4 D 4 e 72 DF

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset
Post-packaging application of pulsed light for microbial decontamination

of solid foods: A review
Victoria Heinrich a,b, Marija Zunabovic a,, Johannes Bergmair b, Wolfgang Kneifel a, Henry Jger a
a
b
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
Corresponding author at: Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute of

Food Science, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Muthgasse 18, 1190
Vienna, Austria. Tel.: +43 147654 5822x6635.
E-mail addresses: victoria.heinrich@o.at (V. Heinrich), marija.zunabovic@boku.ac.at
(M. Zunabovic), johannes.bergmair@o.at (J. Bergmair), wolfgang.kneifel@boku.ac.at
(W. Kneifel), henry.jaeger@boku.ac.at (H. Jger).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.06.005
1466-8564/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Non-thermal technologies have gained an increasing interest over

the last decades in the food producing sector (Knorr et al., 2011). This
trend derives from the fact that consumer expectations and preferences
have changed according to the societal and demographic developments.
Foods nowadays are expected to be nutritious, organoleptically satisfactory, minimally processed and safe in terms of physical, chemical and
146
V. Heinrich et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156
microbial hazards (Aymerich, Picouet, & Monfort, 2008; Havelaar

et al., 2010; Sofos, 2008; Weiss, Gibis, Schuh, & Salminen, 2010).
With the marketer's goal to design fresh-like yet shelf-stable functional products comes the technologist's need to develop highly sophisticated systems.
Non-thermal processes such as hydrostatic pressure, pulsed electric
elds, osmotic dehydration, radio frequency electromagnetic eld and
pulsed light (PL) represent a mild but tailored alternative to conventional food processes like heat treatment, which are likely to adversely
affect the organoleptic and nutritive properties of the treated products
(Butz & Tauscher, 2002; Ortega-Rivas, 2012, chap. 12; Palmieri & Cacace,
2005; Sofos, 2005).
Common to non-thermally processed foods is that they often require
a change in packaging design or material. This can be attributable to the
process itself or the consequential unique quality parameters of the respective product. Therefore the development of a suitable packaging
can be seen as one of the key factors in successful commercialization
of these systems (Han, 2005, 2007).
Aiming to maintain the quality and to facilitate handling of processed goods, a food packaging system has to fulll the basic functions
of storage, preservation and protection. Additionally, secondary functions like information about the product, convenience, presentation,
brand communication, promotion, economy and environmental responsibility, which have become increasingly important in the past,
are covered by the packaging system (Coles, 2003; Han, 2007).
In packaging design and development processes it is therefore of
elementary importance to consider all tasks in a package's life cycle
from production over distribution to consumption as well as waste
management. In detail, six points, namely (i) product needs, (ii) distribution needs and wants, (iii) packaging materials, machinery and production process, (iv) consumer needs and wants, (v) market needs
and wants and (vi) environmental performance have been identied
by Coles (2003), based on the work of Paine (1987).
Intensive research is necessary to understand the actual requirements in the context of developing new or adapting existing packaging
materials to newly developed non-thermal processes (Guillard,
Mauricio-Iglesias, & Gontard, 2010; Han, 2007). Only then, the oftenexisting gaps among the developments in the various food production
sectors can be closed and subsequent successful commercialization of
the product is possible (Han, 2007).
One characteristic of classical food stabilization processes is that, in
many cases and with the exception of canned food sterilization, packaging is only possible after the food has been processed. In this case, the
packaging material is separately pre-disinfected or sterilized. Currently,
some of the emerging food processing technologies such as hydrostatic
pressure or pulsed light treatment have the benet to treat foods inside
the packaging. Clear advantage of these in-package food processing
technologies is the avoidance of undesirable post-treatment contact
of the food with the environment and in particular with microorganisms or oxygen (Guillard et al., 2010). Examples like the successful
commercialization of high pressure processing of food applied as an
in-package treatment show that the prerequisite for a sophisticated
process development is a simultaneous development and perfection of
the packaging concept. Here, volume and temperature changes due to
compression and decompression during high pressure in-package
processing represent major challenges that may affect oxygen and
vapor barrier properties of exible laminate lms and may lead to
partial delamination (Bull, Steele, Kelly, Olivier, & Chapman, 2010).
However, by taking into account aspects such as head-space volumes, laminate adhesives as well as compressibility and resilience
of individual layers of a multilayer structure, these issues could be
overcome and polymeric multilayer lms have been shown to meet
the requirements (Caner, Hernandez, & Harte, 2004a). Similarly, respective processproductpackaging interactions need to be taken
into account for the development of successful PL in-package treatment concepts.
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;
Luksiene, Gudelis, Buchovec, & Raudeliuniene, 2007; Uesugi & Moraru,

2009). The, almost exclusively sigmoid-shaped, inactivation curve originates from the fact that, in the rst step, the cells experience a nonlethal injury phase, which results in the characteristic shoulder effect.
In the second step, the surviving cells rapidly decline because of a maximum of injury and a minimum of additional energy that is required to
cause high cell death rates. In the third and last step, a so-called tailing
phase is reached. Here, factors like the lack of homogeneous population,
multihit phenomena, varying susceptibility of different strains, cell repair activity, shading by suspended solids or objects and the declined
probability of exposure to the conditions cause fading of the cell death
rates (Fine & Gervais, 2004; Gmez-Lpez et al., 2007; MacGregor
et al., 1998; McDonald et al., 2000; Yaun, Sumner, Eifert, & Marcy,
2003). However, also no shoulder and/or tailing effect might be observed if high enough initial energy input is made or the initial cell population is low (Farrell et al., 2010; Otaki et al., 2003; Wang, MacGregor,
Anderson, & Woolsey, 2005). Weibull type mathematical models were
found appropriate to describe the inactivation curve of PL (Bialka,
Demirci, & Puri, 2008a; Bialka, Walker, Puri, & Demirci, 2008b;
Geeraerd, Valdramidis, & Van Impe, 2005; Keklik et al., 2012).
Expectedly, the process set up has some signicant inuence on
the decontamination process, which is based on factors like spectrum,
experimental parameters as well as the geometry and setup. Despite
the fact that the whole spectrum can contribute to the lethal effect
accomplished by PL, the high energy-bearing UV range, in particular
wavelengths below 270 nm, are of greatest importance (Dunn et al.,
1991; Levy, Aubert, Lacour, & Carlin, 2012; Takeshita et al., 2003;
Wang et al., 2005; Wekhof, 2000). To achieve a proper decontamination
effect, experimental parameters like uence rate, uence, number of
pulses, pulse width, exposure time, frequency and peak power have to
be adapted to the respective situation (BIPM, 2006; Gmez-Lpez
et al., 2007; IUPAC, 2007; Lagunas-Solar & Gmez-Lpez, 2006; Palmieri
& Cacace, 2005).
While the uence incident on the matrix surface is often described
as the essential measure, improvements, for example, can be made by
a usage of short duration (1 s to 0.1 s), high frequency (0.5 to 10 Hz)
pulses in a range of about 1 to 20 pulses (Anderson et al., 2000; Dunn
et al., 1989; Farrell et al., 2010; Gmez-Lpez et al., 2007; Hiramoto,
1984; Levy et al., 2012; Luksiene et al., 2007; MacGregor et al., 1998;
Panico, 2005; Wang et al., 2005; Wekhof, 2000). Special attention
should be taken for possible overheating of the matrix surface. The remedy for this is a sufcient cooling system and a cooling period between
the pulses, a limited treatment duration and appropriate distance
between the lamp(s) and the matrix (Dunn et al., 1989; Gmez-Lpez
et al., 2005b). The shorter the distance is, the higher the effect of PL at
the surface is, but the narrower the frame of high-efciency treatment
becomes (Gmez-Lpez et al., 2005b). For globular bodies, multidirectional and uniform illumination of all surfaces present another challenge, which can be overcome by increasing the distance to the light
source, the treatment time, relative movement of the body or by using
a conveyor with transparent sections or reectors (Lagunas-Solar &
Gmez-Lpez, 2006).
In a food processing plant, PL treatment can be conducted at various
stages. One would be the decontamination of incoming goods, while
others would be in-process treatment for the avoidance of recontamination or treatment of the nal product prior or post-packaging
(Fernndez, Manzano, de la Hoz, Ordez, & Hierro, 2009; Lyon,
Fletcher, & Berrang, 2007; Rajkovic, Sigmic, & Devlieghere, 2010a,
2010b; Rajkovic, Tomasevic, et al., 2010; Uesugi & Moraru, 2009;
Wong, Linton, & Gerrard, 1998).
While in 1996 the FDA, from a technology-orientated approach, has
approved PL for food applications (Code 21CFR179.41) in the USA, the
legal status of PL in the European Union remains still unclear. Hence
PL is not explicitly regulated. A possible food-ingredient orientated approach is somehow covered by the regulation 258/97 (1997) novel
foods and novel food ingredients (article 1, item f) (Dunn et al., 1995;
147
EU, 1997; FDA, 1996), but it is questionable if this technology can be

allocated to this area.
2.2. Prerequisites of in-package application of pulsed light
For satisfactory results of in-package application of PL proper selection of packaging materials with regard to transmissibility of light (in
particular the UV fraction) is necessary. Concretely, opaque materials
and matrices that may interfere with the light absorption (e.g., inkprinted labels or drawings) should be avoided. Only then light incidence
from any direction and uniform decontamination of the matrix can
be achieved (Dunn et al., 1989; Elmnasser et al., 2007; Han, 2007;
Oms-Oliu, Martn-Belloso, & Soliva-Fortuny, 2010; Palmieri & Cacace,
2005).
Since packaging materials like paper and board (including laminates) as well as metals (e.g., tinplate, tin-free steel and aluminum as
well as laminates) offer a good to complete protection of the packaged
goods against light, only glass and polymeric materials (plastic) can be
considered as interesting for in-package application of PL (Dunn et al.,
1989; Eie, 2009). Of the remaining two material groups, the importance
of glass for solid food packaging is of no importance. In addition, depending on the type of glass, its transmittance (percentage of light
that passes through a sample) for a wavelength in the UV region is
limited and may therefore limit the PL effect (Eie, 2009). Hence, the following text solely focuses on the widely used polymeric packaging
materials.
By virtue of their nature, polymers are appreciated for their
owability and moldability under certain conditions, their chemical inertness and material dependent permeability, their lightweight and
cost-effectiveness as well as their wide variety (e.g., color, transparency,
opacity, sealability, heat resistance and barrier properties). So, depending on the packaging requirements, polymers in some respect are superior to the above-described material groups. Of the more than 30 types
of polymers available, the most commonly used polymers in food packaging in general are polyolenes (collective term for polyethylene (PE)
and polypropylene (PP)) and polyesters (e.g., polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE), polycarbonate (PC) or polyethylene naphthalate
(PEN)). Others are polyvinyl chloride (PVC), polyvinylidene chloride
(PVDC), polystyrene (PS), polyamide (PA) and ethylene vinyl alcohol
(EVOH). Further, bio-based polymers (e.g., poly lactic acid (PLA)) are
becoming increasingly important in the food and packaging industry
(NOVA Institute, 2013). Depending on the basic structure and the
processing characteristics, a particular polymeric material can cover a
wide range of chemical, mechanical and physical characteristics
(Kirwan & Strawbridge, 2003). Crystallinity and incorporation of additives for example can be named as factors that considerably inuence
light transmittance.
While amorphous, homogenous polymers insignicantly absorb
light (almost no scattering of light) and therefore appear transparent
(transmittance greater than 90%), crystalline structure and presence of
morphological inhomogeneity presuppose opacity of the polymer
(high scattering power) (Hernandez, Selke, & Culter, 2000).
One has to be aware that transmittance of a certain polymeric material is also strongly inuenced by some of the various end-use additives
that are added for market appeal or functional demands during processing (Crompton, 2007, chap. 3; Pospil & Neprek, 2008). These are, for
example, ultraviolet protective agents, which protect either the material
itself or the packaged commodity from the harmful light. These agents
can be UV screens or substances that interfere with the polymerdegrading chain reaction caused by the high energy-bearing UV radiation. Ultraviolet screens absorb or reect the harmful fraction of the
light and convert it into less harmful light of a different wavelength.
Additionally, all opaque, non-highly colored additives (e.g., llers and
pigments) and carbon black can act as such screens. For example, carbon black reduces the transmittance of light by about 90% when
added at concentrations of 0.1 to 0.2% (Crompton, 2007, chap. 3).
148
Further, modication of the transmittance is evident when dyes are

incorporated into the material or coatings are applied that absorb light
at specic wavelengths (Pospil & Neprek, 2008).
Due to these facts, the incident light is partly reected or absorbed
by the packaging material, and even transmissible materials can significantly reduce light intensity and modify the initial light spectrum.
The total amount of light absorbed by the matrix within the package
can be calculated using Eq. (1).
Ia Ii T p
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 :
Here, It describes the intensity of light transmitted by the packaging

material and represents the characteristic absorbance of the packaging material which is dependent on both, the nature of the material
and the wavelength of the light. Further, x stands for the thickness of
the packaging material (Fellows, 2009, chap. 24).
A specic measure below which the light transmission through a
polymeric material is negligible (absorbance of 1.0) is the cut-off wavelength given in nm (Hernandez et al., 2000). As already mentioned in
the technology description of PL, UV light below 270 nm is of greatest
importance for the decontamination process (Dunn et al., 1991; Levy
et al., 2012; Takeshita et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2005; Wekhof, 2000).
Therefore polyolenes (PE and PP) with a cut-off below 180 nm seem
to be best suited for in-package application of PL. Values for PVC and
Light source
Ii
PA lie slightly higher at about 240 nm and PS and PC are located at

about 270 and 280 nm. PET whereas exhibits a cut-off of 310 nm (all
given cut-off wavelengths are for 10-micron thick lms) (Carlsson &
Wiles, 1986). However, one must consider that actual cut-off values
for a certain polymeric packaging material do not only vary with the
properties and thickness of the respective polymer but also with the
assembly (e.g. multilayer formed by coextrusion or lamination). In the
scientic literature polyolenes as well as PA are the main polymers
used for in-package treatment of foods with PL (Tables 13).
It is well known that the absorbed UV radiation induces photochemical reactions and changes in polymers and thereby affects the physical,
chemical and mechanical properties of the material. Therefore it is of
elementary importance, next to the transmissibility of light, to select
for materials that withstand the intended PL treatment.
Of mainly practical relevance for example is the loss of packaging integrity on the basis of reduced strength or extensibility, changes in impact strength or cracking as well as discoloration (Andrady, 2007).
Additionally, the alteration of the mass transfer property permeation,
migration and scalping can be highlighted (Guillard et al., 2010).
Of legal relevance are possibly formed reaction by-products
(Castillo, Biedermann, Riquet, & Grob, 2013). In the European Union
(EU), the basic legal requirement for food-contact materials (FCM), including packaging materials, is the absence of substances migrating
into food at concentrations that may endanger human health (EU,
2004). For this reason both, monomers and additives used in polymeric
FCM are to be toxicologically evaluated and specically regulated (EU,
2011). However, migrates hardly ever consist of these components,
but of oligomers other (low-molecular) reaction products and newly
formed non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), for which the
same safety approach applies, may be generated. These reaction products can be formed at various stages of the material's life cycle but are
very likely to originate from post-treatments such as disinfection or
sterilization (Castillo et al., 2013; Guillard et al., 2010). Traditionally,
the safety assessment of FCM comprises an administrative verication
that the starting substances used are listed in the relevant regulation.
In addition, an analytical check of the overall migration as well as specific migration of substances used and having a legal limit is mandatory.
Identication and risk assessment of NIAS were neglected for a long
time, but now it is becoming increasingly important since it is regulated
in the EU Regulation 10/2011 (Castillo et al., 2013; EU, 2004; EU, 2011).
2.3. Efcacy of pulsed light on solid matrices
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
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
Treatment conditions (J 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)
well as the composition and surface characteristics of the medium.

Therefore, the establishment of standardized treatment and reporting
protocols will be crucial in order to successfully build on obtained
results from different research groups and under different experimental conditions in the future (Gmez-Lpez et al., 2005b, 2007;
Lagunas-Solar & Gmez-Lpez, 2006; Lasagabaster & de Maran,
2012; Woodling & Moraru, 2005).
A close examination of the scientic literature shows that until now
in-package treatment is more or less the stage of a feasibility study. Examples of reported facts are the polymer used, thickness of the material,
light transmittance, supplier and product name (Fernndez et al., 2009;
Ganan, Hierro, Hospital, Barroso, & Fernndez, 2013; Haughton et al.,
2011; Hierro et al., 2011, 2012; Keklik, Demirci, & Puri, 2009, 2010;
Ramos-Villarroel, Aron-Maftei, Martn-Belloso, & Soliva-Fortuny,
2012a, 2012b, 2014; Ringus & Moraru, 2013). Hardly any of the authors,
however, report more details like the additives and production process,
possible laminates or co-extrudates and the properties of the individual
layers or factors like roughness or reectivity, which all could inuence
the efcacy of the decontamination. Additionally, the package assembly
is often described vaguely, which comprise information on the orientation of the possible multilayer material. Other important experimental
parameters such as the distance between product and material or
the packaging conditions like the applied vacuum or product-toheadspace volume ratios need to be indicated. In their work on PL
inactivation of L. monocytogenes through different polymer lms
(12 mm PE, 48 mm PA/PE/vinylacetate and 60 mm PA/PE lms),
Fernndez et al. (2009) showed that unwrapped as well as wrapped
agar plates exhibit the same degree of inactivation (approximately
5 log CFU cm 2).
Further, Ringus and Moraru (2013) reported that treatment of a
low-density PE lm coupon (40 m) inoculated with Listeria innocua
yields in the same decontamination (7 log CFU per coupon) whether
treated with the inoculated surface to the PL source or upside down
(Table 1).
Usually, microbial inactivation levels of the very complex matrices of
meat and meat products result in just 1 up to 2 log CFU (Dunn et al.,
1995; Ganan et al., 2013; Gudelis & Lukien, 2010; Haughton et al.,
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
5.1 0.3 log CFU cm2
Fernndez
et al. (2009)
5.3 0.1 log CFU cm2

No signicant difference in microbial
Ringus and
reduction between application through Moraru (2013)
the material or surface treatment;
Reduction up to 7.2 0.29 log CFU
at ~8 J cm2;
Weibull model was accurate to
describe the survivor ratios;
Polymer lm easily penetrated by
light and therefore suitable for PL
treatment of packaged foods
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
Bacterial strain/inoculation range
Packaging characteristics
Meat and meat products

Chicken frankfurters L. monocytogenes Scott A
(ATCC 49594); 105106 cm2
Output parameters
Major outcomes
References
Steri Pulse-XL 3000 (Xenon Corp.,

MA); 1.27 J cm2 at 1.5 cm below
lamp surface; 8 cm distance to quartz
window; 3 Hz; 360 s; 60 s exposure
sample warming;
Quality-related parameters
(TBARS; CIELAB color)
Keklik et al.
(2009)
Steri Pulse-XL 3000 (Xenon Corp. MA);

1.27 J cm2 at 1.5 cm below lamp
surface; 3 Hz; 360 s
sample warming;
(TBARS; CIELAB color)
Comparable results of microbial inactivation for

unpackaged and packaged chicken frankfurters;
Suitability of PL for the treatment of packaged foods;
Temperature of packaged samples was slightly less
than of unpackaged samples;
No signicant difference in TBAR values was observed
between unpackaged and packaged samples at
moderate treatments (8 cm, 30 s);
Signicant difference in CIELAB color parameters was
observed
35.8 2.3 C; 1.6 0.2 log CFU cm2
33.9 2.2 C; 1.5 0.2 log CFU cm2
Microbial reduction achieved;
Suitability of PL for the treatment of packaged
chicken breast;
Temperature of packaged samples was slightly less
than of unpackaged samples;
No signicant changes in quality-related
parameters at mild and moderate treatments;
Slowdown of product alteration (CIELAB color)
with packaged products
14.5 2.0 C; 1.9 0.7 log CFU cm2
16.8 1.8 C; 1.9 0.1 log CFU cm2
20.9 0.6 C; 1.9 0.2 log CFU cm2
Microbial reduction increased with higher doses of
PL and reduced lm thickness
0.91 log CFU g1
Signicantly compared with untreated controls
1.22 log CFU g1
1.51 log CFU g1
Signicant compared with untreated controls
1.69 log CFU g1
1.5 log CFU g1
1.27 log CFU g1
1.27 log CFU g1
Microbial reduction increased with higher doses of
PL and reduced lm thickness;
Quality-related parameter CIELAB color of
untreated and treated samples varied signicantly
(while no changes in a* values for
packaged/unpackaged samples were recorded, b*
values decreased from 30 s treatment of all lms
on. L* values decreased at 30 s except for PET/PP,
PVC25, PVC16)
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
E. coli (ATCC 25922); dip

solution 108 mL1
S. enteritidis (ATCC 13076); dip

solution 108 mL1
Skinless chicken
breast meat
C. jejuni (chicken and human

isolates); dip solution 107 mL1
Unpackaged
Packaged (covered); PET/PP (54 m)
Packaged (covered); PVC (25 m)
Packaged (covered); PO (15 m)
Unpackaged
Unpackaged
15 s; distance to quartz window 5 cm

Steri Pulse-XL (Xenon Corp., MA); 2.5 cm
distance to quartz window; 1.27 J cm2;
3 Hz; 360 s; 30 s exposure
(CIELAB color)
Keklik et al.
(2010)
Haughton
et al. (2011)
E. coli (ATCC 25922); dip

solution 108 mL1
S. enteritidis (ATCC 13076); dip

solution 108 mL1
L. monocytogenes
8.4 J cm2
(lipid oxidation, sensory
analysis, shelf life)
Steribeam SBS-XeMatic 2L-A (Steri

Beam Systems, Germany), 2 lamps (solely upper one used), 150 J; 0.175 J cm2 at
the level of quartz table, 250 s
8,4 J cm2
(color, sensory analysis,
shelf life)
Bologna sliced,
ready-to-eat
Vacuum-packaged PA/PE (60 m)
Beef carpaccio
(slices)
L. monocytogenes Scott A (CIP

103575 serotype 4b); 103 cm2
E. coli O157:H7;
103 cm2
Salmonella enterica serovar
Typhimurium (CECT 443);
103 cm2
Salchichn,
ready-to-eat,
Mediterranean
dry cured meat
product (dry
fermented
sausage made
from minced pork
and beef meat)
Loin, dry cured
product
manufactured
from whole
longissimus dorsi
muscle of pigs,
which is stuffed
after curing
Hierro et al.
(2011)
Hierro et al.
(2012)
0.7 0.04 log CFU cm2

Vacuum-packaged, PA/PE (60 m)
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
0.89 log CFU g1

0.96 log CFU g1
1.48 log CFU g1
Not signicant compared with untreated controls
1.13 log CFU g1
1.2 log CFU g1
1.35 log CFU g1
1.35 log CFU g1
Microbial reduction of 1.7 log CFU cm2 achieved;
Sensory quality was not affected by the treatment;
Shelf life extension of 30 days was achieved;
Lipid oxidation was found to be within normal levels
Microbial reduction of 1.11 log CFU cm2 achieved;
Sensory quality was affected by the treatment;
Shelf life extension was not achieved;
Lipid oxidation was found to be within normal levels
Quality-related parameters compromised;
Shelf life extension was not achieved
Steri Beam SBS-XeMatic-2L-A

(Steribeam Systems, Germany), 2 lamps
(solely upper one used), 0.7 J cm2 at
the level of quartz table
11.9 J cm2
(color, sensory analysis)

Sensory quality was not affected by the treatment
1.81 0.19 log CFU cm2
1.48 0.31 log CFU cm2
1.61 0.15 log CFU cm2
Ganan et al.
(2013)
Ham, sliced,
ready-to-eat
Unpackaged
Unpackaged
Unpackaged
Vacuum-packaged
1.73 0.11 log CFU cm2
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
Fish, fruits and vegetables

Tuna carpaccio
Packaging characteristics
Output parameters
Major outcomes
References
Vacuum-packaged PA/PE
(60 m)
Steribeam SBS-XeMatic-2L-A (Steri

Beam Systems, Germany), 2 lamps
(solely upper one used), 150 J; 0.175 J
(color, sensory analysis, shelf
life)

Quality-related parameters compromised;
Shelf life extension was not achieved
Hierro et al.
(2012)
cm2 at the level of quartz table, 250 s
Fruits and vegetables

Fresh cut watermelon

Packaged; PA
Pure pulse (San Diego, CA), 0.250.5 J cm2 Microbial reduction;

per ash using 2 and 4 ashes
(TBARS; color; water
holding capacity; moisture
content)
Microbial reduction (1.52.0 log CFU g1 less than

untreated samples at day 9 of storage) and
prolongation of lag phase was achieved;
The treatment did not affect gaping score, initial
moisture and water holding capacity;
Slight changes of TBARS and color during initial
days (23) of storage
Figueroa-Garcia
et al. (2002)
PP tray, sealed with PP lm
Steribeam XeMatic A-2L (SteriBeam

Systems, Germany); 0.4 J cm2; 0.3 ms;
6 cm distance lamp to packaging
6 J cm2
12 J cm2
(physicalchemical
determination, headspace
gas analysis, pH, color,
rmness)

Negative effect on the quality-related parameters
color, texture, and headspace gas composition
1.86 log CFU g1
3.01 log CFU g1
Ramos-Villarroel
et al. (2012a)
(physicalchemical
rmness)
Microbial reduction achieved; negative effect on

the quality-related parameters
E. coli 1.107 [Laboratoire de

rpression des Fraudes (LRF)
Montpellier, France] 107 g1
E. coli 1.17 [Laboratoire de
Montpellier, France]; 107 g1
6 J cm2
12 J cm2
Fresh cut mushrooms
E. coli (CRF 1.107) [Laboratoire de

L. innocua 1.17 [Laboratoire de
Montpellier, France];
107 g1
E. coli (CRF 1.107) [Laboratoire de

L innocua 1.17 [Laboratoire de

6 cm distance lamp to packaging
6 J cm2
12 J cm2
6 J cm2
12 J cm2

(64 m)
Fresh cut avocados

6 cm distance lamp to packaging;
Light spectrum 3051110 nm
10.68 J cm2
10.68 J cm2
(physicalchemical
rmness)
1.56 log CFU g1

2.79 log CFU g1
Ramos-Villarroel
et al. (2012b)
2.02 log CFU g1

3.03 log CFU g1
1.77 log CFU g1
2.66 log CFU g1

Negative effects on quality-related parameters
2.47 log CFU g1
1.35 log CFU g1
Ramos-Villarroel
et al. (2014)
Catsh llets
L. monocytogenes Scott A (CIP

103575 serotype 4b); 103 cm2
V. parahaemolyticus (CETC 511T);
103 cm2
Psychrotrophic bacteria (natural
contamination)
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
decontamination (Ringus & Moraru, 2013; Woodling & Moraru, 2005).

The ndings showed that the most reective materials, MET, EP and
TR, also had the highest roughness and hence were lowest in enabling
surface decontamination. Regarding the material changes, it was
shown that PL only had a minimal impact on water-contact angles
and therefore on structural and physical properties (Ringus & Moraru,
2013).
Although Keklik et al. (2009, 2010) and Ringus and Moraru (2013)
did not reveal drastic alterations of the polymeric packaging materials,
PL treatment should be performed within reasonable limits. Particular
note, for example, should be taken of the possible temperature rise
and overheating of packaging material and product (exceeding the
non-thermal range) during treatment.
In the context of packaging materials, the capability of PL for the fast
generation of heat can be shown on the basis of the photothermal effect.
This effect, the temporary overheating and subsequent rupture of cells
without the temperature increase of the surrounding surface, is unique
to PL above specic treatment intensity and is called pulsed UV disintegration (Wekhof, 2000; Wekhof & Trompeter, 2001). Cause is the considerable absorption difference between the cell and the surrounding
matrix. The cell, unable to dissipate the energy taken up during the intense treatment, faces disintegration and is even capable of melting
into the surrounding matrix if a certain surface temperature is reached
(Cheigh et al., 2012; Takeshita et al., 2003; Wekhof & Trompeter,
2001). This phenomenon has been shown for Aspergillus niger spores
via electron microscopy on a clear PET substrate (20 m) (Wekhof &
Trompeter, 2001).
Castillo et al. (2013) used comprehensive on-line HPLCGC screening to investigate whether reaction products are formed following
intense PL treatment of a non-additivated, four additivated as well as
two commercially available PP lms. The additives used in high concentrations were Irgafos 168 (secondary antioxidant), Irganox 1076 (primary antioxidant), Tinuvin 326 (UV stabilizer) and Chimassorb 81
(UV stabilizer). The results suggested that the non-additivated polymer
did not form relevant amounts of degradation products in the mass
range up to C60, but that the additivated polymers to some extent did.
While for the additives Irganox 1076, Tinuvin 236 and Chimassorb 81
no degradation products were detected, Irgafos 168 did form a number
of substances that were only detected in the PL-treated lms. Since
several of the substances exceeded the threshold concentration of
1 mg kg1 packaging material, compliance work would be necessary
to show the actual level of migration and the toxicological (ir-)relevance. Finally, the commercially available lms afrmed that the formation of potentially health-relevant migrants by PL treatment is possible.
Therefore the authors suggested that the application of PL treatment
presupposes chemical analysis and possible evaluation of reaction products to consider the treatment as safe. In this context, it is important to
note that the compliance work could only be necessary case by case
since the variability in outcomes indicated dependence from nature of
the additive and its concentration, other additives as well as PLtreatment conditions (Castillo et al., 2013).
Although the results of Keklik et al. (2009, 2010), Ringus and Moraru
(2013) and Castillo et al. (2013) cover only a small area it is noteworthy
that future studies on PL and its interactions with food and packaging
materials should more intensely address chemical migration and safety
topics even if tests on physical stability and mechanical stability do not
indicate polymer degradation straight away. Additional measures like
structural changes or permeation values could round off related
research.
3. Conclusion
Pulsed light (PL) is a high potential technology for the non-thermal
surface decontamination of solid foods and food-contact materials. Particularly, the in-package application of PL is of interest for future applications, as it allows treatment of the food inside the packaging and
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.
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
chicken, associated packaging, and contact surfaces. Foodborne Pathogens and

Disease, 8(1), 109117.
Havelaar, A. H., Brul, S., de Jong, A., de Jonge, R., Zwietering, M. H., & ter Kuile, B. H. (2010).
Future challenges to microbial food safety. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
139, S79S94.
Heinrich, V., Zunabovic, M., Varzakas, T., Bergmair, J., & Kneifel, W. (2015). Pulsed light
treatment of different food types with a special focus on meat: A critical review.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.
2013.826174.
Hernandez, R. J., Selke, S. E. M., & Culter, J. D. (2000). Plastics packaging. Properties, processing, applications, and regulations. Munich: Carl Hanser Verlag, 83.
Hierro, E., Barroso, E., de la Hoz, L., Ordez, J. A., Manzano, S., & Fernndez, M. (2011).
Efcacy of pulsed light for shelf-life extension and inactivation of Listeria
monocytogenes on ready-to-eat cooked meat products. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies, 12(3), 275281.
Hierro, E., Ganan, M., Barroso, E., & Fernndez, M. (2012). Pulsed light treatment for the
inactivation of selected pathogens and the shelf-life extension of beef and tuna
carpaccio. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 158, 4248.
Hiramoto, T. (1984). Method of sterilization. Ushio Denki Kabushikikaisha, Tokyo, Japan.
US Patent 4464336.
IUPAC (2007). Glossary of terms used in photochemistry. (3rd ed.). Pure and applied
chemistry, 79(3). (pp. 293465). USA: International Union of Pure and Applied
Chemistry.
Keklik, N. M., Demirci, A., & Puri, V. M. (2009). Inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes on
unpackaged and vacuum-packaged chicken frankfurters using pulsed UV-light.
Journal of Food Science, 74(8), M431M439.
Keklik, N. M., Demirci, A., & Puri, V. M. (2010). Decontamination of unpackaged and
vacuum-packaged boneless chicken breast with pulsed ultraviolet light. Poultry
Science, 89, 570581.
Keklik, N. M., Demirci, A., Puri, V. M., & Heinemann, P. H. (2012). Modeling the inactivation of Salmonella Typhimurium, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enteritidis
on poultry products exposed to pulsed UV light. Journal of Food Protection, 75(2),
281288.
Kirwan, M. J., & Strawbridge, J. W. (2003). Plastics in food packaging. In R. Coles, D.
McDowell, & M. J. Kirwan (Eds.), Food packaging technology (pp. 174240). Oxford:
CRC Press.
Knorr, D., Froehling, A., Jaeger, H., Reineke, K., Schlueter, O., & Schoessler, K. (2011).
Emerging technologies in food processing. Annual Review of Food Science and
Technology, 2(1), 203235.
Lagunas-Solar, M. C., & Gmez-Lpez, V. M. (2006). COST Sub-committee report on UV
units, UV sources specications and experimental procedures.
Lambert, Y., Demazeau, G., Largeteau, A., Bouvier, J. M., Laborde-Croubit, S., & Cabannes,
M. (2000). Packaging for high-pressure treatments in the food industry. Packaging
Technology and Science, 13(2), 6371.
Lasagabaster, A., & de Maran, I. M. (2012). Sensitivity to pulsed light technology of
several spoilage and pathogenic bacteria isolated from sh products. Journal of Food
Protection, 75(11), 20392044.
Levy, C., Aubert, X., Lacour, B., & Carlin, F. (2012). Relevant factors affecting microbial
surface decontamination by pulsed light. International Journal of Food Microbiology,
152, 168174.
Li, B., & Logan, B. E. (2005). The impact of ultraviolet light on bacterial adhesion to glass
and metal oxide-coated surface. Colloids and Surfaces B: Biointerfaces, 41(2), 153161.
Luksiene, Z., Gudelis, V., Buchovec, I., & Raudeliuniene, J. (2007). Advanced highpower pulsed light device to decontaminate food from pathogens: Effects on
Salmonella Typhimurium viability in vitro. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 103,
15451552.
Lyon, S. A., Fletcher, D. L., & Berrang, M. E. (2007). Germicidal ultraviolet light to lower
numbers of Listeria monocytogenes on broiler breast llets. Poultry Science, 86,
964967.
MacGregor, S. J., Rowan, N. J., McIlvaney, L., Anderson, J. G., Fouracre, R. A., & Farish, O.
(1998). Light inactivation of food-related pathogenic bacteria using a pulsed power
source. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 27, 6770.
Mafu, A. A., Roy, D., Goulet, J., & Savoie, L. (1991). Characterization of physicochemical
forces involved in adhesion of Listeria monocytogenes to surfaces. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 57(7), 19691973.
McDonald, K. F., Curry, R. D., Clevenger, T. E., Brazos, B. J., Unklesbay, K., Eisenstark, A.,
et al. (2000). The development of photosensitized pulsed and continuous ultraviolet
decontamination techniques for surfaces and solutions. IEEE Transactions on Plasma
Science, 28(1), 8996.
Mortensen, G., Bertelsen, G., Mortensen, B. K., & Stapelfeldt, H. (2004). Light-induced
changes in packaged cheeses A review. International Dairy Journal, 14, 85102.
NOVA Institute (2013). Market study on bio-based polymers in the world. Capacities,
production and applications: Status quo and trends towards 2020.
Oms-Oliu, G., Martn-Belloso, O., & Soliva-Fortuny, R. (2010). Pulsed light treatments for
food preservation. A review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 3, 1323.
Ortega-Rivas, E. (2012). Non-thermal food engineering operations. Springer
Science + Business Media (Chapter 12).
Otaki, M., Okuda, A., Tajima, K., Iwasaki, T., Kinoshita, S., & Ohgaki, S. (2003). Inactivation
differences of microorganisms by low pressure UV and pulsed xenon lamps. Water
Science and Technology, 47(3), 185190.
Ozen, B. F., & Floros, J. D. (2001). Effects of emerging food processing techniques on the
packaging materials. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 12, 6067.
Ozer, N. P., & Demirci, A. (2006). Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria
monocytogenes inoculated in raw salmon llets by pulsed UV-light treatment.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 41, 354360.
Paine, F. A. (1987). Fundamentals of packaging. The institute of packaging.
156
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.

4 D 4 e 72 DF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

4 D 4 e 72 DF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 30 (2015) 145156

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies

Post-packaging application of pulsed light for microbial decontamination

Corresponding author at: Department of Food Science and Technology, Institute of

Non-thermal technologies have gained an increasing interest over

microbial hazards (Aymerich, Picouet, & Monfort, 2008; Havelaar

Luksiene, Gudelis, Buchovec, & Raudeliuniene, 2007; Uesugi & Moraru,

EU, 1997; FDA, 1996), but it is questionable if this technology can be

Further, modication of the transmittance is evident when dyes are

Here, It describes the intensity of light transmitted by the packaging

PA lie slightly higher at about 240 nm and PS and PC are located at

Treatment conditions (J cm2)

well as the composition and surface characteristics of the medium.

5.3 0.1 log CFU cm2

Bacterial strain/inoculation range

Meat and meat products

Steri Pulse-XL 3000 (Xenon Corp.,

Steri Pulse-XL 3000 (Xenon Corp. MA);

Comparable results of microbial inactivation for

E. coli (ATCC 25922); dip

S. enteritidis (ATCC 13076); dip

C. jejuni (chicken and human

15 s; distance to quartz window 5 cm

Treatment conditions (J cm2)

E. coli (ATCC 25922); dip

S. enteritidis (ATCC 13076); dip

Steribeam SBS-XeMatic 2L-A (Steri

Vacuum-packaged PA/PE (60 m)

L. monocytogenes Scott A (CIP

0.7 0.04 log CFU cm2

Vacuum-packaged, PA/PE (60 m)

0.89 log CFU g1

Steri Beam SBS-XeMatic-2L-A

Microbial reduction achieved;

1.81 0.19 log CFU cm2

1.48 0.31 log CFU cm2

1.61 0.15 log CFU cm2

1.73 0.11 log CFU cm2

Fish, fruits and vegetables

Treatment conditions (J cm2)

Steribeam SBS-XeMatic-2L-A (Steri

Microbial reduction achieved;

cm2 at the level of quartz table, 250 s

Fruits and vegetables

0.7 0.14 log CFU cm2

Pure pulse (San Diego, CA), 0.250.5 J cm2 Microbial reduction;

Microbial reduction (1.52.0 log CFU g1 less than

PP tray, sealed with PP lm

Steribeam XeMatic A-2L (SteriBeam

Microbial reduction achieved;

Microbial reduction achieved; negative effect on

E. coli 1.107 [Laboratoire de

Fresh cut mushrooms

E. coli (CRF 1.107) [Laboratoire de

E. coli (CRF 1.107) [Laboratoire de

Steribeam XeMatic A-2L (SteriBeam

PP tray, sealed with PP lm

Fresh cut avocados

0.7 0.06 log CFU cm2

Steribeam XeMatic A-2L (SteriBeam

1.56 log CFU g1

2.02 log CFU g1