Food-borne illnesses are prevalent all over the world. The toll of that in terms of human life and suffering is enor- mous. Acute food-borne disease infections and intoxications are much more of a concern to governments and the food industry today than a few decades ago. From January 1988 through December 1997, a total of 5170 out- breaks of food-borne disease were reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These outbreaks caused 163,000 persons to become ill (Bean, Goulding, Lao, & Angulo, 1996; Olsen, Mackinnon, Goulding, Bean, & Slutsker, 2000). Food-borne infections are estimated to cause 76 million illnesses, 300,000 hospitalizations and 5000 deaths annually in the USA (Mead et al., 1999). When excluding multi-ingredient foods, seafood ranked third on the list of products which caused food-borne disease between 1983 and 1992 in the USA (Lipp & Rose, 1997). Moreover, the top five food categories linked to food poi- soning outbreaks in the USA from 1990 to 2003 were sea- food, dairy products, eggs, beef, and poultry products which were responsible for 61% of all outbreaks according to the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI)’s database (CSPI, 2006). Globally, the search for effective and safe protocols and agents for rendering food safety has been continued to engage the attention of researchers, food manufacturers and retailers as well as policy makers, in countries such as the USA, Japan, UK and Taiwan. In fact, recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses in Taiwan, USA and Japan, have raised vast international concern.
The best way to reduce incidences of food-borne diseases is to secure safe food supply. Although Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) system has been implemented in many food processing establishments, most outbreaks of food-borne illnesses still occurred in foodser- vice sectors including institutions, fast food restaurants, and food stores, where food products had undergone various treatments and should have been rendered as safe (Chang, 2003). This situation indicates that hazards might still exist in the food supply systems. Today, food chains are becoming complicated in handling, processing, transportation, and storage ensuring a safe food supply becomes a challenge task.
Electrolyzed oxidizing (EO) water, also known as strongly acidic electrolyzed water (SAEW) or electrolyzed strong acid aqueous solution (ESAAS), is a novel antimicrobial agent which has been used in Japan for several years. It has been reported to possess antimicrobial activity against a variety of microorganisms.
Source: (Fabrizio & Cutter, 2003; Horiba et al., 1999; Iwasawa & Nakamura, 1993; Kim, Hung, & Brachett, 2000a, 2000b; Kim, Hung, Brachett, & Frank, 2001; Kimura et al., 2006; Kiura et al., 2002; Park & Beuchat, 1999; Park, Hung, & Brackett, 2002a; Venkitanarayanan, Ezeike, Hung, & Doyle, 1999b; Vorobjeva, Vorobjeva, & Khodjaev, 2003).
In recent years, EO water has gained interest as a disinfectant used in agri- culture, dentistry, medicine and food industry. It has been shown as an effective antimicrobial agent for cutting boards (Venkitanarayanan, Ezeike, Hung, & Doyle, 1999a), poultry carcasses (Fabrizio, Sharma, Demirci, & Cutter, 2002; Park et al., 2002a), eggs (Russell, 2003), let-tuce (Izumi, 1999; Koseki & Itoh, 2001; Koseki, Yoshida, Isobe, & Itoh, 2001; Koseki, Fujiwara, & Itoh, 2002; Kos- eki, Isobe, & Itoh, 2004a; Koseki, Yoshida, Kamitani, Isobe, & Itoh, 2004c; Park, Hung, Doyle, Ezeike, & Kim, 2001; Yang, Swem, & Li, 2003), alfalfa seeds, sprouts (Kim, Hung, Brackett, & Lin, 2003; Sharma & Demirci, 2003), pears (Al-Haq, Seo, Oshita, & Kawagoe, 2002), apples (Okull & Laborde, 2004), peaches (Al-Haq, Seo, Oshita, & Kawagoe, 2001), tomatoes (Bari, Sabina, Isobe, Uemura, & Isshiki, 2003; Deza, Araujo, & Garrido, 2003), strawberry (Koseki, Yoshida, Isobe, & Itoh, 2004b) and food processing equipments (Ayebah & Hung, 2005; Aye- bah, Hung, & Frank, 2005; Kim et al., 2001; Park, Hung, & Kim, 2002b; Venkitanarayanan et al., 1999a; Walker, Demirci, Graves, Spencer, & Roberts, 2005a, 2005b).
EO water also has the potential to be more effective and inexpensive than traditional cleaning agents. The greatest advantage of EO water for the inactivation of pathogenic microorganisms relies on its less adverse impact on the environment as well as users’ health because of no hazard chemicals added in its production. Moreover, it has been clarified that EO water does no harm to the human body (Mori, Komatsu, & Hata, 1997). It is more effective, less dangerous and less expensive than most traditional preservation methods such as glutaraldehyde (Sakurai, Nakatsu, Sato, & Sato, 2003; Sakurai, Ogoshi, Kaku, & Kobayashi, 2002), sodium hypochlorite and acetic acid (Ayebah et al., 2005). Many aspects of EO water are elucidated in this review, including its chemical and physical properties, gen- eration, antimicrobial properties and its applications in food industries, such as fresh vegetables, fruits, eggs, poul- try and seafood.
The source of this article can be downloaded here: Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry.pdf