
doi: 10.1002/jsfa.4044
pmid: 20597097
AbstractBACKGROUND: Food‐processing residues are good feedstocks for biofuel and biochemical production because they have high energy content and are abundant. Year‐round biofuel and biochemical production requires proper storage to prevent microbial decomposition and thermal runaway. In this study, microbial activity of tomato pomace (TP), grape pomace (GP), fermented grape pomace (FGP) and sugar beet pulp (SBP) was monitored at nine different moisture contents.RESULTS: Maximum and cumulative respirations for each feedstock with respect to moisture content followed a sigmoidal relationship. The critical moisture content below which no microbial activity was detected for SBP, TP, FGP and GP was 24–31, 16–21, 23–33 and 43–46% (dry basis) respectively. A logarithmic relationship was observed (R2 = 0.94) between critical moisture content and initial water‐soluble carbohydrate (WSC) content of the processing residues.CONCLUSION: The critical moisture content below which no microbial activity was detected and the relationship between critical moisture content and initial WSC content were determined in this study for four food‐processing residues. Both parameters permit evaluation of the potential for deterioration of food‐processing residues during storage based on moisture content and WSC content. Copyright © 2010 Society of Chemical Industry
Microbiological Phenomena, Food Handling, Cell Respiration, Carbohydrates, Water, Plant Roots, Industrial Microbiology, Magnoliopsida, Solanum lycopersicum, Reference Values, Biofuels, Fruit, Fermentation, Food Microbiology, Vitis, Plant Preparations, Beta vulgaris, Desiccation
Microbiological Phenomena, Food Handling, Cell Respiration, Carbohydrates, Water, Plant Roots, Industrial Microbiology, Magnoliopsida, Solanum lycopersicum, Reference Values, Biofuels, Fruit, Fermentation, Food Microbiology, Vitis, Plant Preparations, Beta vulgaris, Desiccation
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 56 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 1% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
