The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Variation in Resistance to Hydrostatic Pressure among Strains of Food-Borne Pathogens
Open accessAbstract
Among food-borne pathogens, some strains could be resistant to hydrostatic pressure treatment. This information is necessary to establish processing parameters to ensure safety of pressure-pasteurized foods (N. Kalchayanand, A. Sikes, C. P. Dunne, and B. Ray, J. Food Prot. 61:425–431, 1998). We studied variation in pressure resistance among strains of Listeria monocytogenes , Staphylococcus aureus , Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Salmonella species at two temperatures of pressurization. Early-stationary-phase cells in 1% peptone solution were pressurized at 345 MPa either for 5 min at 25°C or for 5, 10, or 15 min at 50°C. The viability loss (in log cycles) following pressurization at 25°C ranged from 0.9 to 3.5 among nine L. monocytogenes strains, 0.7 to 7.8 among seven S. aureus strains, 2.8 to 5.6 among six E. coli O157:H7 strains, and 5.5 to 8.3 among six Salmonella strains. The results show that at 25°C some strains of each species are more resistant to pressure than the others. However, when one resistant and one sensitive strain from each species were pressurized at 345 MPa and 50°C, the population of all except the resistant S. aureus strain was reduced by more than 8 log cycles within 5 min. Viability loss of the resistant S. aureus strain was 6.3 log cycles even after 15 min of pressurization. This shows that strains of food-borne pathogens differ in resistance to hydrostatic pressure (345 MPa) at 25°C, but this difference is greatly reduced at 50°C. Pressurization at 50°C, in place of 25°C, will ensure greater safety of foods.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Environmental stress responses in Lactobacillus: A review
De Angelis, M., & Gobbetti, M. (2004) · PROTEOMICS · doi:10.1002/pmic.200300497 · Cited by 422
Microbiological food safety assessment of high hydrostatic pressure processing: a review
Rendueles, E., Omer, M. K., Alvseike, O., Alonso-Calleja, C., Capita, R., & Prieto, M. (2011) · LWT - Food Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2010.11.001 · Cited by 399
High-pressure processing â effects on microbial food safety and food quality
Considine, K. M., Kelly, A. L., Fitzgerald, G. F., Hill, C., & Sleator, R. D. (2008) · FEMS Microbiology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1574-6968.2008.01084.x · Cited by 365
Landmarks in the historical development of twenty first century food processing technologies
Misra, N. N., Koubaa, M., Roohinejad, S., Juliano, P., Alpas, H., Inácio, R. S., Saraiva, J. A., & Barba, F. J. (2017) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.05.001 · Cited by 312
Self-citationAlpas, H., Kalchayanand, N., Bozoglu, F., & Ray, B. (2000) · International Journal of Food Microbiology · doi:10.1016/s0168-1605(00)00324-x · Cited by 287
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Alpas, H., Kalchayanand, N., Bozoglu, F., Sikes, A., Dunne, C. P., & Ray, B.
- Venue
- Applied and Environmental Microbiology
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 1999-09
- Volume
- 65
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 4248-4251
- ISSN
- 0099-2240 (ISSN-L)
- 1098-5336
- OpenAlex
- W1623695851
- Cited by
- 266
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 6.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Variation in Resistance to Hydrostatic Pressure among Strains of Food-Borne Pathogens. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1128/aem.65.9.4248-4251.1999
- The paper
- Alpas, H., Kalchayanand, N., Bozoglu, F., Sikes, A., Dunne, C. P., & Ray, B. (1999). Variation in Resistance to Hydrostatic Pressure among Strains of Food-Borne Pathogens. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.65.9.4248-4251.1999
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.