Share
𝕏 Facebook LinkedIn

Effect of blue light at different wavelengths on the inactivation of foodborne bacteria: evaluation of microbial susceptibility.

PAPER pubmed Food microbiology 2026 In vitro study Effect: mixed Evidence: Low

Abstract

This study evaluated the effects of Blue light technology at different wavelengths (405, 420, and 450 nm) and doses (144-1000 J cm) on the inactivation of food-related bacteria: Escherichia coli, Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica, Pseudomonas fluorescens, Listeria monocytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, and Bacillus subtilis. Microbial responses varied with wavelength and dose. At the same dose, lower wavelengths achieved greater reductions. P. fluorescens and L. monocytogenes were the most susceptible (ca. 7.5 log CFU/mL reduction at 405 nm), while S. enterica was the most resistant (ca. 1.1 log CFU/mL reduction at 405 nm). Overall, 405 nm yielded the highest inactivation across all species, followed by 420 nm. At 450 nm, Gram (+) bacteria remained susceptible, indicating potential use in sanitation protocols, whereas Gram (-) bacteria were generally resistant, except for P. fluorescens. Blue light (BL) technology is an eco-friendly approach for bacterial inactivation in the food sector, leaving no residues and minimizing the risk of microbial resistance. These results can provide guidelines for selecting the wavelength and delivered dose to achieve microbial reductions, proposing the direct use of BL as a sanitization method in food processing.

AI evidence extraction

At a glance
Study type
In vitro study
Effect direction
mixed
Population
Sample size
Exposure
other other
Evidence strength
Low
Confidence: 78% · Peer-reviewed: yes

Main findings

Blue light at 405, 420, and 450 nm produced wavelength- and dose-dependent inactivation of multiple food-related bacteria. At the same dose, lower wavelengths achieved greater reductions; 405 nm showed the highest inactivation overall (e.g., ~7.5 log CFU/mL reduction for P. fluorescens and L. monocytogenes at 405 nm), while S. enterica was most resistant (~1.1 log CFU/mL reduction at 405 nm). At 450 nm, Gram-positive bacteria remained susceptible, whereas Gram-negative bacteria were generally resistant except P. fluorescens.

Outcomes measured

  • Bacterial inactivation (log CFU/mL reduction)
  • Microbial susceptibility by species
  • Wavelength- and dose-dependent response
View raw extracted JSON
{
    "study_type": "in_vitro",
    "exposure": {
        "band": "other",
        "source": "other",
        "frequency_mhz": null,
        "sar_wkg": null,
        "duration": null
    },
    "population": null,
    "sample_size": null,
    "outcomes": [
        "Bacterial inactivation (log CFU/mL reduction)",
        "Microbial susceptibility by species",
        "Wavelength- and dose-dependent response"
    ],
    "main_findings": "Blue light at 405, 420, and 450 nm produced wavelength- and dose-dependent inactivation of multiple food-related bacteria. At the same dose, lower wavelengths achieved greater reductions; 405 nm showed the highest inactivation overall (e.g., ~7.5 log CFU/mL reduction for P. fluorescens and L. monocytogenes at 405 nm), while S. enterica was most resistant (~1.1 log CFU/mL reduction at 405 nm). At 450 nm, Gram-positive bacteria remained susceptible, whereas Gram-negative bacteria were generally resistant except P. fluorescens.",
    "effect_direction": "mixed",
    "limitations": [],
    "evidence_strength": "low",
    "confidence": 0.7800000000000000266453525910037569701671600341796875,
    "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
    "keywords": [
        "blue light",
        "405 nm",
        "420 nm",
        "450 nm",
        "dose",
        "bacterial inactivation",
        "Escherichia coli",
        "Salmonella enterica",
        "Pseudomonas fluorescens",
        "Listeria monocytogenes",
        "Staphylococcus aureus",
        "Bacillus subtilis",
        "food sector",
        "sanitization"
    ],
    "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract/metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This content is for informational purposes only and is not medical advice.

Comments

Log in to comment.

No comments yet.