ReviewUltrasonics sonochemistry2024
A review of emerging applications of ultrasonication in Comparison with non-ionizing technologies for meat decontamination.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Carbon-Modified Attapulgite Composite for Rapid Rhodamine B Degradation: High Adsorption Capacity and Photo-Fenton Efficiency.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Production of Red Beetroot (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Research Progress and Teaching Exploration of Physical Processing Technology for Reduced-Salt Gel Meat Products.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.