Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38943850›Full record

ReviewUltrasonics sonochemistry2024

A review of emerging applications of ultrasonication in Comparison with non-ionizing technologies for meat decontamination.

Bo-Ru Chen, Ume Roobab, Ghulam Muhammad Madni, Gholamreza Abdi, Xin-An Zeng, Rana Muhammad Aadil

Abstract readReviewComparative Study
In one paragraph

Review in Ultrasonics sonochemistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Production of Red Beetroot (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
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

6 authors.

Bo-Ru ChenDepartment of Food Science, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528000, China; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Intelligent Food Manufacturing, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528225, China.
Ume RoobabSchool of Food Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China; Department of Food Science, College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, United Arab Emirates University, 15551 Al‑Ain, United Arab Emirates. Electronic address: mahroba73@gmail.com.
Ghulam Muhammad MadniNational Institute of Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan.
Gholamreza AbdiDepartment of Biotechnology, Persian Gulf Research Institute, Persian Gulf University, Bushehr, 75169 Iran. Electronic address: abdi@pgu.ac.ir.
Xin-An ZengDepartment of Food Science, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528000, China; School of Food Science and Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou 510641, China; Guangdong Key Laboratory of Intelligent Food Manufacturing, Foshan University, Foshan, Guangdong 528225, China. Electronic address: xazeng@scut.edu.cn.
Rana Muhammad AadilNational Institute of Food Science and Technology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Meat is highly susceptible to contamination with harmful microorganisms throughout the production, processing, and storage chain, posing a significant public health risk. Traditional decontamination methods like chemical sanitizers and heat treatments often compromise meat quality, generate harmful residues, and require high energy inputs. This necessitates the exploration of alternative non-ionizing technologies for ensuring meat safety and quality. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the latest advancements, limitations, and future prospects of non-ionizing technologies for meat decontamination, with a specific focus on ultrasonication. It further investigates the comparative advantages and disadvantages of ultrasonication against other prominent non-ionizing technologies such as microwaves, ultraviolet (UV) light, and pulsed light. Additionally, it explores the potential of integrating these technologies within a multi-hurdle strategy to achieve enhanced decontamination across the meat surface and within the matrix. While non-ionizing technologies have demonstrated promising results in reducing microbial populations while preserving meat quality attributes, challenges remain. These include optimizing processing parameters, addressing regulatory considerations, and ensuring cost-effectiveness for large-scale adoption. Combining these technologies with other methods like antimicrobial agents, packaging, and hurdle technology holds promise for further enhancing pathogen elimination while safeguarding meat quality.

Indexed as

DecontaminationMeatSonicationUltrasonic WavesFood safetyMeat qualityMicrobial reductionMicrowave irradiationPulsed lightUltrasonicationUltraviolet light

Identifiers

PMID38943850
PMCPMC11261440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-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.