of Electrolyzed Water: A Review. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rahman, S.M.E.; Khan, I.; Oh, D.H. Electrolyzed water as a novel sanitizer in the food industry: Current trends and future perspectives. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2016, 15, 471–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Moghassem Hamidi, R.; Shekarforoush, S.S.; Hosseinzadeh, S.; Basiri, S. Evaluation of the effect of neutral electrolyzed water and peroxyacetic acid alone and in combination on microbiological, chemical, and sensory characteristics of poultry meat during refrigeration storage. Food Sci. Technol. Int. 2020, 27, 499–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zang, Y.T.; Bing, S.; Li, Y.J.; Shu, D.Q.; Huang, A.M.; Wu, H.X.; Lan, L.T.; Wu, H.D. Efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water on the microbial safety and shelf life of shelled eggs. Poultry Sci. 2019, 98, 5932–5939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hao, J.; Wang, Q. Application of electrolyzed water in fruits and vegetables industry. In Electrolyzed Water in Food: Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 67–111. [Google Scholar]
  31. Afari, G.K.; Hung, Y.C. A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of electrolyzed water treatments in reducing food-borne pathogens on different foods. Food Control. 2018, 93, 150–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Graça, A.; Santo, D.; Quintas, C.; Nunes, C. Growth of Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica and Listeria spp., and their inactivation using ultraviolet energy and electrolyzed water, on ‘Rocha’fresh-cut pears. Food Control 2017, 77, 41–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hopkins, D.Z.; Parisi, M.A.; Dawson, P.L.; Northcutt, J.K. Surface Decontamination of Fresh, Whole Peaches (Prunus persica) Using Sodium Hypochlorite or Acidified Electrolyzed Water Solutions. Int. J. Fruit Sci. 2020, 29, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Li, L.; Hao, J.; Song, S.; Nirasawa, S.; Jiang, Z.; Liu, H. Effect of slightly acidic electrolyzed water on bioactive compounds and morphology of broccoli sprouts. Food Res. Int. 2018, 105, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Sheng, L.; Shen, X.; Ulloa, O.; Suslow, T.V.; Hanrahan, I.; Zhu, M.J. Evaluation of JC9450 and neutral electrolyzed water in controlling Listeria monocytogenes on fresh apples and preventing cross-contamination. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 10, 3128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Islam, M.Z.; Mele, M.A.; Hussein, K.A.; Kang, H.M. Acidic electrolyzed water, hydrogen peroxide, ozone water and sodium hypochlorite influence quality, shelf life and antimicrobial efficacy of cherry tomatoes. Res. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 13, 4. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mohammad, Z.; Kalbasi-Ashtari, A.; Riskowski, G.; Juneja, V.; Castillo, A. Inactivation of Salmonella and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) from the surface of alfalfa seeds and sprouts by combined antimicrobial treatments using ozone and electrolyzed water. Food Res. Int. 2020, 136, 109488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Nour, V.; Plesoianu, A.M.; Ionica, M.E. Effect of dip wash treatments with organic acids and acidic electrolyzed water combined with ultraviolet irradiation on quality of strawberry fruit during storage. Bragantia 2021, 80, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, Y.; Tan, L.; Guo, L.; Zhang, P.; Malakar, P.K.; Ahmed, F.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.J.; Zhao, Y. Acidic electrolyzed water more effectively breaks down mature Vibrio parahaemolyticus biofilm than DNase I. Food Control 2020, 117, 107312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hsu, Y.F.; Chuang, C.Y.; Huang, H.C.; Yang, S. Applying membrane-less electrolyzed water for inactivating pathogenic microorganisms. Appl. Ecol. Env. Res. 2019, 17, 15019–15027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Han, Q.; Song, X.; Zhang, Z.; Fu, J.; Wang, X.; Malakar, P.K.; Liu, H.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y. Removal of food-borne pathogen biofilms by acidic electrolyzed water. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Stefanello, A.; Magrini, L.N.; Lemos, J.G.; Garcia, M.V.; Bernardi, A.O.; Cichoski, A.J.; Copetti, M.V. Comparison of electrolized water and multiple chemical sanitizer action against heat-resistant molds (HRM). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 335, 108856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Singh, R.L. (Ed.) Principles and Applications of Environmental Biotechnology for a Sustainable Future; Springer: Singapore, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rawat, S. Food Spoilage: Microorganisms and their prevention. Asian J. Plant Science Resear. 2015, 5, 47–56. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hammond, S.T.; Brown, J.H.; Burger, J.R.; Flanagan, T.P.; Fristoe, T.S.; Mercado-Silva, N.; Nekola, J.C.; Okie, J.G. Food spoilage, storage, and transport: Implications for a sustainable future. BioScience 2015, 65, 758–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Alvarenga, V.O.; Campagnollo, F.B.; do Prado-Silva, L.; Horita, C.N.; Caturla, M.Y.; Pereira, E.P.; Crucello, A.; Sant’Ana, A.S. Impact of unit operations from farm to fork on microbial safety and quality of foods. In Advances in Food and Nutrition Research; Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; Volume 85, pp. 131–175. [Google Scholar]
  47. Li, G.; Rabe, K.S.; Nielsen, J.; Engqvist, M.K. Machine learning applied to predicting microorganism growth temperatures and enzyme catalytic optima. ACS Synth. Biol. 2019, 8, 1411–1420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Devanthi, P.V.; Gkatzionis, K. Soy sauce fermentation: Microorganisms, aroma formation, and process modification. Food Res. Int. 2019, 120, 364–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Abatenh, E.; Gizaw, B.; Tsegaye, Z.; Wassie, M. The role of microorganisms in bioremediation-A review. Open J. Env. Biol. 2017, 2, 38–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Manhart, M.; Adkar, B.V.; Shakhnovich, E.I. Trade-offs between microbial growth phases lead to frequency-dependent and non-transitive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2018, 285, 20172459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Mannaa, M.; Kim, K.D. Influence of temperature and water activity on deleterious fungi and mycotoxin production during grain storage. Mycobiology 2017, 45, 240–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lee, S.Y.; Kim, H.U. Systems strategies for developing industrial microbial strains. Nature Biotech. 2015, 33, 1061–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Odeyemi, O.A.; Alegbeleye, O.O.; Strateva, M.; Stratev, D. Understanding spoilage microbial community and spoilage mechanisms in foods of animal origin. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 311–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rolfe, C.; Daryaei, H. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Factors Affecting Microbial Growth in Food Systems. In Food Safety Engineering; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  55. Gonzales-Barron, U.; Coelho-Fernandes, S.; Santos-Rodrigues, G.; Choupina, A.; Piedra, R.B.; Osoro, K.; Celaya, R.; García, R.R.; Peric, T.; Del Bianco, S.; et al. Microbial deterioration of lamb meat from European local breeds as affected by its intrinsic properties. Small Rumin. Res. 2021, 195, 106298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Smet, C.; Baka, M.; Dickenson, A.; Walsh, J.L.; Valdramidis, V.P.; Van Impe, J.F. Antimicrobial efficacy of cold atmospheric plasma for different intrinsic and extrinsic parameters. Plasma Processes Polym. 2018, 15, 1700048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Olaimat, A.N.; Holley, R.A. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: A review. Food Microbiol. 2012, 32, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S. Residential bacteria on surfaces in the food industry and their implications for food safety and quality. Comp. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2017, 16, 1022–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  59. Hamad, S.H. 20 factors affecting the growth of microorganisms in food. Prog. Food Preserv. 2012, 10, 405. [Google Scholar]
  60. Zhao, P.; Ndayambaje, J.P.; Liu, X.; Xia, X. Microbial spoilage of fruits: A review on causes and prevention methods. Food Rev. Int. 2020, 38, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pangloli, P.; Hung, Y.C. Effects of water hardness and pH on efficacy of chlorine-based sanitizers for inactivating Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control 2013, 32, 626–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Xie, J.; Sun, X.H.; Pan, Y.J.; Zhao, Y. Physicochemical properties and bactericidal activities of acidic electrolyzed water used or stored at different temperatures on shrimp. Food Res. Int. 2012, 47, 331–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Wang, H.; Feng, H.; Luo, Y. Microbial reduction and storage quality of fresh-cut cilantro washed with acidic electrolyzed water and aqueous ozone. Food Res. Int. 2004, 37, 949–956. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Rivera-Garcia, A.; Santos-Ferro, L.; Ramirez-Orejel, J.C.; Agredano-Moreno, L.T.; Jimenez-Garcia, L.F.; Paez-Esquiliano, D.; Andrade-Esquivel, E.; Cano-Buendia, J.A. The effect of neutral electrolyzed water as a disinfectant of eggshells artificially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Food Sci. Nut. 2019, 7, 2252–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Hsu, S.Y. Effects of flow rate, temperature and salt concentration on chemical and physical properties of electrolyzed oxidizing water. J. Food Eng. 2005, 66, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rahman, S.M.; Ding, T.; Oh, D.H. Effectiveness of low concentration electrolyzed water to inactivate food-borne pathogens under different environmental conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 139, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xuan, X.T.; Fan, Y.F.; Ling, J.G.; Hu, Y.Q.; Liu, D.H.; Chen, S.G.; Ye, X.Q.; Ding, T. Preservation of squid by slightly acidic electrolyzed water ice. Food Control 2017, 73, 1483–1489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bansal, V.; Prasad, P.; Mehta, D.; Siddiqui, M.W. Ultrasound techniques in postharvest disinfection of fruits and vegetables. In Postharvest Disinfection of Fruits and Vegetables; Academic Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018; pp. 159–177. [Google Scholar]
  69. Shiroodi, S.G.; Ovissipour, M. Electrolyzed water application in fresh produce sanitation. In Postharvest Disinfection of Fruits and Vegetables; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 67–89. [Google Scholar]
  70. Xuan, X.; Ling, J. Generation of electrolyzed water. In Electrolyzed Water in Food: Fundamentals and Applications; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  71. Hricova, D.; Stephan, R.; Zweifel, C. Electrolyzed water and its application in the food industry. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 1934–1947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Ramírez Orejel, J.C.; Cano-Buendía, J.A. Applications of electrolyzed water as a sanitizer in the food and animal-by products industry. Processes 2020, 8, 534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Rahman, S.M.; Ding, T.; Oh, D.H. Inactivation effect of newly developed low concentration electrolyzed water and other sanitizers against microorganisms on spinach. Food Control 2010, 21, 1383–1387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Keskinen, L.A.; Burke, A.; Annous, B.A. Efficacy of chlorine, acidic electrolyzed water and aqueous chlorine dioxide solutions to decontaminate Escherichia coli O157: H7 from lettuce leaves. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 132, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Forghani, F.; Park, J.H.; Oh, D.H. Effect of water hardness on the production and microbicidal efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water. Food Microbiol. 2015, 48, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cao, T.T.; Wang, Y.J.; Zhang, Y.Q. Effect of strongly alkaline electrolyzed water on silk degumming and the physical properties of the fibroin fiber. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e65654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Quan, Y.; Choi, K.D.; Chung, D.; Shin, I.S. Evaluation of bactericidal activity of weakly acidic electrolyzed water (WAEW) against Vibrio vulnificus and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 136, 255–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rahman, S.M.; Jin, Y.G.; Oh, D.H. Combination treatment of alkaline electrolyzed water and citric acid with mild heat to ensure microbial safety, shelf-life and sensory quality of shredded carrots. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 484–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Liang, D.; Wang, Q.; Zhao, D.; Han, X.; Hao, J. Systematic application of slightly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) for natural microbial reduction of buckwheat sprouts. LWT 2019, 108, 14–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Ming, R.; Zhu, Y.; Deng, L.; Zhang, A.; Wang, J.; Han, Y.; Ren, Z. Effect of electrode material and electrolysis process on the preparation of electrolyzed oxidizing water. N. J. Chem. 2018, 42, 12143–12151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cao, W.; Zhu, Z.W.; Shi, Z.X.; Wang, C.Y.; Li, B.M. Efficiency of slightly acidic electrolyzed water for inactivation of Salmonella enteritidis and its contaminated shell eggs. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2009, 130, 88–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Fabrizio, K.A.; Cutter, C.N. Stability of electrolyzed oxidizing water and its efficacy against cell suspensions of Salmonella Typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. J. Food Prot. 2003, 66, 1379–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Nan, S.; Li, Y.; Li, B.; Wang, C.; Cui, X.; Cao, W. Effect of slightly acidic electrolyzed water for inactivating Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Staphylococcus aureus analyzed by transmission electron microscopy. J. Food Protect. 2010, 73, 2211–2216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Zheng, W.; Xie, C.; Liang, J.; Yu, Q.D.; Bai, D.; Huang, J. Effects of weak acidic electrolytic water ice and modified packaging on shrimp quality of Litopenaeus vannamei. Sci. Technol. Food Ind. 2018, 39, 183–187. [Google Scholar]
  85. Huang, Y.R.; Hung, Y.C.; Hsu, S.Y.; Huang, Y.W.; Hwang, D.F. Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry. Food Control 2008, 19, 329–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Izumi, H. Electrolyzed water as a disinfectant for fresh-cut vegetables. J. Food Sci. 1999, 64, 536–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Al-Haq, M.I.; Sugiyama, J.; Isobe, S. Applications of electrolyzed water in agriculture & food industries. Food Sci. Technol. Res. 2005, 11, 135–150. [Google Scholar]
  88. Koseki, S.; Yoshida, K.; Isobe, S.; Itoh, K. Decontamination of lettuce using acidic electrolyzed water. J. Food Protect. 2001, 64, 652–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Northcutt, J.; Smith, D.; Ingram, K.D.; Hinton, A., Jr.; Musgrove, M. Recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses after spray washing with acidified electrolyzed water or sodium hypochlorite solutions. Poultry Sci. 2007, 86, 2239–2244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Abadias, M.; Usall, J.; Oliveira, M.; Alegre, I.; Viñas, I. Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water (NEW) for reducing microbial contamination on minimally-processed vegetables. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 123, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Cui, X.; Shang, Y.; Shi, Z.; Xin, H.; Cao, W. Physicochemical properties and bactericidal efficiency of neutral and acidic electrolyzed water under different storage conditions. J. Food Eng. 2009, 91, 582–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Koseki, S.; Yoshida, K.; Isobe, S.; Itoh, K. Efficacy of acidic electrolyzed water for microbial decontamination of cucumbers and strawberries. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 1247–1251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Issa-Zacharia, A.; Kamitani, Y.; Morita, K.; Iwasaki, K. Sanitization potency of slightly acidic electrolyzed water against pure cultures of Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus, in comparison with that of other food sanitizers. Food Control 2010, 21, 740–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Deza, M.A.; Araujo, M.; Garrido, M.J. Efficacy of neutral electrolyzed water to inactivate Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Staphylococcus aureus on plastic and wooden kitchen cutting boards. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 102–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wang, H.; Duan, D.; Wu, Z.; Xue, S.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Primary concerns regarding the application of electrolyzed water in the meat industry. Food Control 2019, 95, 50–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Koide, S.; Takeda, J.I.; Shi, J.; Shono, H.; Atungulu, G.G. Disinfection efficacy of slightly acidic electrolyzed water on fresh cut cabbage. Food Control 2009, 20, 294–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Graca, A.; Abadias, M.; Salazar, M.; Nunes, C. The use of electrolyzed water as a disinfectant for minimally processed apples. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 61, 172–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Nakayama, M.; Kabayama, S.; Nakano, H.; Zhu, W.J.; Terawaki, H.; Nakayama, K.; Katoh, K.; Satoh, T.; Ito, S. Biological effects of electrolyzed water in hemodialysis. Nephron Clin. Pract. 2009, 112, c9–c15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Tango, C.N.; Khan, I.; Kounkeu, P.F.; Momna, R.; Hussain, M.S.; Oh, D.H. Slightly acidic electrolyzed water combined with chemical and physical treatments to decontaminate bacteria on fresh fruits. Food Microbiol. 2017, 67, 97–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Athayde, D.R.; Flores, D.R.; Silva, J.S.; Silva, M.S.; Genro, A.L.; Wagner, R.; Campagnol, P.C.; Menezes, C.R.; Cichoski, A.J. Characteristics and use of electrolyzed water in food industries. Int. Food Res. J. 2018, 25, 11–16. [Google Scholar]
  101. Dong, H.; Nagamatsu, Y.; Chen, K.K.; Tajima, K.; Kakigawa, H.; Shi, S.; Kozono, Y. Corrosion behavior of dental alloys in various types of electrolyzed water. Dental Mat. J. 2003, 22, 482–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Applsci 12 06639 g001 550
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of electrolyzed water manufacturing.
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of electrolyzed water manufacturing.
Applsci 12 06639 g001
Applsci 12 06639 g002 550
Figure 2. Main factors responsible for food spoilage.
Figure 2. Main factors responsible for food spoilage.
Applsci 12 06639 g002
Applsci 12 06639 g003 550
Figure 3. Main microorganisms responsible for food spoilage.
Figure 3. Main microorganisms responsible for food spoilage.
Applsci 12 06639 g003
Table
Table 1. pH and concentration of different minerals in water from different sources.
Table 1. pH and concentration of different minerals in water from different sources.
WaterDetected ElementsCa+2 (mg)Mg+2 (mg)K+ (mg)Na+ (mg)
Ordinary tap-waterpH 8.0024.424.985.0446.60
Ultrapure waterpH 8.235.320.830.942.88
Acid electrolyzed waterpH 3.0013.552.921.7119.47
SAEWpH 5–6.516.533.414.9656.03
Data from Cao et al. [76].
Table
Table 2. Food safety applications of different types of electrolyzed water.
Table 2. Food safety applications of different types of electrolyzed water.
EW Generating MachineSalt/Acid Used as SubstratepHReported Food Safety ApplicationTarget PathogenReference
NEWNaCl (1.0%)8.6Lettuce, corn salad, shredded carrots, freshly cut iceberg lettuceSalmonella, Escherichia coli[90]
AEWNaCl (0.1–0.2%)2.5Alfalfa seeds and sprouts, tomatoesE. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes[93]
NEWNaCl (25%)8.27Plastic and wood cutting boardsStaphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogene, Pseudomonas[94]
SAEWNaCl (0.1%)5.9Pure cultureVibrio vulnificus[77]
SAEWHCl (2%)5.8Pure cultureEscherichia coli, Salmonella, S. aureus[83]
SALcEWNaCl (0.9%)6.2–6.3Freshly cut spinachTotal bacteria, yeast, molds, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes[73]
SAEWNaCl (0.6%) and HCl (0.15%)6–6.5Pure culture, Lettuce, porkTotal bacteria, Listeria monocytogenes[67,70]
NEW: Neutral electrolyzed water; AEW: Acidic electrolyzed water; SALcEW: Slightly acidic low concentration electrolyzed water; SAEW: Slightly acidic electrolyzed water.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Rebezov, M.; Saeed, K.; Khaliq, A.; Rahman, S.J.U.; Sameed, N.; Semenova, A.; Khayrullin, M.; Dydykin, A.; Abramov, Y.; Thiruvengadam, M.; et al. Application of Electrolyzed Water in the Food Industry: A Review. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136639

AMA Style

Rebezov M, Saeed K, Khaliq A, Rahman SJU, Sameed N, Semenova A, Khayrullin M, Dydykin A, Abramov Y, Thiruvengadam M, et al. Application of Electrolyzed Water in the Food Industry: A Review. Applied Sciences. 2022; 12(13):6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136639

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rebezov, Maksim, Kanza Saeed, Adnan Khaliq, Syed Junaid Ur Rahman, Nimra Sameed, Anastasia Semenova, Mars Khayrullin, Andrey Dydykin, Yury Abramov, Muthu Thiruvengadam, and et al. 2022. "Application of Electrolyzed Water in the Food Industry: A Review" Applied Sciences 12, no. 13: 6639. https://doi.org/10.3390/app12136639

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop