ArticlePloS one2024
Inactivation of bacteria using synergistic hydrogen peroxide with split-dose nanosecond pulsed electric field exposures.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hydrogen Peroxide-Mediated Inhibition of Membrane Resealing Drives Synergistic Cytotoxicity of Combined Cold Atmospheric Plasma and Pulsed Electric Field Treatment.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluating continuous nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) treatment as a non-thermal alternative for human milk pasteurisation.PloS one · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of pulsed electric fields (PEF) as a nonthermal technology for the decontamination of foods is of growing interest. This study aimed to enhance the inactivation of Escherichia coli, Listeria innocua, and Salmonella enterica in Gomori buffer using a combination of nsPEF and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2). Three sub-MIC concentrations (0.1, 0.3, and 0.5%) of H2O2 and various contact times ranging from 5-45 min were tested. PEF exposures as both single (1000 pulse) and split-dose (500+500 pulse) trains were delivered via square-wave, monopolar, 600 ns pulses at 21 kV/cm and 10 Hz. We demonstrate that >5 log CFU/mL reduction can be attained from combination PEF/H2O2 treatments with a 15 min contact time for E. coli (0.1%) and a 30 min contact time for L. innocua and S. enterica (0.5%), despite ineffective results from either individual treatment alone. A 5 log reduction in microbial population is generally the lowest acceptable level in consideration of food safety and represents inactivation of 99.999% of bacteria. Split-dose PEF exposures enhance lethality for several tested conditions, indicating greater susceptibility to PEF after oxidative damage has occurred.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.