Evaluates pulsed light effectiveness in reducing microbial contamination on fresh-cut pineapple, suggesting potential for safer consumption.
This study investigated the efficacy of pulsed light (PL) treatment in reducing the inoculated microbial contamination on fresh‐cut pineapple. Further, it assessed the suitability of various kinetic models in characterizing the inactivation patterns of Escherichia coli , Staphylococcus aureus , Saccharomyces cerevisiae , and Aspergillus flavus . PL treatment with flashlamp energy levels of 500–700 J (effective fluence, F e : 0.011–0.122 J cm −2 ) for 60–300 pulses (treatment time: 60–300 s) resulted in microorganism‐specific reductions. E. coli showed the highest susceptibility with an increase in inactivation rate constant, k max , from 0.021 to 0.044 s −1 after 700 J for 240 s. S. aureus and S. cerevisiae displayed moderate resistance, whereas A. flavus proved highly resistant, achieving only 1.7 log CFU g −1 reduction. At lower PL doses, the inactivation curves showed clear shoulders, but became much steeper at 700 J, while the fungal population consistently exhibited tailing. Six kinetic models (log‐linear, Weibull, Geeraerd tail, Geeraerd shoulder, Coroller, and biphasic) were evaluated using goodness‐of‐fit (coefficient of determination ( R 2 ) and root mean square error (RMSE)), performance indices (accuracy factor (A f ) and bias factor (B f ), and information criteria (Akaike information criterion [AIC]), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), Akaike difference (Δ i ), and Akaike weight ( w i )). The biphasic followed by Weibull provided the best fit for bacterial population ( R 2 ≈ 0.99; RMSE < 0.05; A f and B f close to 1; Δ i ≤ 2; high w i ), as shown by the Δ i heat map. The Coroller best described A. flavus , while S. cerevisiae was best described by the log‐linear model, followed by Coroller based on weightage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jaiswal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: