Next Article in Journal
The Influence of Non-Saccharomyces Species on Wine Fermentation Quality Parameters
Previous Article in Journal
Solid State Fermentation of Brewers’ Spent Grains for Improved Nutritional Profile Using Bacillus subtilis WX-17
Open AccessArticle

Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia

1
Post-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 Africa
2
Bioresource Engineering Research Group (BioERG), Department of Biotechnology, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, P.O. Box 652, Cape Town 8000, South Africa
3
Department of Chemical Engineering, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, P.O. Box 652, Cape Town 8000, South Africa
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2019, 5(3), 53; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation5030053
Received: 29 March 2019 / Revised: 7 June 2019 / Accepted: 11 June 2019 / Published: 29 June 2019
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 (Candida pyralidae Y1117 and Pichia kluyveri Y1125), GIC 2 (C. pyralidae Y1117 and P. kluyveri Y1164), GIC3 (P. kluyveri Y1125 and P. kluyveri Y1164), and GIC4 (C. pyralidae, P. kluyveri Y1125 and P. kluyveri Y1164). The spoilage yeast consortia combinations, i.e., SC1 (Dekkera. anomala and D. bruxellensis), SC2 (D. anomala and Zygosaccharomyces bailii), SC3 (D. bruxellensis and Z. bailii), and SC4 (D. anomala, D. bruxellensis and Z. bailii), were also prepared. The highest growth inhibition activities of the crude biopreservatives were observed at a pH of 3.0 and 2.0 for C. pyralidae and P. kluyveri 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. View Full-Text
Keywords: crude biopreservatives; grape pomace; microbial consortia; beverage spoilage yeasts; growth inhibition activity crude biopreservatives; grape pomace; microbial consortia; beverage spoilage yeasts; growth inhibition activity
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

MDPI and ACS Style

Mewa-Ngongang, M.; du Plessis, H.W.; Hlangwani, E.; Ntwampe, S.K.O.; Chidi, B.S.; Hutchinson, U.F.; Jolly, N.P. Activity Interactions of Crude Biopreservatives against Spoilage Yeast Consortia. Fermentation 2019, 5, 53.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop