Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Muthgasse 18, 1190 Vienna, Austria
OFI Austrian Research Institute for Chemistry and Technology, Brehmstrasse 14 A, 1110 Vienna, Austria
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 31 July 2014
Received in revised form 3 June 2015
Accepted 4 June 2015
Available online 26 June 2015
Keywords:
Pulsed light treatment
Minimal processing
Non-thermal decontamination
In-package application
Inactivation
a b s t r a c t
Non-thermal processes have become increasingly popular over the last decades. As one of the emerging nonthermal technologies, pulsed light (PL) represents a fast, tailored and residue-free technology that via high frequency, high intensity pulses of broad-spectrum light rich in the UV fraction is capable of inactivating microbial
cells and spores.
This review provides some updated information on PL and its suitability for surface decontamination of solid matrices such as food and food-contact materials. The focus is on post-packaging application, which allows treatment of the packaged food thus avoiding undesirable recontamination. Furthermore, prerequisites for inpackage application, the efcacy of the treatment compared with the non-packaged pendant and the alteration
of both the product and packaging material accomplished by PL are discussed. In the case of packaging material,
not only physical stability and mechanical stability but also chemical migration and possibly arising safety
concerns are highlighted.
Industrial relevance: This review offers a comprehensive survey of the use of pulsed light for the decontamination
of unpackaged as well as packaged solid foods and associated food contact materials. Based on this background,
food scientists as well as research and development can develop suited packaging concepts and optimize the
treatment with regard to decontamination efciency, product quality and safety.
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents
1.
2.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pulsed light . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1.
Fundamentals of pulsed light application . . . . .
2.2.
Prerequisites of in-package application of pulsed light
2.3.
Efcacy of pulsed light on solid matrices . . . . . .
2.4.
Inuence of pulsed light on packaging materials . .
3.
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conict of interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
145
146
146
147
148
153
154
154
154
154
1. Introduction
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.06.005
1466-8564/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
146
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
2. Pulsed light
2.1. Fundamentals of pulsed light application
PL is an emerging non-thermal decontamination technology, which
is capable of inactivating microorganisms on various surfaces, including
food and food-contact materials (Dunn, Ott, & Clark, 1995). In its basics,
the PL technology comprises the generation of high-power electrical
pulses that are subsequently transformed to short-duration, highpower pulses of broad-spectrum (1801100 nm) electromagnetic radiation (light) via an inert-gas (mainly xenon) ash lamp. In this context,
the applicable rule is that the shorter the pulse duration, the higher the
delivered energy and consequently the antimicrobial action (Dunn
et al., 1989). A schematic layout of a PL device is provided by Heinrich,
Zunabovic, Varzakas, Bergmair, and Kneifel (2015).
In general, three main factors, namely the treated matrix (e.g., food),
the degree and nature of microbial contamination and the process parameters affect the efciency of a pulsed light treatment. The matrix inuences the efciency with regard to transparency or opacity, surface
characteristics and composition. Optimal results are achieved when
the matrix has a low reection-, high absorption- and transmission coefcient. Meaning that, aside from transparent liquids, effect of the PL
technology is limited to the surface or uppermost layer of a semi-solid
according to its capability to absorb and transfer light (Dunn et al.,
1989; Gmez-Lpez, Ragaert, Debevere, & Devlieghere, 2007; Palmieri
& Cacace, 2005). Further, the target surface should be as smooth as
possible, since vast irregularities and light-absorbing matter constitute
a shelter for microbial contaminants and an obstacle for the incident
light (Dunn et al., 1995; Gmez-Lpez, Devlieghere, Bonduelle, &
Debevere, 2005a; Gmez-Lpez et al., 2007; Lagunas-Solar & GmezLpez, 2006; Palmieri & Cacace, 2005; Sommers, Cooke, Fan, & Sites,
2009). Ultimately, the matrix should contain only low quantities of substances able to competitively absorb light such as fat and protein. Carbohydrates, however, do not show this pronounced light-absorbing effect
(Gmez-Lpez et al., 2005a; Rajkovic et al., 2010).
Microbial contamination inuences the efcacy of a PL treatment in
respect of the microorganism, its physiological constitution, population
density and the growth parameters (growth rate and lag time)
(Augustin et al., 2011; Cudemos, Izquier, Medina-Martnez, & GmezLpez, 2013; Dunn et al., 1989). Some distinctions regarding the
susceptibility of microorganisms to PL can be observed. For example
Gram-positive bacteria seem to be more resistant than Gram-negative
because of their cell structure. Also, mucoid- and pigment-forming bacteria can have a lower susceptibility to PL. Furthermore, fungi seem to
be more resistant than bacteria, bacterial spores are more resistant
than their corresponding vegetative cells and smaller bacteria are
more than larger ones, due to the faster dissipation of heat from the surface (Anderson, Rowan, MacGregor, Fouracre, & Farish, 2000; Farrell,
Garvey, Cormican, Laffey, & Rowan, 2010; Rowan et al., 1999). Since
high population density and stationary growth phase can impair the
decontamination efciency, it is recommended to start the PL treatment
as soon as possible after the contamination takes place (Anderson et al.,
2000; Farrell et al., 2010; Gmez-Lpez, Devlieghere, Bonduelle, &
Debevere, 2005b; Hiramoto, 1984; Rajkovic, Tomasevic, et al., 2010).
The effect of PL on the microbial inactivation has been explained by
photophysical (structural cell damage), chemical (cell death due to DNA
lesions) and thermal (cell death due to disruption and structural changes) mechanisms (Cheigh, Park, Chung, Shin, & Park, 2012; Dunn et al.,
1989; Farrell et al., 2010; Takeshita et al., 2003; Wekhof, 2000;
Wekhof & Trompeter, 2001). Acting in parallel or in sequence these
effects make PL treatments more effective than the conventional used
UV systems (Dunn et al., 1989).
Repetitively, authors have demonstrated that the inactivation curve
of PL treatment is non-linear and that, in consequence, the commonly
used linear models cannot accurately describe the observed inactivation
pattern (Farrell et al., 2010; Keklik, Demirci, Puri, & Heinemann, 2012;
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
147
148
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
1R f
:
1R f Rp
In this context Ia describes the intensity of light absorbed by the matrix, It stands for the intensity of the incident light, Tp is the fractional
transmission by the packaging material, Rp stands for the fraction of
light reected by the packaging material and Rf describes the fraction
of light reected by the food. Fig. 1 visualizes this function (Fellows,
2009, chap. 24).
Additionally, the LambertBeer law allows determining the fraction
of incident light that is transmitted by any given (packaging) material
according to Eq. (2).
It Ii eax :
Light source
Ii
Rp
Tp
Rf
Ia
Food matrix
Packaging material
Fig. 1. Factors inuencing the light absorption. Cross-section through a food package
(adapted from Mortensen, Bertelsen, Mortensen, & Stapelfeldt, 2004). Ia: Intensity of
light absorbed by the food matrix; Ii: intensity of the incident light; Tp: fractional transmission by the packaging material; Rp: fraction of light reected by the packaging material; Rf:
fraction of light reected by the food matrix.
So far, only a few publications deal with the in-package decontamination of foods with PL and knowledge is generated gradually. Of these
publications, the major part is related to meat and meat products and
the minor part to fruits and vegetables, sh as well as to in-vitro tests
(Tables 13). The microorganisms under examination are primarily different strains of Listeria, Escherichia, Salmonella and Campylobacter, since
they are of the highest relevance in foodborne diseases (EFSA, 2012;
RASFF, 2012). In particular, Listeria monocytogenes and its surrogates
are repeatedly considered. Reasons for this are the high prevalence
in ready-to-eat (meat) products as well as its ubiquity, potential to
post-process contamination, growth under refrigerated conditions, resistance to diverse environmental conditions (e.g. low pH and high
NaCl concentrations) and the elevated resistance to PL (EFSA, 2012;
FDA/FIS, 2003; Gmez-Lpez et al., 2005b). Taking Listeria as an example, most in-vitro studies on solid agar medium (non-packaged) achieve
inactivation levels from 2 up to 7 log CFU (data not shown in Table 1)
(Fernndez et al., 2009; Gmez-Lpez et al., 2005b; Hierro, Ganan,
Barroso, & Fernndez, 2012; Lasagabaster & de Maran, 2012;
MacGregor et al., 1998; Rowan et al., 1999).
Although the individual properties of a bacterial strain inuence the
outcome, the drastic difference in inactivation levels often arises from
the different PL devices and congurations used, the inconsistent use
of terms and denitions but also from the applied cultural methods as
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
149
Table 1
In vitro microbial viable count reduction of different microorganisms using pulsed light (PL) in relation to food-contact materials.
Treated
matrix
Bacterial
strain/inoculation
range
Packaging
characteristics
In vitro
Agar plates L. monocytogenes Scott
A (CIP 103575, serotype
4b); 106 cm2
Output
parameters
Microbial reduction;
Steribeam SBS-XeMatic-2L-A
media warming
(Steribeam Systems, Germany);
2 lamps (solely upper one used)
2
150 J; 0.175 Jcm ; 1 or 2 pulses;
250 s
0.175 Jcm2
0.35 Jcm2
Wrapped; PE (12 m) 0.175 Jcm2
0.35 Jcm2
0.175 Jcm2
Wrapped;
PA/PE/vinylacetate
0.35 Jcm2
(48 m)
Wrapped; PA/PE
0.175 Jcm2
copolymer (60 m)
0.35 Jcm2
LDPE (40 m)
RS-3000C SteriPulse System
(Xenon Corp., MA); 101.6 mm
distance to quartz lamp; 12 pulses;
0.67 J cm2; 3 Hz; 360 s;
application through the material
or on the surface
Unwrapped plates
Polymer
coupons
L. innocua (FSL
C2-008); 109 cm2 per
coupon (2.5 5 cm)
Microbial
reduction;
sample warming;
inactivation kinetics
Major outcomes
References
No signicant difference in
microbial reduction between
unpackaged and packaged samples;
No warming of plates observed;
Polymer lms easily penetrated by
light and therefore suitable for PL
treatment of packaged foods
5.1 0.1 log CFU cm2
5.5 log CFU cm2 (max. inactivation)
4.9 0.2 log CFU cm2
5.5 log CFU cm2 (max. inactivation)
5.1 0.3 log CFU cm2
5.5 log CFU cm2 (max. inactivation)
Fernndez
et al. (2009)
2011; Hierro et al., 2011, 2012; Keklik et al., 2009, 2010; Paskeviciute,
Buchovec, & Luksiene, 2011; Uesugi & Moraru, 2009) (Table 2).
Although slightly higher decontamination levels could be achieved
by increasing the intensity of the PL treatment, restriction is experienced by the beginning product alteration (e.g., sensory effects and oxidation reactions) (Gudelis & Lukien, 2010; Haughton et al., 2011;
Hierro et al., 2011, 2012; Keklik et al., 2009, 2010; Paskeviciute et al.,
2011; Wambura & Verghese, 2011). As for the in vitro study, packaged
meat and meat products are susceptible to the same or a slightly
lower degree of observed inactivation compared with their unpackaged
pendants. For example, Keklik et al. (2009) report that PL treatment of
L. monocytogenes on unpackaged and vacuum-packaged (PP lm) chicken frankfurters resulted in about 1.6 and 1.5 log CFU cm2 reductions,
although the lm reduced the energy available for decontamination.
In a following study, Keklik et al. (2010) showed that for an equal reduction of 2 log CFU cm2 of Salmonella Typhimurium on unpackaged and
vacuum-packaged (same PP lm as used by Keklik et al. (2009)) boneless chicken breasts a signicant increase in treatment time was necessary. On the positive side, the authors described a slowdown of the
product alteration (visual color) with in-package decontamination,
caused by the reduced energy available. It could, however, also be
argued that vacuum packaging allows for the exclusion of oxygen and
thereby reduces possible light induced oxidative reactions in the
product. In the past, several packaging solutions have been developed
or applied that can help minimize or prevent the oxidation process of
food products. Despite the fact that these solutions are for common
light sources (e.g., uorescent light tubes in retail trade or sun light), it
seems reasonable to suggest parallels to PL treatment. Here, in particular the inevitable highly transmissible packaging materials that are used
and the high light incident on the surface make protection of the product necessary. The oxygen content in the headspace can be reduced by
the already mentioned vacuum packaging or modied atmosphere
packaging (MAP). Furthermore, the use of oxygen impermeable packaging materials can be used to hinder oxygen from re-entering the
package. Indirectly, the reduction of oxygen in the headspace by a decrease of the product-to-headspace volume ratio is also feasible
(Brandenburg, 2009; Rakesh & Singh, 2005). However, the alternative
150
Table 2
Microbial viable count reduction of different microorganisms using pulsed light (PL) in relation to food-contact materials by the example of meat and meat products.
Treated matrix
Packaging characteristics
Output parameters
Major outcomes
References
Microbial reduction;
sample warming;
Quality-related parameters
(TBARS; CIELAB color)
Keklik et al.
(2009)
Microbial reduction;
sample warming;
Quality-related parameters
(TBARS; CIELAB color)
Unpackaged
Vacuum-packaged; PP lm
Boneless chicken
breast
Salmonella Typhimurium
(ATCC 13311); 105106 per
piece (4 4 cm)
Unpackaged
Vacuum-packaged; PP
Chicken skin
C. jejuni (chicken and human
isolates); dip solution 107 mL1
Skinless chicken
breast meat
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(CIELAB color)
Keklik et al.
(2010)
Haughton
et al. (2011)
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
L. monocytogenes
8.4 J cm2
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(lipid oxidation, sensory
analysis, shelf life)
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(color, sensory analysis,
shelf life)
Bologna sliced,
ready-to-eat
Beef carpaccio
(slices)
Hierro et al.
(2011)
Hierro et al.
(2012)
L. monocytogenes (cocktail of
CECT 4032, CECT 7467, Scott A);
104105 cm2
S. enterica serovar
Typhimurium (CECT 7159,
4371); 104105 cm2
L. monocytogenes (cocktail of
CECT 4032, CECT 7467, Scott A),
104105 cm2
S. enterica serovar
Typhimurium (CECT 7159,
4371), 104105 cm2
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(color, sensory analysis)
Ganan et al.
(2013)
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
Ham, sliced,
ready-to-eat
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (16 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Vacuum-packaged
151
152
Table 3
Microbial viable count reduction of different microorganisms using pulsed light (PL) in relation to food-contact materials by the example of sh, fruits and vegetables.
Treated matrix
Bacterial strain/inoculation
range
Packaging characteristics
Output parameters
Major outcomes
References
Vacuum-packaged PA/PE
(60 m)
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(color, sensory analysis, shelf
life)
Hierro et al.
(2012)
Figueroa-Garcia
et al. (2002)
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(physicalchemical
determination, headspace
gas analysis, pH, color,
rmness)
Ramos-Villarroel
et al. (2012a)
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(physicalchemical
determination, headspace
gas analysis, pH, color,
rmness)
6 J cm2
12 J cm2
PP tray, sealed with PP lm
10.68 J cm2
Microbial reduction;
Quality-related parameters
(physicalchemical
determination, headspace
gas analysis, pH, color,
rmness)
Ramos-Villarroel
et al. (2014)
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
Catsh llets
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
of MAP applied in combination with PL is reported in none of the articles, neither are comparisons to the other packaging forms. These aspects represent a major need for future research.
Similar to Keklik et al. (2010), Haughton et al. (2011) dealt with the
decontamination of unpackaged and packaged (covered) chicken skin
and skinless breast meat and indicated that the microbial reduction
was greater at higher PL intensity and reduced lm thickness. At the
higher treatment intensity tested, reductions of Campylobacter jejuni,
Escherichia coli and Salmonella enteritidis on skin and meat were 0.91
and 0.89, 1.51 and 1.48 as well as 1.5 and 1.2 log CFU g1. Corresponding to this, the highest reductions of C. jejuni and E. coli on skin and meat
through a PO (15 m) lm were 1.22 and 0.96 as well as 1.69 and
1.13 log CFU g1, respectively. For S. enteritidis, however, the highest
reductions were through PVC (16 and 25 m) lms, namely 1.27 and
1.35 log CFU g1, respectively. At the lower treatment level, the use of
PET/PP (54 m) lms resulted in insignicant reductions of C. jejuni
and S. enteritidis counts on skin and meat and E. coli on meat. Additionally, both PVC lms used did not allow for signicant reductions of
C. jejuni on meat.
While a direct comparison of decontamination efciency of
unpackaged to packaged products is possible for the abovementioned
poultry products, hardly any information is available about fresh
red meats in the literature. Hierro et al. (2011) investigated the decontamination of vacuum-packaged ready-to-eat ham and Bologna
slices with the outcome that L. monocytogenes on cooked ham can
be reduced by 1.78 log CFU cm- 2 without impairing the sensory quality and extending the shelf-life. With the same treatment intensity,
the decontamination of the apparently more sensible product Bologna was 1.11 log CFU cm 2 , only with the drawback of having a
negative sensory effect. In a further study, Hierro et al. (2012) investigated the inactivation of L. monocytogenes, E. coli, Salmonella
Typhimurium and Vibrio parahaemolyticus on vacuum-packaged
(60 mm PA/PE lm) beef and tuna (Table 3) carpaccio. Similar to
the bologna, the PL treatment resulted in a decontamination by approximately 1 log CFU cm 2 and impaired the sensory quality of
the product. It is therefore necessary to nd the appropriate treatment parameter settings allowing acceptable decontamination efciency while maintaining the product quality. In the context of
tuna carpaccio, it is noteworthy that diverse studies have concentrated on the PL inactivation of bacteria on unpackaged sh, but
hardly any on the pre-packaged pendants (Dunn et al., 1989; Ozer
& Demirci, 2006). However, post-packaging application seems to be
also an interesting future perspective for sh (Figueroa-Garcia,
Silva, Kim, Boeger, & Cover, 2002).
A recently published study by Ganan et al. (2013) further investigated the inactivation of L. monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica on the
surface of ready-to-eat dry cured meat products, namely salchichn
and loin (Table 2). With this treatment it was possible to reduce microbial counts by 1.5 and 1.8 log CFU cm2, while at the same time the
sensory properties of the products could be maintained. An explanation
for the higher stability of dry cured products compared with samples
investigated by Hierro et al. (2012) may result from a higher stability
of pigments. In addition, the presence of complex avors added or derived during ripening may contribute to the masking of possible quality
changes induced by PL treatment.
The fraction of publications dealing with fruits and vegetables is
even smaller than the one of packaged red meats and associated products (Table 3). Here, for example PP trays sealed with a PP (64 m)
lm were used to study the inactivation of E. coli and L. innocua on
fresh-cut avocado (Ramos-Villarroel et al., 2014). The results obtained
show that microbial reductions of 2.47 and 1.35 log CFU g1 are possible
but linked to an accelerated quality decay of the fruit. A similar picture is
given in a former work of Ramos-Villarroel et al. (2012a, 2012b), where
the application of PL to fresh-cut mushrooms through a PP lm caused
reduction of E. coli and L. innocua by 3.03 and 2.66 log CFU g 1 and
3.01 and 2.79 log CFU g1 with fresh-cut watermelons.
153
It can therefore be emphasized that the effect of in-package treatment of solid (food) matrices is comparable with that of the unpackaged
pendant in terms of a facilitating a signicant reduction of relevant
pathogens. However, this depends on the matrix, the type of packaging
and the treatment conditions.
2.4. Inuence of pulsed light on packaging materials
So far, only a few authors focused on the effect of PL on food-contact
materials. While the focus was laid on the physical stability and mechanical stability, little attention was paid on chemical migration and
safety concerns. However, it is important to note that the awareness
about the effects of non-thermal food-processing techniques such as
PL exerted on the packaging materials is on the rise (Castillo et al.,
2013; Guillard et al., 2010; Han, 2007; Ozen & Floros, 2001).
For other emerging in-package preservation technologies such as
high pressure treatment being already commercialized to a larger extent, sorption, permeation and migration interactions between food
and packaging material under specic process conditions have been
studied extensively. Meanwhile tailored packaging materials have
been developed in order to meet the processing requirements (Caner,
Hernandez, & Harte, 2004b; Lambert et al., 2000; Schauwecker,
Balasubramaniam, Sadler, Pascall, & Adhikari, 2002). Similarly, a
science-based investigation of process-product-packaging interactions
is also required for successful PL in-package application.
In the studies of Keklik et al. (2009, 2010), a PP lm has undergone
mild, moderate and extreme PL treatment conditions. The mechanical
properties of the packaging material in both along-machine and
perpendicular-to-machine direction, recorded before and after the
treatment, were elastic modulus, yield strength and percent elongation
at yield point as well as maximum tensile strength and percent elongation at break. Here, the elastic modulus, determined by the slope of the
stressstrain curve, describes the stiffness of the material and indicates
the resistance of the material to environmental impact. The susceptibility of contamination of the packaged commodity due to altered size of
pores was studied. The yield strength (MPa) describes the point at
which the resistance of the material to deformation is negligible and
therefore provides some information on how resistant the material is
to deformation. Furthermore, the percentage elongation at yield point
describes the amount of stretch the material experiences at the yield
point and thus represents a measure of mechanical deformation. The
maximum tensile strength (MPa) provides information on the highest
amount of stress a material can withstand until it breaks. Finally, the
percentage elongation at break gives the amount of extension that a
material resists until it breaks (ASTM, 2002). In both studies conducted
by abovementioned authors, it is suggested that PL may have a greater
impact on the elastic modulus and yield strength compared with maximum tensile strength and percent elongation at yield or break point.
The described changes take effect from medium to high intensities,
which mostly lie out of the commercial treatment area (Keklik et al.,
2009, 2010).
Next to the surface decontamination of packaging materials and the
link to material properties, Ringus and Moraru (2013) investigated the
change in structural and physical properties of surface-treated lowand high-density polyethylene (LDPE and HDPE) as well as three laminates, namely MET, TR and EP. In their work, the water contact angle
measurement was used as a measure of surface hydrophobicity to indicate changes in surface structure, barrier property and bacterial adherence (Bower, McGuire, & Daeschel, 1996; Dury-Brun, Chalier, Desorby,
& Voilley, 2007; Li & Logan, 2005; Mafu, Roy, Goulet, & Savoie, 1991;
Raab, Kotulk, Kolak, & Pospil, 1982). Surface roughness (average,
root mean square and ten point roughness) was tested to determine
the possibility of cells shading or hiding from the treatment. Specular
(light reected at the same angle as the angle of incidence) and diffuse
(light reected at a different angle than the angle of incidence) reection was used to conrm the negative inuence of reectivity on the
154
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
thus avoidance of undesirable post-treatment recontamination. However, to ensure an effective treatment it is necessary not only to consider
the food matrices, microorganisms and process setup but also the
intended packaging material in terms of transmissibility and process
stability.
While in vitro studies (solid agar medium) on the efcacy of PL reveal that a decontamination of relevant pathogens of 2 to 7 log CFU is
possible, the application on complex matrices like foods (e.g., meat
and meat products) result in inactivation of just 1 to 2 log CFU. However,
it makes only little to no difference if the food is unpackaged or packaged. Evident in both, in vitro as well as in studies performed with
(pre-packaged) food products, is the limited comparability of the obtained effects caused by differences in process parameters, products
and reporting. Therefore the establishment of standardized treatments
and protocols is essential.
In order to further successfully commercialize the technology of PL
and in particular the in-package application thereof, future research
should focus on the closure of the gap between basic and applied research, the comparability of the results, the PL-induced alteration of
product and packaging and the compliance with the legal requirements.
Conict of interest
The authors declare to have no conict of interest.
Acknowledgement
This review was partly nanced by sterreichische
Forschungsfrderungsgesellschaft mbH (FFG) in the context of the
national project Pathogene Keime (project no. 835133). The
funding source was not involved with the collection, analysis and
interpretation of the information.
References
Anderson, J. G., Rowan, N. J., MacGregor, S. J., Fouracre, R. A., & Farish, O. (2000). Inactivation of food-borne enteropathogenic bacteria and spoilage fungi using pulsed-light.
IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science, 28(1), 8388.
Andrady, A. L. (2007). Ultraviolet radiation and polymers. In J. E. Mark (Ed.), Physical properties of polymers handbook (pp. 857866). Springer Science + Business Media.
ASTM (2002). D 882-02, Standard test method for tensile properties of thin plastic sheeting.
USA: ASTM International.
Augustin, J. -C., Bergis, H., Midelet-Bourdin, G., Cornu, M., Couvert, O., Denis, C., et al.
(2011). Design of challenge testing experiments to assess the variability of Listeria
monocytogenes growth in foods. Food Microbiology, 28, 746754.
Aymerich, T., Picouet, P. A., & Monfort, J. M. (2008). Decontamination technologies for
meat products. Meat Science, 78, 114129.
Bialka, K. L., Demirci, A., & Puri, V. M. (2008). Modeling the inactivation of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 and Salmonella enterica on raspberries and strawberries resulting from
exposure to ozone or pulsed UV-light. Journal of Food Engineering, 85, 444449.
Bialka, K. L., Walker, P. N., Puri, V. M., & Demirci, A. (2008). Pulsed UV-light penetration of
characterization and the inactivation of Escherichia coli K12 in solid model systems.
Transactions of the ASABE, 51, 195204.
BIPM (2006). The international system of units (SI) (8th ed.). France: Organisation
Intergouvernementale de la Convention du Mtre. Bureau International des Poids
et Mesures.
Bower, C. K., McGuire, J., & Daeschel, M. A. (1996). The adhesion and detachment of bacteria and spores on food-contact surfaces. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 7(5),
152157.
Brandenburg, J. (2009). Modied atmosphere packaging. In K. L. Yam (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of packaging technology (pp. 787794). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bull, M. K., Steele, R. J., Kelly, M., Olivier, S. A., & Chapman, B. (2010). Packaging under
pressure: Effects of high pressure, high temperature processing on the barrier properties of commonly available packaging materials. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies, 11(4), 533537.
Butz, P., & Tauscher, B. (2002). Emerging technologies: Chemical aspects. Food Research
International, 35, 279284.
Caner, C., Hernandez, R. J., & Harte, B. R. (2004a). High-pressure processing effects on the
mechanical, barrier and mass transfer properties of food packaging exible structures: A critical review. Packaging Technology and Science, 17(1), 2329.
Caner, C., Hernandez, R. J., & Harte, B. R. (2004b). The effect of high-pressure treatments in
the food industry. Packaging Technology and Science, 13(2), 6371.
Carlsson, D. J., & Wiles, D. M. (1986). In H. F. Mark, N. M. Bikales, C. G. Overberger, & G.
Menges (Eds.), Encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering. Vol. 4. (pp. 665).
New York: John Wiley & Sons.
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
Castillo, R., Biedermann, M., Riquet, A. -M., & Grob, K. (2013). Comprehensive on-line
HPLCGC for screening potential migrants from polypropylene into food: The effect
of pulsed light decontamination as an example. Polymer Degradation and Stability,
98, 16791687.
Cheigh, C. -I., Park, M. -H., Chung, M. -S., Shin, J. -K., & Park, Y. -S. (2012). Comparison of
intense pulsed light- and ultraviolet (UVC)-induced cell damage in Listeria
monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Food Control, 25, 654659.
Coles, R. (2003). Introduction. In R. Coles, D. McDowell, & M. J. Kirwan (Eds.), Food
packaging technology (pp. 131). CRC Press.
Crompton, T. R. (2007). Additive migration from plastics into foods A guide for analytical
chemists. Smithers Rapra Technology Limited.
Cudemos, E., Izquier, A., Medina-Martnez, M. S., & Gmez-Lpez, V. M. (2013). Effects of
shading and growth phase on the microbial inactivation by pulsed light. Czech Journal
of Food Sciences, 31(2), 189193.
Dunn, J. E., Clark, R. W., Asmus, J. F., Pearlman, J. S., Boyer, K., Painchaud, F., & Hofmann, G.
A. (1989). Methods for preservation of foodstuffs. Maxwell Laboratories Inc., San
Diego, USA. US Patent 4871559.
Dunn, J. E., Clark, R. W., Asmus, J. F., Pearlman, J. S., Boyer, K., Painchaud, F., & Hofmann, G. A.
(1991). Methods for preservation of foodstuffs. Maxwell Laboratories Inc., San Diego,
USA. US Patent 5034235.
Dunn, J., Ott, T., & Clark, W. (1995). Pulsed-light treatment of food and packaging. Food
Technology, 49(9), 9598.
Dury-Brun, C. C., Chalier, P., Desorby, S. P., & Voilley, A. E. (2007). Multiple mass transfers
of small volatile molecules through exible food packaging. Food Reviews
International, 23(3), 199255.
EFSA (2012). The European summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic
agents and food-borne outbreaks in the European Union in 2010. EFSA Journal, 10(3).
(pp. 2597). EU: European Food Safety Authority, 2597.
Eie, T. (2009). Light protection from packaging. In K. L. Yam (Ed.), Encyclopedia of packaging technology (pp. 655659). John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Elmnasser, N., Guillou, S., Leroi, F., Orange, N., Bakhrouf, A., & Federighi, M. (2007). Pulsedlight system as a novel food decontamination technology: A review. Canadian Journal
of Microbiology, 53, 813821.
EU (1997). Regulation EC No 258/97 of the European Parliaments and the Council of 27
January 1997 concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients. EU: European
Union.
EU (2004). Regulation (EC) 1935/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 27
October 2004 on materials and articles intended to come into contact with food and
repealing Directives 80/590/EEC and 89/109/EEC. EU: European Union.
EU (2011). Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011 of 14 January 2011 on plastic materials
and articles intended to come into contact with food. EU: European Union.
Farrell, H. P., Garvey, M., Cormican, M., Laffey, J. G., & Rowan, N. J. (2010). Investigation of
critical inter-related factors affecting the efcacy of pulsed light for inactivating clinically relevant bacterial pathogens. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 108, 14941508.
FDA (1996). Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) title 21 part 179. Irradiation in the production,
processing and handling of food. Ofce of the Federal Register, US Government Printing
Ofce. FDA 21CFR179.41Washington, DC: Food and Drug Administration.
FDA/FIS (2003). Quantitative assessment of relative risk to public health from foodborne
Listeria monocytogenes among selected categories of ready-to-eat foods. Food and
Drug Administration and Food Safety and Inspection Service.
Fellows, P. J. (2009). Food processing technology: Principles and practice. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing.
Fernndez, M., Manzano, S., de la Hoz, L., Ordez, J. A., & Hierro, E. (2009). Pulsed light
inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes through different plastic lms. Foodborne
Pathogens and Disease, 6(10), 12651267.
Figueroa-Garcia, J. E., Silva, J. L., Kim, T., Boeger, J., & Cover, R. (2002). Use of pulsedlight to treat raw channel sh llets. The Free Library. Mississippi Academy of
Sciences (12 Jun. 2014 (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Use+of+pulsedlight+to+treat+raw+channel+catsh+llets.-a084802678)).
Fine, F., & Gervais, P. (2004). Efciency of pulsed UV light for microbial decontamination
of food powders. Journal of Food Protection, 67(4), 787792.
Ganan, M., Hierro, E., Hospital, X. F., Barroso, E., & Fernndez, M. (2013). Use of pulsed light
to increase the safety of ready-to-eat cured meat products. Food Control, 32, 512517.
Geeraerd, A. H., Valdramidis, V. P., & Van Impe, J. F. (2005). GInaFiT, a freeware tool to
assess non-log-linear microbial survivor curves. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 102, 95105.
Gmez-Lpez, V. M., Devlieghere, F., Bonduelle, V., & Debevere, J. (2005a). Intense light
pulses decontamination of minimally processed vegetables and their shelf-life.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 103, 7989.
Gmez-Lpez, V. M., Devlieghere, F., Bonduelle, V., & Debevere, J. (2005b). Factors affecting the inactivation of micro-organisms by intense light pulses. Journal of Applied
Microbiology, 99, 460470.
Gmez-Lpez, V. M., Ragaert, P., Debevere, J., & Devlieghere, F. (2007). Pulsed light for
food decontamination: A review. Trends in Food Science and Technology, 18, 464473.
Gudelis, V., & Lukien, . (2010). Conventional high-power pulsed light source for decontamination of meat from food pathogens at non-thermal conditions. Lithuanian
Journal of Physics, 50(1), 147150.
Guillard, V., Mauricio-Iglesias, M., & Gontard, N. (2010). Effect of novel food processing
methods on packaging: Structure, composition, and migration properties. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 50(10), 969988.
Han, J. H. (2005). New technologies in food packaging: Overview. In J. H. Han (Ed.),
Innovations in food packaging (pp. 311). Elsevier Ltd.
Han, J. H. (2007). Packaging for nonthermally processed foods. In J. H. Han (Ed.), Packaging for nonthermal processing of food (pp. 316). Blackwell Publishing Professional.
Haughton, P. N., Lyng, J. G., Morgan, D. J., Cronin, D. A., Fanning, S., & Whyte, P. (2011).
Efcacy of high-intensity pulsed light for the microbiological decontamination of
155
156
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
Palmieri, L., & Cacace, D. (2005). High intensity pulsed light technology. In D. -W. Sun
(Ed.), Emerging technologies for food processing (pp. 279306). London: Elsevier
Academic Press.
Panico, L. (2005). Instantaneous sterilization with pulsed UV light. Workshop: Emerging
food processing technologies USDA, CSREES. Washington State University, 2627.
Paskeviciute, E., Buchovec, I., & Luksiene, Z. (2011). High-power pulsed light for decontamination of chicken from food pathogens: A study on antimicrobial efciency and
organoleptic properties. Journal of Food Safety, 31, 6168.
Pospil, J., & Neprek, S. (2008). Polymer additives. In O. G. Piringer, & A. L. Baner (Eds.),
Plastic packaging (pp. 6388). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH.
Raab, M., Kotulk, L., Kolak, J., & Pospil, J. (1982). The effect of ultraviolet light on the
mechanical properties of polyethylene and polypropylene lms. Journal of Applied
Polymer Science, 27(7), 24572466.
Rajkovic, A., Sigmic, N., & Devlieghere, F. (2010). Contemporary strategies in combating
microbial contamination in food chain. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
141, S29S42.
Rajkovic, A., Tomasevic, I., Smigic, N., Uyttendaele, M., Radovanovic, R., & Devlieghere, F.
(2010). Pulsed UV light as an intervention strategy against Listeria monocytogenes
and Escherichia coli O157:H7 on the surface of a meat slicing knife. Journal of Food
Engineering, 100, 446451.
Rakesh, K., & Singh, N. (2005). Quality of packaged foods. In J. H. Han (Ed.), Innovations in
food packaging (pp. 2444). Elsevier Ltd.
Ramos-Villarroel, A. Y., Aron-Maftei, N., Martn-Belloso, O., & Soliva-Fortuny, R. (2012a).
Inuence of spectral distribution on bacterial inactivation and quality changes of
fresh-cut watermelon treated with intense light pulses. Postharvest Biology and
Technology, 69, 3239.
Ramos-Villarroel, A. Y., Aron-Maftei, N., Martn-Belloso, O., & Soliva-Fortuny, R. (2012b).
The role of pulsed light spectral distribution in the inactivation of Escherichia coli
and Listeria innocua on fresh-cut mushrooms. Food Control, 24, 206213.
Ramos-Villarroel, A., Aron-Maftei, N., Martn-Belloso, O., & Soliva-Fortuny, R. (2014). Bacterial inactivation and quality changes of fresh-cut avocados as affected by intense
light pulses of specic spectra. International Journal of Food Science and Technology,
49, 128136.
RASFF (2012). RASFF 2011 annual report. Ofce for Ofcial Publications of the European
Communities, 2012. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, Luxembourg.
Ringus, D. L., & Moraru, C. I. (2013). Pulsed light inactivation of Listeria innocua on food
packaging materials of different surface roughness and reectivity. Journal of Food
Engineering, 114(3), 331337.
Rowan, N. J., MacGregor, S. J., Anderson, J. G., Fouracre, R. A., McIllvaney, L., & Farish, O.
(1999). Pulsed-light inactivation of food-related microorganisms. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 65(3), 13121315.
Schauwecker, A., Balasubramaniam, V. M., Sadler, G., Pascall, M. A., & Adhikari, C. (2002).
Inuence of high-pressure processing on selected polymeric materials and on the
migration of a pressure-transmitting uid. Packaging Technology and Science, 15(5),
255262.
Sofos, J. N. (2005). Improving the safety of fresh meat. Cambridge: CRC/Woodhead
Publishing.
Sofos, J. N. (2008). Challenges to meat safety in the 21st century. Meat Science, 78, 313.
Sommers, C. H., Cooke, P. H., Fan, X., & Sites, J. E. (2009). Ultraviolet light (254 nm) inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes on frankfurters that contain potassium lactate and
sodium diacetate. Journal of Food Science, 74(3), M114M119.
Takeshita, K., Shibato, J., Sameshima, T., Fukunaga, S., Isobe, S., Arihara, K., et al. (2003).
Damage of yeast cells induced by pulsed light irradiation. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 85, 151158.
Uesugi, A. R., & Moraru, C. I. (2009). Reduction of Listeria on ready-to-eat sausages after
exposure to a combination of pulsed light and nisin. Journal of Food Protection,
72(2), 347353.
Wambura, P., & Verghese, M. (2011). Effect of pulsed ultraviolet light on quality of sliced
ham. Food Science and Technology, 44, 21732179.
Wang, T., MacGregor, S. J., Anderson, J. G., & Woolsey, G. A. (2005). Pulsed ultra-violet inactivation spectrum of Escherichia coli. Water Research, 39, 29212925.
Weiss, J., Gibis, M., Schuh, V., & Salminen, H. (2010). Advances in ingredient and processing systems for meat and meat products. Meat Science, 86, 196213.
Wekhof, A. (2000). Disinfection with ash lamps. Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and
Technology, 54(3), 264276.
Wekhof, A., & Trompeter, F. -J. (2001). Pulsed UV disintegration (PUVD): A new sterilisation
mechanism for packaging and broad medicalhospital applications. The First International Conference on Ultraviolet Technologies. June 1416, 2001, Washington D.C., USA.
Wong, E., Linton, R. H., & Gerrard, D. E. (1998). Reduction of Escherichia coli and Salmonella
senftenberg on pork skin and pork muscle using ultraviolet light. Food Microbiology,
15, 415423.
Woodling, S. E., & Moraru, C. I. (2005). Inuence of surface topography on the effectiveness of pulsed light treatment for the inactivation of Listeria innocua on stainlesssteel surfaces. Journal of Food Science, 70(7), M345M351.
Yaun, B. R., Sumner, S. S., Eifert, J. D., & Marcy, J. E. (2003). Response of Salmonella and
Escherichia coli O157:H7 to UV energy. Journal of Food Protection, 66, 10711073.