↓ Skip to main content

Dehydrated foods: Are they microbiologically safe?

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
136 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Dehydrated foods: Are they microbiologically safe?
Published in
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, May 2018
DOI 10.1080/10408398.2018.1466265
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bimal Chitrakar, Min Zhang, Benu Adhikari

Abstract

Dried foods are low water activity foods with water activity ranging from 0.03 to 0.7. They are commonly misconstrued to be inherently safe from food borne pathogenic bacteria. However, there are many reported cases where many food borne illnesses were caused by the consumption of dried foods contaminated with Salmonella spp., Cronobacter spp., Staphylococcus spp. and E. coli. In this work, we have systematically reviewed the literature dealing with the effect of drying/dehydration on the survival of pathogenic microorganisms with special focus on Salmonella spp. We have also reviewed and synthesized the literature dealing with the effect of drying process on microorganisms in dried vegetables, meat, fish, spices, mushroom and powdered foods. This review concludes that dried foods are not inherently safe microbiologically and required other hurdles to achieve microbial safety.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 136 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 136 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Researcher 7 5%
Other 6 4%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 59 43%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 26 19%
Engineering 10 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 4%
Unspecified 3 2%
Computer Science 2 1%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 74 54%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2021.
All research outputs
#14,388,641
of 23,045,021 outputs
Outputs from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#1,496
of 2,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,923
of 330,043 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition
#13
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,045,021 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.5. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,043 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.