Viability, efficacy, and storage stability of freeze-dried biocontrol agent Candida sake using different protective and rehydration media

109Citations
Citations of this article
67Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Viability, efficacy against Penicillium expansum on Golden Delicious apples, and storage stability of freeze-dried Candida sake strain CPA-1 were studied. The effect of several protective agents and rehydration media was investigated in the freeze drying of C. sake. Skimmed milk at 10% concentration was a good rehydration medium for all protectants tested. In general, good viability results were obtained when the same solution was used as a protectant and as a rehydration medium. The best survival was obtained when C. sake cells were protected with 10% lactose + 10% skimmed milk and rehydrated with skimmed milk (85% viability). The potential for biocontrol of the best freeze-dried treatments against P. expansum on apples was compared with that of fresh cells. Freeze-dried treatments at 1 × 107 CFU/ml reduced the incidence of decay by 45 to 66%. The best biocontrol effect was obtained with cells that had been freeze dried using 10% lactose + 10% skimmed milk as a protectant and 1% peptone as a rehydration medium, with a 66% reduction in rot incidence. However, in all treatments, the efficacy of freeze-dried cells was significantly lower than fresh cells. The stability of freeze-dried samples decreased during storage and was influenced by storage temperature. In the best treatment, storage of C. sake cells for 60 days at 4°C resulted in final concentrations of 2.5 × 108 CFU/ml, which was a 10-fold reduction in relation to the initial starting concentration of cells prior to freeze drying.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abadias, M., Teixidó, N., Usall, J., Benabarre, A., & Viñas, I. (2001). Viability, efficacy, and storage stability of freeze-dried biocontrol agent Candida sake using different protective and rehydration media. Journal of Food Protection, 64(6), 856–861. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-64.6.856

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free