Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32426339›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2020

Development of a Continuous Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) Vortex-Flow Chamber for Improved Treatment Homogeneity Based on Hydrodynamic Optimization.

Felix Schottroff, Justus Knappert, Pauline Eppmann, Anna Krottenthaler, Tobias Horneber, Christopher McHardy, Cornelia Rauh, Henry Jaeger

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Selective Release of Recombinant Periplasmic Protein FromFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Felix SchottroffInstitute of Food Technology, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria.
Justus KnappertInstitute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Pauline EppmannInstitute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Anna KrottenthalerInstitute of Food Technology, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria.
Tobias HorneberInstitute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Christopher McHardyInstitute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Cornelia RauhInstitute of Food Technology and Food Chemistry, Department of Food Biotechnology and Food Process Engineering, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Henry JaegerInstitute of Food Technology, Department of Food Science and Technology, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pulsed electric fields (PEF) treatment is an effective process for preservation of liquid products in food and biotechnology at reduced temperatures, by causing electroporation. It may contribute to increase retention of heat-labile constituents with similar or enhanced levels of microbial inactivation, compared to thermal processes. However, especially continuous PEF treatments suffer from inhomogeneous treatment conditions. Typically, electric field intensities are highest at the inner wall of the chamber, where the flow velocity of the treated product is lowest. Therefore, inhomogeneities of the electric field within the treatment chamber and associated inhomogeneous temperature fields emerge. For this reason, a specific treatment chamber was designed to obtain more homogeneous flow properties inside the treatment chamber and to reduce local temperature peaks, therefore increasing treatment homogeneity. This was accomplished by a divided inlet into the chamber, consequently generating a swirling flow (vortex). The influence of inlet angles on treatment homogeneity was studied (final values: radial angle α = 61°; axial angle β = 98°), using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). For the final design, the vorticity, i.e., the intensity of the fluid rotation, was the lowest of the investigated values in the first treatment zone (1002.55 1/s), but could be maintained for the longest distance, therefore providing an increased mixing and most homogeneous treatment conditions. The new design was experimentally compared to a conventional co-linear setup, taking into account inactivation efficacy of

Indexed as

differentiation of thermal and electric field effectseffects of PEF on alkaline phosphatasenon-thermal inactivation of microorganismsnumerical simulationprocess optimizationproof of conceptpulsed electric fields (PEF)treatment chamber design

Identifiers

PMID32426339
PMCPMC7203427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.