Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia
It is common to find different spoilage organisms occurring in the same food item, which usually requires food producers to utilize a mixture of synthetic preservatives to control spoilage. This study evaluated the interaction between mixtures of crude biopreservatives against consortia of common sp...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2019-06-01
|
| Series: | Fermentation |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/5/3/53 |
| _version_ | 1828862052328800256 |
|---|---|
| author | Maxwell Mewa-Ngongang Heinrich W. du Plessis Edwin Hlangwani Seteno K. O. Ntwampe Boredi S. Chidi Ucrecia F. Hutchinson Neil P. Jolly |
| author_facet | Maxwell Mewa-Ngongang Heinrich W. du Plessis Edwin Hlangwani Seteno K. O. Ntwampe Boredi S. Chidi Ucrecia F. Hutchinson Neil P. Jolly |
| author_sort | Maxwell Mewa-Ngongang |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | It is common to find different spoilage organisms occurring in the same food item, which usually requires food producers to utilize a mixture of synthetic preservatives to control spoilage. This study evaluated the interaction between mixtures of crude biopreservatives against consortia of common spoilage yeasts occurring in beverages. Crude biopreservatives produced from separate yeasts were formulated in different growth inhibition combinations (GICs), i.e., GIC1 (<i>Candida pyralidae</i> Y1117 and <i>Pichia kluyveri</i> Y1125), GIC 2 (<i>C. pyralidae</i> Y1117 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164), GIC3 (<i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1125 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164), and GIC4 (<i>C. pyralidae, P. kluyveri</i> Y1125 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164). The spoilage yeast consortia combinations, i.e., SC1 (<i>Dekkera. anomala</i> and <i>D. bruxellensis</i>), SC2 (<i>D. anomala</i> and <i>Zygosaccharomyces bailii</i>), SC3 (<i>D. bruxellensis</i> and <i>Z. bailii</i>), and SC4 (<i>D. anomala</i>, <i>D. bruxellensis</i> and <i>Z. bailii</i>), were also prepared. The highest growth inhibition activities of the crude biopreservatives were observed at a pH of 3.0 and 2.0 for <i>C. pyralidae</i> and <i>P. kluyveri</i> strains, respectively, while reduced activity was observed at a pH of 4.0 and 5.0. The growth inhibition proficiency depended on the spoilage yeast or the consortia of spoilage yeasts. Biocontrol agents from an individual yeast or mixtures can be used to prevent food and beverage spoilage. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-13T03:15:12Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b322d78b7bb64493bbcfad36984a696d |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2311-5637 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-13T03:15:12Z |
| publishDate | 2019-06-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Fermentation |
| spelling | doaj.art-b322d78b7bb64493bbcfad36984a696d2022-12-22T00:01:29ZengMDPI AGFermentation2311-56372019-06-01535310.3390/fermentation5030053fermentation5030053Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast ConsortiaMaxwell Mewa-Ngongang0Heinrich W. du Plessis1Edwin Hlangwani2Seteno K. O. Ntwampe3Boredi S. Chidi4Ucrecia F. Hutchinson5Neil P. Jolly6Post-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaPost-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaPost-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaBioresource Engineering Research Group (<i>BioERG</i>), Department of Biotechnology, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, P.O. Box 652, Cape Town 8000, South AfricaPost-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaPost-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaPost-Harvest and Agro-Processing Technologies, ARC Infruitec-Nietvoorbij (The Fruit, Vine and Wine Institute of the Agricultural Research Council), Private Bag X5026, Stellenbosch 7599, South AfricaIt is common to find different spoilage organisms occurring in the same food item, which usually requires food producers to utilize a mixture of synthetic preservatives to control spoilage. This study evaluated the interaction between mixtures of crude biopreservatives against consortia of common spoilage yeasts occurring in beverages. Crude biopreservatives produced from separate yeasts were formulated in different growth inhibition combinations (GICs), i.e., GIC1 (<i>Candida pyralidae</i> Y1117 and <i>Pichia kluyveri</i> Y1125), GIC 2 (<i>C. pyralidae</i> Y1117 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164), GIC3 (<i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1125 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164), and GIC4 (<i>C. pyralidae, P. kluyveri</i> Y1125 and <i>P. kluyveri</i> Y1164). The spoilage yeast consortia combinations, i.e., SC1 (<i>Dekkera. anomala</i> and <i>D. bruxellensis</i>), SC2 (<i>D. anomala</i> and <i>Zygosaccharomyces bailii</i>), SC3 (<i>D. bruxellensis</i> and <i>Z. bailii</i>), and SC4 (<i>D. anomala</i>, <i>D. bruxellensis</i> and <i>Z. bailii</i>), were also prepared. The highest growth inhibition activities of the crude biopreservatives were observed at a pH of 3.0 and 2.0 for <i>C. pyralidae</i> and <i>P. kluyveri</i> strains, respectively, while reduced activity was observed at a pH of 4.0 and 5.0. The growth inhibition proficiency depended on the spoilage yeast or the consortia of spoilage yeasts. Biocontrol agents from an individual yeast or mixtures can be used to prevent food and beverage spoilage.https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/5/3/53crude biopreservativesgrape pomacemicrobial consortiabeverage spoilage yeastsgrowth inhibition activity |
| spellingShingle | Maxwell Mewa-Ngongang Heinrich W. du Plessis Edwin Hlangwani Seteno K. O. Ntwampe Boredi S. Chidi Ucrecia F. Hutchinson Neil P. Jolly Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia Fermentation crude biopreservatives grape pomace microbial consortia beverage spoilage yeasts growth inhibition activity |
| title | Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia |
| title_full | Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia |
| title_fullStr | Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia |
| title_full_unstemmed | Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia |
| title_short | Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia |
| title_sort | activity interactions of crude biopreservatives against spoilage yeast consortia |
| topic | crude biopreservatives grape pomace microbial consortia beverage spoilage yeasts growth inhibition activity |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2311-5637/5/3/53 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT maxwellmewangongang activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT heinrichwduplessis activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT edwinhlangwani activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT setenokontwampe activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT boredischidi activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT ucreciafhutchinson activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia AT neilpjolly activityinteractionsofcrudebiopreservativesagainstspoilageyeastconsortia |