Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Pascalisation is one of the non-thermal methods for reducing contamination of beverages with Listeria monocytogenes and Listeria innocua. This article examines the effectiveness of pascalisation in eliminating these bacteria in beverages, analyzing the impact of process parameters (pressure value, dwell time, temperature), its limitations, and the potential for synergy with other methods based on studies from the Scopus and Web of Science databases. Although industrial applications typically use the pressure of 600 MPa, many studies have reported bacterial inactivation at lower pressures. Reducing the pressure in pascalisation may seem advantageous for preserving the product's sensory qualities, but it does not necessarily ensure appropriate microbiological safety. This is due to the barotolerance of some Listeria sp. strains, the risk of forming viable but non-culturable cells (VBNC) undetectable by standard methods, and the possibility of microbial regrowth after processing. Additionally, high pressure, acting as a stressor, induces DNA damage and the SOS response and increases cell membrane permeability, affecting changes and transfer of antibiotic resistance genes (ARG). Growing market demand for plant-based, minimally processed beverages drives the search for economically viable solutions that combine high-pressure processing with other preservation methods. Current research explores combining pascalisation with different hurdles to reduce pressure requirements without compromising microbiological safety. Nevertheless, acidic matrices remain more suitable than neutral or antioxidant-rich formulations, which show decreased bacterial inactivation. Future research should refine pascalisation parameters for various beverage types and explore synergistic preservation strategies to ensure appropriate microbiological quality while preserving sensory and nutritional properties.
Wiśniewski et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: