Practical in‐storage interventions to control foodborne pathogens on fresh produce

Abstract

Although tremendous efforts have been made to ensure fresh produce safety, various foodborne outbreaks and recalls occur annually. Most of the current intervention strategies are evaluated within a short timeframe (less than 1 h), leaving the behavior of the remaining pathogens unknown during subsequent storages. This review summarized outbreak and recall surveillance data from 2009 to 2018 obtained from government agencies in the United States to identify major safety concerns associated with fresh produce, discussed the postharvest handling of fresh produce and the limitations of current antimicrobial interventions, and reviewed the intervention strategies that have the potential to be applied in each storage stage at the commercial scale. One long-term (up to 12 months) prepacking storage (apples, pears, citrus among others) and three short-term (up to 3 months) postpacking storages were identified. During the prepacking storage, continuous application of gaseous ozone at low doses (≤1 ppm) is a feasible option. Proper concentration, adequate circulation, as well as excess gas destruction and ventilation systems are essential to commercial application. At the postpacking storage stages, continuous inhibition can be achieved through controlled release of gaseous chlorine dioxide in packaging, antimicrobial edible coatings, and biocontrol agents. During commercialization, factors that need to be taken into consideration include physicochemical properties of antimicrobials, impacts on fresh produce quality and sensory attributes, recontamination and cross-contamination, cost, and feasibility of large-scale production. To improve fresh produce safety and quality during storage, the collaboration between researchers and the fresh produce industry needs to be improved.

State of the art: Lateral flow assays toward the point‐of‐care foodborne pathogenic bacteria detection in food samples

“…Following the outline of conventional techniques, culture‐enriched models have been applied to differential and selective media, where diverse bacterial types have been detected on the basis of differentiating colony profiles. The individuality of these isolates has been accepted by applying a series of biochemical tests, and for a few bacteria, extra approval by serologic typing is essential (Rajkovic et al., 2020; Sheng & Zhu, 2021). The mentioned effective technique has been applied to isolate and detect bacterial pathogens in foodstuff, though this procedure is laborious and time‐consuming.…”

“…However, the process necessitates an expert technician and available laboratory tools. Also, the test is costly since it is labor and time intensive, which frequently requires sample batching and further delays the turn‐around period (Krockenberger et al., 2020; Sheng & Zhu, 2021).…”

Protozoa as the “Underdogs” for Microbiological Quality Evaluation of Fresh Vegetables

“…Fresh produce has repeatedly been implicated in foodborne outbreaks and recalls, with Salmonella spp., E. coli, and L. monocytogenes the most implicated bacteria [64]. However, with the exception of a lettuce sample (sample no.…”

Edible nano-encapsulated cinnamon essential oil hybrid wax coatings for enhancing apple safety against food borne pathogens

“…In addition, these wax coatings exhibit water contact angles typically ranging between 90° and 100° ( Bohinc et al, 2022 ; Hall, 1966 ; Oliveira Filho et al, 2022 ). This property invites a higher concentration of bacterial attachment and biofilm formation, attributable to hydrophobic-hydrophobic interactions between the bacterial cell wall and the substrate, along with physiochemical adsorption facilitated by the elimination of the interfacial water layer ( Cai et al, 2019 ; Fernandes et al, 2014 ; Oh et al, 2018 ; Rosenberg and Kjelleberg, 1986 ; Sheng and Zhu, 2021 ; Yuan et al, 2017 ). Moreover, imperfections, injuries, and blemishes on the wax surface, which can occur during storage and transport, can serve as entry points for pathogens, thereby increasing fruit vulnerability to contamination.…”