Next Article in Journal
A Novel Approach for the Production of Mildly Salted Duck Egg Using Ozonized Brine Salting
Previous Article in Journal
Cryoprotective Effects of Carrageenan Oligosaccharides on Crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) during Superchilling
 
 
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 11
10.3390/foods12112259
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:
Review

Minimally Processed Vegetables in Brazil: An Overview of Marketing, Processing, and Microbiological Aspects

by
Jéssica A. F. F. Finger
1,2,
Isabela M. Santos
3,
Guilherme A. Silva
4,
Mariana C. Bernardino
4,
Uelinton M. Pinto
1,2 and
Daniele F. Maffei
2,3,*
1
Department of Food and Experimental Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 05508-000, SP, Brazil
2
Food Research Center (FoRC-CEPID), Sao Paulo 05508-080, SP, Brazil
3
Department of Agri-Food Industry, Food and Nutrition, “Luiz de Queiroz” College of Agriculture, University of Sao Paulo, Piracicaba 13418-900, SP, Brazil
4
Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo 01246-904, SP, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(11), 2259; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112259
Submission received: 25 April 2023 / Revised: 30 May 2023 / Accepted: 1 June 2023 / Published: 3 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Food Microbiology)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The global demand for minimally processed vegetables (MPVs) has grown, driven by changes in the population’s lifestyle. MPVs are fresh vegetables that undergo several processing steps, resulting in ready-to-eat products, providing convenience for consumers and food companies. Among the processing steps, washing–disinfection plays an important role in reducing the microbial load and eliminating pathogens that may be present. However, poor hygiene practices can jeopardize the microbiological quality and safety of these products, thereby posing potential risks to consumer health. This study provides an overview of minimally processed vegetables (MPVs), with a specific focus on the Brazilian market. It includes information on the pricing of fresh vegetables and MPVs, as well as an examination of the various processing steps involved, and the microbiological aspects associated with MPVs. Data on the occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in these products are presented. The focus of most studies has been on the detection of Escherichia coli, Salmonella spp., and Listeria monocytogenes, with prevalence rates ranging from 0.7% to 100%, 0.6% to 26.7%, and 0.2% to 33.3%, respectively. Foodborne outbreaks associated with the consumption of fresh vegetables in Brazil between 2000 and 2021 were also addressed. Although there is no information about whether these vegetables were consumed as fresh vegetables or MPVs, these data highlight the need for control measures to guarantee products with quality and safety to consumers.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Regular consumption of vegetables plays an important role in human nutrition, due to their vitamins, minerals, and dietary fiber content [1,2,3,4,5]. The search for a healthy diet by the population has resulted in an increase in the demand for vegetables, including minimally processed vegetables (MPVs) [2,6,7,8].
In the present context, the term minimally processed refers to the use of one or more methods, techniques, or procedures to transform plant-derived foods into ready-to-eat (RTE) or ready-to-cook (RTC) products with an extended shelf life while maintaining the same nutritional and organoleptic (sensory) quality of fresh vegetables [6,9,10]. In general, MPVs can have a shelf life ranging from a few days to two weeks, depending on several factors, such as the type and quality of fresh vegetables, processing method, type of packaging, storage conditions, and the presence of spoilage microorganisms [9]. When performed in accordance with good manufacturing practices, minimal processing delays nutrient loss and undesirable changes in texture, color, flavor, and aroma of vegetables, apart from microbial spoilage [11]. This holds significant importance, as these changes can lead to a decreased shelf life of the products and increase the likelihood of rejection by consumers and markets [12].
A wide variety of vegetables can be processed into MPVs, including leafy greens (e.g., arugula, lettuce, and spinach), cruciferous vegetables (e.g., broccoli and cauliflower), root vegetables (e.g., carrots and beets), and cucumbers, among others. These MPVs products are often sold as salads or snacks. In other words, the possibilities are endless, and the choice of vegetables depends on factors such as availability, demand, and consumer preferences. The market for these products has grown in Brazil, reflected by the increasing presence of these products in supermarkets and grocery stores across the country. Studies have shown that MPVs are sought by a range of consumers, mainly individuals with high levels of education and income, who are primarily attracted to the convenience offered by these products [13,14].
The expansion of fast-food chains, restaurants, and meal-producing companies also contributes to the increase in demand for MPVs [15,16]. Minimal processing offers consumers and/or companies the advantage of obtaining fresh vegetables with good quality, providing convenience and practicality while enabling producers to add value to their products [2,5,7]. Moreover, these products contribute to reducing food waste, since they are sold in customized portions, packaged, and stored under conditions that help preserve their freshness and extend their shelf life, requiring less preparation time in households when compared to whole vegetables.
Despite the advantages associated with MPVs, studies carried out worldwide have detected the presence of pathogenic microorganisms in these products, while epidemiological data from some countries have shown an association between the consumption of vegetables (including MPVs) and foodborne outbreaks, as discussed in the “Microbiological quality and safety of MPVs” section. Fresh vegetables are typically cultivated in open fields and are susceptible to pre- and post-harvest contamination. Minimal processing can also contribute to contamination through poor hygiene or cross-contamination that can occur during washing and other steps [16,17,18,19,20,21,22].
While numerous studies on MPVs exist in the literature, there is a notable gap when it comes to comparing them to their fresh counterparts, particularly in terms of market aspects, including a comparative price analysis. Furthermore, there is limited research addressing the specific processing characteristics involved in MPVs production. Moreover, the available review papers on their microbiological aspects focus on pathogenic microorganisms, disregarding the importance of studying the occurrence of hygiene indicators, which is a critical aspect of an RTE/RTC product.
The aim of this review is to provide an overview of MPVs, focusing on the Brazilian market, processing steps, and microbiological aspects. Data on the occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in these products, as well as foodborne outbreaks associated with the consumption of fresh vegetables, are also presented. Although this study focuses on Brazilian data, information from other countries was also incorporated, mainly in the microbiological topic, to enable a comparison of the quality, safety, and microbiological criteria adopted for MPVs.

2. Market of MPVs in Brazil

In Brazil, the market of MPVs emerged in the mid-1970s with the expansion of fast-food chains in the southeastern region of the country, following a trend in the United States, where the market of these products started in the 1930s [15,16]. Currently, the increase in demand for these products seems to be a worldwide trend, resulting from the social, political, and economic changes that have changed habits and lifestyles [6,16,23].
The MPVs market has grown in Brazil over the past decades, driven by a lifestyle characterized by a reduced time for food preparation, as well as an increasing consumer demand for fresh and healthier products [16,24]. The presence of MPVs in supermarkets and grocery stores is steadily growing, particularly in large urban centers. A recent study conducted by Costa et al. [25] identified a total of 39 brands of MPVs being sold in the four most populous capitals located across different Brazilian regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and Southeast). Most of these brands (20; 51.3%) were found in the southeastern region; four were found in more than one region, and none of them were found in all regions. However, the authors observed that MPVs were not available in any of the establishments visited in the capital selected for the North region. Apart from being sold in supermarkets and grocery stores, these products have gained popularity among industrial kitchens, caterers, hospitals, and hotels, which look for convenience combined with a reduction in workforce, less waste generation, and faster preparation of meals [26].
In retail settings, MPVs are typically displayed on refrigerated shelves, often positioned in close proximity to fresh vegetables. However, it is worth noting that in many Brazilian establishments, fresh vegetables are commonly sold without refrigeration. Among the marketing strategies aimed at promoting these products, it is possible to highlight the use of distinctive packaging that emphasizes their freshness, along with labeling that communicates their sanitized status and the convenience they offer for immediate consumption [15]. Furthermore, some MPVs producers opt to conduct product tastings at retail, as well as distribute samples to food services and fast-food chains, as a strategy to introduce these products to potential commercial buyers.
Regarding costs, MPVs generally tend to be more expensive to consumers in comparison to fresh vegetables. This is expected because the processing and storage of MPVs incur additional costs that are passed on to the products. Nevertheless, to our knowledge, no Brazilian studies have conducted a market comparison of the price of these products. Therefore, the team of researchers of the current study visited six supermarket chains and two farmer markets in the city of Sao Paulo, southeastern Brazil, to gather the relevant data, as presented in Table 1. The range of available fresh vegetables in the visited markets was broader compared to MPVs. However, to fulfill the purpose of providing a price comparison for the same vegetables in both formats, the table includes only samples that allow for a direct comparison per 100 g of product. As predicted, MPVs were found to be more expensive, with a difference in price ranging from 142.8% to 803.4% compared to fresh vegetables.
High prices are identified as one of the most limiting factors for MPVs purchases among Brazilian consumers, as shown in previous studies. Sato et al. [27] conducted a survey with 42 individuals in the city of Sao Paulo, and 52% of the participants cited high prices as the primary reason for not purchasing MPVs. Similarly, Perez et al. [13] conducted a survey with 246 individuals in the city of Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais state, and found that high prices were indicated by 31.9% of participants as the main limiting factor for purchasing MPVs. More recently, Finger et al. [14] conducted an online survey with 1510 consumers in Brazil and found that out of the 685 MPVs consumers, 66.4% considered high prices as a negative aspect of these products.
Despite the higher prices, there is a segment of consumers and companies willing to pay more for the benefits that MPVs offer. The studies conducted by Sato et al. [27], Perez et al. [13], and Finger et al. [14] also examined the primary reasons for consumers purchasing these products, and convenience was consistently identified as the main motivating factor (88.9%, 46%, and 77.8%, respectively). In addition to being RTE, MPVs maintain the sensory and nutritional characteristics of fresh vegetables and contribute to the reduction of food waste, since the entire content is frequently used. For producers, minimal processing results in an increase in the product value and a reduction in losses during transport and storage. Moreover, by-products from minimal processing can be reused in the preparation of other foods, crop fertilization, and animal feed [16,28,29,30].

3. Processing of MPVs

The minimal processing of vegetables consists of several steps, including selection, cutting, washing–disinfection, rinsing, centrifuging, packaging, storage, transport, and distribution. Although some of these steps may alter the structure of vegetables, they do not alter their sensory and nutritional characteristics, resulting in fresh products that are typically RTE or RTC [10,11,16,31,32]. However, processing can increase the risk of microbial growth, since steps such as cutting and peeling may cause mechanical injury in vegetable tissues, exposing the cytoplasm and offering a nutrient source for microorganisms [9].
Since MPVs are usually eaten without the need for additional treatment (e.g., cooking) before consumption, minimum processing should include a step aimed at eliminating/reducing contaminants that may be present in fresh vegetables. Washing–disinfection plays an important role in this, as this step aims to remove dirt and debris, in addition to reducing the microbial load. The addition of sanitizers to washing water is important to reduce pathogenic microorganisms and especially to avoid cross-contamination between contaminated and non-contaminated products [16,33]. For instance, Maffei et al. [34] developed a quantitative microbiological risk assessment model to estimate the impact of cross-contamination during MPVs washing on the risk of salmonellosis in the population of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Their model showed that higher chlorine concentrations significantly reduced the risk of illness. Conversely, simulations using <5 ppm of free chlorine revealed that most predicted illnesses were attributed to cross-contamination, revealing the need for attention to control measures during the production of these products.
In Brazil, the use of chlorine in wash water is recommended for the disinfection of vegetables [35]. Studies conducted with MPVs processing plants and food services located in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil, have shown that sodium dichloroisocyanurate and sodium hypochlorite (both chlorine-based compounds) are the most frequently used products for the disinfection of vegetables [17,36].
Chlorine and chlorine-related compounds are widely used in several countries as disinfecting agents for decontaminating fresh vegetables and MPVs, since they are low-cost, easy to apply, and have a broad spectrum of antimicrobial action [16,37]. However, their efficiency is influenced by many factors, including water temperature, pH, amount, and type of organic matter, apart from the risk of forming by-products that are harmful to human health [10,16,37,38,39]. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the use of chlorine to disinfect vegetables is not recommended due to the risks involved. Chlorine can react with organic matter in vegetables to form harmful by-products such as trihalomethanes (THMs) and haloacetic acids (HAAs), which are potential carcinogens and can cause adverse health effects [40]. Consequently, several studies have questioned its efficacy, as its use has been insufficient in preventing previous outbreaks and recalls in the food industry [41].
Therefore, other methods for the disinfection of vegetables have been considered over the past decades, including the use of chlorine dioxide, electrolyzed water, hydrogen peroxide, ozone, organic acids, irradiation, ultrasound, ultraviolet light, and cold plasma, among others [9,16,38,42,43,44,45,46]. Other studies have explored the use of organic acids, such as acetic acid, lactic acid, and peracetic acid, as an alternative to chlorinated compounds [47,48]. Overall, these methods have shown promising results for the disinfection of vegetables, contributing to a reduction in the risk of foodborne illness by killing harmful microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites, with the advantage of not leaving harmful residues in the water or vegetables and with a low impact on the sensory characteristics of the products.
Once MPVs are sanitized, the adoption of control measures to preserve the quality and safety of these products is recommended, as they are packaged to be protected from damage and external contamination [15]. Cold chain is essential during the storage of these products, and the recommendation is to keep them between 1 °C and 4 °C [16,32]. The combination with other techniques, such as modified atmosphere or vacuum packaging, contributes to the delay or reduction of enzymatic reactions and microbial growth during storage, thereby maintaining the organoleptic properties and extending the shelf life of these products [4,11,16,19,32,44,49]. While the modified atmosphere is created by replacing the atmospheric air inside a package with a protective gas mix (mostly oxygen, (O2), carbon dioxide (CO2), and nitrogen (N2)), vacuum packaging consists of removing all oxygen from the package, which is sealed air-tightly [11,16,19,49,50].

4. Microbiological Quality and Safety of MPVs

Vegetables are usually grown in open lands, and they are prone to microbial contamination at pre and post-harvesting stages. The main sources of contamination during pre-harvesting include contaminated soil, fertilizer containing raw or poorly composted animal manure, irrigation water, and the presence of domestic and wild animals in the field. During post-harvesting, the main sources include contaminated equipment, containers, and vehicles, washing and rinsing water, as well as hygiene failures while handling, transporting, and storing fresh vegetables [4,18,19,20,51,52]. Therefore, vegetables contain microorganisms coming from environmental sources, including spoilage organisms and possible foodborne pathogens. According to Beuchat [53], all types of vegetables may harbor pathogens, although Shigella spp., Salmonella, enterotoxigenic and enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli, Campylobacter spp., Listeria monocytogenes, Yersinia enterocolitica, Bacillus cereus, Clostridium botulinum, viruses, and parasites are of the greatest public health concern.
Vegetables that undergo minimal processing go through several steps aimed at reducing the microbial load and eliminating pathogenic microorganisms. Nevertheless, failures during processing can lead to the contamination of MPVs. Contamination can arise from multiple sources, such as contaminated raw material, cross-contamination (particularly during washing), improper storage, and poor hygiene practices throughout the production chain. As can be observed in Table 2 and Table 3, several studies have evaluated the microbiological quality and safety of MPVs sold in Brazil and other countries. While some studies focus on the counts of hygiene indicator microorganisms, others include the investigation of pathogenic microorganisms, particularly Salmonella spp. and L. monocytogenes.
The presence of hygiene indicator microorganisms is crucial for assessing the microbiological quality of MPVs. Typically, these products undergo a disinfection step, and elevated microbial counts, such as generic E. coli, can indicate process failures. Out of the 33 studies presented in Table 2 and Table 3, a total of 21 (63.6%) reported the presence of generic E. coli, with counts ranging up to 8.5 logs CFU/g and 6.2 logs MPN/g. Other hygiene indicators frequently evaluated in these studies include counts of mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria, yeasts and molds, and Enterobacteriaceae, in addition to total and thermotolerant coliforms. The count ranges obtained for these microbial groups, according to the study, reached up to 10.6 logs CFU/g and 6.8 logs MPN/g. Although there is no established limit for most of these groups, it is known that high counts can indicate hygiene failures or even conditions permissive for microbial growth during storage. In addition, it can be noted that these studies focused on the determination of bacteria, with a lack of studies that evaluate the occurrence of viruses and parasites in MPVs.
Regarding pathogens, most Brazilian studies focused on the detection of Salmonella (50%), followed by L. monocytogenes (33.3%). In other countries, the search for L. monocytogenes is more frequent (52.4%), followed by Salmonella (28.6%). The prevalence of both pathogens in the MPVs samples ranged between 0.6–26.7% and 0.2–33.3% for Salmonella and L. monocytogenes, respectively. Other foodborne pathogens detected in smaller proportions (less than 30%) include B. cereus, C. perfringens, C. sakazakii, and Shigella spp. Conversely, a high prevalence of other relevant microorganisms was found in MPVs sold in some countries: A. hydrophila (55 and 46.1%) in Australia and Greece, respectively, Y. enterocolitica (59.2%) in Australia, and S. aureus (43.8 and 100%) in Brazil and Poland, respectively.
Among the 33 studies cited in Table 2 and Table 3, only two reported the occurrence of pathogenic E. coli in MPVs, one of which was carried out in Switzerland, with a positivity of 7.7% for enteropathogenic E. coli (EPEC) and 0.7% for Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC), and the other was carried out in Finland, with a positivity of 7.0% for STEC. Detecting pathogenic E. coli is known to be challenging due to various factors, including methodological limitations and genetic variability. Nonetheless, it is a field that deserves attention due to the increase in foodborne outbreaks caused by this bacterium. According to the WHO/FAO report entitled “Shiga toxin-producing E. coli (STEC) and food: attribution, characterization, and monitoring”, published in 2018, fresh produce (fruits and vegetables) accounted for the highest percentage (13%) of attributed sources of STEC globally, followed by beef (11%) and dairy products (7%) [84].
Overall, most studies cited in Table 2 and Table 3 are limited to the enumeration of hygiene indicator organisms and/or detection of bacterial pathogens using culture-dependent methods. These methods require the cultivation of microorganisms, i.e., they are usually laborious and time-consuming, and are thus capable of thoroughly depicting the actual microbial diversity present in a sample. In recent years, new techniques have emerged that enable the rapid identification of bacteria, such as mass spectrometry-based techniques. Additionally, there are approaches such as Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS) that allow for the identification of microbial communities [10,21,85,86,87].
Santos et al. [10] and Finger et al. [21] used the matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry (MALDI-TOF MS) to identify Enterobacteriaceae isolated from MPVs sold in Brazil. They found that the most frequent genera present in these samples were Enterobacter and Pantoea, both typical vegetable spoilers, although probably including species capable of causing opportunistic infections, mainly in immunocompromised patients. Tatsika et al. [86] used 16S rRNA gene sequencing to investigate the bacterial community composition of RTE salads at the point of consumption and the changes in bacterial diversity and composition associated with different household washing treatments. They found that Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum in the leaves of both RTE salads, with a high abundance of Enterobacteriales and Pseudomonadales, and that household treatments did not reduce the diversity of the microbial communities in these salads. Miralles et al. [85] used 16S rRNA sequencing to identify the bacterial community and the active bacterial fraction present in some of the most consumed and distributed RTE salad brands in Europe. They found Pseudomonas spp. as the most abundant and metabolically active bacteria in the analyzed samples. Manthou et al. [87] also used an NGS approach to decipher the bacterial communities associated with the spoilage of RTE rocket and baby spinach, and found that Pseudomonas spp. was the main spoilage group for both leafy vegetables.
Although there are several studies in the literature associating the occurrence of foodborne outbreaks with the consumption of contaminated fresh vegetables [16,88,89,90,91], there is a lack of studies showing this relationship with MPVs, despite the frequent occurrence of foodborne pathogens in these products. In Brazil, between 2000 and 2021, a total of 14,588 foodborne outbreaks were reported to the Brazilian Ministry of Health, including 266,247 ill individuals and 212 deaths. Among these, 153 (1%) outbreaks were associated with the consumption of contaminated vegetables, resulting in 3582 ill individuals and two deaths [91]. However, there was no information concerning whether these vegetables were consumed raw or as MPVs. Table 4 summarizes the main etiological agents and sites of occurrence of these vegetable-related outbreaks.
In the United States, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that 78 foodborne outbreaks linked to leafy greens were reported between 2014 and 2021. Among these, five were multistate outbreaks, of which two were linked to the consumption of packaged salads contaminated with L. monocytogenes (19 cases, 19 hospitalizations, and 1 death) and Cyclospora cayetanensis (511 cases, 24 hospitalizations, and no deaths). More recently, in 2019–2021, the CDC investigated and warned the public about nine multistate outbreaks linked to leafy greens, including six that were associated with contaminated packaged salads: two by E. coli O157:H7 (20 cases, 8 hospitalizations, and 1 death), two by L. monocytogenes (28 cases, 26 hospitalizations, and 4 deaths), one by Salmonella Typhimurium (31 cases, 4 hospitalizations, and no deaths), and one by Cyclospora cayetanensis (701 cases, 38 hospitalizations, and no deaths) [22].
Despite the diversity of microorganisms that can be found in vegetables, some microbial groups tend to be more prevalent and are more frequently involved in foodborne outbreaks. Therefore, regulatory agencies have defined microbiological criteria to guarantee the supply of safe products and to protect the health of consumers. Table 5 provides an overview of the microbiological criteria adopted in Brazil, China, the European Union (EU), and the United States (US) for assessing the microbiological quality and safety of MPVs. All entities establish guidelines for analyzing generic E. coli and Salmonella spp. as hygiene and safety indicators, respectively. For generic E. coli, China has the most stringent criterium (absence in 25 g), followed by the US (<3 MPN/g), Brazil (satisfactory below 10 and acceptable up to 102 CFU/g), and the EU (satisfactory below 102 and acceptable up to 103 CFU/g). For L. monocytogenes, the criterium is the absence of this bacterium in 25 g (in the US) or a maximum limit of 102 CFU/g (Brazil and the EU). Regarding Salmonella, irrespective of the country, the criterium is the absence of the pathogen in 25 g of a sample (Table 5).
The current strategies employed to mitigate bacterial contamination during the production of MPVs include the implementation of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) during primary production and Good Handling Practices (GHP) during post-harvest stages and processing. Producers may also adopt additional approaches to ensure the quality and safety of these products, such as the application of Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles and adherence to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 22000 standard. These measures, combined with other relevant strategies, aim to enhance the quality and safety of these products for consumers [8,32].

5. Conclusions

The growing market of MPVs seems to be a trend in Brazil as these products are commonly found in major urban centers throughout the country, and the demand for them from both consumers and food companies increases. While the convenience factor contributes to increased purchases of MPVs, the higher price compared to fresh produce limits their popularity among the population. Minimal processing involves a series of carefully controlled steps to produce ready-to-eat MPVs with an extended shelf life. These steps are crucial to ensure the quality and safety of the products. In addition, data on the occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in these products, based on the published literature, revealed that most studies focused on the detection of generic E. coli, Salmonella spp., and L. monocytogenes, often detected in MPVs. Finally, the records of foodborne outbreaks linked to the consumption of vegetables in Brazil highlight the importance of implementing control measures throughout the production chain to ensure the quality and safety of these products. These measures include Good Agricultural Practices in primary production and Good Handling Practices during post-harvest stages and processing, with an emphasis on the use of sanitizers during the disinfection step to eliminate microbial pathogens and prevent the occurrence of cross-contamination. Additionally, the cold chain is utilized to preserve the characteristics of these products and delay microbial growth.
The main limitations of this study were associated with the lack of available data on the international market for MPVs, particularly on prices and their relationship with fresh vegetables, which made it unfeasible to compare with the data obtained in Brazil. Additionally, it was not possible to standardize the microbiological results obtained from the studies cited in Table 2 and Table 3, as some presented a range of counts while others only presented the average count. Furthermore, it should be noted that there was no information available regarding whether the reported vegetable-associated outbreaks in Brazil were specifically linked to the consumption of fresh vegetables or MPVs. To advance research in this field, it would be valuable to conduct international collaborative studies that collect and compare data with the aim of gaining a comprehensive understanding of these products on a global level. Furthermore, conducting in-depth studies on vegetable-related outbreaks in Brazil would be of great interest to identify any potential involvement of MPVs in outbreaks.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, J.A.F.F.F., U.M.P. and D.F.M.; formal analysis, J.A.F.F.F., G.A.S. and M.C.B.; investigation, J.A.F.F.F., G.A.S. and M.C.B.; data curation, J.A.F.F.F., G.A.S. and M.C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, J.A.F.F.F., I.M.S., G.A.S. and M.C.B.; writing—review and editing, J.A.F.F.F., U.M.P. and D.F.M.; supervision, U.M.P. and D.F.M. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Brazil) provided funding through grant #2013/07914-8 to the Food Research Center.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the Food Research Center for its financial support. J.A.F.F.F. would like to acknowledge the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq, Brazil) for its scholarship. G.A.S. and M.C.B. would like to acknowledge USP’s Unified Scholarship Program.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Brasil. Ministério da Saúde; Secretaria de Atenção à Saúde; Departamento de Atenção Básica. Guia Alimentar para a População Brasileira, 2nd ed.; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2014; p. 156.
  2. Saini, R.K.; Ko, E.Y.; Keum, Y.S. Minimally processed ready-to-eat baby-leaf vegetables: Production, processing, storage, microbial safety, and nutritional potential. Food Rev. Int. 2017, 33, 644–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Maffei, D.F.; Silveira, M.A.; Silva, M.B.R.D.; Moreira, D.A.; Lourenço, F.R.; Schaffner, D.W.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Consumption data and consumer handling practices of leafy greens in the city of São Paulo, Brazil: Useful information for quantitative microbiological consumer phase risk assessments. Food Prot. Trends 2020, 40, 224–231. [Google Scholar]
  4. Mostafidi, M.; Sanjabi, M.R.; Shirkhan, F.; Zahedi, M.T. A review of recent trends in the development of the microbial safety of fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 103, 321–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Fruit and Vegetables—Your Dietary Essentials. The International Year of Fruits and Vegetables, Background Paper. Rome. 2021. Available online: https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CB2395EN (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  6. Alvarenga, A.L.B.; Toledo, J.C.D.; Paulillo, L.F.D.O. Qualidade e segurança de vegetais minimamente processados: Proposta de estruturas de governança entre os agentes da cadeia e os sinais da qualidade. Gest. Prod. 2014, 21, 341–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Vieira, S.L.V.; da Silva, I.C.P. Alimentos minimamente processados: Novo perfil de escolha do consumidor. Arq. MUDI 2017, 21, 26–38. Available online: https://periodicos.uem.br/ojs/index.php/ArqMudi/article/view/37199 (accessed on 10 January 2023). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Maldonade, I.R.; Ginani, V.C.; Riquette, R.F.R.; Gurgel-Gonçalves, R.; Mendes, V.S.; Machado, E.R. Good manufacturing practices of minimally processed vegetables reduce contamination with pathogenic microorganisms. Rev. Inst. Med. Trop. São Paulo 2019, 61, e14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. de Corato, U. Improving the shelf-life and quality of fresh and minimally-processed fruits and vegetables for a modern food industry: A comprehensive critical review from the traditional technologies into the most promising advancements. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 940–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Santos, T.S.; Campos, F.B.; Padovani, N.F.D.A.; Dias, M.; Mendes, M.A.; Maffei, D.F. Assessment of the microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed vegetables sold in Piracicaba, SP, Brazil. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2020, 71, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Velderrain-Rodríguez, G.R.; López-Gámez, G.M.; Domínguez-Avila, J.A.; González-Aguilar, G.A.; Soliva-Fortuny, R.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F. Minimal processing. In Postharvest Technology of Perishable Horticultural Commodities; Woodhead Publishing: Querétaro, Mexico, 2019; pp. 353–374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. de Corato, U.; Cancellara, F.A. Measures, technologies, and incentives for cleaning the minimally processed fruits and vegetables supply chain in the Italian food industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 237, 117735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Perez, R.; Ramos, A.M.; Binoti, M.L.; Sousa, P.H.M.D.; Machado, G.D.M.; Cruz, I.B. Perfil dos consumidores de hortaliças minimamente processadas de Belo Horizonte. Hortic. Bras. 2008, 26, 441–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Finger, J.A.F.F.; Costa, D.A.; Alves, V.F.; Baroni, W.S.G.V.; Malheiros, P.S.; Alves, E.A.; Maffei, D.F.; Pinto, U.M. Minimally Processed Vegetables: Consumer Profile, Consumption Habits, and Perceptions of Microbiological Risk. Food Prot. Trends 2023, 43, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Moretti, C.L. Manual de Processamento Mínimo de Frutas e Hortaliças; Embrapa Hortaliças: Brasília, Brazil, 2007; pp. 25–40. [Google Scholar]
  16. Sant’Anna, P.B.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Maffei, D.F. Microbiological safety of ready-to-eat minimally processed vegetables in Brazil: An overview. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 4664–4670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Maffei, D.F.; Alvarenga, V.O.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Assessing the effect of washing practices employed in Brazilian processing plants on the quality of ready-to-eat vegetables. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2016, 69, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fröhling, A.; Rademacher, A.; Rumpold, B.; Klocke, M.; Schlüter, O. Screening of microbial communities associated with endive lettuce during postharvest processing on industrial scale. Heliyon 2018, 4, e00671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Mir, S.A.; Shah, M.A.; Mir, M.M.; Dar, B.N.; Greiner, R.; Roohinejad, S. Microbiological contamination of ready-to-eat vegetable salads in developing countries and potential solutions in the supply chain to control microbial pathogens. Food Control. 2018, 85, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Machado-Moreira, B.; Richards, K.; Brennan, F.; Abram, F.; Burgess, C.M. Microbial contamination of fresh produce: What, where, and how? Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1727–1750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Finger, J.A.F.F.; Maffei, D.F.; Dias, M.; Mendes, M.A.; Pinto, U.M. Microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed parsley (Petroselinum crispum) sold in food markets, southeastern Brazil. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2021, 131, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). Center of Disease Control. Food Safety. Foodborne Outbreaks. 2022. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/foodsafety/outbreaks/index.html (accessed on 18 May 2023).
  23. Paoletti, F.; Raffo, A. Fresh-Cut Vegetables Processing: Environmental Sustainability and Food Safety Issues in a Comprehensive Perspective. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2022, 5, 681459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Nascimento, K.D.O.; Augusta, I.M.; da Rocha Rodrigues, N.; Pires, T.; Batista, E.; Júnior, J.L.B.; Barbosa, M.I.M.J. Alimentos minimamente processados: Uma tendência de mercado. Acta Tecnol. 2014, 9, 48–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Costa, D.A.; Finger, J.A.F.F.; Alves, V.F.; Baroni, W.S.G.V.; Malheiros, P.S.; Alves, E.A.; Maffei, D.F.; Pinto, U.M. Minimally Processed Vegetables: Consumer Profile, Consumption Habits, Perceptions of Microbiological Risk and Labeling. In Anais do 31° Congresso Brasileiro de Microbiologia: Brasil. 2021. Available online: https://sbmicrobiologia.org.br/31cbm-anais/lista_area_01.htm (accessed on 16 May 2023).
  26. Embrapa (Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária Agroindústria Tropical). Processamento Mínimo de Frutas E Hortaliças: Tecnologia, Qualidade E Sistemas de Embalagem/Coordenador, Sergio Agostinho Cenci; Embrapa Agroindústria de Alimentos: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 2011; pp. 1–144. Available online: https://www.infoteca.cnptia.embrapa.br/bitstream/doc/907934/1/LivroProcessamentoMinimo.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2022).
  27. Sato, G.S.; Martins, V.A.; Bueno, C.R.F. Análise exploratória do perfil do consumidor de produtos minimamente processados na cidade de São Paulo. Inf. Econômicas 2007, 37, 63–71. [Google Scholar]
  28. Degiovanni, G.C.; Japur, C.C.; Sanches, A.P.L.M.; Mattos, C.H.P.D.S.; Martins, L.D.S.; Reis, C.V.D.; Vieira, M.N.C.M. Hortaliças in natura ou minimamente processadas em unidades de alimentação e nutrição: Quais aspectos devem ser considerados na sua aquisição? Rev. Nutr. 2010, 23, 813–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pena, F.L.; Paulo, K.H.; Soragni, L.; Duarte, L.T.; Antunes, A.E.C. Avaliação microbiológica de hortaliças minimamente processadas disponíveis no mercado e servidas em redes de fast-food e em unidades de alimentação e nutrição nas cidades de Limeira e Campinas, São Paulo, Brasil. Rev. Segur. Aliment. Nutr. 2015, 22, 633–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Melo, V.T.P.; Strasburg, V.J. Geração de resíduos na aquisição de vegetais in natura e minimamente processados por serviço de nutrição e dietética de um hospital público. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2020, 23, e2019069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Bansal, V.; Siddiqui, M.W.; Rahman, M.S. Minimally processed foods: Overview. In Minimally Processed Foods: Technologies for Safety, Quality, and Convenience; Siddiqui, M., Rahman, M., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; p. 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Castro-Ibáñez, I.; Gil, M.I.; Allende, A. Ready-to-eat vegetables: Current problems and potential solutions to reduce microbial risk in the production chain. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 85, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. López-Gálvez, F.; Gil, M.I.; Truchado, P.; Selma, M.V.; Allende, A. Cross-contamination of fresh-cut lettuce after a short-term exposure during pre-washing cannot be controlled after subsequent washing with chlorine dioxide or sodium hypochlorite. Food Microbiol. 2010, 27, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Maffei, D.F.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Schaffner, D.W. Quantitative assessment of the impact of cross-contamination during the washing step of ready-to-eat leafy greens on the risk of illness caused by Salmonella. Food Res. Int. 2017, 92, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Paulo, S. Secretária do Estado da Saúde. Portaria CVS 5, de 09 de abril de 2013. In Aprova o Regulamento Técnico Sobre Boas Práticas Para Estabelecimentos Comerciais de Alimentos e Para Serviços de Alimentação, e o Roteiro de Inspeção, Anexo; Diário Oficial do Estado de São Paulo: São Paulo, Brazil, 2013; pp. 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ferreira, M.R.; Santos, T.S.D.; Maffei, D.F. Assessing Brazilian food establishments’ hygienic handling of leafy vegetables and their microbiological quality. Acta Aliment. 2021, 50, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lee, W.N.; Huang, C.H.; Zhu, G. Analytical methods for conventional and emerging disinfection by-products in fresh-cut produce. Food Chem. 2019, 291, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Joshi, K.; Mahendran, R.; Alagusundaram, K.; Norton, T.; Tiwari, B.K. Novel disinfectants for fresh produce. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2013, 34, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Feliziani, E.; Lichter, A.; Smilanick, J.L.; Ippolito, A. Disinfecting agents for controlling fruit and vegetable diseases after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gadelha, J.R.; Allende, A.; López-Gálvez, F.; Fernández, P.; Gil, M.I.; Egea, J.A. Chemical risks associated with ready-to-eat vegetables: Quantitative analysis to estimate formation and/or accumulation of disinfection byproducts during washing. EFSA J. 2019, 17, e170913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  41. Yoon, J.H.; Lee, S.Y. Comparison of the effectiveness of decontaminating strategies for fresh fruits and vegetables and related limitations. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 3189–3208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Meireles, A.; Giaouris, E.; Simões, M. Alternative disinfection methods to chlorine for use in the fresh-cut industry. Food Res. Int. 2016, 82, 71–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Fan, X.; Huang, R.; Chen, H. Application of ultraviolet C technology for surface decontamination of fresh produce. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 70, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ma, L.; Zhang, M.; Bhandari, B.; Gao, Z. Recent developments in novel shelf-life extension technologies of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 64, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Balbinot Filho, C.A.; Borges, C.D. Efeitos da radiação UV-C em alface e maçã minimamente processadas: Uma revisão. Braz. J. Food Technol. 2020, 23, e2018321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, H.; Tikekar, R.V.; Ding, Q.; Gilbert, A.R.; Wimsatt, S.T. Inactivation of foodborne pathogens by the synergistic combinations of food processing technologies and food-grade compounds. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2110–2138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lepaus, B.M.; Rocha, J.S.; de São José, J.F.B. Organic Acids and Hydrogen Peroxide Can Replace Chlorinated Compounds as Sanitizers on Strawberries, Cucumbers and Rocket Leaves. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 40, 242–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Lippman, B.; Yao, S.; Huang, R.; Chen, H. Evaluation of the Combined Treatment of Ultraviolet Light and Peracetic Acid as an Alternative to Chlorine Washing for Lettuce Decontamination. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 323, 108590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Onwude, D.I.; Chen, G.; Eke-Emezie, N.; Kabutey, A.; Khaled, A.Y.; Sturm, B. Recent advances in reducing food losses in the supply chain of fresh agricultural produce. Processes 2020, 8, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Denoya, G.I.; Vaudagna, S.R.; Polenta, G. Effect of high pressure processing and vacuum packaging on the preservation of fresh-cut peaches. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 62, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gil, M.I.; Selma, M.V.; Suslow, T.; Jacxsens, L.; Uyttendaele, M.; Allende, A. Pre-and postharvest preventive measures and intervention strategies to control microbial food safety hazards of fresh leafy vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2015, 55, 453–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Maffei, D.F.; Batalha, E.Y.; Landgraf, M.; Schaffner, D.W.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Microbiology of organic and conventionally grown fresh produce. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2016, 47, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Beuchat, L.R. Ecological factors influencing survival and growth of human pathogens on raw fruits and vegetables. Microbes Infect. 2002, 4, 413–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Fröder, H.; Martins, C.G.; de Souza, K.L.O.; Landgraf, M.; Franco, B.D.G.M.; Destro, M.T. Minimally processed vegetable salads: Microbial quality evaluation. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 1277–1280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Silva, S.R.; Verdin, S.E.F.; Pereira, D.C.; Schatkoski, A.M.; Rott, M.B.; Corção, G. Microbiological quality of minimally processed vegetables sold in Porto Alegre, Brazil. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2007, 38, 594–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. de Oliveira, M.A.; de Souza, V.M.; Bergamini, A.M.M.; de Martinis, E.C.P. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat minimally processed vegetables consumed in Brazil. Food Control. 2011, 22, 1400–1403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Sant’Ana, A.S.; Landgraf, M.; Destro, M.T.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Prevalence and counts of Salmonella spp. in minimally processed vegetables in São Paulo, Brazil. Food Microbiol. 2011, 28, 1235–1237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Maistro, L.C.; Miya, N.T.N.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Pereira, J.L. Microbiological quality and safety of minimally processed vegetables marketed in Campinas, SP–Brazil, as assessed by traditional and alternative methods. Food Control. 2012, 28, 258–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sant’Ana, A.S.; Igarashi, M.C.; Landgraf, M.; Destro, M.T.; Franco, B.D.G.M. Prevalence, populations and pheno-and genotypic characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from ready-to-eat vegetables marketed in São Paulo, Brazil. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 155, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vasconcellos, L.; Carvalho, C.T.; Tavares, R.O.; Medeiros, V.M.; Rosas, C.O.; Silva, J.N.; Lopes, S.M.D.R.; Forsythe, S.J.; Brandão, M.L.L. Isolation, molecular and phenotypic characterization of Cronobacter spp. in ready-to-eat salads and foods from Japanese cuisine commercialized in Brazil. Food Res. Int. 2018, 107, 353–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cruz, M.R.G.D.; Leite, Y.J.B.D.S.; Marques, J.D.L.; Pavelquesi, S.L.S.; Oliveira, L.R.D.A.; Silva, I.C.R.D.; Orsi, D.C. Microbiological quality of minimally processed vegetables commercialized in Brasilia, DF, Brazil. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 39, 498–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Schuh, V.; Schuh, J.; Fronza, N.; Foralosso, F.B.; Verruck, S.; Vargas Junior, A.; Silveira, S.M.D. Evaluation of the microbiological quality of minimally processed vegetables. Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 40, 290–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  63. Santos, L.S.; Silva, L.V.; Lepaus, B.M.; São José, J.F.B. Microbial quality and labeling of minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Biosci. J. 2021, 37, 1981–3163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Szabo, E.A.; Scurrah, K.J.; Burrows, J.M. Survey for psychrotrophic bacterial pathogens in minimally processed lettuce. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 30, 456–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Abadias, M.; Usall, J.; Anguera, M.; Solsona, C.; Viñas, I. Microbiological quality of fresh, minimally-processed fruit and vegetables, and sprouts from retail establishments. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 123, 121–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Seo, Y.H.; Jang, J.H.; Moon, K.D. Microbial evaluation of minimally processed vegetables and sprouts produced in Seoul, Korea. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 19, 1283–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Xanthopoulos, V.; Tzanetakis, N.; Litopoulou-Tzanetaki, E. Occurrence and characterization of Aeromonas hydrophila and Yersinia enterocolitica in minimally processed fresh vegetable salads. Food Control. 2010, 21, 393–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Althaus, D.; Hofer, E.; Corti, S.; Julmi, A.; Stephan, R. Bacteriological survey of ready-to-eat lettuce, fresh-cut fruit, and sprouts collected from the Swiss market. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 1338–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Moreno, Y.; Sánchez-Contreras, J.; Montes, R.M.; García-Hernández, J.; Ballesteros, L.; Ferrús, M.A. Detection and enumeration of viable Listeria monocytogenes cells from ready-to-eat and processed vegetable foods by culture and DVC-FISH. Food Control. 2012, 27, 374–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Santos, M.I.; Cavaco, A.; Gouveia, J.; Novais, M.R.; Nogueira, P.J.; Pedroso, L.; Ferreira, M.A.S.S. Evaluation of minimally processed salads commercialized in Portugal. Food Control 2012, 23, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Eckert, C.; Burghoffer, B.; Barbut, F. Contamination of ready-to-eat raw vegetables with Clostridium difficile in France. J. Med. Microbiol. 2013, 62, 1435–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Kovačević, M.; Burazin, J.; Pavlović, H.; Kopjar, M.; Piližota, V. Prevalence and level of Listeria monocytogenes and other Listeria sp. in ready-to-eat minimally processed and refrigerated vegetables. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 29, 707–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Jeddi, M.Z.; Yunesian, M.; Gorji, M.E.H.; Noori, N.; Pourmand, M.R.; Khaniki, G.R.J. Microbial evaluation of fresh, minimally-processed vegetables and bagged sprouts from chain supermarkets. J. Health Popul. Nutr. 2014, 32, 391. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. Cerna-Cortes, J.F.; Leon-Montes, N.; Cortes-Cueto, A.L.; Salas-Rangel, L.P.; Helguera-Repetto, A.C.; Lopez-Hernandez, D.; Gonzalez-y-Merchand, J.A. Microbiological quality of ready-to-eat vegetables collected in Mexico City: Occurrence of aerobic-mesophilic bacteria, fecal coliforms, and potentially pathogenic nontuberculous mycobacteria. BioMed Res. Int. 2015, 2015, 789508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  75. Gurler, Z.; Pamuk, S.; Yildirim, Y.; Ertas, N. The microbiological quality of ready-to-eat salads in Turkey: A focus on Salmonella spp. and Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 196, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Nousiainen, L.L.; Joutsen, S.; Lunden, J.; Hänninen, M.L.; Fredriksson-Ahomaa, M. Bacterial quality and safety of packaged fresh leafy vegetables at the retail level in Finland. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2016, 232, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Abaza, A. Bacteriological assessment of some vegetables and ready-to-eat salads in Alexandria Egypt. J. Egypt Public Health Assoc. 2017, 92, 177–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Berthold-Pluta, A.; Garbowska, M.; Stefańska, I.; Pluta, A. Microbiological quality of selected ready-to-eat leaf vegetables, sprouts and non-pasteurized fresh fruit-vegetable juices including the presence of Cronobacter spp. Food Microbiol. 2017, 65, 221–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Bencardino, D.; Vitali, L.A.; Petrelli, D. Microbiological evaluation of ready-to-eat iceberg lettuce during shelf-life and effectiveness of household washing methods. Ital. J. Food Saf. 2018, 7, 6913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Hualpa, D.; Toledo, Z.; Meneses, M.A.; Feng, P. Microbiological Quality of Minimally Processed, Ready-to-Eat, Vegetables in Loja, Ecuador. Rev. Politec. 2018, 41, 45–50. [Google Scholar]
  81. Azimirad, M.; Nadalian, B.; Alavifard, H.; Panirani, S.N.; Bonab, S.M.V.; Azimirad, F.; Gholami, F.; Jabbari, P.; Yadegar, A.; Busani, L.; et al. Microbiological survey and occurrence of bacterial foodborne pathogens in raw and ready-to-eat green leafy vegetables marketed in Tehran, Iran. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2021, 237, 113824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Baraquet, M.L.; Camiletti, O.F.; Moretti, C.I.; Rodríguez, L.E.; Vázquez, C.; Oberto, M.G. Microbiological Status and Quality Traits of Ready-to-Eat Minimally Processed Vegetables Sold in Córdoba, Argentina. J. Food Qual. Hazards Control. 2021, 8, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Łepecka, A.; Zielińska, D.; Szymański, P.; Buras, I.; Kołożyn-Krajewska, D. Assessment of the Microbiological Quality of Ready-to-Eat Salads—Are There Any Reasons for Concern about Public Health? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. WHO (World Health Organization); FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). Shiga Toxin-Producing Escherichia coli (STEC) and Food: Attribution, Characterization, and Monitoring: Report; World Health Organization: Rome, Italy, 2018. Available online: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/272871. (accessed on 16 May 2023).
  85. Miralles, M.M.; Maestre-Carballa, L.; Lluesma-Gomez, M.; Martinez-Garcia, M. High-throughput 16S rRNA sequencing to assess potentially active bacteria and foodborne pathogens: A case example in ready-to-eat food. Foods 2019, 8, 480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Tatsika, S.; Karamanoli, K.; Karayanni, H.; Genitsaris, S. Metagenomic characterization of bacterial communities on ready-to-eat vegetables and effects of household washing on their diversity and composition. Pathogens 2019, 8, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Manthou, E.; Coeuret, G.; Chaillou, S.; Nychas, G.J.E. Metagenetic characterization of bacterial communities associated with ready-to-eat leafy vegetables and study of temperature effect on their composition during storage. Food Res. Int. 2022, 158, 111563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Jung, Y.; Jang, H.; Matthews, K.R. Effect of the food production chain from farm practices to vegetable processing on outbreak incidence. J. Microbial. Biotechnol. 2014, 7, 517–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Callejón, R.M.; Rodríguez-Naranjo, M.I.; Ubeda, C.; Hornedo-Ortega, R.; Garcia-Parrilla, M.C.; Troncoso, A.M. Reported foodborne outbreaks due to fresh produce in the United States and European Union: Trends and causes. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2015, 12, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Garner, D.; Kathariou, S. Fresh produce-associated listeriosis outbreaks, sources of concern, teachable moments, and insights. J. Food Prot. 2016, 79, 337–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Elias, S.O.; Decol, L.T.; Tondo, E.C. Foodborne outbreaks in Brazil associated with fruits and vegetables: 2008 through 2014. Food Qual. Saf. 2018, 2, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Ministério da Saúde; Secretaria de Vigilância em Saúde; Sistema de Informação de Agravos de Notificação. Situação Epidemiológica—Doenças Transmitidas Por Alimentos; Banco de dados 2000 a 2021; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2022.
  93. Ministério da Saúde; Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Instrução Normativa n 161, de 01 de Julho de 2022; Estabelece os padrões microbiológicos dos alimentos; Ministério da Saúde: Brasília, Brazil, 2022.
  94. CFS (Centre for Food Safety). Microbiological Guidelines for Food (For Ready-To-Eat Food in General and Specific Food Items). In Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Hong Kong. 2014. Available online: https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/food_leg/files/food_leg_Microbiological_Guidelines_for_Food_e.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2022).
  95. EU (European Union). Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, 338. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02005R2073-20200308&rid=1 (accessed on 10 January 2023).
  96. FDA (Food and Drug Administration). FDA Circular 2013-010-Food and Drug Administration Philippines. 2013. Available online: https://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2021/TBT/PHL/21_3930_00_e.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2023).
Table
Table 1. Prices of fresh vegetables and MPVs sold in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Table 1. Prices of fresh vegetables and MPVs sold in the city of Sao Paulo, Brazil.
VegetablesFresh Vegetables (BRL/100g)MPVs (BRL/100g)Price Difference
MeanMinimumMaximumMeanMinimumMaximumBRL (%)
Arugula1.880.780.798.725.3218.876.84 (463.8)
Cassava0.700.470.861.001.001.000.30 (142.8)
Escarole0.890.361.317.154.499.436.26 (803.4)
Kale1.580.594.003.882.004.502.30 (245.6)
Lettuce1.050.682.396.122.9911.325.07 (582.9)
Pumpkin1.020.302.001.552.102.100.53 (152.0)
Spinach1.831.662.005.654.616.003.82 (308.7)
Watercress1.051.051.056.716.247.985.66 (639.0)
Values expressed in Brazilian real (BRL).
Table
Table 2. Occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in MPVs sold in Brazil.
Table 2. Occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in MPVs sold in Brazil.
MicroorganismsNumber of SamplesRange CountsUnitReference
Total
n		Positive
n (%)
Total psychrotrophic bacteria133133 (100)1.0–6.0Log CFU/g[54]
Enterobacteriaceae133 (100)1.0 > 6.0Log CFU/g
Total coliforms133 (100)1.0–>6.0Log CFU/g
Thermotolerant coliforms133 (100)1.0–>6.0Log CFU/g
Salmonella4 (3)--
Listeria monocytogenes1811 (0.6)-–
Listeria welshimeri1 (0.6)--
Listeria innocua2 (1.1)--
Total mesophilic bacteria5656 (100)5.7–8.2Log CFU/g[55]
Total psychrotrophic bacteria 56 (100)6.9–8.2Log CFU/g
Thermotolerant coliforms56 (100)<0.5–4.0Log MNP/g
Escherichia coli8 (28.6)<0.5Log MNP/g
Oocysts of Eimeria 528 (15.3)--
Total psychrotrophic bacteria162157 (96.7)7.1–9.4Log CFU/g[56]
Total coliforms158 (97.5)--
Thermotolerant coliforms 107 (66)--
Escherichia coli86 (53.1)1.0–6.0Log MNP/g
Listeria6 (3.7)--
Listeria monocytogenes2 (1.2)--
Listeria innocua4 (2.4)--
Salmonella2 (1.2)--
Total coliforms 512512 (100)2.0–>6.0Log CFU/g[57]
Escherichia coli512 (100)2.0–5.0Log CFU/g
Salmonella4 (0.8)2.4–2.9Log CFU/g
Total mesophilic bacteria172172 (100)4.0–6.8Log CFU/g[58]
Total coliforms172 (100)1.0–3.7Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli10 (17.2)<1.0–3.5Log CFU/g
Listeria monocytogenes3 (1.2)--
Salmonella1 (0.6)--
Listeria monocytogenes51216 (3.1)1.0–2.4Log CFU/g[59]
Cronobacter3013 (43.3)--[60]
Total mesophilic bacteria3232 (100)4.0–8.0Log CFU/g[61]
Total psychrotrophic bacteria32 (100)4.0–8.0Log CFU/g
Total coliforms 32 (100)1.0–4.0Log MPN/g
Thermotolerant coliforms 32 (100)1.0–4.0Log MPN/g
Escherichia coli16 (50)--
Staphylococcus aureus14 (43.8)1.0–5.0Log CFU/g
Salmonella4 (12.5)--
Enterobacteriaceae10086 (25.9)5.2–6.8Log MPN/g[10]
Total coliforms100 (100)2.6–3.0Log MPN/g
Thermotolerant coliforms20 (20)<0.5–3.0Log MPN/g
Escherichia coli16 (16)<0.5–1.9Log MPN/g
Salmonella1 (1)--
Total mesophilic bacteria2121 (100)2.4–7.4Log CFU/g[62]
Total coliforms 9 (37.5)0.5–>3.0Log MPN/g
Thermotolerant coliforms 1 (4.1)<0.5–2.3Log MPN/g
Staphylococcus21 (100)<2.0–7.2Log CFU/g
Yeasts and molds21 (100)2.7–5.7Log CFU/g
Enterobacteriaceae100100 (100)-CFU/g[21]
Escherichia coli3 (3)--
Listeria innocua2 (2)--
Listeria fleischmannii1 (1)--
Total mesophilic bacteria3030 (100)4.3–>6.3Log CFU/g[63]
Total coliforms30 (100)4.0–>6.3Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli4 (13.3)3.0–3.6Log CFU/g
Yeasts and molds30 (100)3.4–>6.3Log CFU/g
Table
Table 3. Occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in MPVs sold around the world.
Table 3. Occurrence of hygiene indicators and pathogenic microorganisms in MPVs sold around the world.
CountryMicroorganismsNumber of
Samples		Range
Counts		UnitReference
TotalPositive
nn (%)
AustraliaTotal psychrotrophic bacteria120120 (100)3.0–9.0Log CFU/g[64]
Aeromonas hydrophila or A. caviae66 (55)--
Aeromonas sobria14 (12.7)--
Listeria monocytogenes3 (2.5)--
Yersinia enterocolitica71 (59.2)--
SpainTotal mesophilic bacteria236236 (100)4.3–8.9Log CFU/g[65]
Total psychrotrophic bacteria236 (100)4.3–8.9Log CFU/g
Lactic acid bacteria236 (100)<1.0–8.5Log CFU/g
Enterobacteriaceae236 (100)<1.0–8.0Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli27 (11.4)--
Listeria monocytogenes2 (0.8)--
Salmonella4 (1.7)--
Yeasts and molds236 (100)2.0–7.8Log CFU/g
KoreaTotal mesophilic bacteria159159 (100)4.2–8.9Log CFU/g[66]
Total psychrotrophic bacteria159 (100)3.2–8.5Log CFU/g
Total coliforms159 (100)2.2–8.2Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli7 (4.4)--
Clostridium perfringens6 (3.7)--
Salmonella2 (1.2)--
Yeasts and molds159 (100)1.7–7.5Log CFU/g
GreeceTotal mesophilic bacteria2626 (100)5.4–8.6Log CFU/g[67]
Escherichia coli3 (11.5)--
Aeromonas16 (61.5)--
Aeromonas hydrophila12 (46.1)--
Yersinia enterocolitica2 (7.7)--
Yeasts and molds26 (100)<3.0Log CFU/g
SwitzerlandTotal viable count142142 (100)5.0–>8.0Log CFU/g[68]
Cronobacter2 (1.4)--
Escherichia coli (EPEC)11 (7.7)<2.0–3.0Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli (STEC)1 (0.7)<2.0Log CFU/g
Listeria monocytogenes5 (3.5)<2.0Log CFU/g
SpainListeria monocytogenes1918 (4.2)<100.0CFU/g[69]
PortugalTotal psychrotrophic bacteria151151 (100)0.7–0.9Log CFU/g[70]
Enterobacteriaceae151 (100)2.0–8.0Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli4 (2.6)<1.0–2.3Log CFU/g
Listeria3 (2)<1.0–2.0Log CFU/g
Listeria innocua2 (1.3)2.0–2.3Log CFU/g
Listeria monocytogenes1 (0.7)<2.0Log CFU/g
Aeromonas hydrophila11 (7.3)3.1–5.1Log CFU/g
Bacillus cereus6615 (22.7)<2.0–3.2Log CFU/g
FranceClostridium difficile1043 (2.9)--[71]
CroatiaListeria monocytogenes1001 (1)1.8Log CFU/g[72]
Listeria20 (20)--
IranTotal mesophilic bacteria3232 (100)5.3–7.5Log CFU/g[73]
Total coliforms28 (87.5)ND *–5.5Log CFU/g
Thermotolerant coliforms11 (34.4)--
Escherichia coli3 (9.4)--
Yeasts and molds32 (100)5.4–7.6Log CFU/g
MexicoTotal mesophilic bacteria100100 (100)3.0–6.6Log CFU/g[74]
Total coliforms96 (100)<0.5–>3.0Log NMP/g
Thermotolerant coliforms32 (32)<0.5–>3.0Log NMP/g
Nontuberculous mycobacteria7 (7)--
TurkeyTotal psychrotrophic bacteria261235 (90)2.0–> 6.0Log CFU/g[75]
Total coliforms155 (59.3)>0.5Log NMP/g
Escherichia coli10 (3.8)>0.5Log NMP/g
Listeria monocytogenes15 (5.7)--
Listeria ivanovi14 (5.3)--
Listeria grayi21 (8)--
Listeria welshimeri23 (8.8)--
Salmonella21 (8)--
FinlandTotal mesophilic bacteria100100 (100)6.2–10.6Log CFU/g[76]
Total coliforms100 (100)4.2–8.3Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli15 (15)--
Escherichia coli (STEC)7 (7)--
Listeria4 (4)--
Listeria monocytogenes2 (2)--
Yersinia33 (33)--
Yersinia enterocolitica3 (3)--
Salmonella2 (2)--
EgyptTotal mesophilic bacteria5010 (35.7)3.8–9.4Log CFU/g[77]
Total coliforms33 (66)--
Thermotolerant coliforms33 (66)--
Escherichia coli4 (18.2)--
PolandTotal mesophilic bacteria2020 (100)5.6–7.6Log CFU/g[78]
Cronobacter6 (35)--
Cronobacter sakazakii3 (15)--
ItalyTotal mesophilic bacteria7878 (100)6.0–9.2Log CFU/g[79]
EcuadorTotal mesophilic bacteria6060 (100)4.5–7.8Log CFU/g[80]
Total coliforms60 (100)0.4–>5.0Log MNP/g
Escherichia coli13 (21.7)<0.8Log MNP/g
CanadaListeria monocytogenes537913 (0.2)--[46]
IranEscherichia coli9228 (30.4)--[81]
Clostridium perfringens8 (8.7)--
Bacillus cereus10 (10.9)--
Listeria monocytogenes4 (4.3)--
Staphylococcus aureus18 (19.6)--
Pseudomonas aeruginosa4 (4.3)--
Shigella2 (2.2)--
Salmonella3 (3.3)--
ArgentinaTotal coliforms6060 (100)1.3–3.3Log MPN/g[82]
Thermotolerant coliforms60 (100)0.3–1.9Log MPN/g
Escherichia coli15 (25)3.4–8.4Log CFU/g
Staphylococcus aureus3 (5)--
PolandTotal mesophilic bacteria3030 (100)2.3–9.3Log CFU/g[83]
Enterobacteriaceae30 (100)<1.0–7.4Log CFU/g
Escherichia coli30 (100)<1.0–5.5Log CFU/g
Staphylococcus aureus30 (100)<1.0–3.5Log CFU/g
Lactic acid bacteria30 (100)<1.0–8.4Log CFU/g
Listeria monocytogenes10 (33.3)--
Salmonella8 (26.7)--
Yeasts and molds30 (100)<1.0–7.0Log CFU/g
* ND—not detected.
Table
Table 4. Etiological agents and sites of occurrence of foodborne outbreaks linked to vegetables in Brazil between 2000 and 2021.
Table 4. Etiological agents and sites of occurrence of foodborne outbreaks linked to vegetables in Brazil between 2000 and 2021.
Etiological Agents Outbreaks Sick
Individuals 		Dead
Individuals
n % n % n
Not identified 39 25.5 703 19.6 1
Escherichia coli * 27 17.6 752 21 0
Salmonella spp. 25 16.3 681 19 0
Bacillus cereus 20 13.1 543 15.2 0
Staphylococcus aureus 14 9.2 515 14.4 0
Others 28 18.3 388 10.8 1
Total 153 100 3582 100 2
Sites of occurrence
Restaurants/bakeries 31 20.3 270 7.5 0
Homes 31 20.3 222 6.2 2
Other institutions (accommodation facilities, workplace) 29 19 1271 35.5 0
Others 62 40.4 1819 50.8 0
Total 153 100 3582 100 2
Source: [92]. * No information is given on whether the outbreak was caused by a pathogenic pathovar of E. coli.
Table
Table 5. Microbiological criteria for MPVs around the world.
Table 5. Microbiological criteria for MPVs around the world.
SourceCriteriaGuidelines
Bacillus cereusCampylobacter spp.Clostridium perfringensEscherichia coliListeria monocytogenesSalmonella spp.Staphylococcus aureusVibrio choleraeVibrio parahaemolyticusYeasts and Molds
Brazilian Ministry of Health
[93]		SatisfactoryN/AN/AN/A10102Abs/25 gN/AN/AN/AN/A
AcceptableN/AN/AN/A102N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Centre for Food Safety China
[94]		Satisfactory<103Abs/25 g<10Abs/25 gAbs/25 gAbs/25 g<20Abs/25 g<20Abs/25 g
Acceptable103–≤105N/A10–≤104N/AN/AN/A20–≤104N/A20–≤103N/A
European Union
[95]		SatisfactoryN/AN/AN/A102102Abs/25 gN/AN/AN/AN/A
AcceptableN/AN/AN/A103N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A
Food and Drug Administration USA
[96]		SatisfactoryN/AN/AN/A<3 *N/AAbs/25 g10N/AN/A102
AcceptableN/AN/AN/AN/AAbs/25 gN/AN/AN/AN/A104
Satisfactory: the microbiological status of the food sample is satisfactory. Acceptable: the microbiological status of the food sample is less than satisfactory but still acceptable for consumption. Values expressed as Colony Forming Units per gram (CFU/g) or * Most Probable Number per gram (MPN/g). Abs/25 g: absence in 25 g. N/A: not applicable.
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

Finger, J.A.F.F.; Santos, I.M.; Silva, G.A.; Bernardino, M.C.; Pinto, U.M.; Maffei, D.F. Minimally Processed Vegetables in Brazil: An Overview of Marketing, Processing, and Microbiological Aspects. Foods 2023, 12, 2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112259

AMA Style

Finger JAFF, Santos IM, Silva GA, Bernardino MC, Pinto UM, Maffei DF. Minimally Processed Vegetables in Brazil: An Overview of Marketing, Processing, and Microbiological Aspects. Foods. 2023; 12(11):2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112259

Chicago/Turabian Style

Finger, Jéssica A. F. F., Isabela M. Santos, Guilherme A. Silva, Mariana C. Bernardino, Uelinton M. Pinto, and Daniele F. Maffei. 2023. "Minimally Processed Vegetables in Brazil: An Overview of Marketing, Processing, and Microbiological Aspects" Foods 12, no. 11: 2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112259

APA Style

Finger, J. A. F. F., Santos, I. M., Silva, G. A., Bernardino, M. C., Pinto, U. M., & Maffei, D. F. (2023). Minimally Processed Vegetables in Brazil: An Overview of Marketing, Processing, and Microbiological Aspects. Foods, 12(11), 2259. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12112259

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
  NODES
admin 5
Association 3
chat 3
COMMUNITY 2
Idea 2
idea 2
innovation 2
INTERN 34
Note 11
Project 1
twitter 1