Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ifset

Mapping trends in novel and emerging food processing technologies

around the world
Colette Jermann a,, Tatiana Koutchma b,1, Edyta Margas c,d, Craig Leadley a,2, Valquiria Ros-Polski b,1
a
Campden BRI, Station Road, Chipping Campden, GL556LD Gloucestershire, United Kingdom
b
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Guelph Food Research Centre, 93 Stone Road West, Guelph, ON N1G 5C9, Canada
c
The University of Nottingham, Division of Food Sciences, Sutton Bonington LE12 5RD, United Kingdom
d
Bhler AG, Corporate Technology, CH-9240 Uzwil, Switzerland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper discusses novel technologies and their applications in the world. Two surveys were independently de-
Received 9 December 2014 signed and conducted by a North American (Survey 1) and by a European group (Survey 2). The respondents
Received in revised form 6 May 2015 were food professionals from industry, academia and government. The questions sought to identify novel tech-
Accepted 24 June 2015
nologies either applied now or with the potential to be commercialised in 510 years, commercialisation factors,
Available online 8 July 2015
associated regulations and limitations. In Survey 1, HPP (80%), microwave (88%) and UV (84%) were the main
Keywords:
technologies applied now and anticipated in the next 5 years. PEF was third instead of UV in Survey 2. The
Survey main drivers were higher quality products (94%), product safety (92%) and shelf life (91%). HPP and microwaves
Respondents were identied as main technologies now and in the next 10 years. There were geographical differences with
Novel and emerging food technologies North America nding UV and radiation, and Europe nding PEF of more importance now. Cold plasma and
Commercialisation PEF were anticipated to be more important in Europe in 10 years' time while HPP, microwave and UV remained
HPP more important to North America.
Microwave Industrial relevance: The emerging technologies mentioned in the survey have been developing since the early
UV light
20th century or before. However, they are not adopted on any large scale such as canning or heat pasteurisation.
Ohmic heating
This study was conducted on a worldwide scale to determine current uses for emerging technologies in different
Cold plasma
Power ultrasound food sectors. Some technologies are deemed of more commercial importance in certain countries than others.
Ozone HPP and microwave heating are the two main technologies currently on commercial applications. PEF is more
Dense phase carbon dioxide popular in Europe, especially the Netherlands where a commercial scale unit exists. On the contrary, microwave
PEF technology seems to be popular in all countries but the Netherlands. UV and radiation are more important in
Irradiation North America than Europe. Pressure and CO2 is only deemed to be of commercial importance in North America.
IR 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction a substantial amount of research to prove their pragmatic feasibility.

Growing industrialisation of food production, globalisation and
trade of food supply make food safety and extended shelf-life products
perhaps the most important issues for food and equipment manufac-
turers, retailers and consumers around the globe. More than two de-
cades ago, novel food processing technologies that were based on high
tech or cutting edge advances started to emerge to address productivity
issues, extending product shelf life without affecting the nutritional
content, organoleptic attributes and product specications. Despite
some of the technological advancements developing since the early
20th century, their applications for foods are still in a phase that needs
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 1386 842000.
E-mail addresses: Colette.jermann@campdenbri.co.uk (C. Jermann),
Tatiana.koutchma@agr.gc.ca (T. Koutchma).
1
Tel.: +1 226 217 8123.
2
Tel.: +44 1386 842000.
Current limitations related to high investment costs, incomplete control
of variables associated with the process operation and lack of regulatory
approval have been delaying a wider implementation of these technol-
ogies on an industrial scale. The readiness and commercialisation level
of novel and emerging technologies varies both geographically and
among more than 20 available techniques.
Two surveys were independently designed and conducted to col-
lect opinions about commercial applications of novel and emerging
technologies, their development potential and to compare the level
of technology development around the globe in different countries
and continents.
In this article, the survey responses of food experts from different
parts of the world will be discussed and analysed with the aim of having
a better understanding of modern trends in food processing, the level of
commercialisation and the role that novel and emerging technologies
play in various geographical locations.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.06.007
1466-8564/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427
The principles of the various technologies encountered in the sur-
veys are explained below. They include high pressure processing,
pulsed electric elds, ultraviolet light, microwave heating, radiation,
infrared heating, ohmic heating, ozone, pressure and CO2, power ultra-
sound, cold plasma and electrolysed water.
High pressure processing (HPP) (Barba, Grimi, & Vorobiev, 2014;
Barbosa-Cnovas, Medina-Meza, Candoan, & Bermdez-Aguirre,
2014; Mjica-Paz, Valdez-Fragoso, Samson, Welti-Chanes, & Torres,
2011; Rendueles et al., 2011; Ros-Polski, Koutchma, Xue, Defelice,
& Balamurugan, 2015) is also called high hydrostatic pressure
processing, pascalisation or high pressure pasteurisation. It effectively
inactivates vegetative bacteria, yeast and moulds using pressures up
to 600 MPa at ambient temperature and can inactivate spores when
combined with high temperature (High Pressure Thermal Processing
(HPTP)). HPP retains most of the sensory and nutritional quality of a
liquid or solid, or chilled products. Its effect on enzymes is variable.
Pulsed electric eld (PEF) (Barba et al., 2014; Huang, Tian, Gai, &
Wang, 2012; Martn-Belloso & Sobrino-Lpez, 2011; Singh, Kumar,
Kumar, & Bhat, 2012; Terefe, Buckow, & Versteeg, 2015; Zhao, Tang,
Lu, Chen, & Li, 2014) involves the application of high voltage (typically
20 to 80 kV/cm) to foods placed or circulating between two
electrodes. It can be applied for different purposes, one of them
being as a preservation technology. Similar to HPP, it destroys veg-
etative bacteria, yeast and moulds but not spores and not many en-
zymes.
Ultraviolet light (UV) (Abida, Rayees, & Masoodi, 2014; Falguera,
Pagn, Garza, Garvn, & Ibarz, 2011; Gayn, Condn, & lvarez,
2014; Koutchma, 2009) produces a non-ionising radiation with
germicidal properties at wavelengths in the range of 200
280 nm. It can be used for surface treatment and as a non-
thermal alternative for uid foods and ingredients.
Microwave heating (MWH) (Barba et al., 2014; Barbosa-Cnovas et al.,
2014; Chandrasekaran, Ramanathan, & Basak, 2013; Datta & Rakesh,
2013; Kim et al., 2012; Ros-Polski, Schmidt, Marsaioli-Junior, Vitali, &
Raghavan, 2014; Venkatesh & Raghavan, 2004, 2005) refers to the
use of electromagnetic energy at the particular frequencies of
915 and 2450 MHz to generate heat in a food material. Contrary
to conventional thermal techniques, heat is generated volume-
trically throughout the product at faster rates. It can be used on
solid and pumpable foods. This includes uids containing large
particles.
Radiation (Alam Khan & Abrahem, 2010; Otto et al., 2011) in-
cludes irradiation by any of the three sources: gamma-rays, X-
rays or electron beams. They are often also referred to as ionising
radiations. Gamma-rays can penetrate the food but electron
beams have limited penetration depth.
Infrared heating (IR) (Raghavan et al., 2005) refers to the heating of
materials by electromagnetic radiation having a wavelength of 1.3
to 4.0 m (infrared radiation). It is based on the ability of materials
to absorb a certain part of the spectrum of such radiation. Deep or su-
percial heating of the irradiated body, as well as local drying without
heating the entire object, may be accomplished with appropriate
selection of the emission spectrum of infrared radiation.
Ohmic heating (OMH) (Sakr & Liu, 2014; Varghese, Pandey,
Radhakrishna, & Bawa, 2012), also known as Joule heating or resistive
heating, is a process where an alternating electric current is passed
through the food product. The electrical resistance of the food pro-
motes rapid generation of heat directly inside the food. Contrary to
conventional thermal techniques, heat is generated volumetrically
throughout the product. It can be used on solid and pumpable foods.
This includes uids containing large particles.
Ozone (O3) (Guzel-Seydim, Greene, & Seydim, 2004; Khadre, Yousef,
& Kim, 2001; Perry & Yousef, 2011) is a powerful broad-spectrum
antimicrobial with high oxidation potential. It has the potential to
be used instead of chlorine. Fruits and vegetables may be processed
15
either by dipping in ozonated water, washing in bubbling ozone
water, or by the application of gaseous ozone. It is approved by the
US FDA as a direct additive to food.
Pressure and CO2 (Martn-Belloso & Sobrino-Lpez, 2011; Otto et al.,
2011) is also called dense phase carbon dioxide (DPCD or DP-CO2),
liquid CO2, supercritical CO2 (SCCO2) or high pressurised carbon
dioxide (HPCD). It is a continuous, non-thermal processing system
for liquid foods that utilises pressure in combination with carbon
dioxide to destroy microorganisms as a means of food preservation.
Power ultrasound (Abbas, Hayat, Karangwa, Bashari, & Zhang, 2013;
Barba et al., 2014; Chandrapala, Oliver, Kentish, & Ashokkumar,
2013; Deora et al., 2013; Otto et al., 2011; Warning & Datta, 2013) is
a versatile technique using high power sound waves at low frequency
(about 20 kHz). Its various uses include emulsication, homogenisa-
tion, viscosity and texture modication, crystallisation seeding,
microbial decontamination, cleaning and extraction. It is mainly
used in uids and uids containing particles.
Cold atmospheric plasma (Misra, Tiwari, Raghavarao, & Cullen, 2011;
Otto et al., 2011; Smeu & Nicolau, 2014) (also known as cold plasma,
non-equilibrium, non-thermal plasma) have different electron, ion,
and neutral species temperatures. Such plasmas are good sources of
highly reactive oxidative and reductive species and plasma electrons.
Via these species, one can direct electrical energy into favourable gas
chemistry (like decomposing pollutants or fragmenting larger hydro-
carbons into smaller, more-easily combustible ones). It is researched
for use to decontaminate foods not suitable for chemical treatment
or with fragile surfaces.
Electrolysed water (Koseki & Isobe, 2007) (known as electrolysed
oxidising water, electro-activated water or electro-chemically acti-
vated water solution) is produced by electrolysing a weak salt so-
lution. This produces sodium hypochlorite, a disinfectant. Acidic
electrolysed water also exists and can be more efcient. This
water can be used to clean food preparation surfaces or decontam-
inate fruit and vegetables.
2. Material and methods
The two surveys were independently designed and conducted,
i.e., the respondents were not necessarily the same in both studies.
Survey 1 (conducted by North America) and Survey 2 (conducted by
Europe) are described in this section.
2.1. Survey conducted in North AmericaSurvey 1
The Food Safety Working Group (FSWG, http://www.cigr.org/
governance_work.html#FoodSafety) of CIGR in collaboration with
Guelph Food Research Centre of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada
(AAFC) developed a survey to collect the answers and opinions of food
professionals in terms of the role that novel and emerging food process-
ing technologies and innovations can play to address global food safety
issues and challenges. The survey consisted of a total of 18 questions.
Part of the survey contained questions to better understand the level
of the existing knowledge in combination with the factors that may ac-
celerate or slow down development of novel food processing. In this
survey eleven processing technologies were included in the list of
emerged or emerging processing techniques that during the last decade
have been tested for different food applications: High Hydrostatic
Pressure (or HPP), Pulsed Electric Field (PEF), Ultraviolet Light (UV),
Microwave heating (MWH), Radiation, Infrared heating (IR), Ohmic
heating (OMH), Ozone (Oz), Pressure and CO2, Power ultrasound (US)
and Cold Atmospheric Plasma.
The 18 questions were:
Q1: What processing technology has commercial application or
emerged in food production in your country?
16 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

Q2: What processing technology has been under research and devel-
opment in your country in the last 10 years?
Q3: What processing technology has potential to be commercialised
in 5 years?
Q4: What are the main drivers of commercialisation of novel
processing technology in your country?
Q5: What are the factors that negatively impact, limit or slow down
commercialisation of novel technologies?
Q6: What are the main drivers of innovation and novel processes in
your country?
Q7: What novel technology was implemented or has potential to be
implemented in meat and poultry industry in your country?
Q8: What novel technology was implemented or has potential to be
implemented in the dairy industry in your country?
Q9: What novel technology was implemented or has potential to be
implemented for fresh produce processing in your country?
Q10: What novel technology was implemented or has potential to
be implemented in drinks and beverage production in your country?
Q11: What novel technology was implemented or has potential to
be implemented in sh and sea product processing in your country?
Q12: What application of novel processing technologies led to inter-
est in their R&D in your country?
Q13: What other area of food processing has potential for applica-
tion of novel technologies in your country?
Q14: What regulations are available in your country?
Q15: Please point out the limitation of adopting of each of the
following technologies in your country.
Q16: Please tell us about yourself.
Q17: Please tell us your location.
Q18: What is your level of education?
Questions 1 to 15 were yes/no questions, in which several options
were given to the participants. These options are shown in the corre-
sponding gures.
The results from Survey 1 presented in percentage for each choice of
answer in questions 1 to 15 represent the percentage of yes answers
from the total replies to that question.
For question 7 to 11, when a score was below 50%, that technology
was considered to have less potential commercialisation for a particular
sector of production.
The answers were received from 87 respondents in North and South
America, Europe, Asia, New Zealand and Australia, and Africa. As shown
in Fig. 1, among the participants of the survey, 44% of respondents were
from North America (US, Canada and Mexico), 21% were form Europe
(total 11 countries), 14% from South America (3 countries), 9% from
Australia and New Zealand, and about 12% from Asia (3 countries) and
Africa (3 countries). Professionally, 46% of the respondents identied
themselves as industry professionals, working as CEO's and in the R&D
area; 37% represented academia; 13% of the answers have been associ-
ated with international government agencies and 4% were students.
2.2. Survey conducted in EuropeSurvey 2
Another shorter survey was conducted in parallel by Campden BRI
(UK). The survey comprised 6 questions. The goal of the survey was to
assess novel and emerging technologies being used now and which
have the potential to be of commercial importance in 5 or 10 years.
No technologies were suggested and the respondents were free to in-
clude any technologies for questions 1 to 5. The answers were received
from 52 respondents, mostly from Europe (75%, 9 countries). Seventeen
percent of responses were received from North America (USA and
Canada), 4% from Asia (India), 2% from Africa (1 country) and 2% from
Australia (Fig. 2). Most of the respondents were involved in the novel
and emerging technologies area and came from academia and industry.
The 6 questions were:
Q1: Please tell us your location
Q2: What do you consider to be the top 5 most signicant technolo-
gies in your country that are available NOW?
Q3: For each technology named in question 2, in your view what is
the main application?

38 Africa Participating continents

Aus and NZ
4%
9% North
Asia
America
8%
44%

South
Europe America
24 21% 14%

18

13
12
10
8
7
6
5
4 4
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
South America

North America

New Zealand
Netherlands

Burkina Faso

South Africa
Singapore

Aus and NZ
Argentina

Canada

Finland

Germany

Portugal

Australia
Europe

Kuwait
Mexico

Croatia

France

Poland

Japan

Nigeria

Africa
USA

Spain
Chile

Romania
Ireland

Sweden
Brazil

Asia

Fig. 1. Geographical locations of the respondents of the survey conducted by AAFC and FSWG.
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427 17

Participating Continents North

America 39
17%
AUS and
NZ
2%
Asia
4%
Europe
75%

Africa
2%

15

9
7 7
6
5
2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1

Fig. 2. Geographical locations of respondents of the survey conducted by Campden BRI.

Q4: What new technologies do you believe will be of most commer-
cial importance in your country in the next 5 years?
Q5: What new food technologies do you believe will be of commer-
cial importance in your country in the next 10 years?
Q6: Score the following technologies in order of commercial im-
portance in the next 10 years (MWH, OMH, Power ultrasound,
pressure assisted thermal sterilisation (PATS), HPP, cold plasma,
ozone, electrolysed water, pulsed light, pressure and CO2, UV
and radiation).
For question 3, the participants were not given any clues about the
application of novel and emerging technologies. This contributed to re-
ceiving many different types of responses based on either the type of
product which could be processed (meat, fruit, etc.) or the use of the
technology (pasteurisation, viscosity decrease, etc). For this reason,
the answers were separated in two groups: the ones related to the
type of product and the ones related to the effect of the technology.
These results are only indications as respondents interpreted the ques-
tion differently.
For question 6, the scores were either don't know, low Impor-
tance, neither important, nor unimportant, important and very
important. In order to simplify the results, a score was given to each
statement according to Table 1.
Based on the classication presented in Table 1, a total score was cal-
culated for each technology. Based on 52 respondents, the potential
maximum score was 104 and the minimum was 52.
Table 1
Numerical scores attributed to statements in question 6 (Survey 2).
Don't Low Neither important, Important Very
know importance nor unimportant important
Numeric scores N/A 1 0 1 2
2.3. Statistical analysis
The studies (Survey 1 and Survey 2) were conducted independently,
so they were statistically analysed separately. Eqs. (1) and (2) (Statistics
Canada, 2010), which involve the margin of error and condence level,
were used.
z2 p1p
n1 1
e2
N
n2 n1 2
N n1
where: z-value is a number related to the condence level, p is an
estimate of the proportion (considered 0.5), e is the margin of error
and N is the population size. Eq. (2) gives the number of respondents
needed to full the requirements of condence level and margin of
error accepted according to the target population size.
3. Results and discussion
In this section the results from both surveys will be presented and
discussed.
According to Eqs. (1) and (2) and considering a target population
food professionals related to novel technologies, which is estimated
to be around 510% of the professionals related to food, the statistical
signicance of the results from both Surveys 1 and 2 was assessed.
Survey 1 results are considered with 92% condence level (z-value
1.75) and 0.1 margin of error for the 87 respondents and Survey 2
with 85% condence level (z-value 1.44) and 0.1 margin of error
for the 52 respondents.
18 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

Fig. 3. Percentage of respondents indicating which technologies are commercial or emerging for food production in their countries (data from Survey 1) and percentage of respondents
indicating the most signicant technologies which are available now in their countries (data from Survey 2).

3.1. The current status of novel and emerging technologies
When respondents of Survey 1 were asked about processing tech-
nologies that have had commercial application or emerged in food
production in their countries, microwave heating was highlighted
by 88%, high pressure by 80% and UV light by 84% of total respon-
dents (Fig. 3).
In Survey 2, respondents were asked which technologies they con-
sider to be the top 5 most signicant technologies available now. They
were not given any indications about technologies or responses that
could be given. They were asked to name up to 5 technologies. In
order to quantify which technology was the most popular, the number
of times each technology was mentioned in Survey 2 was tallied and
ranked in total number of responses (Fig. 3). Out of 52 respondents in
Survey 2, 37 mentioned HPP as one of the top 5 technologies and this
was followed by microwave (18). Contrary to Survey 1, PEF was classi-
ed as third place and UV was fourth place. All respondents but one who
mentioned PEF were from Europe. This might be due to PEF having
commercial application in Europe and may be less publicised in other
countries. Ohmic heating also scored better in Survey 2 than in Survey
1 and, surprisingly, radiation was classied as fourth place in both
surveys. Radiation is generally not a popular technique in Europe,
mostly due to consumer concerns. This higher score might be due to a
large proportion of respondents outside Europe indicating radiation.
According to Survey 1, the technologies which have been under R&D
in the last 10 years were HPP (95%), microwave heating (94%), UV light
(89%) and PEF (88%) (Fig. 4). This is in line with the technologies having
a commercial application now (Fig. 3). PEF was mentioned as a technol-
ogy which was studied in the last 10 years, but it only appeared in 9th
place with 48% of positive responses for commercial application
(Fig. 3). A similar situation could be identied for power ultrasound,
which appeared in 8th place with 58% (Fig. 3), yet 84% of respondents
answered that power ultrasound had been in R&D in the last 10 years
(Fig. 4). This suggests research on PEF and power ultrasound is well
known about but not their commercial applications, although existing
and varied for power ultrasound. Other technologies scored similar in
both Figs. 3 and 4.
Similarly, when asked about the technologies which have potential
to be commercialised in 5 years, only 69% believed PEF had potential
for commercialisation and 65% believed power ultrasound had (Fig. 5).
The top 3 are still HPP, microwave heating and UV light (91%).
In Survey 2, respondents could suggest any ve technologies they
would nd relevant. To process the data regarding the new food tech-
nologies believed to be of commercial importance in the next 5 and 10
years, the number of times the technologies were mentioned in ques-
tion 4 and 5 was counted. The technologies which were looked at
were the ones mentioned in question 6 (MWH, OMH, Power ultra-
sound, PATS, HPP, cold plasma, ozone, electrolysed water, pulsed light,
pressure and CO2, UV and radiation). In total, these technologies were
mentioned 59 times out of a total of 97 responses for question 4 and
64 times out of a total of 93 responses for question 5.
For technologies with commercial importance in the next 5 years,
HPP, microwave and PEF occupied the same position as in Fig. 3 (most
signicant technologies available now). UV light scored higher in the

100
90 95%
94%
80 88% 89% 84%
70 82% 85% 88%
81% 78%
60
50 68%
40 89 82 75 75 69 68 67
30 65 62 61
20 45 52%
10 12
0
HPP

MW heating

PEF

UV light

Ultrasound

Radiation

Pressure & CO2

Ozone

IR heating

OM heating

Plasma

Do not know

Fig. 4. Percentage of respondents indicating which technologies were under research and development during the last 10 years (data from Survey 1).
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427 19

Fig. 5. Percentage of respondents indicating technologies with potential for commercialisation in the next 5 years (data from Survey 1) and technologies with the most commercial
importance in the next 5 years (data from Survey 2).

list so it may be considered of more commercial importance in the next improving efciency and optimising thermal processing (Shaka espe-
5 years than it is now (Table 2). cially) were predominant.
For the technologies with the most commercial importance in the
next 10 years, HPP remained at the top and PEF third, but cold plasma 3.2. Drivers for novel and emerging technologies
had taken second place instead of microwave technology. However, mi-
crowave technology remained at a high position in the list (4th). Pulsed In Survey 1, the main driver for commercialisation seemed to be bet-
light had also increased in the number of respondents. This indicated ter quality or added value on the products (94%), the solution of safety
that cold plasma and pulsed light were believed to not be ready now issues (92%) and improvement to product shelf life (91%) (Fig. 6).
or in 5 years for commercial utilisation but could be in 10 years. The Other drivers were an increase in product convenience (81%), a de-
other technologies remained at similar positions in Tables 2 and 3. crease in price or other increase in competitiveness or cost saving in
Other technologies mentioned were mostly based on enhancing running costs (79%), government or regulatory requirements (76%),
existing heat sterilisation processes (UHT, Shaka) and use of solving environmental or waste issues (61%), global trade (61%), avail-
radiofrequency. ability of funding (61%), results of basic research (61%) and high quality
The Shaka process involves a retort in which a reciprocating actuator of the equipment (53%).
shakes the baskets and their contents back and forth vigorously. This When answering about main drivers of innovations, equipment
causes thorough mixing of the food, increasing heat transfer. As a result, manufacturers (73%), academia and government research organisations
the heat process is shorter and a better product quality is retained. (82%) as well as large food corporations (81%) were selected as the
In question 6 respondents were asked to score a list of technolo- three key players who contribute in innovation in the food industry
gies according to their commercial importance in the next 10 years (Fig. 7). Equipment manufacturers and communication and knowledge
(Survey 2). transfer media also scored above 50%. However, consortiums, interna-
The rst three technologies in Table 4 were in accordance with tional organisations and medium and small size producers were
Figs. 3 and 5 on technologies available now and in 5 years. Respondents thought to be lower drivers for innovation in novel and emerging tech-
could also suggest technologies and their commercial importance. Out nologies with all of them scoring less than 50%. Knowing that many
of 52 respondents, 15 suggested technologies. Again radiofrequency large organisations are international, it was surprising that the interna-
applications, other non-thermal technologies (photosensitisation) and tional organisations did not score as high as large corporations. Regard-
ing consortiums, they are created to group organisations with a
Tables 2 and 3 common interest. This may show that innovation in novel and emerging
Technologies with the most commercial importance in the next 5 (left) and 10 (right)
years (data from Survey 2).
Table 4
Technology Number of Technology Number of Score for commercial importance of technologies in the next 10 years (data from
times times Survey 2).
mentioned mentioned
Technology Total score in question 6
HPP 18 HPP 19
Microwave pasteurisation 9 Cold plasma 10 HPP 59
or sterilisation Microwave pasteurisation or sterilisation 34
PEF 9 PEF 8 PEF 34
UV processing 6 Microwave pasteurisation 6 PATS 27
or sterilisation UV processing 24
Cold plasma 4 UV processing 6 Cold plasma 21
Ohmic heating 4 Pulsed light 4 Ozone 14
Ozone 3 PATS 3 Ohmic heating 12
PATS 2 Ozone 3 Pulsed light 8
Pulsed light 1 Power ultrasound 2 Irradiation 7
Irradiation 1 Ohmic heating 1 Other 4
Power ultrasound 1 Irradiation 1 Electrolysed water 1
Dense phase CO2 1 Dense phase CO2 1 Power ultrasound 1
Electrolysed water 0 Electrolysed water 0 Dense phase CO2 2
20 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

90
94% 92% 91%
80
70 79% 79%
60 81% 76%
69%
50 61% 61% 61%
40 80 79 53%
78
30 60 62 57
54 52
20 43 41 42
34
10 17%
0 2

Better quality/Added

Solution of safety issues

Product shelf life

Convenience

Price/Competitiveness

Cost saving -Water,

Government/Regulatory

Environmental issues,

Global trade

Funding

Results of basic

High quality equipment

Do not know
research
requirements
Energy
value

waste
Fig. 6. Percentage of respondents indicating the main drivers for commercialisation of novel technologies (data from Survey 1).

technologies is not as well communicated from consortiums and large and beverages, while HPP scored higher for most of the food sectors,
international organisations than from other sources. Maybe this is except for fresh produce. This can be explained by the nature and
because knowledge transfer organisations may be working for consor- characteristics of the products that make them more suitable for one
tiums and larger international organisations but, as they are disseminat- or the other technology. Microwave heating was the other technology
ing the results, they are more seen transferring knowledge rather than in this top 3. It scored better than 58% for all food sectors except for
the organisations they are working for. fresh produce (34%). This might be due to the fact that it is a thermal
technology and is not of interest for fresh produce manufacturers.
3.3. Implementation of novel and emerging technologies in different Ozone scored the highest for fresh produce (81%), sh and sea prod-
industries ucts (60%) and drinks and beverages (56%). Meat and poultry and dairy
scored similar (40 and 41% respectively). Ozone is a non-thermal tech-
In Survey 1 the implementation and potential for implementation of nique, so this could be why it was thought to have potential for imple-
the technologies of interest were assessed for different industries: meat mentation in fresh produce, sh and drinks. However ozone can
and poultry, dairy, fresh produces (including fruits and vegetables), oxidise the surface of the food. This results in discoloration, odours
drinks and beverages and sh and sea products. These categories com- and oxidative spoilage (Kim, Yousef, & Khadre, 2003). Meat was certain-
prise both non-ready-to-eat and prepared meals where they apply. ly not thought to be a possible implementation as ozone can accelerate
The results for the different application of technologies in different sec- surface oxidation which can result in undesirable colour changes in
tors (meat and poultry, dairy, fresh produce, drinks and beverage, and these products (Kaess & Weidemann, 1968). Ozone needed to be
sh and sea products) are rst interpreted by assessing each technology applied at higher doses to high ozone demand foods (such as meat).
to determine in which sector they are or have potential for implementa- This may have changed their sensory qualities (Khadre et al., 2001).
tion. In the second part, the results are interpreted by assessing which IR heating scored the highest in meat and poultry (71%) and drinks
technologies scored the highest for each food sector. The average and beverages (51%). Other sectors scored less than 49%. These results
score for each technique was calculated and they were ranked with did not align with the known applications of IR heating. There are no
the most popular on top (HPP) and in decreasing order going clockwise known uses on beverages but there are for meat. IR heating can be
(UV, then MW, etc.) (Fig. 8). used alone or in combination with another technology to improve
HPP and UV light scored higher than 59% for all of these sectors. This heat transfer in a food or drying efciency of a food (Sun, 2005). The fol-
should not be surprising as they were both in the top 3 technologies lowing current applications were found. It can be used in surface
which were commercialised for food production (Fig. 3) and with po- pasteurisation for RTE meats and almonds (Vicente & Castro, 2007),
tential for commercialisation in the next 5 years (Fig. 5). Comparing dry blanching and dehydration of potatoes, pre-dehydration of straw-
these two technologies, UV scored higher for fresh produce and drinks berries before freeze-drying, dry-roasting of almonds, simultaneous

80
70 82%
81% 73%
60 74%
50
40 59% 50%
70 62 50% 47%
30 53 56 34%
20 36 33
30 29
10 38% 21
0 6
Academia research

Large corporations

Government

manufacturers

knowledge transfer

Consortiums

organizations

Medium size

Other

Small size
producers
International

producers
Communication,
research

Equipment

media

Fig. 7. Percentage of respondents indicating the main drivers for innovation and novel processes (data from Survey 1).
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427 21

HPP Meat and Poultry

100 Dairy
Plasma UV
80 Fresh produce
Drinks and beverages
60
Fish and sea products
Ultrasound 40 MWH

20

0
CO2 Ozone

OMH IR heating

Radiation PEF

Fig. 8. Percentage of respondents indicating which technologies have potential for implementation of novel technologies in various food sectors (data from Survey 1).

drying and disinfestation of rice and tomato peeling (Pan & Atungulu,
2010). Other less known uses could be for baking goods, cooking of
meat and meat products and frying (Krishnamurthy, Khurana, Soojin,
Irudayaraj, & Demirci, 2008).
PEF scored highly for liquid foods. Drinks and beverages scored the
highest (75%), followed by dairy (63%). The other manufacturing sectors
all scored below 43%. PEF was one of the main technologies mentioned
to be under R&D in the last 10 years according to Fig. 4, so the respon-
dents were aware of the research advances in this area. This result
was not surprising as research indicates PEF works best on liquids. Re-
search carried on solid food such as beef burgers using PEF did not
show consistent or high decontamination results (Bolton et al., 2002).
However, another effect of PEF was to disintegrate animal cellular tissue
which can be used for purposes other than decontamination such as
marinating or curing of meat and sh (Singh & Kumar, 2011).
Radiation (gamma, x-rays and electron beams) scored high on fresh
produce (71%) and meat and poultry (67%). For the other sectors it
scored lower than 49% but sh and seafood was the highest followed
by drinks and beverages and dairy. This might be due to radiation
being more suitable for solid products. The best known applications
which were approved for use are for raw meat, fruit and vegetables,
and eggs and spices. However some research had shown its efcacy
on sh and oysters (Kamat & Thomas, 1998; Praveen et al., 2013).
Milk released off-avours when subjected to irradiation (Wertheim,
Roychoudhury, Hoff, Goldblith, & Proctor, 1957). For juices, enzymes
were not inactivated and moulds needed a high dose to be inactivated.
At such doses, the juices were releasing off-odours. This could be im-
proved by the addition of sorbic acid (Gould, 1996). The other factor
to take into account is consumer acceptance. Acceptance of irradiation
had been slowed by several factors. Firstly the term irradiation was
associated with radioactivity by consumers and this is perceived as
alarming. Second, the reasons for its use and the potential benets
were poorly understood by the general public as well as health profes-
sionals and the media. Finally, an anti-irradiation campaign had been
conducted by certain special interest groups because of their beliefs
about food production issues and nuclear power (Eustice & Bruhn,
2013).
Ohmic heating scored high in liquid products with drinks and
beverages (74%) followed by dairy (51%). Meat and poultry and
sh and seafood scored 40 and 47% respectively. It may be because
OH cooks the meat and sh while retaining a higher quality than in
conventional cooking processes but it still does not retain all the
characteristics of the raw materials. As a result, it may be thought
to be of promise for cooked meat or sh but not fresh, hence giving
an intermediate score for these industries. Fresh produce scored
the lowest with 27%.

HPP + PATS Meat & Poultry

12
Dairy
10
Ozone 8 MWH Fresh produce

6 Drinks and
4 beverages
Fish and Sea
2 products
Dry foods
0
Bakery
Radiation UV
Sauces, soups,
purees
Surfaces

Packaging
PEF OMH
Meals

Fig. 9. Amount of respondents indicating known uses for novel technologies (data from Survey 2).
22 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

80
91%
60 87% 86% 73% 69%
40 67%
62 88%
20 52 49 47 42 33 22
0

Other
Spices

Pulses
making

Canning
treatment

Dressings

Wine
Water
Fig. 10. Percentage of respondents indicating other potential areas for application of novel technologies (data from Survey 1).

Pressure and carbon dioxide is a non-thermal technique which
works best on liquid foods and is best known for this (Ferrentino &
Spilimbergo, 2011). This might explain why the drink and beverage
sector is the only one thought to be promising for commercialisation
of this technology (70%). For solids, treatment times were very long.
For instance, ground beef required 3 hours for a one log inactivation of
Escherichia coli but this would only take 1.7 min for phosphate buffer so-
lutions (Sirisee, Hsieh, & Huff, 1998). Furthermore, the meat appears
less red after processing due to myoglobin denaturation. Pressure and
carbon dioxide could however be used for other purposes than microbi-
al inactivation. It had been reported that this process can extract
cholesterol and lipids from meats (King, Johnson, & Friedrich, 1989).
Power ultrasound scored low generally. The highest score was for
drinks and beverages (50%). This might be due to one of the best
known commercial uses for power ultrasound: emulsication and de-
crease of foaming in beverages as well as cleaning of wine barrels.
Power ultrasound can also diminish microbial count in beverages
although efcacy is very dependent on the conditions and does not
give high log reduction (Ugarte-Romero, Feng, Martin, Cadwallader, &
Robinson, 2006). Power ultrasound can also be used for other purposes
such as viscosity decrease in dairy to produce powdered milk,
crystallisation of ice-creams and in combination with other processing
techniques to improve microbial and enzymatic inhibition (Patist &
Bates, 2008).
Cold plasma also scored low for all sectors with the highest scoring
sector being fresh produce with 43%. This might be due to the low devel-
opment of the technique and need for more research to understand the
technology. It was also not thought to be ready for commercialisation in
the next 5 years (Fig. 5). Another reason for the low score of this tech-
nology is that one of its main applications in food industry is for package
decontamination, which is not included in this question.
Technologies which were most seen to have potential for use in the
meat and poultry industry were the ones most adapted for use on solids
such as HPP, UV, MWH, IR heating and radiation. Ozone, PEF, OH, CO2,
power ultrasound and cold plasma scored low for use in the meat and
poultry industry.
For the dairy sector, techniques which promote lipid oxidation were
not looking promising for commercialisation (ozone, CO2). IR heating
and radiation are used for surface treatment of foods or surfaces so
was not of interest for the dairy sector. Power ultrasound is used in
the dairy sector for decreasing viscosity of the milk concentrate entering
the cyclone to produce powdered milk. HPP, UV light, MWH, PEF and
OMH all scored above 50%.
It seems that for fresh produce, technologies which are non-thermal
and can process big particles were the most popular. This conrms that
fresh produce manufacturers are interested in technologies which can
decontaminate fruit and vegetables non-thermally. They could poten-
tially replace decontaminating chemicals. Hence UV light scored the
highest with 86%, followed by ozone (81%), radiation (71%) and HPP
(70%), PEF, MW, IR heating, OH, carbon dioxide, power ultrasound,
and cold plasma all scored quite low.
For drinks and beverages, most techniques were thought to be
promising. Only radiation and cold plasma scored low. Radiation is a
surface treatment technology with some penetration depth but so is
IR heating which scored much higher. Low score for radiation might
be due to the general aversion to radiation due to consumer opinion.
Cold plasma does not have any application for uids and research is
still being carried out to develop the technology fully.
For sh and sea products, alternative heating techniques, such as
MWH, OMH, or non-thermal techniques, such as HPP, UV, Ozone, CO2,
seemed to be the ones thought to be the most promising for implemen-
tation in the next 5 years.
In Survey 2, conducted in Europe, the participants were not given
any clues about the applications of novel and emerging technologies.
This contributed to different interpretations of the question by the re-
spondents. For this reason, the given answers were separated into two
groups: the ones related to the type of product and the ones related to
the effect of the technology. Figs. 9 and 12 show this data. These results

Do not know 1 20%

Functional foods 46 67%

Novel Foods 49 75%

Sterilization 57 80%

Treatment of raw & semi-finished products 56 85%

Value added products 62 89%

Pasteurization 67 89%
Extension of shelf-Life 81 96%
Preservation 72 95%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Fig. 11. Percentage of respondents indicating which applications for novel technologies led to their interest in R&D (data from Survey 1).
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427 23

Other
Waste and cost decrease and sustainability
Safety improvement
Quality increase
Novel foods
Shelf life extention
Pasteurisation
Sterilisation
Preservation
Extraction

0 5 10 15 20 25

Fig. 12. Amount of respondents indicating known applications for novel technologies (data from Survey 2).

are only indications as they rely on how the respondents interpreted the
question.
Drinks and beverages scored high for being processed by PEF (10),
followed by HPP (7) and UV light (7). Ohmic heating was a technology
that was thought to be useful for sauces, soups and purees (5) and
beverages (4). UV light scored mostly on beverages (7). High pressure
processing scored well for the widest variety of products. The highest
score for this technology was for meat and poultry products (11),
followed by fresh products (10), drinks and beverages (7), meals
(7) and sh and sea products (6). Radiation scored low on all products
but so too did ozone, UV and ohmic heating.
For future potential areas of application (Survey 1Q13), 91% agreed
on water treatment, 87% for dressings, 86% for spices, 73% for wine mak-
ing, 69% for canning and 67% for pulses. 88% agreed that novel and
emerging technologies could lead to other areas of application (Fig. 10).
3.4. Applications of novel and emerging technologies
In Survey 1, the main application of novel and emerging processing
technologies that led to interest in their R&D was for decontamination
and preservation (Fig. 11): scores were 96 and 95% respectively for
shelf life extension and preservation purposes; pasteurisation was
next with 89% but sterilisation was only 6th with 80%. This may be ex-
plained with today's trend for minimal processing but also the strong
establishment of conventional heat treatment for sterilisation. More-
over, most novel and emerging technologies suggested cannot provide
a sterilisation effect (HPP, UV light, ozone, PEF, CO2, power ultrasound
and cold plasma). 85% led to interest from their application in the treat-
ment of raw and semi-nished products. This was certainly the case for
decontaminating without changing their raw appearance. Other appli-
cations which led to interest were for changes in the food structure,
quality or properties: 89% for value-added products, 75% for novel
foods and 67% for functional foods.
In Survey 2, the main known application for novel and emerging
technologies was safety improvement (Fig. 12). This was followed by
preservation purposes (pasteurisation and sterilisation). As for Survey
1, pasteurisation scored higher than sterilisation. The environment
was also considered with a waste and cost decrease and sustainability.
Contrary to Survey 1, shelf life extension scored lower. Other known ap-
plications were for creating novel foods and extraction but they scored
the lowest of all answers.
3.5. Legislation
It seemed that most respondents knew about various regulations
available as there was a high amount of yes answers (Fig. 13). This
does not certify they know about the regulations applying in their
own country but there is at least awareness about regulation of novel
and emerging technologies.
3.6. Limitations to their adoption
The previous section about implementation of novel and emerging
technologies to different industries shows clear benets to using these
technologies so why are they not more widely available? It seemed
that the biggest factor limiting their adoption is the cost of the equip-
ment (96%) (Fig. 14). The next limitation was the narrow range of
equipment available (64%), followed by no clear benets of using a
novel technology (59%). 58 and 53% respectively believed there is a
lack of information and training on novel technologies and 53% men-
tioned lack of regulation as a limiting factor to the adoption of novel
and emerging technologies. The previous section showed that there is

74
65 Yes
No

49 50

13 14
9
3

Food Additives Codex alimentarius GRAS Novel Foods

Fig. 13. Amount of respondents indicating awareness about regulations available (data from Survey 1).
24 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427

Other 15 65%

Lack of regulations 29 53%

Lack of training 28 53%

Lack of information 33 58%

No clear benefits 33 59%

Narrow range of equipment 36 64%

Equipment cost 70 96%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Fig. 14. Percentage of respondents indicating limitations for the adoption of novel technologies (data from Survey 1).

an awareness of regulations available. This may indicate that the current
regulations may be judged to not be enough.
The factors which limit the commercialisation of novel and emerg-
ing technologies were mainly thought to be economic (Fig. 15). It was
considered that installing a new technology requires a signicant in-
vestment (for 95%) with an increase in the product price (for 91%)
and a lack of funding (for 89%). In the same time, there was thought
to be a lack of regulatory approvals in place (for 80%) and to be high
risk (for 78%). The risk involved might be due to the need to understand
each factor inuencing the process. This might be linked to the next
factor which is the lack of scientic information (for 63%). Only 60%
thought the lack of training could be a limiting factor. The lack of quality
equipment was the lowest factor with 58%. It could be assumed that
existing equipment manufacturers are providing reasonable quality
equipment. Availability of quality equipment could be potentially
problematic if there is a low amount of key players in a eld and
hence lack of options.
3.7. Geographic specic interests in novel and emerging technologies
According to the results from this study, the information presented
in Fig. 16 may signal that geographically North America and Europe
remain the two largest continents for development of food processing
innovations. The interest in technologies and commercialisation
opportunities started catching up in South America especially in Brazil
with emphasis on HPP in meat processing. The market is taking off
and moving towards Asia and Africa. The international food community
seems to consider novel treatments as modern tools to improve safety
and solve global challenges in addition to shelf-life extension especially
in countries with warm climates and often under developed infrastruc-
ture and cold chain facilities. The level of processing technology
development and regulatory status achieved in North America and
Europe may accelerate their applications in the developing countries.
The results from this study point out the world trends and, as most of
the respondents were from North America and Europe, further more
comprehensive studies in other areas would be interesting to be
performed.
In Survey 2, the technologies were classied by availability in various
countries (Fig. 18) in the same decreasing order as in Survey 1 (Figs. 17,
18, 19). Regarding Figs. 19, as there were many respondents from the
UK, Netherlands and Spain, this data was separated from the ones ob-
tained from the other respondent countries in Europe. When the trends
were different in these countries compared to the whole of Europe, the
results were shown. The main technologies in North America were clas-
sied in the same order as in Survey 1 (HPP, MWH, UV). However, it
seemed that PEF and Ohmic heating are seen to be more commercially
used in Europe. The better awareness of PEF could be explained by the
fact that there are several industrial scale PEF units in the Netherlands
(Fig. 17).
UV light treatment seemed to be considered as more promising in
the next 10 years in North America than in other continents (Fig. 18).
In Europe, it rather seemed to be cold plasma which is seen as promising
in 10 years. This might be due to the fact that, although research in the
sector of cold plasma is carried out in both continents, it is more applied
to food in Europe. Respondents from Europe might hence be more
aware of this technique's potential future application in the food sector.
In Fig. 18 results for Australia and Asia might not be very representative
as there were only one and two respondents from these continents,
respectively.
Technologies which scored 0 do not appear visibly on Fig. 19. The
scores were calculated by dividing the results for Table 4 by the number
of respondents to give representative results for each continent. In

Do not know 2 22%

Lack of quality equipment 37 58%

Lack of training 41 60%

Absence of sufficient scientific information 46 63%

Risk 57 78%

Absence of regulatory approvals 63 80%

Lack of funding 74 89%

Increase in product price 75 91%

Investment need 83 95%

Fig. 15. Percentage of respondents indicating factors which negatively impact, limit or slow down the commercialisation of novel technologies (data from Survey 1).
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427 25

35 HPP

MW heating
30
UV
25 Radiation

Ozone
20
IR heating
15
Pressure and
CO2
10 Ultrasound

OM heating
5
PEF
0 Plasma
North America South America AUS and NZ Europe Africa

Fig. 16. Amount of respondents indicating which processing technologies emerged or have commercial applications in various continents (data from Survey 1).

30 HPP
MW heating
25
UV

20 Radiation
Ozone
15 IR heating
Pressure and CO2
10
Ultrasound
OM heating
5
PEF

0 Plasma
North America Europe Asia AUS and NZ

Fig. 17. Amount of respondents indicating which novel technologies are available now in various continents (data from Survey 2).

Fig. 19, they are ranked in the same order as in Table 4 (which showed
the technologies of commercial importance in the next 10 years in the
whole world).
HPP scored the highest for all regions involved in the study (Fig. 19).
The second place was shared by PEF, PATS or microwave depending on
the region.
The UK seemed optimistic about most technologies for applica-
tion in the next 10 years. The technologies which were thought to
be more important in the next 10 years were HPP, PATS, PEF and
ozone, in this order. The other technologies all scored in line with
the average.
For the Netherlands, pressure and CO2 was not considered to be of
commercial importance in the next 10 years. HPP and PEF were both
thought to be important technologies in the next 10 years and they
scored equal. The Netherlands have an industrial scale PEF process
and PEF-processed juices on the market and this might explain why
it is thought to be important. The other technologies were all scoring
intermediate scores.

14 HPP
12 PEF
10 UV
8 Microwave heating
6 Radiation
4 Infrared heating
2 Ohmic heating
0 Ozone
Pressure and CO2
Ultrasound
Plasma

Fig. 18. Amount of respondents indicating novel technologies of commercial importance in the next 10 years in various parts of the world (data from Survey 2).
26 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427
1.5
1 MWH
0.5
0
UK average Netherlds Spain
score average average
score score
-0.5
-1
Fig. 19. Scores for technologies of commercial importance in the next 10 years in various parts of the world (data from survey 2).
Spain scored the highest of all countries in terms of plasma, consid-
ered as one of the technologies of commercial importance in the next 10
years. However, in terms of all technologies, plasma was in fourth place
in Spain, after HPP, microwave and PEF. UV light was also considered as
important and comes in fth place. All the other technologies scored in
line with the average.
The other respondent countries in Europe as well as the total results
for Europe agreed on the technologies that will be of importance in the
next 10 years, i.e. HPP scores rst, followed by PEF and microwave. The
rest of the technologies scored in line with the average.
For North America, HPP, followed by microwave, PATS, UV light, ozone
and ohmic heating scored the highest in terms of commercial importance
in the next 10 years. The other technologies scored in line with the aver-
age. The existing regulatory approvals of HPP, PATS, ozone, MW and UV
technology may be an important factor in their faster commercialisation.
4. Conclusions
Both surveys agree on HPP and MWH to be the two main technologies
currently on commercial applications. The North American survey placed
UV on third position whereas PEF came third on the European survey.
The reasons why food industries turn to emerging technologies
are mainly for better quality or added value and to improve food safety
issues and product shelf life.
Technologies such as HPP and UV scored well for implementation or
potential implementation in all food industry sectors assessed. The
technologies which scored above 50% were (in decreasing order):
HPP N MWH N UV N IR N radiation for the meat and poultry sector
HPP N MWH N PEF N UV N OMH for the dairy sector
UV N O3 N radiation N HPP for the fresh produce sector
UV N HPP N PEF N OH N CO2 N MWH N O3 N IR N power ultrasound for
the drink and beverages sector
HPP N MWH N O3 N UV for the sh and sea food sector
The main applications for emerging technologies which led to their
interest in research and development were for preservation followed
HPP
PEF
PATS
UV
Plasma
Ozone
OMH
Pulsed light
Rest of EU EU average North Radiation
average score America
score average Electolysed
score water
Ultrasound
Pressure
and CO2
by shelf life extension and pasteurisation. The factor which clearly limits
the spread of emerging technologies is their cost. There is a good aware-
ness of the existing legislation on emerging technologies. However it
may be considered that current regulations are not sufcient to account
for potential development in the future.
Some technologies are deemed of more commercial importance in
certain countries than others. PEF is more popular in Europe, especially
the Netherlands where a commercial scale unit exists. On the contrary,
microwave technology seems to be popular in the other countries but
the Netherlands. UV and radiation are more important in North
America than Europe. Pressure and CO2 is only deemed to be of com-
mercial importance in North America.
The technologies mentioned in the survey have been developing
since the early 20th century or before. However, they are still not
adopted on a large scale like canning or heat pasteurisation. This study
was conducted on a worldwide scale to determine current uses for
emerging technologies in different food sectors. It points out trends
and factors affecting the actual implementation of those technologies
in industrial scale. The results obtained can guide future more specic
studies to be performed in different regions of the world.
Acknowledgement
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada for providing software and
website support, Food Safety Working Group, and survey respondents
around the world.
References
Abbas, S., Hayat, K., Karangwa, E., Bashari, M., & Zhang, X. (2013). An overview of
ultrasound-assisted food-grade nanoemulsions. Food Engineering Reviews, 5(3),
139157.
Abida, J., Rayees, B., & Masoodi, F.A. (2014). Pulsed light technology: A novel method for
food preservation. International Food Research Journal, 21(3), 839848.
Alam Khan, K., & Abrahem, M. (2010). Effect of irradiation on quality of spices.
International Food Research Journal, 17(4), 825836.
Barba, F.J., Grimi, N., & Vorobiev, E. (2014). New approaches for the use of non-
conventional cell disruption technologies to extract potential food additives and
nutraceuticals from microalgae. Food Engineering Reviews, 7(1), 4562.
 C. Jermann et al. / Innovative Food Science and Emerging Technologies 31 (2015) 1427
Barbosa-Cnovas, G.V., Medina-Meza, I., Candoan, K., & Bermdez-Aguirre, D. (2014).
Advanced retorting, microwave assisted thermal sterilization (MATS), and pressure
assisted thermal sterilization (PATS) to process meat products. Meat Science, 98(3),
420434.
Bolton, D.J., Catarame, T., Byrne, C., Sheridan, J.J., McDowell, D.A., & Blair, I.S. (2002). The in-
effectiveness of organic acids, freezing and pulsed electric elds to control Escherichia
coli O157:H7 in beef burgers. Letters in Applied Microbiology, 34(2), 139143.
Chandrapala, J., Oliver, C.M., Kentish, S., & Ashokkumar, M. (2013). Use of power ultra-
sound to improve extraction and modify phase transitions in food processing. Food
Reviews International, 29(1), 6791.
Chandrasekaran, S., Ramanathan, S., & Basak, T. (2013). Microwave food processingA
review. Food Research International, 52(1), 243261.
Datta, A.K., & Rakesh, V. (2013). Principles of microwave combination heating.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 12(1), 2439.
Deora, N.S., Misra, N.N., Deswal, A., Mishra, H.N., Cullen, P.J., & Tiwari, B.K. (2013). Ultra-
sound for improved crystallisation in food processing. Food Engineering Reviews,
5(1), 3644.
Eustice, R.F., & Bruhn, C.M. (2013). Consumer acceptance and marketing of irradiated
foods. In X. Fan, & C.H. Sommers (Eds.), Food irradiation research and technology
(pp. 173195) (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishing (Available: http://ucce.ucdavis.edu/
les/datastore/234-2467.pdf (accessed 26/09/2013)).
Falguera, V., Pagn, J., Garza, S., Garvn, A., & Ibarz, A. (2011). Ultraviolet processing of
liquid food: A review. Part 1: Fundamental engineering aspects. Food Research
International, 44(6), 15711579.
Ferrentino, G., & Spilimbergo, S. (2011). High pressure carbon dioxide pasteurization of
solid foods: Current knowledge and future outlooks. Trends in Food Science and
Technology, 22(8), 427441.
Gayn, E., Condn, S., & lvarez, I. (2014). Biological aspects in food preservation by
ultraviolet light: A review. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(1), 120.
Gould, G.W. (1996). Food irradiation: A reference guide. Woodhead Publishing.
Guzel-Seydim, Z.B., Greene, A.K., & Seydim, A.C. (2004). Use of ozone in the food industry.
LWT - Food Science and Technology, 37(4), 453460.
Huang, K., Tian, H., Gai, L., & Wang, J. (2012). A review of kinetic models for inactivating
microorganisms and enzymes by pulsed electric eld processing. Journal of Food
Engineering, 111(2), 191207.
Kaess, G., & Weidemann, J.F. (1968). Ozone treatment of chilled beef. International Journal
of Food Science and Technology, 3(4), 325334.
Kamat, A., & Thomas, P. (1998). Radiation inactivation of some food-borne pathogens in
sh as inuenced by fat levels. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 84(4), 478484.
Khadre, M.A., Yousef, A.E., & Kim, J.G. (2001). Microbiological aspects of ozone applica-
tions in food: A review. Journal of Food Science, 66(9), 12421252.
Kim, J., Mun, S.C., Ko, H.U., Kim, K.B., Khondoker, M.A.H., & Zhai, L. (2012). Review of mi-
crowave assisted manufacturing technologies. International Journal of Precision
Engineering and Manufacturing, 13(12), 22632272.
Kim, J.G., Yousef, A.E., & Khadre, M.A. (2003). Ozone and its current and future application
in the food industry. Advances in Food and Nutrition Research, 45, 167218.
King, J.W., Johnson, J.H., & Friedrich, J.P. (1989). Extraction of fat tissue from meat prod-
ucts with supercritical carbon dioxide. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry,
37(4), 951954.
Koseki, S., & Isobe, S. (2007). Microbial control of fresh produce using electrolyzed water.
Japan Agricultural Research Quarterly, 41(4), 273282.
Koutchma, T. (2009). Advances in ultraviolet light technology for non-thermal processing
of liquid foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 2(2), 138155.
Krishnamurthy, K., Khurana, H.K., Soojin, J., Irudayaraj, J., & Demirci, A. (2008). Infrared
heating in food processing: An overview. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science
and Food Safety, 7(1), 213 (Available: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.
1541-4337.2007.00024.x/pdf (accessed 26/09/2013)).
Martn-Belloso, O., & Sobrino-Lpez, A. (2011). Combination of pulsed electric elds with
other preservation techniques. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4(6), 954968.
Misra, N.N., Tiwari, B.K., Raghavarao, K.S.M.S., & Cullen, P.J. (2011). Nonthermal plasma in-
activation of food-borne pathogens. Food Engineering Reviews, 3(3-4), 159170.
Mjica-Paz, H., Valdez-Fragoso, A., Samson, C.T., Welti-Chanes, J., & Torres, A. (2011).
High-pressure processing technologies for the pasteurization and sterilization of
foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 4(6), 969985.
Otto, C., Zahn, S., Rost, F., Zahn, P., Jaros, D., & Rohm, H. (2011). Physical methods for
cleaning and disinfection of surfaces. Food Engineering Reviews, 3(3-4), 171188.
Pan, Z., & Atungulu, G.G. (2010). The potential of novel infrared food processing technol-
ogies. In C.J. Doona, K. Kustin, & F.E. Feeherry (Eds.), Case studies in novel food
processing technologies (pp. 139208). Woodhead Publishing.
27
Patist, A., & Bates, D. (2008). Ultrasonic innovations in the food industry: From the labo-
ratory to commercial production. Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies,
9(2), 147154 (Available: http://www.aseanfood.info/Articles/11021502.pdf
(accessed 26/09/2013)).
Perry, J.J., & Yousef, A.E. (2011). Decontamination of raw foods using ozone-based
sanitization techniques. Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, 2, 281298.
Praveen, C., Dancho, B.A., Kingsley, D.H., Calci, K.R., Meade, G.K., Mena, K.D., et al. (2013).
Susceptibility of murine norovirus and hepatitis A virus to electron beam irradiation
in oysters and quantifying the reduction in potential infection risks. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 79(12), 37963801.
Raghavan, G.S.V., Rennie, T.J., Sunjka, P.S., Orsat, V., Phaphuangwittayakul, W., & Terdtoon,
P. (2005). Overview of new techniques for drying biological materials with emphasis
on energy aspects. Brazilian Journal of Chemical Engineering, 22(2), 195201.
Rendueles, E., Omer, M.K., Alvseike, O., Alonso-Calleja, C., Capita, R., & Prieto, M. (2011).
Microbiological food safety assessment of high hydrostatic pressure processing: A
review. LWT - Food Science and Technology, 44(5), 12511260.
Ros-Polski, V., Koutchma, T., Xue, J., Defelice, C., & Balamurugan, S. (2015). Effects of high
hydrostatic pressure processing parameters and NaCl concentration on the physical
properties, texture and quality of white chicken meat. Innovative Food Science &
Emerging Technologies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2015.04.003 (Available online
on: 25/04/2015).
Ros-Polski, V., Schmidt, F.L., Marsaioli-Junior, A., Vitali, A.A., & Raghavan, G.S.V. (2014).
Rheological analysis of sucrose solutions at high temperatures using a pressurized
capillary rheometer. Journal of Food Science, 79(4), E540E545. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1111/1750-3841.12398.
Sakr, M., & Liu, S. (2014). A comprehensive review on applications of ohmic heating (OH).
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 39, 262269.
Singh, R., & Kumar, A. (2011). Pulsed electric elds, processing and application in food
industry. European Journal of Food Research and Review, 1(2), 7193.
Singh, P.K., Kumar, S., Kumar, P., & Bhat, Z.F. (2012). Pulsed light and pulsed electric eld-
emerging non thermal decontamination of meat. American Journal of Food Technology,
7(9), 506516.
Sirisee, U., Hsieh, F., & Huff, H.E. (1998). Microbial safety of supercritical carbon dioxide
processes. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation, 22(5), 387403.
Smeu, I., & Nicolau, A.I. (2014). Enhancement of food safetyAntimicrobial effectiveness
of cold plasma treatments. Annals of the University Dunarea de Jos of Galati, Fascicle
VI: Food Technology, 38(1), 920.
Statistics Canada (2010). Survey methods and practices. Online publication Minister of
Industry (www.statcan.gc.ca (accessed 04/04/2015)).
Sun, D.W. (2005). Emerging technologies for food processing. Academic Press.
Terefe, N.S., Buckow, R., & Versteeg, C. (2015). Quality-related enzymes in plant-based
products: Effects of novel food processing technologies part 2: Pulsed electric eld
processing. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 55(1), 115.
Ugarte-Romero, E., Feng, H., Martin, S.E., Cadwallader, K.R., & Robinson, S.J. (2006).
Inactivation of Escherichia coli with power ultrasound in apple cider. Journal of Food
Science, 71(2), E102E108.
Varghese, K.S., Pandey, M.C., Radhakrishna, K., & Bawa, A.S. (2012). Technology, applica-
tions and modelling of ohmic heating: A review. Journal of Food Science and
Technology, 51(10), 23042317.
Venkatesh, M.S., & Raghavan, G.S.V. (2004). An overview of microwave processing and di-
electric properties of agri-food materials. Biosystems Engineering, 88(1), 118.
Venkatesh, M.S., & Raghavan, G.S.V. (2005). An overview of dielectric properties
measuring techniques. Canadian Biosystems Engineering/Le Genie des Biosystems au
Canada, 47 (7.15-17.30).
Vicente, A., & Castro, I.A. (2007). Novel thermal processing technologies. In G. Tewari, & V.
Juneja (Eds.), Advances in thermal and non-thermal food preservation (pp. 99130).
Blackwell Publishing.
Warning, A., & Datta, A.K. (2013). Interdisciplinary engineering approaches to study how
pathogenic bacteria interact with fresh produce. Journal of Food Engineering, 114(4),
426448.
Wertheim, J.H., Roychoudhury, R.N., Hoff, J., Goldblith, S.A., & Proctor, B.E. (1957). Milk ir-
radiation: Irradiation preservation of milk and milk products. Journal of Agricultural
and Food Chemistry, 5(12), 944950.
Zhao, W., Tang, Y., Lu, L., Chen, X., & Li, C. (2014). Review: Pulsed electric elds processing
of protein-based foods. Food and Bioprocess Technology, 7(1), 114125.