Next Article in Journal / Special Issue
High Hydrostatic Pressure Pretreatment of Whey Protein Isolates Improves Their Digestibility and Antioxidant Capacity
Previous Article in Journal / Special Issue
Quality Characteristics and Shelf-Life of Ultra-High Pressure Homogenized (UHPH) Almond Beverage
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 4
Issue 2
10.3390/foods4020173
foods-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

Multi-Pulsed High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatment of Foods

by
Sencer Buzrul
Alkol Piyasası Düzenleme Kurumu (TAPDK), Ankara 06520, Turkey
Foods 2015, 4(2), 173-183; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods4020173
Submission received: 16 February 2015 / Accepted: 16 May 2015 / Published: 25 May 2015
(This article belongs to the Special Issue High Pressure Processing of Foods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Multi-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure (mpHHP) treatment of foods has been investigated for more than two decades. It was reported that the mpHHP treatment, with few exceptions, is more effective than the classical or single-pulsed HHP (spHHP) treatment for inactivation of microorganisms in fruit juice, dairy products, liquid whole egg, meat products, and sea foods. Moreover, the mpHHP treatment could be also used to inactivate enzymes in foods and to increase the shelf-life of foods. The effects of the mpHHP treatment of foods are summarized and the differences between the mpHHP and spHHP are also emphasized.

1. Introduction

High hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment is an effective technique to destroy microorganisms and inactivate enzymes in order to enhance safety and shelf-life of foods. Therefore, HHP has become a reality in the food industry and has spread world wide [1]. After 2000, the number of installed HPP machines for the food industry increased exponentially [2].
Classical HHP or single-pulsed HHP (spHHP) treatment can be applied as: compression to target pressure, holding for a certain period of time at the target pressure, and decompression to atmospheric pressure (Figure 1). On the other hand, it may be also possible to apply successive application of HHP in which more than one compression, holding, and decompression periods exist (Figure 2). This type of treatment is called multi-pulsed HHP (mpHHP).
Foods 04 00173 g001 1024
Figure 1. Classical or single-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment consisting of compression rate (5 MPa·s−1), holding time (180 s) at a constant pressure level (600 MPa), and decompression rate (10 MPa·s−1). Note that total duration of the treatment is 360 s (6 min).
Figure 1. Classical or single-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure (HHP) treatment consisting of compression rate (5 MPa·s−1), holding time (180 s) at a constant pressure level (600 MPa), and decompression rate (10 MPa·s−1). Note that total duration of the treatment is 360 s (6 min).
Foods 04 00173 g001
Foods 04 00173 g002 1024
Figure 2. Multi-pulsed HHP treatment: 3 pulses × 60 s (30 s between each pulse) at 600 MPa. Compression and decompression rates are 5 and 10 MPa·s−1, respectively. Note that total duration of the treatment is 780 s (13 min).
Figure 2. Multi-pulsed HHP treatment: 3 pulses × 60 s (30 s between each pulse) at 600 MPa. Compression and decompression rates are 5 and 10 MPa·s−1, respectively. Note that total duration of the treatment is 780 s (13 min).
Foods 04 00173 g002
The mpHHP treatment, for the same holding time, is more effective than the spHHP treatment for enzyme [3,4,5], yeast cells [6] bacterial cells [7,8], and bacterial spores [9,10,11] inactivation. It was also reported that there was less recovery from injury for Escherichia coli for the mpHHP treatment compared to the spHHP treatment [12]. However, some researchers reported that the use of the mpHHP treatment did not considerably enhance pressure inactivation of virus [13], and bacteria [14,15] as compared to the sHHP treatment.
The mpHHP treatment inactivation of microorganisms in laboratory media, foods, blood plasma, vaccines, and drugs is well documented by a recent review [16]. This review, however, provides information not only about microorganisms but also enzymes, food quality and shelf-life.

2. Process Parameters of the mpHHP Treatment

It is known that pressure, temperature, and (holding) time are the most important process parameters of the spHHP treatment. However, more parameters should be taken into account before applying the mpHHP. Pressure and temperature are also the most important parameters for the mpHHP treatment. Besides, pulse duration, i.e., pulse holding time, number of pulses, off-pressure time (duration between the pulses), compression and decompression rates or times, and pulse shape (ramp, square, sinusoidal) may also affect the outcomes of the mpHHP treatment (Figure 2). The effect of these process parameters on microbial inactivation was given by Buzrul [16] and will not be deeply investigated here.

3. Application of the mpHHP on Foods

3.1. Fruit Juices

Studies on fruit juices by the application of mpHHP began about two decades ago. The mpHHP treatment was reported to be more effective than the spHHP treatment for the same holding time for the inactivations of Saccharomyces cerevisiae in pineapple juice [17], Byssochlamys nivea ascospores in apple and cranberry juices [18]. On the other hand, Alemán et al. [17] observed no inactivation of S. cerevisiae in pineapple juice after 40–4000 fast sinusodial pulses (10 cycles/s) at 4–400 s total holding time in the range of 235–270 MPa (total processing time was 0.39–39 min) indicating that pulse shape is (step pressure pulse was effective, but sinusodial pulses had no effect on inactivation of yeasts in fruit juice) also an important parameter for the mpHHP treatment.
Donsì et al. [19] found that efficiency of the mpHHP treatment depends on the combination of pulse holding time and number of pulses for the inactivation of S. cerevisiae in pineapple and orange juices. They also observed higher reduction for slow compression rate (2.5 MPa·s−1) than that of faster compression rates (10.5 and 25 MPa·s−1) if several pulses (3 to 10 pulses) were applied. Buzrul et al. [20] found that increasing the pulse number did not effect the inactivation of Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua to great extends in kiwifruit juice (high inactivations were already obtained by application of the spHHP treatment in kiwifruit juice); however, in pineapple juice especially after 5 pulses inactivation increased significantly for both bacteria.
The mpHHP treatment up to 3 pulses with no holding time, i.e., compression followed by decompression was also applied to inactivate pectin methyl esterase (PME) in single strength and concentrated orange juices [21]. The mpHHP has a significant contribution to inactivation of PME in both juices.
A comprehensive study by Donsì et al. [22] indicated that the effectiveness of the mpHHP treatment on apple and orange juices depends on the combination of pressure, temperature, and pulse number. Optimum conditions applied to apple (300 MPa, 50 °C, 6 pulses × 1 min) and orange (250 MPa, 45 °C, 6 pulses × 1 min) juices resulted in a minimum shelf-life of 21 days at 4 °C.

3.2. Dairy Products

Milk, cheese and yogurt are the dairy products treated with the mpHHP. The mpHHP was considerably more effective than the spHHP for the same total treatment time for inactivation of E. coli in skim milk [23], E. coli and L. innocua in whole milk [24,25].
The mpHHP treatment up to 4 pulses with no holding time was applied to inactivate E. coli O157:H7 and L. monocytogenes in raw milk cheese [26]. Significant microbial and enzyme inactivation could be possible by the application of the mpHHP (at room temperature, 3 pulses × 5 min) at higher pressures (600 and 800 MPa) in three different types of cheese which were at different ripening stages [27]. Storage of cheeses at 5 °C for 12 weeks revealed that microorganisms inactivated by the mpHHP were also absent during storage. López-Pedemonte et al. [28] obtained low inactivation (about 1.6 log10) for spores of Bacillus cereus in cheese by the mpHHP inactivation with 2 pulses (first pulse with low pressure (60 MPa) to germinate the spores and the second one is with high pressure (400 MPa) to inactivate the vegetative cells).
Applications of the spHHP (400 MPa for 15, 30, and 45 min) and mpHHP (400 MPa for 3 pulses × 5 min, 3 pulses × 10 min, and 3 pulses × 15 min) treatments in yogurt revealed that Lactobacillus delbruecki sp. bulgaricus was completely inactivated under all conditions whereas Streptoccocus salivarius sp. thermophilus was little reduced, maximum by one log10 [29].

3.3. Liquid Whole Egg

A few studies on microbial inactivation in liquid whole egg (LWE) by the mpHHP treatment revealed that the mpHHP treatment showed greater effectiveness than the spHHP treatment for inactivations of Samonella Enteritidis [30,31,32] and E. coli [33].
The effect of temperature during the mpHHP treatment is well documented in these studies. For example, Ponce et al. [33] applied the spHHP (350 MPa, 10 or 15 min) and the mpHHP (350 MPa, 2 or 3 pulses × 5 min) treatments at different temperatures (2, 20, or 50 °C) for the inactivation of E. coli in LWE. The highest reduction was achieved at 50 °C for both treatments; however, at lower temperatures, especially at 20 °C, the mpHHP treatment was clearly more effective than the spHHP treatments. Ponce et al. [30] observed the strongest effectiveness at 50 °C, followed by 20, 2, and −15 °C for the inactivation of S. Enteritidis in LWE after the application of mpHHP (2 or 3 pulses × 5 min at 350 and 450 MPa).

3.4. Meat Products

The mpHHP applied to mechanically recovered poultry meat showed that the mpHHP treatment was slightly better than the spHHP treatment for psychrotrophs, but the mpHHP treatment did not offer better results than the spHHP treatment for mesophiles [15,34]. On the other hand, the use of the mpHHP treatment instead of the spHHP treatment showed to be more advantageous for the inactivation of E. coli O157:H7 in ground beef [35] and S. Enteritidis in chicken breast fillets especially at higher pressures [36].
Morales et al. [35] and Del Olmo et al. [37] studied the effect of the spHHP and mpHHP treatments on color and texture of beef patties and chicken breast fillets, respectively. Changes in the color and texture of ground beef caused by spHHP and mpHHP treatments of the same lethality for E. coli O157:H7 (20 min for spHHP and 4 pulses × 1 min for mpHHP) were similar [35]. Color parameters (L *, a * and b *) were significantly higher for both treatments than for vacuum-packaged control fillets. Similarly, the texture of chicken breast fillets was also significantly affected by both treatments [37].

3.5. Sea Foods

The effect of the spHHP (400 MPa, 7 °C, 10 min) and the mpHHP (400 MPa, 7 °C, 2 pulses × 5 min) on microbial flora, total volatile bases, pH, and texture of purified and unpurified oysters was studied by López-Caballero et al. [14]. The mpHHP produced no apparent advantages over the spHHP based on any of the indices used.
The mpHHP treatment reduced the microbial load in octopus arm muscle more effectively than the spHHP treatment; however, the mpHHP treatment was not so effective in reducing autolytic activity [38,39]. Inactivations of S. Enteritidis and Staphyloccoccus aureus in sturgeon and trout caviar also studied [40]. Results indicated that the mpHHP treatment (350 MPa for S. Enteritidis and 450 MPa for Staphyloccoccus aureus at room temperature for 3 pulses × 5 min) were as effective as the spHHP treatment (400 MPa for S. Enteritidis and 500 MPa for Staphyloccoccus aureus at room temperature for 15 min).

3.6. Other Food Products

Similar results were also obtained for other food products: the mpHHP treatment was more effective than the spHHP treatment for the inactivation of S. cerevisiae in fresh cut pineapple [41], S. Enteritidis in raw almonds [42], E. coli in egg white [43]. Meyer [44] reported sterility in macaroni and cheese with spore load of Clostridium sporogenes and B. cereus by the mpHHP treatment (690 MPa, 90 °C, 2 pulses × 1 min; 1 min pause between the pulses).
A summary of the mpHHP inactivation of microorganisms in foods and a summary of studies on the effect of mpHHP treatment on quality, shelf-life, microbial and enzyme inactivation of foods are provided in Table 1 and Table 2, respectively.
Table
Table 1. Summary of multi-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure (mpHHP) inactivation of microorganisms in foods.
Table 1. Summary of multi-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure (mpHHP) inactivation of microorganisms in foods.
MicroorganismProductCR or CT aDR or DT bProcess Conditions cLog ReductionReference
Saccharomyces cerevisiaePineapple juice0.5 s0.2 s270 MPa, 23 °C, 10 pulses × 10 s3.3[17]
270 MPa, 23 °C, 100 pulses × 1 s3.5
0.34 s0.18 s270 MPa, 23 °C, 167 pulses × 0.6 s3.9
(0.2 s between the pulses)
Byssochlamys niveaCranberry juice2.4 MPa·s−1<10 s689 MPa, 60 °C, 3 pulses × 1 s>4.0 *[18]
ascosporesApple juice689 MPa, 60 °C, 3 pulses × 1 s>4.0 *
S. cerevisiaePineapple juice10.5 MPa·s−1ND d250 MPa, 25 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min4.0[19]
Orange juice250 MPa, 25 °C, 6 pulses × 1 min>4.5
250 MPa, 25 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min>5.0
200 MPa, 45 °C, 6 pulses × 1 min>5.0
200 MPa, 45 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min≈5.5
2.5 MPa·s−1ND200 MPa, 25 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min≈2.7
25 MPa·s−1ND200 MPa, 25 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min≈2.2
Escherichia coliPineapple juice5 MPa·s−15 MPa·s−1300 MPa, 20 °C, 10 pulses × 30 s2.8[20]
350 MPa, 20 °C, 5 pulses × 60 s2.6
Listeria innocua 300 MPa, 20 °C, 10 pulses × 30 s3.4[20]
350 MPa, 20 °C, 5 pulses × 60 s3.6
E. coliKiwifruit juice 300 MPa, 20 °C, 10 pulses × 30 s4.7[20]
350 MPa, 20 °C, 5 pulses × 60 s5.5
L. innocua 300 MPa, 20 °C, 10 pulses × 30 s4.8[20]
350 MPa, 20 °C, 5 pulses × 60 s5.6
E. coliSkim milkNDND550 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 10 min6.0[23]
Whole milk5 MPa·s−15 MPa·s−1400 MPa, 20–25 °C, 10 pulses × 1 min4.0[25]
400 MPa, 20–25 °C, 10 pulses × 2 min4.6
L. innocua 400 MPa, 20–25 °C, 5 pulses × 4 min3.9[25]
400 MPa, 20–25 °C, 10 pulses × 2 min4.3
E. coli K-12Raw milk cheese2.25 MPa·s−1< 3s400 MPa, 25 °C, 4 pulses × 0 min≈3.4[26]
E. coli O157:H7 400 MPa, 25 °C, 4 pulses × 0 min≈1.4[26]
L. monocytogenes 400 MPa, 25 °C, 4 pulses × 0 min≈3.8[26]
Bacillus cereus sporesCheeseNDND60 MPa, 30 °C, 210 min + 400 MPa1.6[28]
30 °C, 15 min
S. EnteritidisLiquid whole egg180 s90 s350 MPa, 50 °C, 2 pulses × 5 min7.8 *[30]
240 s120 s450 MPa, 20 °C, 2 pulses × 5 min7.3 *
NDND138 MPa, 20 °C, 2 pulses × 4 min1.3[31]
45 s6 s350 MPa, 50 °C, 4 pulses × 2 min>8.0 *[32]
E. coli O157:H7Ground beef2.2 min0.3 min400 MPa, 12 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min≈3.0[35]
S. EnteritidisChicken breast96 s16.2 s300 MPa, 12 °C, 2 pulses × 5 min2.5[36]
fillets132 s19.2 s400 MPa, 12 °C, 3 pulses × 3 min4.6
EnterobacteriaceaeOctopus muscle4 min≈2 s400 MPa, 7 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min≈3.0[39]
400 MPa, 40 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min≈3.0
S. EnteritidisSturgeon caviarNDND450 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min>4.1[40]
Trout caviar450 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min>2.7
S. aureusSturgeon caviarNDND450 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min>3.5[40]
Trout caviar450 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 5 min>3.7
S. EnteriditisRaw almonds≈3.6 min1 min414 MPa, 50 °C, 6 pulses × 20 s1.3[42]
(30 s between the pulses)
E. coliEgg whiteNDND300 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 2 min>7.0 *[43]
B. cereusMacaroni andNDND690 MPa, 90 °C, 2 pulses × 1 min>6.0 *[44]
sporescheese(1 min between the pulses)
Clostridium sporogenes spores 690 MPa, 90 °C, 2 pulses × 1 min> 6.0 *[44]
(1 min between the pulses)
a CR: Compression rate; CT: Compression time; b DR: Decompression rate; DT: Decompression time; c The temperature given is either the initial or the process temperature of the treatment; d ND: Not determined; * Total inactivation.
Table
Table 2. Summary of studies on the effect of mpHHP treatment on quality, shelf-life, microbial and enzyme inactivation of foods.
Table 2. Summary of studies on the effect of mpHHP treatment on quality, shelf-life, microbial and enzyme inactivation of foods.
ProductCR or CT aDR or DT bProcess conditions cAchievementReference
Oyster2.5 MPa·s−115 s400 MPa, 7 °C, 2 pulses × 5 minNo apparent advantages over[14]
spHHP treatment
Orange juice2.8 min≈10 s400 MPa, 20 °C, 3 pulses × 0 s92.4% inactivation of PME[21]
10.5 MPa·s−14 s250 MPa, 45 °C, 6 pulses × 60 s21 days of shelf-life at 4 °C[22]
Apple juice10.5 MPa·s−15 s300 MPa, 50 °C, 6 pulses × 60 s21 days of shelf-life at 4 °C
CheeseND dND800 MPa, ND, 3 pulses × 5 min4–6 log10 inactivation of microorganisms[27]
Inactivation of proteases
No growth of inactivated
microorganisms at 5 °C for 12 weeks
YogurtND dND400 MPa, ND, 3 pulses × 5 minComplete inactivation of[29]
Lactobacillus bulgaricus
No acidity change at 1 and 20 °C
for 3 weeks
Ground beef2.2 min0.3 min400 MPa, 12 °C, 2 pulses × 60 sSignificant color and texture changes[35]
Chicken breast fillets2.2 min17 s400 MPa, 5 °C, 2 pulses × 60 sSignificant color and texture changes[37]
a CR: Compression rate; CT: Compression time; b DR: Decompression rate; DT: Decompression time; c The temperature given is either the initial or the process temperature of the treatment; d ND: Not determined.

4. Commercial Application of the mpHHP

Although there is now enough evidence that the mpHHP treatment is an effective way of inactivating microorganisms and enzymes, there is no commercial application of the mpHHP treatment up to date. One and most important reason for this is that the mpHHP treatment is a longer application and thus more expensive than the spHHP treatment [8,13,16,25,41]—see Figure 1 and Figure 2. Besides, most probably a more complicated HHP equipment which can withstand fast compression and decompression rates (to reduce the total duration of the treatment) is needed for commercial applications.
However, as the technology improves it may be possible to have faster compression and decompression rates hence it may be possible to reach compatible total treatment times for the commercial applications of the mpHHP treatment. To the best of the author’s knowledge there is no study on the cost and optimization of process parameters of the mpHHP treatment. Optimization between pulse number, pulse holding time, pressure level, compression and decompression rates as well as initial and target temperature in a lab scale equipment will accelerate the application of commercial mpHHP treatment. Moreover, the differences in effectiveness of mpHHP and spHHP treatments must be weighed against the design capabilities of added wear on the HHP equipment, and possible additional time required for pulse treatment [45].

5. Conclusions

The mpHHP treatment could be used to inactivate microorganisms and enzymes in foods. It could also be used to contribute the quality and shelf-life of foods. However, it should be noted that optimization between the pressure, temperature, pulse number, pulse holding time, and compression and decompression rates can increase the effectiveness of the mpHHP treatment. However, more studies are needed especially on the cost of the mpHHP treatment.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bermúdez-Aguirre, D.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V. An update on high hydrostatic pressure, from laboratory to industrial applications. Food Eng. Rev. 2011, 3, 44–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Tonello, C. Case studies on high-pressure processing of foods. In Nonthermal Processing Technologies for Food; Zhang, H.Q., Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V., Balasubramaniam, V.M., Dunne, C.P., Farkas, D.F., Yuan, J.T.C., Eds.; Woodhead Publishing Limited: Cambridge, London, UK, 2011; pp. 36–50. [Google Scholar]
  3. Curl, A.L.; Jansen, E.F. Effect of high pressures on trypsin and chymotrypsin. J. Biol. Chem. 1949, 184, 45–54. [Google Scholar]
  4. Curl, A.L.; Jansen, E.F. The effect of high pressures on pepsin and chymotrypsinogen. J. Biol. Chem. 1950, 185, 713–723. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  5. Ludikhuyze, L.R.; van den Broeck, I.; Weemaes, C.A.; Hendrickx, M.E. Kinetic parameters for pressuretemperature inactivation of Bacillus subtilis α-amylase under dynamic conditions. Biotechnol. Prog. 1997, 13, 617–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Palou, E.; López-Malo, A.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Swanson, B.G. Oscillatory high hydrostatic pressure inactivation of Zygosaccharomyces bailii. J. Food Prot. 1998, 61, 1213–1215. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  7. Masschalck, B.; García-Graells, C.; van Haver, E.; Michiels, C.W. Inactivation of high pressure resistant Escherichia coli by lysozyme and nişin under high pressure. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2000, 1, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Rivalain, N.; Roquain, J.; Boiron, J.M.; Maurel, J.P.; Largeteau, A.; Ivanovic, Z.; Demazeau, G. High hydrostatic pressure treatment for the inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus in human blood plasma. New Biotechnol. 2012, 29, 409–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hayakawa, I.; Kanno, T.; Yoshiyama, K.; Fujio, Y. Oscillatory compared with continuous high pressure sterilization on Bacillus stearothermophilus spores. J. Food Sci. 1994, 59, 164–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Furukawa, S.; Nakahara, A.; Hayakawa, I. Effect of reciprocal pressurization on germination and killing of bacterial spores. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2000, 35, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Ahn, J.; Balasubramaniam, V.M. Effects of inoculum level and pressure pulse on the inactivation of Clostridium sporogenes spores by pressure-assisted thermal processing. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 17, 616–623. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  12. Pilavtepe-Çelik, M.; Buzrul, S.; Alpas, H.; Largeteau, A.; Demazeau, G. Multi-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure treatment for inactivation and injury of Escherichia Coli. J. Verbrauch. Lebensm. 2011, 6, 343–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kingsley, D.H.; Guan, D.; Hoover, D.G.; Chen, H. Inactivation of Hepatitis A virus by high-pressure processing: The role of temperature and pressure oscillation. J. Food Prot. 2006, 69, 2454–2459. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. López-Caballero, M.E.; Pérez-Mateos, M.; Montero, P.; Borderías, A.J. Oyster preservation by high-pressure treatment. J. Food Prot. 2000, 63, 196–201. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  15. Yuste, J.; Pla, R.; Capellas, M.; Sendra, E.; Beltran, E.; Mor-Mur, M. Oscillatory high pressure processing applied to mechanically recovered poultry meat for bacterial inactivation. J. Food Sci. 2001, 66, 482–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Buzrul, S. Multi-pulsed high hydrostatic pressure treatment of microorganisms: A review. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2014, 26, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alemán, G.D.; Ting, E.Y.; Mordre, S.C.; Hawes, A.C.O.; Walker, M.; Farkas, D.F.; Torres, J.A. Pulsed ultra high pressure treatments for pasteurization of pineapple juice. J. Food Sci. 1996, 61, 388–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Palou, E.; López-Malo, A.; Barbosa-Cánovas, G.V.; Welti-Chanes, J.; Davidson, P.M.; Swanson, B.G. Effect of oscillatory high hydrostatic pressure treatments on Byssochlamys nivea ascospores suspended in fruit juice concentrates. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 1998, 27, 375–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Donsì, G.; Ferrari, G.; Maresca, P. Pulsed high pressure treatment of Saccharomyces cerevisiae: The effect of process parameters. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 984–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Buzrul, S.; Largeteau, A.; Alpas, H.; Demazeau, G. Inactivation of Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua in kiwifruit and pineapple juices by high hydrostatic pressure. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 124, 275–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Basak, S.; Ramaswamy, H.S. Pulsed high pressure inactivation of pectin methyl esterase in single strength and concentrated orange juices. Can. Biosyst. Eng. 2001, 43, 3.25–3.29. [Google Scholar]
  22. Donsì, G.; Ferrari, G.; Maresca, P. Pasteurization of fruit juices by means of a pulsed high pressure process. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, E169–E177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. García-Graells, C.; Masschalck, N.; Moonjai, N.; Michiels, C. High pressure inactivation and survival of pressure-resistant Escherichia coli mutants in milk. In Advances in High Pressure Bioscience and Biotechnology; Ludwig, H., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1999; pp. 133–136. [Google Scholar]
  24. Buzrul, S.; Largeteau, A.; Alpas, H.; Demazeau, G. Pulsed pressure treatment for inactivation of Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua in whole milk. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2008, 121. Art. No: 142001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buzrul, S.; Alpas, H.; Largeteau, A.; Demazeau, G. Efficiency of pulse pressure treatment for inactivation of Escherichia coli and Listeria innocua in whole milk. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2009, 229, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shao, Y.; Ramaswamy, H.S.; Zhu, S. High-pressure destruction kinetics of spoilage and pathogenic bacteria in raw milk cheese. J. Food Proc. Eng. 2007, 30, 357–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Reps, A.; Kołakowski, P.; Dajnowiec, F. The effect of high pressure on microorganisms and enzymes of ripening cheeses. In High Pressure Food Science, Bioscience & Chemistry; Isaacs, N.S., Ed.; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, London, UK, 1998; pp. 265–270. [Google Scholar]
  28. López-Pedemonte, T.J.; Roig-Sagués, A.X.; Trujillo, A.J.; Capellas, M.; Guamis, B. Inactivation of spores of Bacillus cereus in cheese by high hydrostatic pressure with the addition of nisin or lysozyme. J. Dairy Sci. 2003, 86, 3075–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Reps, A.; Warminska-Radyko, I.; Dajnowiec, F. Effect of high pressure on yogurt. In Advances in High Pressure Bioscience and Biotechnology; Ludwig, H., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1999; pp. 453–456. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ponce, E.; Pla, R.; Sendra, E.; Guamis, B.; Mor-Mur, M. Destruction of Salmonella enteritidis inoculated in liquid whole egg by high hydrostatic pressure: Comprative study in selective and non-selective media. Food Microbiol. 1999, 16, 357–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huang, E.; Mittal, G.S.; Griffiths, M.W. Inactivation of Salmonella enteritidis in liquid whole egg using combination of pulsed electrical field, high pressure and ultrasound. Biosyst. Eng. 2006, 94, 403–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bari, M.L.; Ukuku, D.O.; Mori, M.; Kawamoto, S.; Yamamoto, K. Effect of hydrostatic pressure pulsing on the inactivation of Salmonella Enteritidis in liquid whole egg. Foodborne Path. Dis. 2008, 5, 175–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ponce, E.; Pla, R.; Capellas, M.; Guamis, B.; Mor-Mur, M. Inactivation of Escherichia coli inoculated in liquid whole egg by high hydrostatic pressure. Food Microbiol. 1998, 15, 265–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yuste, J.; Mor-Mur, M.; Capellas, M.; Guamis, B.; Pla, R. Microbiological quality of mechanically recovered poultry meat treated with high hydrostatic pressure and nisin. Food Microbiol. 1998, 15, 407–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Morales, P.; Calzada, J.; Ávila, M.; Nuñez, M. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 in ground beef by single-cycle and multiple-cycle high-pressure treatments. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 811–815. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Morales, P.; Calzada, J.; Rodríguez, B.; de Paz, M.; Nuñez, M. Inactivation of Salmonella Enteritidis in chicken breast fillets by single-cycle and multiple-cycle high pressure treatments. Foodborne Path. Dis. 2009, 6, 577–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Del Olmo, A.; Morales, P.; Ávila, M.; Calzada, J.; Nuñez, M. Effect of single-cycle and multiple-cycle high-pressure treatments on the colour and texture of chicken breast fillets. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2010, 11, 441–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hurtado, J.L.; Montero, P.; Borderías, A.J. Influence of high isostatic pressure on muscle of octopus (Octopus vulgaris). In Advances in High Pressure Bioscience and Biotechnology; Ludwig, H., Ed.; Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1999; pp. 409–412. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hurtado, J.L.; Montero, P.; Borderías, J.; Solas, M. High-pressure/temperature treatment effect on the characteristics of octopus (Octopus vulgaris) arm muscle. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2001, 213, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Fioretto, F.; Cruz, C.; Largeteau, A.; Sarli, T.A.; Demazeau, G.; El Moueffak, A. Inactivation of Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enteritidis in tryptic soy broth and caviar samples by high pressure processing. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2005, 38, 1259–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Alemán, G.D.; Ting, E.Y.; Farkas, D.F.; Mordre, S.C.; Hawes, A.C.O.; Torres, J.A. Comparison of static and step-pulsed ultra-high pressure on the microbial stability of fresh cut pineapple. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1998, 76, 383–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goodridge, L.D.; Willford, J.; Kalchayanand, N. Destruction of Salmonella Enteriditis inoculated onto raw almonds by high hydrostatic pressure. Food Res. Int. 2006, 39, 408–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Homma, K.; Haga, N. Effect of high pressure-treatment on sterilization and physical properties of egg white. In High Pressure Science for Food; Hayashi, R., Ed.; San-Ei Publishing: Kyoto, Japan, 1990; pp. 317–324. [Google Scholar]
  44. Meyer, R. Ultra High Pressure, High Temperature Food Preservation Process. US 6,017,572A, 25 January 2000. [Google Scholar]
  45. Farkas, D.R.; Hoover, D.G. High pressure processing. J. Food Sci. 2000, 65, 47–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buzrul, S. Multi-Pulsed High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatment of Foods. Foods 2015, 4, 173-183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods4020173

AMA Style

Buzrul S. Multi-Pulsed High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatment of Foods. Foods. 2015; 4(2):173-183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods4020173

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buzrul, Sencer. 2015. "Multi-Pulsed High Hydrostatic Pressure Treatment of Foods" Foods 4, no. 2: 173-183. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods4020173

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop