AEM
Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Right arrow Copyright Information
Right arrow Books from ASM Press
Right arrow MicrobeWorld
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wouters, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ueckert, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wouters, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ueckert, J.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Wouters, P. C.
Right arrow Articles by Ueckert, J.

 Previous Article  |  Next Article 

Applied and Environmental Microbiology, July 2001, p. 3092-3101, Vol. 67, No. 7
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.3092-3101.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.

Membrane Permeabilization in Relation to Inactivation Kinetics of Lactobacillus Species due to Pulsed Electric Fields

Patrick C. Wouters,* Ad P. Bos, and Joerg Ueckert

Microbiology & Preservation, Unilever Research Vlaardingen, 3133 AT Vlaardingen, The Netherlands

Received 15 September 2000/Accepted 20 April 2001

Membrane permeabilization due to pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment of gram-positive Lactobacillus cells was investigated by using propidium iodide uptake and single-cell analysis with flow cytometry. Electric field strength, energy input, treatment time, and growth phase affected membrane permeabilization of Lactobacillus plantarum during PEF treatment. A correlation between PEF inactivation and membrane permeabilization of L. plantarum cells was demonstrated, whereas no relationship was observed between membrane permeabilization and heat inactivation. The same results were obtained with a Lactobacillus fermentum strain, but the latter organism was more PEF resistant and exhibited less membrane permeabilization, indicating that various bacteria have different responses to PEF treatment. While membrane permeabilization was the main factor involved in the mechanism of inactivation, the growth phase and the acidity of the environment also influenced inactivation. By using flow cytometry it was possible to sort cells in the L. plantarum population based on different cell sizes and shapes, and the results were confirmed by image analysis. An apparent effect of morphology on membrane permeabilization was observed, and larger cells were more easily permeabilized than smaller cells. In conclusion, our results indicate that the ability of PEF treatment to cause membrane permeabilization is an important factor in determining inactivation. This finding should have an effect on the final choice of the processing parameters used so that all microorganisms can be inactivated and, consequently, on the use of PEF treatment as an alternative method for preserving food products.


* Corresponding author. Mailing address: Microbiology & Preservation, Unilever Research Vlaardingen, Olivier van Noortlaan 120, 3133 AT Vlaardingen, The Netherlands. Phone: 31-10-4605028. Fax: 31-10-4605188. E-mail: Patrick.Wouters{at}Unilever.com.


Applied and Environmental Microbiology, July 2001, p. 3092-3101, Vol. 67, No. 7
0099-2240/01/$04.00+0   DOI: 10.1128/AEM.67.7.3092-3101.2001
Copyright © 2001, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.



This article has been cited by other articles:




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
J. Bacteriol. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. Eukaryot. Cell All ASM Journals

Copyright © 2001 by the American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.