Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32625776›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2018

Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the organic acids lactic and acetic acids to reduce microbiological surface contamination on pork carcasses and pork cuts.

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP), Vittorio Silano, José Manuel Barat Baviera, Claudia Bolognesi, Beat Johannes Brüschweiler, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Riccardo Crebelli, David Michael Gott, Konrad Grob and 18 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Safety evaluation of buffered vinegar as a food additive.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of lactic acid produced byEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

28 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP)
Vittorio Silano
José Manuel Barat Baviera
Claudia Bolognesi
Beat Johannes Brüschweiler
Andrew Chesson
Pier Sandro Cocconcelli
Riccardo Crebelli
David Michael Gott
Konrad Grob
Evgenia Lampi
Gilles Riviere
Inger-Lise Steffensen
Christina Tlustos
Henk Van Loveren
Laurence Vernis
Holger Zorn
Declan Bolton
Sara Bover-Cid
Joop de Knecht
Luisa Peixe
Panagotis Skandamis
Andrea Baù
Carla Martino
Winy Messens
Eleonora Sarno
Daniela Tomcikova
Alicja Mortensen
Intégrité du génome, ARN et cancer · FRRede de Química e Tecnologia · PTUniversity of Rome Tor Vergata · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of lactic and acetic acids to reduce microbiological surface contamination on pork carcasses pre-chill and pork meat cuts post-chill were assessed. Lactic acid treatments consisted of 2-5% solutions at temperatures of up to 80°C applied to carcasses by spraying or up to 55°C applied on cuts by spraying or dipping. Acetic acid treatments consisted of 2-4% solutions at temperatures of up to 40°C applied on carcasses by spraying or on cuts by spraying or dipping. The maximum treatment duration was 30 s. The Panel concluded that: [1] the treatments are of no safety concern, provided that the substances comply with the European Union specifications for food additives; [2] spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill with lactic acid was efficacious compared to untreated control, but based on the available data, the Panel could not conclude whether lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment when spraying of pork carcasses pre-chill or pork meat cuts post-chill. The Panel concluded that dipping of pork meat cuts post-chill in lactic acid was more efficacious than water treatment. However, it could not conclude on the efficacy of acetic acid treatment of pork carcasses pre-chill and/or pork meat cuts post-chill; [3] the potential selection and emergence of bacteria with reduced susceptibility to biocides and/or resistance to therapeutic antimicrobials linked to the use of the substances is unlikely as long as Good Hygienic Practices are implemented; and [4] the release of both organic acids is not of concern for the environment, assuming that wastewaters released by the slaughterhouses are treated, if necessary, to counter the potentially low pH caused by lactic or acetic acid, in compliance with local rules.

Indexed as

acetic acidantimicrobial resistanceefficacyenvironmental impactlactic acidpork carcasses and cutstoxicological safety

Identifiers

PMID32625776
PMCPMC7009387
OpenAlexW2904206157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.