Impact of a pulsed electric field on damage of plant tissues: effects of cell size and tissue electrical conductivity.

Journal of food science · 2011 · Mixed · Low evidence

← Research stream
MixedLow evidencePaper 3268

Experimentally studied PEF-induced permeabilization in several plant tissues at 400 and 1000 V·cm(-1) with 1000 μs pulses; mean cell radius ranged 30–60 μm and σ(i)/σ(d) ranged 0.07–0.79. A direct correlation between damage efficiency and cell size was not al…

Study snapshot

PublicationJournal of food science · 2011
Study typeother
Reported directionMixed
Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

Efficiency of pulsed electric field (PEF) induced permeabilization at 293 K in selected fruit and vegetable plant tissues (apple, potato, carrot, courgette, orange, and banana) at electric field strength (E) of 400 V·cm(-1), 1000 V·cm(-1) and pulse duration (t(p)) of 1000 μs was studied experimentally. The mean cell radius (〈r〉) was within 30 to 60 μm, and the ratio of electrical conductivities of the intact and damaged tissues (σ(i)/σ(d)) was within 0.07 to 0.79 for the studied tissues. Electroporation theory predicts higher damage for tissue with larger cells; however, the direct correlation between PEF damage efficiency and size of cell was not always observed. To explain this anomaly, a theoretical Monte Carlo model was developed and checked for parameters typical for potato tissue. The model showed a strong dependence of PEF damage efficiency and power consumption (W) on σ(i)/σ(d) ratio. The optimum value of electric field strength (E(opt)) was an increasing function of σ(i)/σ(d), and plant tissues with high σ(i)/σ(d) ratio (σ(i)/σ(d) ≈ 1) required application of a rather strong field (for example, E(opt) ≈ 3000 V·cm(-1) for σ(i)/σ(d) ≈ 0.8). However, the PEF treatment at a lower field (E ≈ 400 V·cm(-1)) allowed regulation of the selectivity of damage of cells in dependence of their size. A good qualitative correspondence between experimental data and simulation results were observed.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typeother
Effect directionmixed
PopulationPlant tissues (apple, potato, carrot, courgette, orange, banana)
Sample sizeNot supplied
Exposurepulse duration 1000 μs; experiments at 293 K
Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

Experimentally studied PEF-induced permeabilization in several plant tissues at 400 and 1000 V·cm(-1) with 1000 μs pulses; mean cell radius ranged 30–60 μm and σ(i)/σ(d) ranged 0.07–0.79. A direct correlation between damage efficiency and cell size was not always observed. A Monte Carlo model (checked for potato-typical parameters) indicated strong dependence of damage efficiency and power consumption on σ(i)/σ(d), with E(opt) increasing with σ(i)/σ(d) (e.g., ~3000 V·cm(-1) for σ(i)/σ(d)≈0.8), while lower fields (~400 V·cm(-1)) allowed regulation of damage selectivity by cell size; experimental and simulation results qualitatively corresponded.

Outcomes measured

  • PEF-induced permeabilization/damage efficiency in plant tissues
  • Relationship of damage efficiency to mean cell radius
  • Dependence of damage efficiency and power consumption on conductivity ratio (σ(i)/σ(d))
  • Optimum electric field strength (E(opt)) as a function of σ(i)/σ(d)
  • Selectivity of cell damage by size at lower field strength

Limitations

  • Sample size not reported in abstract
  • Details of experimental design/replication and statistical analysis not provided in abstract
  • Monte Carlo model validation described qualitatively and appears checked for parameters typical of potato tissue only
View raw extracted JSON
{
  "study_type": "other",
  "exposure": {
    "band": null,
    "source": "pulsed electric field (PEF) treatment",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "pulse duration 1000 μs; experiments at 293 K"
  },
  "population": "Plant tissues (apple, potato, carrot, courgette, orange, banana)",
  "sample_size": null,
  "outcomes": [
    "PEF-induced permeabilization/damage efficiency in plant tissues",
    "Relationship of damage efficiency to mean cell radius",
    "Dependence of damage efficiency and power consumption on conductivity ratio (σ(i)/σ(d))",
    "Optimum electric field strength (E(opt)) as a function of σ(i)/σ(d)",
    "Selectivity of cell damage by size at lower field strength"
  ],
  "main_findings": "Experimentally studied PEF-induced permeabilization in several plant tissues at 400 and 1000 V·cm(-1) with 1000 μs pulses; mean cell radius ranged 30–60 μm and σ(i)/σ(d) ranged 0.07–0.79. A direct correlation between damage efficiency and cell size was not always observed. A Monte Carlo model (checked for potato-typical parameters) indicated strong dependence of damage efficiency and power consumption on σ(i)/σ(d), with E(opt) increasing with σ(i)/σ(d) (e.g., ~3000 V·cm(-1) for σ(i)/σ(d)≈0.8), while lower fields (~400 V·cm(-1)) allowed regulation of damage selectivity by cell size; experimental and simulation results qualitatively corresponded.",
  "effect_direction": "mixed",
  "limitations": [
    "Sample size not reported in abstract",
    "Details of experimental design/replication and statistical analysis not provided in abstract",
    "Monte Carlo model validation described qualitatively and appears checked for parameters typical of potato tissue only"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "pulsed electric field",
    "PEF",
    "electroporation",
    "plant tissue",
    "permeabilization",
    "cell size",
    "electrical conductivity",
    "Monte Carlo model",
    "food processing"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}
AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

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

Identifiers and source

DOI: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01893.x
PubMed: 21535680

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library