Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Use of natural antimicrobials for the control of Listeria monocytogenes in
foods
C. A. Campos1,2, M.P. Castro2,3 M.F. Gliemmo1,2 and L.I. Schelegueda1,4
1
Departamento de Industrias, Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Intendente
Güiraldes 2160, Ciudad Universitaria, Capital Federal, 1428, Argentina
2
Member of Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina
3
Universidad Nacional del Chaco Austral. Cte. Fernández 755, (3700) P.R. Sáenz Peña, Chaco. Argentina.
4
Research fellow from Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la República Argentina
Listeria monocytogenes is a gram positive, psychrotropic, facultative anaerobic bacterium and it is the etiological agent of
listeriosis, a severe foodborne disease of major public health concern. The bacterium can survive under relatively extreme
conditions such as low or high temperatures, low pH, reduced water activity and high salt content. Due to its psychrotropic
character is a pathogen of concern in refrigerated food products. One strategy used to overcome the low temperature
tolerance is the addition of antimicrobial agents. The objective of this chapter is to review the bibliography concerning the
use of natural antimicrobials to control the growth of L. monocytogenes in foods. With special emphasis it will be analyzed
the effect of environmental factors and composition of the food on the effectiveness of antimicrobials. It will also explore
the combinations that show a synergistic action. This information will help to choose the antimicrobials together with
other environmental conditions that assure the control of L. monocytogenes in foods, aiding to improve the safety of foods.
Keywords natural antimicrobials; Listeria monocytogenes
1. Introduction
Listeria monocytogenes represents the Listeria species most commonly associated with disease in both animals and
humans. As a facultative pathogenic saprotroph, L. monocytogenes can live in soil and decaying vegetation, but once it
enters an animal or human host, it can cause severe disease [1]. The majority (99%) of the infections caused by L.
monocytogenes are thought to be foodborne [2]. Being ingestion of contaminated food the origin of infection,
governments and food safety agencies worldwide have taken serious measurements to reduce the occurrence of L.
monocytogenes in the food production chain. Major listeriosis outbreaks have been related to contaminated ready to eat
meat and poultry products [3]. For example, the US has adopted a so-called ‘zero-tolerance’ policy for ready to eat
foods, which means that the detectable presence (≥1 CFU in 25 g of sample) of L. monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods
requires a recall. This has great economical implications for the food industry, leading to recalls of the contaminated
product and temporary shutdown of food processing plants until the contamination problem has been solved. The
estimated annual cost of recalls related to L. monocytogenes for the food industry may be as high as $1.2 billion to $2.4
billion in the US [4].
Controlling Listeria in foods and in food processing facilities implies an ongoing effort from academia, government
agencies and the food industry. The latter actors are aimed at developing new and improved methods to prevent the
survival and growth of Listeria. The ability of L. monocytogenes to survive a wide range of adverse conditions,
including acidic pH, low temperatures, and high sodium chloride concentrations [5] make this organism difficult to
control in food. Several studies that utilize various preservation techniques for the control of Listeria in foods are being
conducted. Most of them aim at achieving food safety without compromising the sensory and nutritional qualities of
foods [6]. Among them, the use of natural antimicrobials appears as a suitable tool which can offer several benefits [7]:
(i) extend shelf life of foods; (ii) provide extra protection during temperature abuse conditions; (iii) decrease the risk for
transmission of foodborne pathogens through the food chain; (iv) ameliorate the economic losses due to food spoilage;
(v) reduce the application of chemical preservatives; (vi) permit the application of less severe heat treatments without
compromising food safety: better preservation of food nutrients and vitamins, as well as organoleptic properties of
foods; (vii) permit the marketing of “novel” foods (less acidic, with a lower salt content, and with a higher water
content), and (viii) serve to satisfy industrial and consumers demands. Therefore, some of the current trends of the food
industry could be satisfied, at least in part, by the application of natural antimicrobials. Numerous antimicrobials exist
in plants, animals, and microorganisms where they often take part in defense mechanisms. Typical examples of these
compounds are bacteriocins, organic acids, essential oils and chitosan, among others. Most of them are considered
GRAS (generally recognized as safe) compounds. Although it is known that antimicrobials do not provide the magic
bullet for the inhibition of spoilage and pathogenic microorganisms, they are used as one stress factor within the hurdle
technology [8]. The use of the main natural antimicrobials to control L. monocytogenes growth in foods will be
discussed.
1112
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
2. Bacteriocins
Bacteriocins are ribosomally-synthesized peptides or small proteins with antimicrobial activity, produced by different
groups of bacteria, active against bacteria related to the producer strain. The latter is typically immune against its
bacteriocin. The structural bacteriocin genes are present in operon-like gene clusters that also harbor genes encoding
proteins for immunity, processing, regulation and translocation functions. In general, bacteriocins are heat resistant, but
they are inactivated by proteolytic enzymes such as trypsin, pepsin and other proteases. Several structural groups may
be distinguished, ranging from small peptides (molecular weight < 10 kD) including lantibiotic type bacteriocins to
large proteins (molecular weight > 30 kD) and also including one group of complex molecules with a lipid or
polysaccharide moiety essential for activity. Bacteriocins have been classified into classes (class I, type A and type B
lantiobiotics, class IIa, IIb, IIc and class III) based on their genetic and biochemical characteristics [9]. The bacteriocins
produced by lactic acid bacteria (LAB) offer several desirable properties that make them suitable for food preservation:
(i) are GRAS substances; (ii) are not active and nontoxic on eukaryotic cells; (iii) become inactivated by digestive
proteases, having little influence on the gut microbiota; (iv) are usually pH and heat-tolerant; (v) they have a relatively
broad antimicrobial spectrum, against many foodborne pathogenic and spoilage bacteria; (vi) they show a bactericidal
mode of action, usually acting on the bacterial cytoplasmic membrane: no cross resistance with antibiotics, and (vii)
their genetic determinants are usually plasmid-encoded, facilitating genetic manipulation [10].
Although several bacteriocins from LAB have been characterized to date, their use as food preservatives is still very
limited. Among bacteriocins produced by LAB, nisin, a class I bacteriocin which has demonstrated antilisterial activity,
was the first bacteriocin to be characterized and is the only one approved worldwide for use in food applications. The
inhibition of Listeria by nisin has been demonstrated in culture media as well as in different foods. As an illustration,
cottage cheese, ricotta-type cheeses [11], fresh pork sausages [3], cold-salmon [12], Turkish fermented sausages
(sucuks) [13], raw and cooked pork meat [14], can be mentioned. In addition, the class IIa group, the largest group of
bacteriocins which includes pediocin-like peptides, has attracted much of the attention due to their anti-Listeria activity.
Pediocin PA-1 is the most extensively studied class IIa (or pediocin family) bacteriocin, due to its broad antibacterial
activity, stability in foods, and potential for use as a food bio-preservative [15]. The stability of pediocin PA-1 in foods
such as cheese, frankfurters, Spanish dry fermented sausages and chicken sausage, has been demonstrated [16]. In vitro
studies have shown that the pediocin PA-1 produced by Pediococcus acidilactici UL5 has strong inhibition activity
against a wide variety of L. monocytogenes strains [17]. Moreover, narrow-spectrum bacteriocins can be used to
selectively inhibit certain high-risk bacteria in foods like L. monocytogenes without affecting harmless microbiota.
Together with the available commercial preparations of nisin and pediocin PA-1/AcH, other bacteriocins (like for
example lacticin 3147, enterocin AS-48 or variacin) also offer promising perspectives. Regarding enterocins, the ability
to inhibit growth of Listeria is common to most Enterococcus bacteriocins [18, 19], being this ability related to the
close phylogenetic relantionship of enterococci and listeriae [20]. Enterocins have proved to be strong inhibitors of
foodborne pathogens such as L. monocytogenes, Clostridium tyrobutyricum and Staphylococcus aureus [21]. Several
enterocins proved to be effective inhibitors of L. monocytogenes, namely enterocin 416K1 in frankfurters and fresh
cottage cheese [22], enterocin MR-10A in pickled cucumber [23], dry fermented Hornad salami [24].
Foods can be supplemented with ex situ produced bacteriocin preparations, or by inoculation with the bacteriocinproducer strain under conditions that favor production of the bacteriocin in situ [25]. Ex situ produced bacteriocins are
preparations obtained by cultivation of the producer strain followed by adequate recovery and processing which can be
added as partially purified or purified concentrates. In order to be added as food preservatives, bacteriocins require
specific legal approval. Nisin is the only bacteriocin hitherto accepted as a food preservative (E234). Ex situ produced
bacteriocins can also be applied in the form of immobilized preparations, in which the partially-purified bacteriocin or
the concentrated cultured broth is bound to a carrier. In situ bacteriocin production implies the use of bacteriocinogenic
cultures. Selected strains must be well-adapted to the particular food environment in which they will be used and able to
grow under the food processing and/or storage conditions and to produce enough bacteriocin amounts as to inhibit the
target pathogenic or spoilage bacteria. Bacteriocinogenic strains can be used either directly as starter cultures, as adjunct
or co-cultures in combination with a starter culture, or as protective cultures (especially in the case of non fermented
foods) [10]. Having GRAS status, bacteriocinogenic LAB cultures can be safely added to foods which revised their
major advantage regarding food preservation.
Chemical nature of bacteriocins makes them prone to be involved in a number of food-related events, namely
interaction with food components, precipitation, inactivation, or uneven distribution of bacteriocin molecules in the
food matrix. Moreover, the efficacy of bacteriocins in foods will greatly depend on some other limiting factors such as
the food microbiota and the target bacteria.
Gänzle et al. [26] stated that bacteriocin activity may be affected in food matrices by (i) changes in solubility and
charge of the bacteriocins; (ii) binding of the bacteriocins to food components; (iii) inactivation by proteases, and (iv)
changes in the cell envelope of the target organisms as a response to environmental factors. Furthermore, food
processing conditions, storage temperature, pH, and bacteriocin instability to pH changes constitute environmental
factors that play a crucial role on the effectiveness of bacteriocins.
©FORMATEX 2011
1113
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Application of LAB bacteriocins in foods is currently intended as a part of multiple-hurdle technology. This concept
must consider the effects of possible antagonistic interactions between different preservatives or food components [8].
For example, nisin activity decreased by 50% when it was added to milk containing 12.9% fat whereas the addition of
Tween 80 significantly increased the activity of nisin against L. monocytogenes in milk regardless the fat content [27].
The interaction of nisin with surfactants in a food matrix containing nisin is relatively ambiguous and it still needs to be
elucidated [28]. Nevertheless, interactions between bacteriocins and additional hurdles in food can also be additive or
synergistic. As an illustration, potassium sorbate combined with nisin decreased bacterial counts on a vegetarian food
[29] and had a listericidal effect in buffered broth (pH 5.5) during incubation at 4°C [30]. These combinations proved to
have the best preservative effect when compared to results for each preservative agent when used alone. The
combination of several antimicrobials is also advantageous for prolonged storages specially for preventing the regrowth
of L. monocytogenes [10].
The use of chemical preservatives together with enterocin AS-48 effectively inhibited Listeria in cooked ham in a
concentration-dependent way at 5°C and 15°C [31]. However, even at the higher concentration used (60 μg.g-1) it was
not possible to avoid the regrowth of Listeria after 15–30 storage days at 5°C when the bacteriocin was used alone. The
authors attributed the lower effectiveness of AS-48 in cooked ham compared to broth to: (i) a higher retention of the
bacteriocin molecules by meat and fat components; (ii) a slower diffusion, and (iii) the irregular distribution of the
bacteriocin molecules and the bacterium in the meat matrix with a higher dry matter content compared to liquid media.
Results from bacteriocin extraction experiments revealed that bacteriocin levels decreased markedly after day 7, which
could explain regrowth of surviving bacteria. The combination enterocin AS-48-nitrite/nitrate (0.007%) used to
overcome this situation reduced Listeria below detection level from the first sampling. Other combinations of AS-48
(40 μg.g-1) with other preservatives as sodium pyrophosphate, pentasodium tripolyphosphate (STPP), sodium benzoate
or potassium sorbate were also effective in reducing Listeria during storage at 5°C to a lesser extent. Although the
combined effect of AS-48 and several of the antimicrobial compounds had been previously tested for Listeria
inactivation on vegetable foods [32], the results derived from those studies could not be extrapolated to meat since one
of the most effective compound in the combined treatments of raw vegetables, sodium lactate, was inefficient when
combined with AS-48 in increasing the inhibition of Listeria in cooked ham. The anti-listeria effect of nisin at 6°C has
also been reported in cooked ham [33]. However, after an immediate bactericidal effect in the first day of storage, L.
monocytogenes rapidly regrew to reach viable counts similar to those of the control. In this case, although the
combination with sodium lactate (1.8%) did not eliminate the Listeria, it reduced the population levels by at least one
log cycle below initial values (approximately 4 unit log) along 75 storage days. These results emphasize the needs to
test the effectiveness of the enterocin in each food system to establish the precise mode and concentration to be applied
[31]. This study also shows that application of sub-lethal heating at 60°C for 2 min in combination with enterocin AS 48 (20 μg.g-1) significantly improved the antimicrobial effect against L. monocytogenes in model cooked ham. When
the sub-lethal heat treatment was applied in combination with AS - 48 (20 μg.g-1) and STPP (0.5%), the results
improved remarkably with respect to the separate application of each antimicrobial compound.
Similar to the use of antibiotics, the concern with the use of bacteriocins is the development of resistance in
foodborne pathogens. Gravesen et al. [34] investigated the frequency of resistance development in L. monocytogenes to
pediocin PA-1 and nisin A along with the effects of strain differences and environmental conditions. The resistance
frequencies for pediocin investigated in about 20 strains were approximately 10-6, irrespective of the environmental
conditions, while the frequency of resistance to nisin was strain-specific and varied with environmental conditions from
10-7 to 10-2. The development of resistance to bacteriocins in a food system and the influence of a number of
environmental factors such as low temperature, acidic pH and presence of sodium chloride on the frequency of
resistance development show several limitations that curb the bacteriocin application in foods. Introduction of the
hurdle technology concept combined with bacteriocins has become a valuable tool to fight against pathogen bacteriocin
resistance. Multiple hurdle technology targets the bacterial cell in different ways resulting in better control of the
pathogen. Nilsson et al. [35] investigated the combined action of nisin and carbon dioxide on L. monocytogenes cells
grown at 4°C. Nisin brought about a two-log reduction in wild type L. monocytogenes cells and acted synergistically
with carbon dioxide to give a four-log reduction in cell count. Nisin had no effect on nisin-resistant cells grown in the
presence of air or carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide increased the lag phase of L. monocytogenes by six days and was
more effective against nisin-resistant cells compared to the wild type strain. The presence of carbon dioxide increases
the membrane permeability and the proportion of short-chain fatty acids in the cell membrane, which helps in the pore
formation by nisin [35]. The combined effect of heat and nisin on wild type and nisin-resistant L. monocytogenes cells
had been studied [36]. The heat sensitivity of wild type and nisin-resistant strains was the same in the absence of nisin.
The synergistic effect of heat and nisin on nisin-resistant cells caused a 3.7 log reduction in the first 7 minutes of
treatment. The authors postulated that sub-lethal heat treatment alters the membrane permeability along with nisin that
causes poration of the cell membrane. The use of bacteriocins with other treatment methods to achieve food
preservation requires the use of lower concentrations of the bacteriocin, and this helps to prevent the risk of
development of bacteriocin resistant population of cells [10].
Branen and Davidson [37] investigated the effect of ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and lactoferrin on the
antimicrobial activity of nisin. Low levels of EDTA used in the study synergistically enhanced the activity of nisin
1114
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
against L. monocytogenes. EDTA functions as a chelator of divalent cations interfered with ions located on cellular
membrane. Lactoferrin alone did not show any bacteriostatic effect against the organisms tested, but in a combination
treatment with 50% less nisin, lactoferrin totally inhibited L. monocytogenes. A study by Ettayebi et al. [38]
investigated the synergistic action of nisin and thymol. The results showed that nisin Z and thymol resulted in only a
partial inhibition of both pathogens when used alone. But the two agents acted synergistically in combination treatment
and sub-inhibitory concentrations of both nisin Z and thymol being sufficient to reduce the growth of both pathogens.
Thymol alters the bacterial membrane structure resulting in greater permeability for nisin. This results in a higher
concentration of nisin within the bacterial cells, thus permitting the use of lower nisin concentrations when used
synergistically to obtain the same level of antibacterial activity [38].
3. Organic acids
Organic acids such as acetic, lactic, malic, and citric are natural constituents of many foods and they have been used in
food preservation since ancient time. Its antimicrobial action is based mainly on their ability to reduce the pH of the
aqueous phase of the food. In the case of weak lipophilic organic acids such as acetic or sorbic, the undissociated form
is also able to penetrate the cell membrane. The latter exerted its inhibitory action by dissociating and acidifying the
cytoplasm. Additionally, other mechanisms take place such inhibition of enzymes, nutrient transport and overall
metabolic activity [39]. Although naturally present in certain plant tissues, lipophilic organic acids are manufactured for
commercial use by chemical synthesis since it is more convenient from the economical point of view. Due to its higher
solubility, salts are most commonly used than the organic acids [39].
The antimicrobial effectiveness of organic acids and their salts in laboratory media and in foods depends on pH,
temperature, water activity, the type of acid used, its concentration and method of application. Moreover, interactions
with other additives or ingredients may increase or decrease the antimicrobial activity. In general, the activity is
enhanced at low pH and/or when they are combined with additional stress factors. Based on equal molar concentration,
organic acids showed the following order of effectiveness: citric > malic > lactic > acetic > HCl against L.
monocytogenes inhibition [39]. Several studies demonstrated that inhibitory effects of acids are greater at lower
temperature [40]. In addition, the combined effect of temperature, pH and organic acid through the development of
predictive models was studied [41, 42] showing that interaction between stress factors played an important role on
inhibition.
Most important applications of organic acids are linked with the preservation of ready to eat meat products in order
to prevent post process contamination [3, 43]. Processors usually include sodium or potassium lactate up to 2.0% with
0.05-0.15% of sodium diacetate in the formulations. Dipping or spraying solutions in combination with other stress
factors are not currently applied in the industry but they are options that have demonstrated good results. Surface
application can be more effective than addition in the formulation since bacteria are at the product surface, place where
contamination occurs. Consequently, as a small amount of the antimicrobial is necessary, no additional changes in food
product formulations should be made. For example, dipping frankfurters with a solution containing 2.0% of acetic acid,
1.0% of lactic acid, 0.1% propionic acid and 0.1% of benzoic acid followed by a steam prevented the growth of L.
monocytogenes for 14 weeks at 7ºC [43].
The successful use of mixtures of lactates and diacetates is probably linked to the fact that combination of lactates
and sodium diacetate exerts a strong synergistic effect especially at low pH [44] and also they do not adversely affect
sensory characteristics [44, 45]. Other mixtures that showed a synergistic action were: (i) potassium propionate in
combination with potassium lactate or diacetate in pork scapple [45]; (ii) potassium lactate, sodium diacetate and nisin
in smoked sausage [3]; (iii) lactate-diacetate blend and lauric arginate in cooked ham [46]; (iv) sorbates and nisin in
broth [30]. In the case of cured meat products, the use of sorbates, is not widely accepted since there are some reports
about the possible mutagenic products formed by the reaction of sorbic acid with sodium nitrite [47]. Regarding the use
of lactates, their addition depresses water activity of the product contributing by this mechanism to the inhibitory
activity [44].
Cured meats, such as sausage, ham and frankfurters are more susceptible to the listericidal effects of organic acids
probably as a result of the presence of salt, nitrite and other preservatives [40]. Regarding the effect of fat on organic
acids, the inhibitory activities of lactate and propionate increase with the fat content. Conversely, potassium sorbate
exhibited a less antilisterial action [48]. Probably, the latter tends to migrate to the fat as a result of its higher partition
coefficient.
Devlieghere et al. [49] studied the growth of L. monocytogenes in modified atmosphere packed cooked meat
products and developed a predictive model for the effect of temperature, water activity, concentration of sodium lactate
and dissolved CO2 in the aqueous phase. They found a strong synergistic effect between CO2 and lactate. Probably, the
pH decreasing effect that CO2 exerted in the medium increased the amount of undissociated molecules of lactic acid and
as a consequence enhanced the inhibitory activity of lactate. This combination of hurdles is useful to avoid the
proliferation of L. monocytogenes in meat products with water activity lower than 0.97.
Another way of using organic acids is immobilized in gels or into edible films. It was reported that lactic and acetic
acids applied in immobilized calcium alginate gels were more effective than acids applied alone on meat tissue.
©FORMATEX 2011
1115
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Probably, alginate coating increased the contact time of the acid with the meat surface [50]. Moreover, sliced Bologna
and summer sausage packaged in films containing 0.5 to 1.0% p-aminobenzoic acid and sorbic acid promoted a 3 log
reductions of inoculated L. monocytogenes [51].
Finally, it should be stressed that Listeriae cells exposed to organic acids may survive during storage at refrigeration
and begin to multiply if other barriers are not present. Moreover, exposure to acids also induces stress responses in
Listeriae which make the bacteria more tolerant to other stress factors [39].
4. Essential oils
Essential oils (EOs) are oily liquid mixes of volatile and complex compounds extracted from different part of aromatic
plants (flowers, buds, leaves, seeds, bark, stems, twigs, fruits, herbs, wood and roots). They are synthesized by plants as
secondary metabolites and can be obtained mainly by steam distillation or supercritical fluid extraction [52, 53].
Essential oils can contain 20-60 components depending on the material they come from and the extraction method used.
They are terpenes and terpenoids, as a majority group, and aromatic and aliphatic compounds of low molecular weight,
as a minority group [53].
The historical use of EOs in foods is as flavorings. Although it is known that EOs have a wide spectrum of
antimicrobial activity [54], their use as preservatives in food have not yet been extended. In the last few decades, the
need to consume healthy foods reemerged the search of the minimal inhibitory concentrations (MIC) of EOs and the
study of the effect of food composition on their effectiveness.
Numerous EOs have been examined for their activity against Listeria growth in laboratory media. In general, it was
reported that EOs of bay, coriander, cinnamon, clove, liquorice, nutmeg, pepper, oregano, Satureja montana, spruce and
thyme showed the highest inhibitory activity. The effectiveness of oils of basil, lemon balm, marjoram, Pistacia
lentiscus, rosemary and sage was lower than the ones mentioned above, whereas Listeria showed high resistance to EOs
of aniseed, caraway, fennel, garlic, ginger, onion and parsley [55, 56, 52, 57-66].
The antimicrobial activity of EOs mainly depends on their composition. The inhibitory action is more related to the
main than the minor components. However, the latter might modulate the antimicrobial action of main components
since it was demonstrated that several components of EOs are involved in the fixation on cell walls and cellular
distribution [53]. Among the main components that have been associated with the high action of Eos, carvacrol, thymol,
linalool, eugenol, trans-cinnamaldehyde, p-cymene, 1.8-cineole and -terpinene can/could be mentioned [54]. The
mechanism of antimicrobial action of EOs is not well known. It has been reported that EO components may degrade
cell wall, damage cytoplasmic membrane and proteins of membrane, leak vital intracellular compounds, coagulate
cytoplasm and deplete the proton motive force [54].
The existence of interactions among oils was also reported. de Azeredo et al. [55] suggested a synergistic effect
between oils of oregano and rosemary. Marjoram or thyme EOs showed additive interaction with oils of basil, rosemary
or sage. Zhang et al. [57] reported that the joint presence of rosemary and liquorice EOs suppressed the growth of L.
monocytogenes more than when these oils were used alone.
As it was mentioned above, most of the studies of antimicrobial activity of EOs against Listeria are carried out in
laboratory media. However, to transfer this information to a food matrix is necessary to consider that food components,
processing and storage conditions and physical structure of a food [54, 60, 61, 63, 67] may modify the in vitro
effectiveness of EOs. In most of the studies, the effective doses of EOs in food systems are higher than in laboratory
media. Firouzi et al. [61] reported that higher levels of oregano and nutmeg oils would be necessary to reduce L.
monocytogenes growth in ready to cook barbecued chicken than in broth culture. The great antilisterial effect of clove
and thyme oils in culture media was significantly reduced in hotdogs [64]. Higher levels of EOs of Pistacia lentiscus
and Satureja montana were necessary to reduce the Listeria growth in refrigerated minced beef than in culture medium
[56]. Therefore, the evaluation of EOs effectiveness in food products or in model systems simulating food composition
is a previous step to the correct application of EOs in real foods.
The activity of EOs may be reduced by the protein content of the food, probably by complex formation between
phenolic compounds of oils and protein. These complexes would compete with the ones formed with protein of cell
membrane of target bacteria [66]. In the study of the effect of relevant factors to cheese ripening on antilisterial activity
of spruce essential oil, Canillac and Mourey [63] observed that the addition of sodium caseinate in a culture broth
significant increased the MIC. However, Gutierrez et al. [58] reported that the effectiveness of oregano and thyme oils
increased with the protein level in beef extract culture medium being the oregano oil the most effective one. These
authors have suggested that hydrophobic proteins as peptones may facilitate EOs dissolution, increasing the
preservative action.
The presence of high levels of fat reduces the action of EOs against L. monocytogenes growth. The effectiveness of
oregano and thyme EOs was diminished by high concentrations of sunflower oil [58]. Singh et al. [64] found that
antimicrobial action of clove and thyme oils reduced as fat level increased in hotdogs. Clove was more effective than
thyme, but these authors do not advise their use alone to complete protection against pathogens in hotdogs. Cinnamon
and clove oils showed antilisterial activity in refrigerated soft cheese with different levels of fat [66]. The former was
1116
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
more effective at low fat content whereas clove had a strong inhibition at high fat content. All these works have
suggested that the lower activity of EOs at high fat content may be due to: (i) EOs dissolution in the lipid fraction of the
food, decreasing the concentration in the aqueous phase together with their antimicrobial action; (ii) the reduced water
content in foods, particularly in fatty foods, in relation to culture media which may slow down the movement of the
preservative to the active site in the microbial cell, and (iii) the presence of fat in the food which may produce a
protecting layer around the bacteria.
In general, bacteria are not so protected from EOs action by carbohydrates than by fat or protein in foods.
Antilisterial actions of oils of oregano and thyme improved due to the increase in sugar level up to 2.3% in beef extract
and tomato serum model media. However, higher concentrations of sugars did not show any effect on the EOs
effectiveness [59]. On the contrary, the increase in levels of potato starch from 1 to 10% slightly decreased the
antilisterial activity of these oils. At the highest potato starch level the activities were similar to the observed in absence
of EOs [58].
The antimicrobial activity of EOs increases at acidic pH where the hydrophobicity of EOs is higher than at more
alkaline pH levels. Thus, the dissolution of the oils in the lipids of the cell membrane of target bacteria would increase,
while at high pH levels repulsion between negative charges of amino compounds from food and cell surface could
happen. Therefore, the cell wall would be less protected by amino compounds increasing EOs action [63]. Gutierrez et
al. [58] did not observe growth of L. monocytogenes at pH 4.0 in Tryptic Soy Broth while the higher antilisterial effect
of these oils was found at pH 5.0.
The temperature of storage is another factor to be considered in the study of effectiveness of EOs against L.
monocytogenes since this microorganism has the ability to grow in a wide range of temperatures (2-45ºC) [6]. Several
studies reported that EOs action against Listeria increases as temperature decreases. As an example, Mytle et al. [68]
have shown that clove oil was more or equal effective at 5 than 15ºC in controlling the growth of L. monocytogenes in
chicken frankfurters.
The physical structure of the food also has a role in the antimicrobial action of EOs. Probably, bacteria may enter in
the pore of the surface of certain foods such as beefs reducing the chance and time of direct contact with the
antimicrobial [69]. Gill et al. [65] reported great antilisterial action of cilantro oil in broth with MIC values in the range
of 0.018-0.074% depending on the strain. However, a level of 6.0% was ineffective when it was included into a gel with
glycerol monolaurate or gelatin coating a ham. The increase in the viscosity of culture medium due to agar addition
increased cell resistance to antilisterial activity of spruce oil [63].
It must be taking into account that sensory properties of EOs may be a limiting factor to their use in food and it
should be considered. Chicken frankfurters treated with 2%v/w of clove oil were inacceptable to the consumer whereas
samples with 1% were sensory accepted. The last level had effective antilisterial activity in the food [68]. Djenane et al.
[56] showed that sensory properties of minced beef meat treated with oils of P. lentiscus and S. montana were
acceptable at two fold MIC values (0.20 and 0.06% v/v, respectively) after 8 days of storage. The oils showed
bactericidal activity against Listeria at these concentrations and the use of the combination of EOs increased the
individual antimicrobial action. Thus, combining EOs would allow the use of lower levels to reduce Listeria growth
minimizing the unacceptable sensory changes in the food. The indirect uses of Eos have also been suggested, for
example in water to wash vegetables similar to the use of chlorine [66] or in the impregnation of porous surface of
wood in cheese ripening to improve sanitary safety [63]. Other alternative would be the use of the microencapsulation
technology that not only may protect the EOs from factors such as heat but it also allows the controlled release of the
antimicrobials [67].
5. Chitosan
Chitin is the major component of the shells of crustacean such as crabs, lobsters and shrimps. It is also an important part
of exoskeleton of invertebrates and can be found in the cell walls of some fungi. Due to its structure, it may be
compared to cellulose. This biopolymer is a polysaccharide composed of β(1→4) linked units of N-acetylglucosamine.
Chitosan, another biopolymer which have received considerable attention, is obtained from the deacetylation of chitin
[70, 71].
Chitosan has numerous properties that make it applicable to the food industry. Regarding to the extension of food
shelf life, its antimicrobial action and its ability to form edible films are the most outstanding. Furthermore, chitosan is
obtained from natural sources, nontoxic, and presents anti-oxidative activity, biocompatibility and biodegradability [72,
73]. Antibacterial activity of chitosan depends on several factors such as the deacetylation degree, molecular weight,
temperature, pH of the medium and other components presence [74].
The mechanism of the antimicrobial activity of chitosan is not completely known, but different hypothesis have been
proposed: (i) interactions between the positively charged chitosan molecules and the negatively charged microbial cell
membranes produce a change of permeability which leads to the leakage of proteinaceous and other intracellular
constituents; (ii) interaction with microbial DNA interferes with the mRNA and proteins synthesis; (iii) chitosan acts as
a water and metal binding agent and it can also inhibit different enzymes [70, 71].
©FORMATEX 2011
1117
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
Edible films have been extensively investigated; they are able to maintain the chemical, sensory and microbiological
quality of food [75, 76]. Many studies have been carried out to determine the ability of chitosan edible films to inhibit
growth of L. monocytogenes in different kinds of food such as ham steaks [77], cold smoked salmon [78] and red meat
[75, 79].
Chitosan is able to control Listeria in laboratory liquid media. However, different results are obtained when it is in
the form of films, in contact with a solid medium. Chitosan edible films are unable to control Listeria in foods. There
are two possible explanations for the observed behaviour of chitosan when is used as a film forming agent: (i) it is not
able to migrate from the film to the food matrix [77, 78], and (ii) its high affinity for food components such as proteins,
may cause the formation of complexes that not allow chitosan to interact with microorganisms [79]. Moreover, when
other antimicrobials, such as sodium lactate, potassium sorbate or nisin are added to the chitosan film, growth of
Listeria can be controlled due to the ability of the antimicrobials to migrate from the chitosan film to the food matrix
[78].
The ability of chitosan films to inhibit Listeria is retained when films are incorporated into liquid foods, e.g. soups
[80]. Furthermore, chitosan inhibitory effect is evident in food where it can be dispersed and incorporated throughout
the matrix such as bovine pâté [81].
In conclusion, it is necessary to incorporate chitosan into the food matrix to achieve an inhibitory effect on the
growth of Listeria. Although antimicrobial activity of chitosan films is negligible, addition of other preservatives such
as bacteriocins, organic acids or essential oils may be promising, since it allows gradual release of them into the food.
6. Examples of the combined use of natural antimicrobials with other stress factors
Compilation of evidence of the effective use of antimicrobials and hurdle technologies to control L. monocytogenes in
food is shown in Table 1. The synergy between antimicrobials and chemical preservatives and/or heat and/or other
treatments can be explained by the fact that bacterial cells sub-lethally injured by different stressing conditions become
sensitive to different physical and chemical agents to which healthy cells are resistant. Anyway, the synergistic effects
observed in complex solid environments are frequently lower compared to results obtained in liquid media [8, 39, 54]
reinforcing the suggestion that interaction of antimicrobials with food components can interfere with their efficacy. The
food composition seems to play a key role on the final effect of antimicrobials against L. monocytogenes. Thereby, the
adequate combination of hurdles will be dictated by the specific type of food to be preserved.
1118
©FORMATEX 2011
Cold-smoked rainbow trout
Meat modeled system
Ricotta-type cheeses
Irradiation
Low-dose irradiation (2.3 kGy)
Nisin
Nisin
Nisin
Nisin
©FORMATEX 2011
Nisin, sodium lactate, sodium diacetate,
potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate
Temperature
Storage at 37ºC, 12ºC or 4ºC
Refrigeration (4ºC)
Chitosan films
Chitosan
Chitosan films
Thyme essential oil
Steam surface pasteurization
High Pressure Processing (HPP)
Nisin
Modified atmosphere packaging Vacuum
packaged
Nisin
Organic acid solutions
Mint essential oil
Cone essential oil
Spice extracts
Sodium lactate
and refrigeration
Sodium lactate, potassium
sorbate, curing salts and
refrigeration
Sorbate and refrigeration
Heat (60 or 65°C)
Moderate heat
Nisin
Bovine pâté
Ham steaks
Cold-smoked salmon
Fish soup
Fully cooked frankfurters
Yogurt
Milk
Fresh pork
Ham slices
Minced beef
Frankfurters
Cold-pack lobster meat
Milk
EDTA and lysozyme
Nisin
Food Application
Cooked ham
Low acid dry fermented
sausages
Ham and bologna
Additional hurdle
High Hydrostatic Pressure (HHP)
Antimicrobial
Enterocins A and B
Table 1 Compilation of some uses of antimicrobials and hurdle technologies to control L. monocytogenes in food.
Ye et al. [77]
Ye et al. [78]
Fernandez-Saiz et al.
[80]
Bento et al. [81]
Solomakos et al. [90]
Murphy et al. [43]
Evrendilek et al. [88]
Yoon et al. [89]
Zhang et al. [57]
Davies et al. [11]
Buncic et al. [30]
Nykänen et al.[12]
Chen [87]
Budu-Amoako [85]
Maisnier-Patin [86]
Gill and Holley [84]
Reference
Marcos et al. [82]
Jofré et al. [83]
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
1119
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
7. Conclusions
Natural antimicrobials in combination with other stress factors are a valuable tool to control the growth of L.
monocytogenes in foods. Besides, the uses of multiple stress factors decrease the possibility of appearance of resistance
strains. Since the efficacy of mentioned antimicrobials can be influenced by the chemical composition and the physical
conditions of foods it is necessary to validate the antimicrobial activity in each particular food system to establish the
effective concentration and the most adequate combination of additives or preservative treatments to be applied with the
antimicrobial.
Acknowledgements. The support of Universidad de Buenos Aires, Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas de la
República Argentina and Agencia Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas de la República Argentina.is gratefully
acknowledged.
References
[1] Orsi RH, den Bakker HC, Wiedmann M. Listeria monocytogenes lineages: Genomics, evolution, ecology, and phenotypic
characteristics. International Journal of Medical Microbiology. 2011; 301: 79-96.
[2] Swaminathan B, Gerner-Smidt P. The epidemiology of human listeriosis. Microbes Infections. 2007; 9: 1236-1243.
[3] Georgaras I, Panagiotis N, Skandamis N, Belk KE, Scanga JA, Kendall PA, Smith GC, Sofos JN. Post-processing application of
chemical solutions for control of Listeria monocytogenes, cultured under different conditions on commercial smoked sausage
formulated with and without lactate-sodium diacetate. Food Microbiology. 2006; 23: 762-771.
[4] Ivanek R, Grohn YT, Tauer LW, Wiedmann M. The cost and benefit of Listeria monocytogenes food safety measures. Critical
Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition. 2004; 44: 513-523.
[5] Farber JM, Peterkin PI. Listeria monocytogenes, a food-borne pathogen. Microbiological Reviews. 1991; 55: 476–511.
[6] Gandhi M, Chikindas ML. Listeria: A foodborne pathogen that knows how to survive. International Journal of Food
Microbiology. 2007; 113: 1-15.
[7] Thomas LV, Clarkson MR, Delves-Broughton J. Nisin. In: Naidu AS, ed. Natural food antimicrobial systems. Boca-Raton, FL:
CRC Press; 2000: 463-524.
[8] Roller S. Introduction. In: Roller S, ed. Natural antimicrobials for the minimal processing of foods. Boca-Raton, FL: CRC Press;
2003: 1-10.
[9] Chen H, Hoover DG. Bacteriocins and their food applications. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety. 2003;
2: 82-100.
[10] Gálvez A, Abriouel H, Lucas López R, Ben Omar N. Bacteriocin-based strategies for food biopreservation. International
Journal of Food Microbiology. 2007; 120: 51-70.
[11] Davies EA, Bevis HE, Delves-Broughton J. The use of the bacteriocin nisin as a preservative in ricotta-like cheeses to control
the food-borne pathogen Listeria monocytogenes. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 1997; 24: 343-346.
[12] Nykänen A,Weckman K, Lapveteläinen. Synergistic inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on cold-smoked rainbow trout by
nisin and sodium lactate. Food Microbiology. 2000; 61: 63-72.
[13] Hampikyan H, Ugur M. The effect of nisin on L. monocytogenes in Turkish fermented sausages (sucuks). Meat Science. 2007;
76: 327-332.
[14] Kouakou P, Ghalfi H, Destin J, Dubois-Dauphin R, Evrard P, Thonart P. Enhancing the antilisterial effect of Lactobacillus
curvatus CWBI-B28 in pork meat and cocultures by limiting bacteriocin degradation. Meat Science. 2008; 80: 640–648.
[15] Rodriguez JM, Martínez MI, Kok J. Pediocin PA-1, a wide-spectrum bacteriocin from lactic acid bacteria. Critical Reviews in
Food Science and Nutrition. 2002; 42: 91-121.
[16] Nieto-Lozano JC, Reguera-Useros JI, Peláez-Martínez MC, Sacristán-Pérez-Minayo G, Gutiérrez-Fernández AJ, Hardisson de la
Torre A. The effect of the pediocin PA-1 produced by Pediococcus acidilactici against Listeria monocytogenes and Clostridium
perfringens in Spanish dry-fermented sausages and frankfurters. Food Control. 2010; 21: 679–685.
[17] Naghmouchi K, Drider D, Kheadr E, Lacroix C, Prévost H, Fliss I. Multiple characterizations of Listeria monocytogenes
sensitive and insensitive variants to divergicin M35, a new pediocin-like bacteriocin. Journal of Applied Microbiology. 2006;
10: 29–39.
[18] Campos CA, Rodríguez O, Calo-Mata P, Prado M, Barros-Velázquez J. Preliminary characterization of bacteriocins from
Lactococcus lactis, Enterococcus faecium and Enterococcus mundtii strains isolated from turbot (Psetta maxima). Food
Research International. 2006; 39: 356–364.
[19] Pinto AL, Fernandes M, Pinto C, Albano H, Castilho F, Teixeira P, Gibbs PA. Characterization of anti-Listeria bacteriocins
isolated from shellfish: Potential antimicrobials to control non-fermented seafood. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
2009; 129: 50–58.
[20] Devriese LA, Pot B. The genus Enterococcus. In: Wood BJB, Holzapfel WH, eds. The genera of lactic acid bacteria (vol. 2).
London, UK: Blackie Academic, 1995: 327-367.
[21] Ben Belgacem Z, Abriouel H, Ben Omar N, Lucas R, Martínez-Canamero M, Gálvez A, Manai M. Antimicrobial activity, safety
aspects, and some technological properties of bacteriocinogenic Enterococcus faecium from artisanal Tunisian fermented meat.
Food Control. 2010; 21: 462–470.
1120
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
[22] Iseppi R, Pilati F, Marini M, Toselli M, de Niederhäusern S, Guerrieri E, Messi P, Sabia C, Manicardi G, Anacarso I, Bondi M.
Anti-listerial activity of a polymeric film coated with hybrid coatings doped with enterocin 416K1 for use as bioactive food
packaging. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008; 123: 281–287.
[23] Hata T, Alemu M, Kobayashi M, Suzuki C, Nitisinprasert S, Ohmomo S. Characterization of a bacteriocin produced by
Enterococcus faecalis N1-33 and its application as a food preservative. Journal of Food Protection. 2009; 72: 524–530.
[24] Lauková A, Czikková S, Laczková S, Turek P. Use of enterocin CCM 4231 to control Listeria monocytogenes in experimentally
contaminated dry fermented Hornad salami. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 1999; 52: 115-119.
[25] Stiles ME. Biopreservation by lactic acid bacteria. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek. 1996; 70: 331–345.
[26] Gänzle MZ, Hertel C, Hammes WP. Antimicrobial activity of bacteriocin-producing cultures in meat products: modeling of the
effect of pH, NaCl, and nitrite concentrations on the antimicrobial activity of sakacin P against Listeria ivanovii DSM20750.
Fleischwirtschaft. 1996; 76: 409-412.
[27] Jung D-S, Bodyfelt FW, Daeshel MA. Influence of fat and emulsifiers on the efficacy of nisin in inhibiting Listeria
monocytogenes in fluid milk. Journal of Dairy Science. 1992; 75: 387–393.
[28] Castro MP, Rojas AM, Campos CA, Gerschenson LN. Effect of preservatives, tween 20, oil content and emulsion structure on
the survival of Lactobacillus fructivorans in model salad dressings. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2009; 42: 14281434.
[29] Fang T J, Chen CY, Chen HHL. Inhibition of Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus on a vegetarian food treated with nisin
combined with either potassium sorbate or sodium benzoate. Journal of Food Safety. 1997; 17: 69–87.
[30] Buncic S, Fitzgerald CM, Bell RG, Hudson JA. Individual and combined listericidal effects of sodium lactate, potassium
sorbate, nisin and curing salts at refrigeration temperature. Journal of Food Safety. 1995; 15: 247–264.
[31] Ananou S, Baños A, Maqueda M, Martínez-Bueno M, Gálvez A, Valdivia E. Effect of combined physico-chemical treatments
based on enterocin AS-48 on the control of Listeria monocytogenes and Staphylococcus aureus in a model cooked ham. Food
Control. 2010; 21: 478–486.
[32] Cobo Molinos A, Abriouel H, Ben Omar N, Lucas R, Valdivia E, Gálvez A. Inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes in raw fruits
by enterocin AS-48. Journal of Food Protection. 2008; 71: 2460–2467.
[33] Jofré A, Garriga M, Aymerich T. Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes in cooked ham through active packaging with natural
antimicrobials and high-pressure processing. Journal of Food Protection. 2007; 70: 2498–2502.
[34] Gravesen A, Ramnath M, Rechinger KB, Andersen N, Jansch L, Hechard Y, Hastings JW, Knochel S. High-level resistance to
class IIa bacteriocins is associated with one general mechanism in Listeria monocytogenes. Microbiology. 2002; 148: 23612369.
[35] Nilsson L, Chen Y, Chikindas ML, Huss HH, Gram L, Montville TJ. Carbon dioxide and nisin act synergistically on Listeria
monocytogenes. Applied Environmental Microbiology. 2000; 66 (2): 769–774.
[36] Modi KD, Chikindas ML, Montville TJ. Sensitivity of nisin-resistant Listeria monocytogenes to heat and the synergistic action
of heat and nisin. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 2000; 30 (3): 249–253.
[37] Branen JK, Davidson PM. Enhancement of nisin, lysozyme, and monolaurin antimicrobial activities by
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and lactoferrin. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2004; 90 (1): 63–74.
[38] Ettayebi K, El Yamani J, Rossi-Hassani B. Synergistic effects of nisin and thymol on antimicrobial activities in Listeria
monocytogenes and Bacillus subtilis. FEMS Microbiology Letters. 2000; 183 (1): 191–195.
[39] Samelis J, Sofos JN. Organic acids. In: Roller S, ed. Natural antimicrobials for the minimal processing of foods. Cambridge:
Woodhead Publishing Limited and CRC Press LLC; 2003.
[40] Johnson J, ed. Control of Listeria monocytogenes in further processed meat and poultry using organic acid post-cook dipS. MS
Thesis. Texas, Tech University. 2008.
[41] George SM, Richardson LCC, Peck MW. Predictive models of the effect of temperature, pH and acetic and lactic acids on the
growth of Listeria monocytogenes. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 1996; 32: 73–90.
[42] Buchanan RL, Golden MH, Phillips JG. Expanded models for the non-thermal inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes. Journal
of Applied Microbiology. 1997; 82: 567–577.
[43] Murphy RY, Hanson RE, Johnson NR, Chappa K, Berrang ME. Combining organic acid treatment with steam pasteurization to
eliminate Listeria monocytogenes on fully cooked frankfurters. Journal of Food Protection. 2006; 69 (1): 47-52.
[44] Abou-Zeid KA, Yoon KS, Oscar TP, Schwarz, Hashem FM, Whiting RC. 2007. Survival and Growth of Listeria monocytogenes
in broth as a function of temperature, pH, and potassium lactate and sodium diacetate concentrations. Journal of Food
Protection. 70: 11: 2620-2625.
[45] Porto-Feit ACS, Campano SG, Call JE, Shoyer BA, Gartner K, Tufft I, Oser A, Lee J, Luchansky JB. Validation of food-grade
salts of organic acids as ingredients to control Listeria monocytogenes on pork scrapple during extended refrigerated storage.
Journal of Food Protection. 2011; 74: 394-402.
[46] Stopforth JD, Visser D, Zumbrink R, van Dick L, Bontenbal EW. Control of Listeria monocytogenes on cooked ham by
formulation with a lactate-diacetate blend and surface treatment with lauroc arginate. Journal of Food Protection. 2010; 73:
552-555.
[47] Binstok GF, Campos CA, Gerschenson LN. Sorbates-Nitrites reaction in meat products. Food Research International. 1998; 31
(8): 581-585.
[48] Hu AC, Shelef LA. Influence of fat content and preservatives on the behavior of Listeria monocytogenes in beaker sausage.
Journal of Food Safety. 1996; 16 (3):175-181.
[49] Devlieghere F, Geeraerd AH, Versyck KJ, Vandewaetere B, Van Impe J, Debevere J. Growth of Listeria monocytogenes in
modified atmosphere packed cooked meat products: a predictive model. Food Microbiology. 2001; 18: 53-66.
[50] Siracusa, G R, Dickson,J S.Inhibition of Listeria monocytogenes on beef tissue by application of organic acids immobilized in a
calcium alginate. Journal of Food Science. 1992; 57: 293-296.
[51] Campos CA, Gerschenson LN, Flores SK. Development of edible films and coatings with antimicrobial activity. Food and
Bioprocess Technology. 2010; DOI 10.1007/s11947-010-0434-1.
©FORMATEX 2011
1121
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
[52] Muñoz M, Guevara L, Palop A, Tabera J, Fernández PS. Determination of the effect of plant essential oils obtained by
supercritical fluid extraction on the growth and viability of Listeria monocytogenes in broth and food systems using flow
cytometry. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2009; 42: 220-227.
[53] Bakkali F, Averbeck S, Averbeck D, Idaomar M. Biological effects of essential oils – A review. Food and Chemical Toxicology.
2008; 46: 446-475.
[54] Burt S. Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods-a review. International Journal of Food
Microbiology. 2004; 94: 223-253.
[55] de Azeredo GA, Montenegro Stamford TL, Campos Nunes P, Gomes Neto NJ, Gomes de Oliveira ME, de Souza EL. Combined
application of essential oils from Origanum vulgare L. and Rosmarinus officinalis L. to inhibit bacteria and autochthonous
microflora associated with minimally processed vegetables. Food Research International. 2011; 44: 1541-1548.
[56] Djenane D, Yangüela J, Montañés L, Djerbal M, Roncaléset P. Antimicrobial activity of Pistacia lentiscus and Satureja
montana essential oils against Listeria monocytogenes CECT 935 using laboratory media: Efficacy and synergistic potential in
minced beef. Food Control. 2011; 22: 1046-1053.
[57] Zhang H, Kong B, Xiong YL, Sun X. Antimicrobial activities of spice extracts against pathogenic and spoilage bacteria in
modified atmosphere packaged fresh pork and vacuum packaged ham slices stored at 4ºC. Meat Science. 2009; 81: 686-692.
[58] Gutierrez J, Rodriguez G, Barry-Ryan C, Bourke P. Efficacy of Plant Essential Oils against Foodborne Pathogens and Spoilage
Bacteria Associated with Ready-to-Eat Vegetables: Antimicrobial and Sensory Screeninget. Journal of Food Protection. 2008;
71(9): 1846-1854.
[59] Gutierrez J, Barry-Ryan C, Bourke P. The antimicrobial efficacy of plant essential oil combinations and interactions with food
ingredients. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008; 124: 91-97.
[60] Gutierrez J, Barry-Ryan C, Bourke P. Antimicrobial activity of plant essential oils using food model media: Efficacy, synergistic
potential and interactions with food components. Food Microbiology. 2009; 26: 142-150.
[61] Firouzi R, Shekarforoush SS, Nazer AHK, Borumand Z, Jooyandeh AR. Effects of Essential Oils of Oregano and Nutmeg on
Growth and Survival of Yersinia enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes in Barbecued Chicken. Journal of Food Protection.
2007; 70 (11): 2626-2630.
[62] Oussalah M, Caillet S, Saucier L, Lacroix M. Inhibitory eVects of selected plant essential oils on the growth of four pathogenic
bacteria: E. coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control. 2007;
18: 414-420.
[63] Canillac N, Mourey A. Effects of several environmental factors on the anti-Listeria monocytogenes activity of an essential oil of
Picea excels. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 2004; 92: 95– 103.
[64] Singh A, Singh RK, Bhuniaa AK, Singh N. Efficacy of plant essential oils as antimicrobial agents against Listeria
monocytogenes in hotdogs. LWT - Food Science and Technology. 2003; 36: 787-794.
[65] Gill AO, Delaquis P, Russo P, Holley RA. Evaluation of antilisterial action of cilantro oil on vacuum packed ham. International
Journal of Food Microbiology. 2002; 73: 83-92.
[66] Smith-Palmer A, Stewart J, Fyfe L. Antimicrobial properties of plant essential oils and essences against five important foodborne pathogens. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 1998; 26: 118-122.
[67] Holley RA, Patel D. Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials.
Food Microbiology. 2005; 22: 273–292.
[68] Mytle N, Anserson GL, Doyle MP, Smith MA. Antimicrobial activity of clove (Syzgium aromaticum) oil in inhibiting Listeria
monocytogenes on chicken frankfurters. Food Control. 2006; 17:102-107.
[69] Hao YY, Brackett RE, Doyle MP. Efficacy of plant extracts in inhibiting Aeromonas hydrophila and Listeria monocytogenes in
refrigerated, cooked poultry. Food Microbiology. 1998; 15: 367-378.
[70] Shahidi F, Arachchi JKV, Jeon YJ. Food applications of chitin and chitosans. Trends in Food Science & Technology. 1999; 10:
37-51.
[71] No HK, Meyers SP, Prinyawiwatkul W, Xu Z. Applications of chitosan for improvement of quality and shelf life of foods: a
review. Journal of Food Science. 2007; 72 (5): 87-100.
[72] Fan W, Sun J, Chen Y, Qiu J, Zhang Y, Chi Y. Effects of chitosan coating on quality and shelf life of silver carp during frozen
storage. Food Chemistry. 2009; 115: 66-70.
[73] Pranoto Y, Rakshit SK, Salokhe VM. Enhancing antimicrobial activity of chitosan films by incorporating garlic oil, potassium
sorbate and nisin. Food Science and Technology. 2005; 38 (8): 859-865.
[74] Devlieghere F, Vermeulen A, Debevere J. Chitosan: Antimicrobial activity, interactions with food components and applicability
as a coating on fruit and vegetables. Food Microbiology. 2004; 21: 703-714.
[75] Beverlya RL, Janes ME, Prinyawiwatkul W, No HK. Edible chitosan films on ready-to-eat roast beef for the control of Listeria
monocyotgenes. Food Microbiology. 2008; 25: 534-537.
[76] Dutta PK, Tripathi S, Mehrotra GK, Dutta J. Perspectives for chitosan based antimicrobial films in food applications. Food
Chemistry. 2009; 114: 1173-1182.
[77] Ye M, Meetoo H, Chen H. Control of Listeria monocytogenes on ham steaks by antimicrobials incorporated into chitosan-coated
plastic films. Food Microbiology. 2008; 25: 260-268.
[78] Ye M, Meetoo H, Chen H. Effectiveness of chitosan-coated plastic films incorporating antimicrobials in inhibition of Listeria
monocytogenes on cold-smoked salmon. International. Journal of Food Microbiology. 2008; 127: 235-240.
[79] Park S, Marsh KS, Dawson P. Application of chitosan-incorporated LDPE flim to sliced fresh red meats for shelf life extension.
Meat Science. 2010; 85: 493-499.
[80] Fernandez-Saiz P, Soler C, Lagaron JM, Ocio MJ. Effects of chitosan film on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes,
Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella spp. in laboratory media and in fish soup. International Journal of Food Microbiology.
2010; 137: 287-294.
[81] Bento RA, Stamford TLM, Stamford TCM, Cardoso de Andrade SA, Leite de Souza E. Sensory evaluation and inhibition of
Listeria monocytogenes in bovine pâté added of chitosan from Mucor rouxii. Food Science and Technology. 2011; 44: 588-591.
1122
©FORMATEX 2011
Science against microbial pathogens: communicating current research and technological advances
_______________________________________________________________________________
A. Méndez-Vilas (Ed.)
[82] Marcos B, Aymerich T, Monfort JM, Garriga M. High-pressure processing and antimicrobial biodegradable packaging to
control Listeria monocytogenes during storage of cooked ham. Food Microbiology. 2008; 25: 177–182.
[83] Jofré A, Aymerich T, Garriga M. Improvement of the food safety of low acid fermented sausages by enterocins A and B and
high pressure. Food Control. 2009; 20: 179-184.
[84] Gill AO, Holley RA. Inhibition of bacterial growth on ham and bologna by lysozyme, nisin and EDTA. Food Research
International. 2000; 33: 83-90.
[85] Budu-Amoako E, Ablett RF, Harris J, Delves-Broughton J. Combined effect of nisin and moderate heat on destruction of
Listeria monocytogenes in cold-pack lobster meat. Journal of Food Protection. 1999; 62: 46–50.
[86] Maisnier-Patin S, Tatini SR, Richard J. Combined effect of nisin and moderate heat on destruction of Listeria monocytogenes in
milk. Lait. 1995; 75: 81-91.
[87] Chen C-M, Sebranek JG, Dickson JS, Mendonca AF. Combining pediocin with post-packaging irradiation for control of Listeria
monocytogenes on frankfurters. Journal of Food Protection. 2004; 67: 1866-1875.
[88] Evrendilek GA, Balasubramanian VM. Inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua in yoghurt drink applying
combination of high pressure processing and mint essential oils. Food Control. 2011; 22: 1435-1441.
[89] Yoon JI, Bajpai VK, Kang SC. Synergistic effect of nisin and cone essential oil of Metasequoia glytostroboides Miki ex Hu
against Listeria monocytogenes y milk samples. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2011; 49: 109-114.
[90] Solomakos N, Govaris A, Koidis P, Botsoglou N. The antimicrobial effect of thyme essential oil, nisin and their combination
against Listeria monocytogenes in minced beef during refrigerated storage. Food Microbiology. 2008; 25: 120-127.
©FORMATEX 2011
1123