Next Article in Journal
Detection of Chili Foreign Objects Using Hyperspectral Imaging Combined with Chemometric and Target Detection Algorithms
Previous Article in Journal
An Overview of Recent Progress in Engineering Three-Dimensional Scaffolds for Cultured Meat Production
Previous Article in Special Issue
Helichrysum italicum: From Extraction, Distillation, and Encapsulation Techniques to Beneficial Health Effects
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/foods12132615
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins against Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella paratyphi B: Role of Environmental Factors and Food Matrices

by
Jun Wang
1,†,
Hongyan Shan
1,†,
Ping Li
2,
Yanan Liu
1,
Xun Zhang
1,
Jingguo Xu
1 and
Songnan Li
3,*
1
School of Tourism and Cuisine, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225127, China
2
Sericultural & Agri-Food Research Institute Guangdong Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Key Laboratory of Functional Foods, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Agricultural Products Processing, Guangzhou 510610, China
3
Joint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety of the Ministry of Education of China, Institutes of Agricultural Science and Technology Development, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou 225009, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Foods 2023, 12(13), 2615; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132615
Submission received: 10 June 2023 / Revised: 27 June 2023 / Accepted: 3 July 2023 / Published: 6 July 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Natural Compounds in Foods)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate the effects of different environmental factors (temperature, pH, and NaCl) and food matrices (skimmed milk powder, lecithin, and sucrose) on the antibacterial activity of theaflavins (TFs) against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Salmonella paratyphi B (S. paratyphi B). TFs showed a larger diameter of inhibition zone (DIZ, 12.58 ± 0.09 mm–16.36 ± 0.12 mm) value against S. aureus than that of S. paratyphi B (12.42 ± 0.43 mm–15.81 ± 0.24 mm) at the same concentration (2–10 mg/mL). When temperatures were 25–121 °C, the DIZ of TFs against both S. aureus and S. paratyphi B was not significantly different. As pH increased from 2 to 10, their DIZ values decreased significantly from 16.78 ± 0.23 mm to 13.43 ± 0.08 mm and 15.63 ± 0.42 mm to 12.18 ± 0.14 mm, respectively. Their DIZ values increased slightly as the NaCl concentration increased from 0.2 mol/L to 0.8 mol/L, while their DIZ values decreased significantly for skimmed milk powder concentrations in the range of 20–120 g/L. Regarding the concentrations of lecithin and sucrose were 2–12 g/L and 10–60 g/L, their DIZ values showed no significant change against S. paratyphi B, but an increased trend for S. aureus. Under the above different environmental factors and food matrices, TFs maintained excellent antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, providing a theoretical guidance for applying TFs as novel antibacterial additives in the food industry.

1. Introduction

Microbial contamination is a common food safety issue with potentially serious consequences, including food spoilage and foodborne illnesses, both of which pose significant risks to public health and result in substantial economic losses [1,2]. Therefore, inhibiting the microbial growth in the foods while maintaining quality, freshness, and safety, referred to as food preservation, becomes necessary and meaningful. The food industry has been using preservatives, such as nitrates, for many years to extend food shelf-life by disrupting the activities of pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms [3]. However, the above preservatives are synthetic substances that may cause problems for public health, such as allergic reactions [4]. Therefore, natural preservatives have received widespread attention in food preservation with ensured food quality, reduced health hazards, and improved antibacterial efficiency; and they have gained wide attention in food preservation due to their non-toxic, efficient, and operable characteristics [5,6].
Theaflavins (TFs) are antioxidant polyphenols with a reddish color formed by the condensation of flavan-3-ols in tea leaves during the fermentation of black tea, and their content accounts for 0.5–3.0% of the dry weight in black tea [7,8,9]. Theaflavin and its derivatives, including theaflavin-3-gallate (TF2A), theaflavin-3′-gallate (TF2B), and theaflavin-3,3′-digallate (TF3), contribute to the quality and bioactivity of black tea [9]. Recently, TFs have attracted considerable interest because of various biological activities, such as antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-aging, anti-diabetic, and antimicrobial properties [8,10]. These biological activities are mainly attributed to the antioxidant abilities of TFs [11], resulting from their benzophenone skeleton and functional groups [12]. Yang et al. [13] found that TFs had a stronger scavenging efficiency than epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) against DPPH and hydroxyl radicals. In addition, Gao et al. [14] evaluated the effect of TFs on the antioxidant capacity in cured sausage, and TFs could inhibit the oxidation of myoglobin to improve the color of cured sausage. Notedly, during the storage preservation of semi-dried large yellow croaker, TFs treatment exhibited positive effects on the stability of muscle proteins and lipids, showing excellent antibacterial activity against the genus of Actinobacteria, Proteus, and Psychrobacter [15]. Therefore, TFs are a potential and attractive antimicrobial agent for application in the food industry.
Food is a complex multi-scale system, including environmental factors (such as temperature, pH, and NaCl) and food matrices (such as carbohydrate, protein, and lipid), which will interfere with the antibacterial efficiency of natural preservatives. Regarding environmental factors, the antibacterial activity of thymol decreased significantly when the temperature was higher than 80 °C [16]; nisin showed a reduced antibacterial effect at acidic and basic pH compared with neutral conditions [17]; 0.2 mol/L of NaCl could significantly enhance the antibacterial activity of nisin [18]. Additionally, food matrices may have a negative influence on the antibacterial efficiency of nisin, which should be added under 60 g/L of sucrose (simulated carbohydrate-based system), 120 g/L of skimmed milk powder (simulated protein-based system), and 12 g/L of lecithin (simulated lipid-based system) in the related food products [19].
Although the antibacterial activity of TFs has been reported, their effects from different environmental factors and food matrices remain unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effects of environmental factors (temperature, pH, and NaCl) and food matrices (sucrose, skimmed milk powder, and lecithin) on the antibacterial activity of TFs against Staphylococcus aureus (S. aureus) and Salmonella paratyphi B (S. paratyphi B) through the double layer agar method. The obtained results can provide a theoretical guidance for applying TFs as a new antibacterial product in the food industry.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

TFs (80% of purity) were provided by Jiangsu Dehe Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Wuxi, China). Luria-Bertani (LB) broth and agar were purchased from Qingdao Haibo’ao Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Qingdao, China). S. aureus (CCMC(B) 226003) and S. paratyphi B (CMCC 50094) in the study were kindly donated from the Food Nutrition and Microorganism Laboratory, Yangzhou University (Yangzhou, China). Skimmed milk powder, lecithin, and sucrose were supplied by Shanghai Sangong Bioengineering Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China). Other chemicals and reagents were of analytical grade.

2.2. Preparation of Bacterial Culture Suspensions

S. aureus and S. paratyphi B were cultivated in LB medium for 12 h at 37 °C with 150 rpm shaking culture; then, the bacterial culture concentration was diluted to 1 × 107 CFU/mL for further studies, if not otherwise stated [20,21].

2.3. Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity

The antibacterial activity of TFs was evaluated based on the diameter of the inhibition zone (DIZ) around Oxford cups (8.0 mm of diameter), according to the double-layer agar method described by de Azevedo et al. [22] with slight modifications. Oxford cups firstly were placed on the surface of the Agar plates; then, S. aureus and S. paratyphi B culture concentration (1 × 107 CFU/mL, 250 μL) and solid media (25 mL) were thoroughly mixed into Agar plates. As the solid media solidified, the above Oxford cups were pulled out, and 150 μL of TFs solution with the concentrations of 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 mg/mL was poured into the Oxford cup cavity. After diffusion at 4 °C for 6 h and intubation at 37 °C for 18 h, the above plates were taken out to measure DIZ with sterile water as control.

2.4. Effect of Environmental Factors on the Antibacterial Activity of TFs

To evaluate the antibacterial activity of TFs to pH, TFs solutions (10 mg/mL) were adjusted to pH 2–10 by adding HCl (0.4 mol/L) and NaOH (0.4 mol/L); then, their DIZ values to S. aureus and S. paratyphi B were further measured with untreated 10 mg/mL of TFs as the control [23].
TFs solutions (10 mg/mL) were treated at 25 °C (room temperature), 60 °C (lowest temperature for pasteurization), 80 °C (highest temperature for pasteurization), 100 °C (boiling temperature), and 121 °C (commercial sterilization temperature) for 30 min to evaluate the relationship between antibacterial activity of TFs and temperature. Then, their DIZ values for S. aureus and S. paratyphi B were further measured with untreated 10 mg/mL of TFs as control [24].
To explore the antibacterial activity of TFs to NaCl, TFs solutions (10 mg/mL) were prepared to 0.2–0.8 mol/L of NaCl concentrations; then, their DIZ values to S. aureus and S. paratyphi B were further measured with untreated 10 mg/mL of TFs as control [25].

2.5. Effect of Food Matrices on the Antibacterial Activity of TFs

Sucrose, skimmed milk powder, and lecithin were added to TFs solutions, which could be used for simulated carbohydrate-based, protein-based, and lipid-based food matrices, respectively. Then, the effects of different concentrations of sucrose (10–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder (20–120 g/L), and lecithin (2–12 g/L) on the DIZ was measured with untreated 10 mg/mL of TFs as control [19].

2.6. Statistical Analysis

All the tests were repeated at least three times. The data are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Significant differences among groups were analyzed by the Duncan test at p < 0.05 using SPSS 20.0 software.

3. Results

3.1. Antibacterial Effects of TFs Concentrations

Figure 1 exhibits the inhibition zone appearance combined with their DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A and B) and S. paratyphi B (C and D) as a function of TFs concentrations (0–10 mg/mL). The DIZ value without TFs was 8 mm, the same as the diameter of the Oxford cup, implying that sterile water has no antibacterial effect. As the concentration of TFs increased from 2 mg/mL to 10 mg/mL, their DIZ values increased significantly from 12.58 ± 0.09 mm to 16.36 ± 0.12 mm and 12.42 ± 0.43 mm to 15.81 ± 0.24 mm for S. aureus (Figure 1B) and S. paratyphi B (Figure 1D), respectively, showing a dose-dependent antibacterial activity of TFs. Furthermore, TFs show larger DIZ values against S. aureus than S. paratyphi B at the same concentration, consistent with the findings of EGCG, showing higher antibacterial activity on Gram-positive bacteria and low antibacterial activity on Gram-negative bacteria [26].

3.2. Effect of Environmental Factors

3.2.1. Role of Temperature

Figure 2 shows the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of processing temperatures (25–121 °C). As temperatures increased from 25 °C to 121 °C, no significant difference was observed for the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, respectively. Compared with the control group (25 °C), the high temperature at 121 °C did not show a significant effect on the antibacterial activity of TFs against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, respectively. Therefore, TFs can be used as bio-preservatives in foods undergoing commercial sterilization. Yang et al. [19] found that the antibacterial activity in nisin was significantly reduced after high-temperature treatment, which may be attributed to the difference in molecular structure.

3.2.2. Role of pH

Figure 3 presents the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of pH (2–10). Compared with the control group (pH = 6, DIZ = 15.76 ± 0.23 mm and 14.85 ± 0.18 mm against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B), when the pH was reduced to 2, the DIZ values were increased to 16.78 ± 0.23 mm and 15.63 ± 0.42 mm for S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, implying their enhanced antibacterial activity; whereas the pH increased to 10, the DIZ values were decreased to 13.43 ± 0.08 mm and 12.18 ± 0.14 mm for S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, indicating their attenuated antibacterial activity. Therefore, low pH is beneficial for the antibacterial activity of TFs, while high pH diminishes their antibacterial activity. The result is consistent with a previous study that shows an excellent antibacterial activity of monolaurin under low pH conditions [23].

3.2.3. Role of NaCl

Figure 4 illustrates the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L). There was no significant difference in their DIZ values against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B when the NaCl concentration increased from 0 to 0.6 mol/L. The DIZ values increased slightly from 15.44 ± 0.10 mm and 15.65 ± 0.05 mm to 15.50 ± 0.11 mm and 15.67 ± 0.09 mm against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B when the NaCl concentration increased from 0.6 mol/L to 0.8 mol/L. Compared to the control group (NaCl concentration 0 g/L), TFs with 0.8 mol/L of NaCl concentration showed a significantly enhanced antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B. Therefore, the antibacterial activity of the TFs was enhanced when the NaCl concentration reached above 0.8 mol/L. These findings are consistent with a previous study [27], which showed that combining NaCl with essential plant oils (carvacrol and thymol) significantly increased the antibacterial activity against E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and S. aureus. The result is caused by the synergistic effect of antibacterial activity resulting from multiple stress factors. Therefore, TFs and NaCl show a synergistic antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B.

3.3. Effect of Food Matrices

3.3.1. Role of Sucrose

Figure 5 shows the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of sucrose concentration (0–60 g/L). As sucrose concentration increased from 0 to 10 g/L, the DIZ value of TFs against S. aureus increased significantly from 16.55 ± 0.19 mm to 17.44 ± 0.15 mm, and no significant difference was observed for their DIZ values with sucrose concentration further increasing to 60 g/L. Additionally, there was no significant change in the DIZ value of TFs against S. paratyphi B with sucrose concentration ranging from 0 to 60 g/L. Compared with the control group (sucrose concentration 0 g/L), TFs with 60 g/L of sucrose concentration exhibited an enhanced antibacterial activity against S. aureus and a neutral antibacterial activity against S. paratyphi B. The result implies that sucrose addition shows a stronger influence on the antibacterial activity of TFs against S. aureus than S. paratyphi B, which may be attributed to various species displaying different susceptibilities to the same antimicrobial agent, resulting in a strain-specific effect of sucrose on antibacterial activity [28].

3.3.2. Role of Skimmed Milk Powder

Figure 6 presents the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L). As skimmed milk powder concentration increased from 0 to 80 g/L, the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B decreased significantly from 16.81 ± 0.68 mm and 15.76 ± 0.08 mm to 8.00 ± 0.08 mm and 8.00 ± 0.12 mm, respectively. However, when the concentration of skimmed milk powder further increased to 120 g/L, there was no significant change in the DIZ values of TFs against both S. aureus and S. paratyphi B. The above results indicated that TFs with 20–120 g/L of skimmed milk powder concentration showed an attenuated antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B as compared to the control group (skimmed milk powder concentration 0 g/L). These results suggest that skimmed milk powder has a negative impact on the antibacterial activity of TFs because protein is an essential nutrient for microbial growth. The antibacterial activity of resveratrol in milk is similar [29].

3.3.3. Role of Lecithin

Figure 7 exhibits the DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L). Compared with the control group (lecithin concentration 0 g/L), the DIZ value of TFs against S. aureus increased significantly from 16.61 ± 0.28 mm to 18.46 ± 0.33 mm when the lecithin concentration increased from 0 to 2 g/L, implying their enhanced antibacterial activity of TFs against S. aureus. However, as the lecithin concentration further increased to 10 g/L and 12 g/L, their DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus decreased significantly to 16.78 ± 0.89 mm and 15.86 ± 1.02 mm with no significant difference as compared to the control group. In addition, there is no significant difference in their DIZ values against S. paratyphi B when the lecithin concentration increased from 0 to 12 g/L. Our findings are consistent with a previous study that quercetin-enriched lecithin exhibits an antibacterial activity compared with lecithin or quercetin [30].

4. Discussion

In this study, TFs exhibited excellent antibacterial activity against S. aureus (Gram-positive bacteria) and S. paratyphi B (Gram-negative bacteria). Due to their polycyclic structures and phenolic hydroxyl groups, TFs have a high affinity for biomacromolecules such as lipids, proteins, carbohydrates, and nucleic acids. This high affinity enables TFs to react with the bacterial cell membrane, resulting in an unstable membrane structure, decreased membrane fluidity, and destroyed membrane integrity [31], as shown in Figure 8.
TFs showed a larger DIZ value against S. aureus than S. paratyphi B at the same concentration, exhibiting a stronger antibacterial activity against S. aureus. The result may be related to their differences in the structures and compositions of the cell wall [35]. Similar results were observed for EGCG [36] and catechin [37], wherein they could cause cell membrane damage easier in Gram-positive bacteria with a thin peptidoglycan layer. Furthermore, Gram-negative bacteria had an additional outer membrane mainly composed of lipopolysaccharides overlaying the thin peptidoglycan layer, which may be a fundamental reason for the weak inhibitory effect against Gram-negative bacteria [38]. These results should be responsible for the role of environmental factors (processing temperature, pH, and NaCl) and food matrices (sucrose, skimmed milk powder, and lecithin) in the antibacterial effects of TFs against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B.
As for the effect of processing temperature (25–121 °C) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, there was no significant change, even at high temperatures commonly used in commercial sterilization processes. Bacteriocin remained active after autoclaving at 121°C for 15 min [39]. Additionally, Su et al. [40] reported that the mixture of catechins and TFs may suffer severe degradation from 100 °C for 3 h. However, no significant degradation of TFs could occur at the processing temperatures of 100 °C and 121 °C for 30 min in this study, resulting in no change for the antibacterial activity of TFs. The results may be attributed to their detailed compositions and limited processing time. The above results indicate that TFs possess an excellent antibacterial activity to high processing temperatures, which is a crucial factor in preserving heat-processed food products with good antibacterial properties.
In addition, this study investigated the effect of environmental factors (pH and NaCl) and food matrices (sucrose, skimmed milk powder, and lecithin) on the antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, as shown in Figure 9 and Figure 10, respectively. There is no significant difference for the inhibition zone appearance with pH values (2–8), NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L), sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L), and lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L), implying their insufficient antimicrobial activity. Interestingly, a remarkable antibacterial effect with an apparent inhibition zone was observed for the above conditions with TFs addition, which should be responsible for antimicrobial activity. These findings are consistent with previous studies that phenolic-rich plant extracts or pure plant phenolics could inhibit the growth of microorganisms in the special food matrix (such as chicken soup and pasteurized milk) [41,42,43].
Considering the effect of pH (2–10) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, S. aureus and S. paratyphi B both exhibited an increased sensitivity at low pH values of 2–6, which may be due to their damaged cell membrane (e.g., membrane permeability or lipid peroxidation) in an acidic environment [44]. This phenomenon is consistent with the findings of Rda et al. [45] and Buldain et al. [46]. They found that Thurincin H and essential oils were more effective in inhibiting the growth of Listeria innocua and Escherichia coli at pH 5–6.5, respectively. Furthermore, Lee et al. [47] found that TFs were stable at pH 6.5 and degraded seriously at pH 9, resulting in the decreased antibacterial activity. Therefore, TFs are more suitable for food processing and preservation in an acidic environment than an alkaline environment, which is conducive to the efficient performance of their antibacterial activity.
Considering the effect of NaCl concentration (0.2–0.8 mol/L) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, TFs and NaCl exhibited a synergistic antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B, especially at a concentration of 0.8 mol/L NaCl. Xu et al. [48] observed that the biofilm formation of S. aureus was seriously suppressed with the increasing NaCl concentration (0–2%). This finding was consistent with the previous studies where NaCl could enhance the efficiency of Ruta chalepensis essential oils in killing microorganisms under certain conditions [49]. In addition, Wen et al. [50] applied tea polyphenols to preserve pork sausages for high-salt foods, and found that tea polyphenols could enable their excellent quality and sensory characteristics, and prolonged the shelf-life from 36 d to 42 d. Therefore, high concentrations (>0.8 mol/L) of NaCl combined with TFs are encouraged for food processing and preservation.
Regarding the effect of sucrose concentration (10–60 g/L) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, sucrose addition significantly enhanced the antibacterial activity of TFs against S. aureus, but no significant change for S. paratyphi B, which may be attributed to the species-specific effects resulting from the varied susceptibilities of different species to the same antibacterial agent [51]. The increase in osmotic pressure caused by high sucrose concentration may lead to an imbalance in microbial cells, thus, increasing their susceptibility to TFs [52]. Yang et el. [19] reported that the antibacterial activity of nisin against Listeria monocytogenes was significantly reduced when the sucrose concentration increased to 60 g/L, which may be attributed to the molecular structure of the antibacterial agent and its interaction with sucrose [28]. The above results suggest that TFs are suitable for preservation and freshness maintenance in carbohydrate-based systems, such as sucrose concentration < 60 g/L.
As for the effect of skimmed milk powder concentration (20–120 g/L) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, their antibacterial activity against S. aureus and S. paratyphi B was significantly decreased when the skimmed milk powder concentration increased from 20 g/L to 80 g/L, which could be attributed to the interaction between polyphenols and proteins resulting in the formation of polyphenol–protein complexes, thereby limiting the action of active polyphenolic compounds against microbial cells [53]. Smith et al. [54] further reported that protein could weaken the antibacterial activity of active ingredients by promoting the growth of bacteria. Therefore, the concentration of skimmed milk powder should be controlled within 80 g/L to facilitate the antibacterial activity of TFs in a protein-based system.
Considering the effect of lecithin concentration (2–12 g/L) on the antibacterial activity of TFs, their antibacterial activity against S. aureus exhibited a significant increasing trend, but no significant change for S. paratyphi B. The results may be because the combination of lecithin with Ca2+ and Mg2+ destabilizes the lipopolysaccharide membrane [55]. Furthermore, the antibacterial activity of the quercetin-enriched lecithin formulation was better than that of individual quercetin, showing high antibacterial activity against Gram-positive [30]. Additionally, adding tea polyphenols to edible fats, oils, and fat-containing products could effectively inhibit lipid oxidation, and the growth and reproduction of microorganisms, ultimately extending the shelf-life of such products [56,57]. Therefore, this study provides a theoretical reference for applying TFs in the preservation and freshness maintenance of a lipid-based system (lecithin concentration < 12 g/L).

5. Conclusions

In this study, TFs had better antibacterial activity against S. aureus than S. paratyphi B. TFs also exhibited a dose-dependent antibacterial activity, and showed an ideal antibacterial activity with high processing temperatures and low pH conditions. Additionally, 0.8 mol/L NaCl had a synergistic effect on the antibacterial activity of TFs. In different food matrices, TFs maintained good antibacterial activity in the concentration range of sucrose (<60 g/L), skimmed milk powder (<80 g/L), and lecithin (<12 g/L). This study provides valuable theoretical support for the application of TFs in the food industry, which is beneficial for developing food-grade antimicrobial agents in food preservation.

Author Contributions

J.W.: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, writing—original draft preparation, funding acquisition; H.S.: investigation, formal analysis, calculation, writing—original draft, visualization; P.L.: writing—review and editing, visualization; Y.L.: data curation, visualization; X.Z.: software, visualization; J.X.: writing—review and editing; S.L.: conceptualization, writing—review and editing, funding acquisition, project administration, supervision. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82000791), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20220585), the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation (2022M712692), the Yangzhou Key R&D Plan (Social Development) Project (YZ2022076), the Yangzhou Lvyangjinfeng Talent Support Program (YZLYJFJH2021YXBS172), and the Open Funding Project of Key Laboratory of Functional Foods, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs/Guangdong Key Laboratory of Agricultural Products Processing (202105).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data used to support the findings of this study can be made available by the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

DIZ: diameter of inhibition zone; DPPH: 2,2-diphenyl-1-picrylhydrazyl; EGCG: epigallocatechin gallate; LB: Luria-Bertani; TFs: theaflavins.

References

  1. Bintsis, T. Microbial pollution and food safety. AIMS Microbiol. 2018, 4, 377–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Moretro, T.; Langsrud, S. Residential Bacteria on Surfaces in the Food Industry and Their Implications for Food Safety and Quality. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe 2017, 16, 1022–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Wangprasertkul, J.; Siriwattanapong, R.; Harnkarnsujarit, N. Antifungal packaging of sorbate and benzoate incorporated biodegradable films for fresh noodles. Food Control 2021, 123, 107763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Piper, J.D.; Piper, P.W. Benzoate and Sorbate Salts: A Systematic Review of the Potential Hazards of These Invaluable Preservatives and the Expanding Spectrum of Clinical Uses for Sodium Benzoate. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safe 2017, 16, 868–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Martiny, T.R.; Raghavan, V.; de Moraes, C.C.; da Rosa, G.S.; Dotto, G.L. Optimization of green extraction for the recovery of bioactive compounds from Brazilian olive crops and evaluation of its potential as a natural preservative. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2021, 9, 105130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bae, J.Y.; Seo, Y.H.; Oh, S.W. Antibacterial activities of polyphenols against foodborne pathogens and their application as antibacterial agents. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2022, 31, 985–997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shan, Z.; Nisar, M.F.; Li, M.; Zhang, C.; Wan, C.C. Theaflavin Chemistry and Its Health Benefits. Oxid. Med. Cell. Longev. 2021, 2021, 6256618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Takemoto, M.; Takemoto, H. Synthesis of Theaflavins and Their Functions. Molecules 2018, 23, 918. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Xu, Y.; Jin, Y.X.; Wu, Y.Y.; Tu, Y.Y. Isolation and Purification of Four Individual Theaflavins Using Semi-Preparative High Performance Liquid Chromatography. J. Liq. Chromatogr. R T 2010, 33, 1791–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sato, J.; Tomita, A.; Sonoda, T.; Miyamoto, T. Theaflavin and its derivatives exert antibacterial action against Bacillus coagulans through adsorption to cell surface phospholipids. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 133, 1781–1790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Adhikary, B.; Yadav, S.K.; Roy, K.; Bandyopadhyay, S.K.; Chattopadhyay, S. Black tea and theaflavins assist healing of indomethacin-induced gastric ulceration in mice by antioxidative action. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2011, 2011, 546560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. He, H.F. Research progress on theaflavins: Efficacy, formation, and preparation. Food Nutr. Res. 2017, 61, 1344521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Yang, Z.; Jie, G.; Dong, F.; Xu, Y.; Watanabe, N.; Tu, Y. Radical-scavenging abilities and antioxidant properties of theaflavins and their gallate esters in H2O2-mediated oxidative damage system in the HPF-1 cells. Toxicol. Vitro 2008, 22, 1250–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gao, X.; Xia, L.; Fan, Y.; Jin, C.; Xiong, G.; Hao, X.; Fu, L.; Lian, W. Evaluation of coloration, nitrite residue and antioxidant capacity of theaflavins, tea polyphenols in cured sausage. Meat Sci. 2022, 192, 108877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Jiao, L.; Tu, C.H.; Mao, J.L.; Benjakul, S.; Zhang, B. Impact of theaflavin soaking pretreatment on oxidative stabilities and physicochemical properties of semi-dried large yellow croaker (Pseudosciaena crocea) fillets during storage. Food Packaging Shelf 2022, 32, 100852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, T.H.; Hsia, S.M.; Wu, C.H.; Ko, S.Y.; Chen, M.Y.; Shih, Y.H.; Shieh, T.M.; Chuang, L.C.; Wu, C.Y. Evaluation of the Antibacterial Potential of Liquid and Vapor Phase Phenolic Essential Oil Compounds against Oral Microorganisms. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0163147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Liu, W.; Hansen, J.N. Some chemical and physical properties of nisin, a small-protein antibiotic produced by Lactococcus lactis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1990, 56, 2551–2558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Zangeneh, M.; Khorrami, S.; Khaleghi, M. Bacteriostatic activity and partial characterization of the bacteriocin produced by L. plantarum sp. isolated from traditional sourdough. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 8, 6023–6030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Yang, Z.C.; Guo, S.Y.; Li, S.Y.; Liu, R.; Li, S.N.; Ge, Q.F. Effects of different environmental factors and food matrices on the inhibitory activity of nisin against listeria monocytogenes. Food Ferment Ind. 2022, 48, 209–221. [Google Scholar]
  20. Grimalt-Alemany, A.; Lezyk, M.; Asimakopoulos, K.; Skiadas, I.V.; Gavala, H.N. Cryopreservation and fast recovery of enriched syngas-converting microbial communities. Water Res. 2020, 177, 115747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Mota-Meira, M.; LaPointe, G.; Lacroix, C.; Lavoie, M.C. MICs of mutacin B-Ny266, nisin A, vancomycin, and oxacillin against bacterial pathogens. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2000, 44, 24–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. de Azevedo, P.O.S.; Converti, A.; Gierus, M.; Oliveira, R.P.S. Antimicrobial activity of bacteriocin-like inhibitory substance produced by Pediococcus pentosaceus: From shake flasks to bioreactor. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2019, 46, 461–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Oh, D.H.; Marshall, D.L. Effect of pH on the Minimum Inhibitory Concentration of Monolaurin Against Listeria monocytogenes (1). J. Food Prot. 1992, 55, 449–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Servent, A.; Cazals, G.; Perfetto, C.; Achir, N. Kinetic modeling of four folates in a model solution at different temperatures and pH to mimic their behavior in foods during processing. J. Food Process. Eng. 2023, 46, e14288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, H.J.; Tokle, I.F.; Lunestad, B.T.; Lerfall, J.; Hoel, S.; Jakobsen, A.N. The effect of food processing factors on the growth kinetics of Aeromonas strains isolated from ready-to-eat seafood. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 384, 109985. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Pei, J.; Yu, H.; Qiu, W.; Mei, J.; Xie, J. Antimicrobial Effect of Epigallocatechin Gallate Against Shewanella putrefaciens ATCC 8071: A Study Based on Cell Membrane and Biofilm. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, N.H.; Kim, H.W.; Moon, H.; Rhee, M.S. Sodium chloride significantly enhances the bactericidal actions of carvacrol and thymol against the halotolerant species Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and Staphylococcus aureus. LWT 2020, 122, 109015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Xiao, H.Q.; Li, Y.Z.; Lin, Q.L.; Zhao, M.J.; Liu, J.; Zhou, Q. Antimicrobial stability of metal antimicrobial peptide SIF4 in ar-tificial simulated food systems. Food Ferment Ind. 2021, 47, 121–125. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ferreira, S.; Domingues, F. The antimicrobial action of resveratrol against Listeria monocytogenes in food-based models and its antibiofilm properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2016, 96, 4531–4535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Ramadan, M.F.; Asker, M.M.S. Antimicrobical and Antivirial Impact of Novel Quercetin-Enriched Lecithin. J. Food Biochem. 2009, 33, 557–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Liu, S.; Zhang, Q.; Li, H.; Qiu, Z.; Yu, Y. Comparative Assessment of the Antibacterial Efficacies and Mechanisms of Different Tea Extracts. Foods 2022, 11, 620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Borges, A.; Saavedra, M.J.; Simões, M. The activity of ferulic and gallic acids in biofilm prevention and control of pathogenic bacteria. Biofouling 2012, 28, 755–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bouarab-Chibane, L.; Forquet, V.; Lantéri, P.; Clément, Y.; Léonard-Akkari, L.; Oulahal, N.; Degraeve, P.; Bordes, C. Antibacterial Properties of Polyphenols: Characterization and QSAR (Quantitative Structure–Activity Relationship) Models. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Oulahal, N.; Degraeve, P. Phenolic-Rich Plant Extracts with Antimicrobial Activity: An Alternative to Food Preservatives and Biocides? Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 753518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Hosseiniyan Khatibi, S.M.; Zununi Vahed, F.; Sharifi, S.; Ardalan, M.; Mohajel Shoja, M.; Zununi Vahed, S. Osmolytes resist against harsh osmolarity: Something old something new. Biochimie 2019, 158, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Ignasimuthu, K.; Prakash, R.; Murthy, P.S.; Subban, N. Enhanced bioaccessibility of green tea polyphenols and lipophilic activity of EGCG octaacetate on gram-negative bacteria. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 105, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fathima, A.; Rao, J.R. Selective toxicity of Catechin-a natural flavonoid towards bacteria. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2016, 100, 6395–6402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cui, Y.; Oh, Y.J.; Lim, J.; Youn, M.; Lee, I.; Pak, H.K.; Park, W.; Jo, W.; Park, S. AFM study of the differential inhibitory effects of the green tea polyphenol (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria. Food Microbiol. 2012, 29, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jiang, J.; Shi, B.; Zhu, D.Q.; Cai, Q.X.; Chen, Y.R.; Li, J.N.; Qi, K.Z.; Zhang, M. Characterization of a novel bacteriocin produced by Lactobacillus sakei LSJ618 isolated from traditional Chinese fermented radish. Food Control 2012, 23, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lun Su, Y.; Leung, L.K.; Huang, Y.; Chen, Z.-Y. Stability of tea theaflavins and catechins. Food Chem. 2003, 83, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Başyiğit, B.; Sağlam, H.; Köroğlu, K.; Karaaslan, M. Compositional analysis, biological activity, and food protecting ability of ethanolic extract of Quercus infectoria gall. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2020, 44, e14692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roila, R.; Valiani, A.; Ranucci, D.; Ortenzi, R.; Servili, M.; Veneziani, G.; Branciari, R. Antimicrobial efficacy of a polyphenolic extract from olive oil by-product against “Fior di latte” cheese spoilage bacteria. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 295, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Stojković, D.; Petrović, J.; Soković, M.; Glamočlija, J.; Kukić-Marković, J.; Petrović, S. In situ antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of naturally occurring caffeic acid, p-coumaric acid and rutin, using food systems. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2013, 93, 3205–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Algharib, S.A.; Dawood, A.; Xie, S. Nanoparticles for treatment of bovine Staphylococcus aureus mastitis. Drug Deliv. 2020, 27, 292–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Rda, A.; Cvab, C.; Coa, B. The synergistic effect of thurincin H and power ultrasound: An alternative for the inactivation of Listeria innocua ATCC 33090 and Escherichia coli K-12 in liquid food matrices. Food Control 2022, 135, 108778. [Google Scholar]
  46. Buldain, D.; Castillo, L.G.; Marchetti, M.L.; Lozano, K.J.; Bandoni, A.; Mestorino, N. Modeling the Growth and Death of Staphylococcus aureus against Melaleuca armillaris Essential Oil at Different pH Conditions. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lee, M.J.; Lambert, J.D.; Prabhu, S.; Meng, X.; Lu, H.; Maliakal, P.; Ho, C.T.; Yang, C.S. Delivery of tea polyphenols to the oral cavity by green tea leaves and black tea extract. Cancer Epidemiol. Biomark. Prev. 2004, 13, 132–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Xu, H.; Zou, Y.; Lee, H.Y.; Ahn, J. Effect of NaCl on the biofilm formation by foodborne pathogens. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, 580–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bremer, E.; Kramer, R. Responses of Microorganisms to Osmotic Stress. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2019, 73, 313–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wenjiao, F.; Yunchuan, C.; Junxiu, S.; Yongkui, Z. Effects of tea polyphenol on quality and shelf life of pork sausages. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 191–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Ikigai, H.; Nakae, T.; Hara, Y.; Shimamura, T. Bactericidal catechins damage the lipid bilayer. Biochim. Biophys. Acta 1993, 1147, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Esbelin, J.; Santos, T.; Hebraud, M. Desiccation: An environmental and food industry stress that bacteria commonly face. Food Microbiol. 2018, 69, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Devlieghere, F.; Vermeulen, A.; Debevere, J. Chitosan: Antimicrobial activity, interactions with food components and applicability as a coating on fruit and vegetables. Food Microbiol. 2004, 21, 703–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Smith-Palmer, A.; Stewart, J.; Fyfe, L. The potential application of plant essential oils as natural food preservatives in soft cheese. Food Microbiol. 2001, 18, 463–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Rowan-Nash, A.D.; Korry, B.J.; Mylonakis, E.; Belenky, P. Cross-Domain and Viral Interactions in the Microbiome. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2019, 83, e00044-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Gao, H.X.; Yu, J.; Chen, N.; Zeng, W.C. Effects and mechanism of tea polyphenols on the quality of oil during frying process. J. Food Sci. 2020, 85, 3786–3796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gramza, A.; Korczak, J. Tea constituents (Camellia sinensis L.) as antioxidants in lipid systems. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2005, 16, 351–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 12 02615 g001 550
Figure 1. Inhibition zone appearance combined with their DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A,B), and S. paratyphi B (C,D) as a function of TFs concentrations (0–10 mg/mL). Different lowercase letters in (B,D) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Inhibition zone appearance combined with their DIZ values of TFs against S. aureus (A,B), and S. paratyphi B (C,D) as a function of TFs concentrations (0–10 mg/mL). Different lowercase letters in (B,D) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g001
Foods 12 02615 g002 550
Figure 2. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of processing temperatures (25–121 °C). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 2. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of processing temperatures (25–121 °C). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g002
Foods 12 02615 g003 550
Figure 3. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of pH (2–8). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 3. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of pH (2–8). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g003
Foods 12 02615 g004 550
Figure 4. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 4. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g004
Foods 12 02615 g005 550
Figure 5. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g005
Foods 12 02615 g006 550
Figure 6. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g006
Foods 12 02615 g007 550
Figure 7. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Figure 7. The DIZ values of TFs (10 mg/mL) against S. aureus (A) and S. paratyphi B (B) as a function of lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L). Different lowercase letters in (A,B) indicated significant differences among groups (p < 0.05).
Foods 12 02615 g007
Foods 12 02615 g008 550
Figure 8. Possible antibacterial mechanism of TFs against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [32,33,34].
Figure 8. Possible antibacterial mechanism of TFs against Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria [32,33,34].
Foods 12 02615 g008
Foods 12 02615 g009 550
Figure 9. Effect of pH (2–8), NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L), sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L), and lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L) with (A–E) and without (F–J) TFs on the inhibition zone appearance from S. aureus.
Figure 9. Effect of pH (2–8), NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L), sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L), and lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L) with (A–E) and without (F–J) TFs on the inhibition zone appearance from S. aureus.
Foods 12 02615 g009
Foods 12 02615 g010 550
Figure 10. Effect of pH (2–8), NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L), sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L), and lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L) with (A–E) and without (F–J) TFs on the inhibition zone appearance from S. paratyphi B.
Figure 10. Effect of pH (2–8), NaCl concentrations (0–0.8 mol/L), sucrose concentrations (0–60 g/L), skimmed milk powder concentrations (0–120 g/L), and lecithin concentrations (0–12 g/L) with (A–E) and without (F–J) TFs on the inhibition zone appearance from S. paratyphi B.
Foods 12 02615 g010
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, J.; Shan, H.; Li, P.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Xu, J.; Li, S. Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins against Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella paratyphi B: Role of Environmental Factors and Food Matrices. Foods 2023, 12, 2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132615

AMA Style

Wang J, Shan H, Li P, Liu Y, Zhang X, Xu J, Li S. Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins against Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella paratyphi B: Role of Environmental Factors and Food Matrices. Foods. 2023; 12(13):2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132615

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Jun, Hongyan Shan, Ping Li, Yanan Liu, Xun Zhang, Jingguo Xu, and Songnan Li. 2023. "Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins against Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella paratyphi B: Role of Environmental Factors and Food Matrices" Foods 12, no. 13: 2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132615

APA Style

Wang, J., Shan, H., Li, P., Liu, Y., Zhang, X., Xu, J., & Li, S. (2023). Antibacterial Effects of Theaflavins against Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella paratyphi B: Role of Environmental Factors and Food Matrices. Foods, 12(13), 2615. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132615

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop