Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review

Yeasts in different types of cheese

  • Yeasts constitute an important part of cheeses, and especially the artisanal ones. The current study reviews the occurrence of yeasts in different cheese varieties and the role of yeasts in cheesemaking process. The use of molecular methods for identification and strain typing has extended the knowledge for yeast diversity in cheeses. For the study of the occurrence of yeasts in different cheese types, seven categories are used, that is: 1) hard, 2) semi-hard, 3) soft, which includes soft pasta-filata and whey cheeses, 4) white brined cheeses, 5) mould surface ripened, 6) bacterial surface ripened cheeses, and 7) blue cheeses. For some cheese types, yeasts are the main microbial group, at least for some part of their ripening process, while for some other types, yeasts are absent. Differences between industrially manufactured cheeses and artisanal cheeses have specified. Artisanal cheeses possess a diverse assortment of yeast species, mainly belonging to the genera Candida, Clavisporalus, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces, Geotrichum, Issatchenkia, Kazachstania, Kluyveromyces, Kodemaea, Pichia, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, Saturnispora, Torulaspora, Trichosporon, Yarrowia and ZygoSaccharomyces. The role of the yeasts for selected cheeses from the seven cheese categories is discussed.

    Citation: Thomas Bintsis. Yeasts in different types of cheese[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(4): 447-470. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021027

    Related Papers:

    [1] Masami Kojima, Pusit Mitsomwang, Shigeru Nagasawa . Effect of cutter tip angle on cutting characteristics of acrylic worksheet subjected to punch/die shearing. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(4): 1728-1747. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.4.1728
    [2] Shigeru Nagasawa, Tomoki Hosokawa . Effects of pitch length of perforation on the crease bending characteristics of a polypropylene sheet subjected to indentation of a perforation blade. AIMS Materials Science, 2022, 9(6): 808-834. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2022050
    [3] Madjid Haddad, Redouane Zitoune, Florent Eym, Bruno Castanié . The effect of rectification of composite materials on the mechanical behavior of long fiber composite materials. AIMS Materials Science, 2016, 3(2): 645-657. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2016.2.645
    [4] Umer Shaukat, Scott Gohery, Tesfaye Molla . Energy consumption and surface roughness maps for low and moderate speed machining of Aluminum alloy 2014: An experimental study. AIMS Materials Science, 2023, 10(4): 575-588. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2023032
    [5] Songtam Laosuwan, Shigeru Nagasawa, Kazuki Umemoto . Development of tensile fixture with corrugated structure sheet and estimation of tensile strength of glass fibre fabrics based single face corrugated structure sheet. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(1): 75-92. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.1.75
    [6] Liang Zhao, Weimian Guan, Jiwen Xu, Zhiyuan Sun, Maoda Zhang, Junjie Zhang . Atomistic investigation of effect of twin boundary on machinability in diamond cutting of nanocrystalline 3C-SiC. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(6): 1149-1164. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024056
    [7] Lu Liao, Guo Li, Junjie Zhang . Experimental investigation of cutting parameters dependence in diamond turning of monocrystalline silicon. AIMS Materials Science, 2019, 6(5): 635-645. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2019.5.635
    [8] Adel M Bash, Sulaiman E. Mnawe, Salim A. Salah . Numerical buckling analysis of carbon fibre-epoxy composite plates with different cutouts number by finite element method. AIMS Materials Science, 2020, 7(1): 46-59. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2020.1.46
    [9] Subbarayan Sivasankaran . Influence of TiC addition on the surface roughness during turning of AA 7075 alloy processed through stir-casting. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(4): 699-710. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.4.699
    [10] Rasaq Kazeem, Tien-Chien Jen, Godwin Akande, Stephen Akinlabi, Esther Akinlabi . Performance evaluation of hybrid biodegradable oils as a lubricant during cylindrical turning of AISI 304 austenitic stainless steel. AIMS Materials Science, 2024, 11(2): 256-294. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2024015
  • Yeasts constitute an important part of cheeses, and especially the artisanal ones. The current study reviews the occurrence of yeasts in different cheese varieties and the role of yeasts in cheesemaking process. The use of molecular methods for identification and strain typing has extended the knowledge for yeast diversity in cheeses. For the study of the occurrence of yeasts in different cheese types, seven categories are used, that is: 1) hard, 2) semi-hard, 3) soft, which includes soft pasta-filata and whey cheeses, 4) white brined cheeses, 5) mould surface ripened, 6) bacterial surface ripened cheeses, and 7) blue cheeses. For some cheese types, yeasts are the main microbial group, at least for some part of their ripening process, while for some other types, yeasts are absent. Differences between industrially manufactured cheeses and artisanal cheeses have specified. Artisanal cheeses possess a diverse assortment of yeast species, mainly belonging to the genera Candida, Clavisporalus, Cryptococcus, Debaryomyces, Geotrichum, Issatchenkia, Kazachstania, Kluyveromyces, Kodemaea, Pichia, Rhodotorula, Saccharomyces, Saturnispora, Torulaspora, Trichosporon, Yarrowia and ZygoSaccharomyces. The role of the yeasts for selected cheeses from the seven cheese categories is discussed.



    Nowadays, cutting nippers and pliers are widely used in various cutting process, e.g. resin parts of miniature model connected by branches (bars) for splitting them into small parts, general purpose splitting such as resin ribbon, electronic copper wire, semi-hard steel wire and shaving after rough cutting by a large angle wedge. The basic design (ISO 5742) of nippers and pliers consists of three major sections: jaws, fulcrum, and handles. The jaws are a part of the tool in front of the pivot bolt (fulcrum), and they are used to grip and cut a wire-like material. The cutting edges are implemented onto the tips of the jaws. The cutting edges are applied to the jaws as a double sharp design (a pair of side wedge or symmetric wedge for upper/lower jaw) or can have a knife and anvil design. The fulcrum connects the two halves of the tool together and acts as the pivot point between the handles and the jaws. They have many similarities with the cutting mechanism. Many types of pliers and nippers have been used mainly for cutting electrical wires, tying different parts together, holding materials during assembly, fastening and unfastening components [1]. They are used in many occupational areas such as tying works of constructions [2,3,4,5], working of electrical assembly [6] and wiring of telecommunications [7]. The blade of a nipper is made of a pair of side wedge blade for making a rectangular shape in one side, while the plier's blade is made of a pair of symmetric wedge blade. Nipper and pliers are made from a high-grade tool steel, and have a slim head for greater accessibility in tight or hard-to-reach areas [8]. They are processed as forging and polished on the cutting edges of jaws.

    When considering to cut a bar-like polymer material, one side of a split bar/ribbon is expected to be a smart rectangular shape when using the nipper. It is generally difficult for novices to cut a small specimen of bar or ribbon off for having a nice trace at the sheared edge. The specimen sometimes doesn't split well from the connecting rods. Many makers of nippers try to manufacture a new model of nipper blade that can cut a specimen off with a low resistant load and a smooth sheared profile. However, before launching such the new product, the makers of nippers need to examine the invented nipper by using appropriate measurement system. Empirically, when pushing the outside top position of nipper handle using a loading system, the corresponded peak maximum force during a cutting process of a work material was often evaluated as a performance factor.

    However, such the load response that be gotten from any prototype loading system was insufficient to check for consistency and openness. Therefore, appropriate measurement system of cutting load of a developed nipper should be designed and verified through a specified condition based experiment. In this work, firstly, a rotational-linked fixture JIG was designed and prepared for loading the nipper handle. Through this development of fixture JIG, the repeatability and reliability of cutting load response and the easiness of set-up working were discussed.

    As mentioned above, the peak maximum force of cutting nipper is empirically evaluated as the industrial needs. In other words, a certain level of low load response in cutting process and also a smooth cutting trace are desired as the performance of cutting nipper. For an example, in assembling model kits such as GUNPLA (Gundam Plastic Model) [9], the model parts of God Gundam as shown in Figure 1(a) were attached with sprue which must be cut off before assembling (Figure 1(b)).

    Figure 1.  An example of GUNPLA model kit. (a) Before cutting model parts which were attached with sprue. (b) After cutting the model parts off.

    Since the edge profile of split parts often has a protuberance and an inclined angle shape as shown in Figure 2(a), additional shaving of the edge profile is necessary. If the edge profile is cut off with a smooth trace as shown in Figure 2(b), any additional machining process (e.g., shaving) can be skipped.

    Figure 2.  An example of model parts after cutting off. (a) A rough split state with inclined protuberance on the split portion, (b) A shaved trace of protuberance.

    Regarding the relationship between the cutting load (or the cutting moment) and the displacement at the pushing point of nipper handle, appropriate theoretical estimation of cutting characteristics of the nipper is necessary for understanding the effects of mechanical parameters such as the apex angle of blade, the asymmetric attitude of upper/lower blade (or anvil).

    As for the wedge cutting resistance, since there are several fundamental theories [10,11,12], the cutting resistance is characterized with the apex angle of wedge and the indentation depth against the thickness of worksheet. One of primary mechanical factors that characterize the cutting resistance is the shear stress. Canakci et al. reported that the shear stress increased with the compressed density of modified expanded polystyrene [13]. Nagasawa et al. reported about the effects of two-line wedge blade on the cutting characteristics of several resin materials [14,15,16,17]. The cutting line force and deformation of specimens were affected by the geometry of the blade edge such as the tip radius, the primary height of wedge and the apex angle of blade.

    Murayama et al. [18,19] and Chaijit et al. [20] have reported the cutting mechanism of a 42° wedge indentation into a 0.4 mm thickness aluminum sheet by using a trapezoidal cutting blade imitated as a crushed tip. In that study, a couple of separation modes were estimated with the ratio of blade tip thickness w by the worksheet thickness t. In case of w/t > 0.23, the second mode necking occurred and the string-like burrs were generated beneath the blade tip.

    Mitsomwang et al. [21] used the elasto-plastic large deformation model based Finite Element Method (FEM) Code for simulating the wedge indentation process of lead alloy sheet until the final splitting stage when varying the apex angle of wedge blade. It revealed that the maximum cutting load response increased with the apex angle of blade and the simulated necking process matched to the experimental results. Not only the edge shape of blade but also the stiffness of underlay affected to the load response and deformation profile of work sheet [22]. Another problem of wedge cutting is to generate unstable (multiple deformation modes) shear edge trace (sheared profile) of resin specimen. The multiple deformation modes of shear edge trace were appeared to be caused by the frictional instability or adhesion of wedge surface when choosing a Polycarbonate (PC) and a Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) sheet [23,24,25]. That provides unstable cracking, bent up necking, large inclination and burred of lower zone.

    Several shaped (bar, ribbon and plate) polystyrene (PS) are widely used for producing small parts of miniature models connected by branches (bars). However, a wedge cut of PS material seems to be not yet discussed when using a nipper mechanism for cutting a 3 dimensional bar or ribbon. In order to predict the cutting resistance and deformation behavior of a PS square bar, some features of this material are necessary. PS material can be distilled an oily liquid named styrol from the resin of Turkish sweet gum trees. The thermoplastic resin has generally the higher resistance of compressive deformation than that of tensile deformation. Polystyrene (PS) is also such a brittle resin in a tensile mode, while it has ductile behavior in the compressive mode [26]. PS is the most employed aromatic thermoplastic polymer due to the hardness, stiffness, and chemical stability over a wide pH range, and also it is a brilliantly transparent synthetic resin produced by polymerization of styrene. It has a wide range of application such as a food packaging product and an insulator in buildings due to some advantages as the versatility, dimensional stability and low cost [27,28]. Therefore, in this research, in order to reveal the wedge angle effect on the cutting characteristics of a PS bar material, the rotational-linked fixture JIG system was provided for the use of three kinds of nippers.

    The first two nippers (the big nipper: the upper/lower asymmetric two-line wedge composed of α = 90–72°, α' = 85–72° and the medium nipper: the upper/lower asymmetric two-line wedge composed of α = 49–55°, α' = 42–50°) were used for comparing the effects of blade angle on the cutting characteristics. Here, α was the apex angle and α' was the back angle of two-line wedge. The big nipper is normally used for cutting a metallic wire and classified as a strong type, while the medium nipper is empirically used for cutting a various plastic and a small metallic wire. The third nipper (the small nipper: 13° single apex, side wedge) seems to be used for the precision-cut of small plastic model parts. Since the small nipper has a keen apex and then difficult to make alignment of the upper and lower blades fine, it empirically consists of a keen wedge and a narrow anvil. The three kinds of nippers were compared with the load response and cutting trace of a 3 mm square PS bar, in order to reveal the cutting characteristics of PS bar for splitting and trimming plastics model kits.

    Dimensions of each component of fixture JIG were shown in Figure 3 and the thickness of all the components were 3.5 mm. They were made of polyoxymethylene (Polyacetar resin) plate and machined by a rapid-prototype milling machine. When assembling the components, the structure of fixture JIG was shown in Figure 4. In this structure, the upper parts (a), (d), (e), (f) were fasten by M3 bolts and nuts, while the lower parts (b), (c) were assembled with M3 bolts and nuts as a set of fixture plates (socket), which were used for fixing the upper or lower handle of nipper. The upper assembly and lower assembly was loosely jointed by a M6 bolt and nut. On the experimental apparatus of cutting test, the same two sets of the assembly were prepared as the upper and lower fixture JIG. The upper JIG was mounted on the upper cross head which had a load cell with the maximum load 10 kN. The lower JIG was mounted on the lower cross head. The upper and lower arm (handle) of the nipper were inserted into the upper/lower socket for clamping respectively, as shown in Figure 5. The attitude of the blade was arranged to be vertical against the PS bar. Because the bar specimen was set up across to the nipper blade in the horizontal attitude. Since there is the fulcrum of M6 bolt as shown in Figure 4, the assembly parts (b), and (c) of JIG can rotate with a small friction in the clockwise and/or counter clockwise, against the assembly parts (a), (d), (e), and (f). When the upper fixture JIG (mounted on the upper cross head) moves downward, the assembly parts (b), and (c) of the lower fixture JIG (mounted on the lower cross head) rotates in the opposite wise.

    Figure 3.  Dimensions of components of fixture JIG.
    Figure 4.  Assemble structure of fixture.
    Figure 5.  Side view of schematics of fixture by (a) is Upper JIG and (b) is lower JIG.

    A 3 mm square polystyrene (PS) bar TAMIYA Item 70130-360, which had a longitudinal length of l = 40 mm, was used for the cutting test. All the specimens of PS bars were sufficiently cleaned before cutting. The tensile stress-strain relationship in machine direction (MD) (longitudinal direction of bar) of the 3 mm polystyrene square bar was examined with the feed velocity V = 5 mm·s−1. Here, the bar specimen, the longitudinal length of which was chosen as 110 mm, was prepared and the both sides of 30 mm were clamped by upper and lower holders, while the central part of 50 mm length was evaluated as an elongated zone. The mechanical properties of the 3 mm square bar specimen were shown in Table 1.

    Table 1.  In-plane tensile mechanical properties of polystyrene (PS) in longitudinal direction (the strain rate: 0.1 s−1 with the span of 50 mm).
    Symbol Thickness t/mm Young's modulus E/GPa Yield strength σY/MPa Tensile strength σB/MPa Breaking strain 𝜺B
    Tensile mode 3.0 1.88 30.18 41.65 0.32
    (1.80–1.97) (28.05–35.73) (39.83–43.60) (0.28–0.34)
    Average (Maximum-Minimum measured)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The compressive test of 3 mm square polystyrene bars was measured for 𝜺 ≈ 0.65 with V = 1 mm·s−1. Here, the 𝜺 is the true strain in TD. Figure 6 shows a specimen and the setup of apparatus for compressive test. Through this compressive test, the results were that the compressive Young's modulus EC in the y direction (cutting direction) and the yield strength σYC in the y direction (cutting direction) were shown in Table 2. Here, it was noted that this compressive σYC included a sort of frictional restriction.

    Figure 6.  Schematics of compressive test of 3 mm square Polystyrene (PS) bars. (a) Sizes of PS specimen and (b) Experimental setup for compressive test.
    Table 2.  Out of plane compressive mechanical properties of polystyrene (PS) in the cutting direction (the y direction). The strain rate: 0.33 s−1.
    Symbol Thickness t/mm Young's modulus EC/GPa Yield strength σYC/MPa
    Compressive mode 3.0 5.04 85.63

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The experiment for finding the friction coefficient of PS bars and a steel blade was carried out, as the horizontal method based on JIS K7125. The average dynamic friction coefficient was estimated as 0.31. Here, since it was difficult to use the real blade surface of nippers, a body surface of Thomson knife (Material: SK5, the surface hardness was 747VHN) was examined with the horizontal method under the applied pressure of 1.35 kPa and the value of surface roughness of Ra = 3.7 µm.

    After assembling a cutting nipper in the fixture JIG on the cutting test apparatus based on ISO 5744, the applied pushing force at the clamped-top position of nipper handle F1 was measured by the load cell when cutting a 3 mm square PS bar. The cutting force at the blade biting position F2 was calculated by Eq 1 and f2 ( = the ratio of F2 by the width of 3 mm) N/mm was the cutting line force. Putting the indentation displacement of the nipper handle (arm) D1, that of the blade biting position D2 is principally calculated by Eq 2. Here, since the full stroke value of D2 is equal to the height of specimen, namely D2 (full stroke) ≈ 3 mm in this work. When F1 was measured during the cutting test, D1 was measured as the upper crosshead displacement as shown in Figure 7 and the arm span length (L1, L2) were shown in Table 3, for each nipper. Here, the variation (dispersion) of maximum and minimum value of L2 was fairly large due to a slip of the specimen at the inclined biting state.

    F2=F1L1/L2 (1)
    D2=D1L1/L2 (2)
    Figure 7.  Zoomed up view of a nipper and each measured arm span length.
    Table 3.  Arm span lengths among the emphasis (biting), fulcrum and action points, used in experiment.
    L1 (mm) L2 (mm)
    Big nipper 87.58 16.29
    Medium nipper 78.28 13.73
    Small nipper 66.78 9.65

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The effective pushing force at the clamped-top position F1' (N), that excludes the inside-spring force of nipper from the raw force F1 measured by the load cell, is estimated using an idle cut calibration test without any work material. Similarly, the effective upper crosshead displacement D1', that excludes the elastic deformation of fixture JIG, is calibrated from the measured raw displacement D1 using the idle cut calibration test without any work material. Figure 8 was an example of real loading response when using the fixture JIG assembled with the medium nipper, while Figure 9 illustrated the idle cut load response with a specified nipper using the fixture JIG. Here, the vertical axis was denoted as the line force (N·mm−1), as the pushing force divided by the width of specimen 3 mm.

    Figure 8.  Example of relationship of real cut line force and pushing displacement real response with medium nipper.
    Figure 9.  Relationship of idle cut line force and pushing displacement.

    The idle cut loading response consisted of three stages of the mechanical loading condition as shown in Figure 9. In the first stage (D1 < D11: a saturated position), the line force increased with the upper crosshead displacement D1. In the second stage (D11 < D1 < D12: a middle zone), the line force was almost constant. The upper/lower nipper blades were shut and collided with each other at D1 = D12. In the third stage (D1 > D12), the line force remarkably increased as the upper and lower blades collided with each other. The values of D11 of the big/medium/small nipper were 1.07, 0.8 and 3.01 mm, respectively and the values of D12 of the big/medium/small nipper were 15.48, 17.0 and 20.47 mm, respectively. In order to use the fixture JIG in safe from the damage, the upper limit D13 is required for investigating the third stage gradient kJIG. The values of D13 of the big/medium/small nipper were empirically 19, 20, 24 mm, respectively. The first stage gradient kinitial, the second stage constant fstiffness and the third stage gradient kJIG were shown in Table 4.

    Table 4.  Values of idle cut parameters kinitial, fstiffness, kJIG for three stages.
    kinitial/N·mm−2 fstiffness/N·mm−1 kJIG/N·mm−2
    Big nipper 1.317 1.39 12.04
    Medium nipper 1.73 1.53 5.64
    Small nipper 0.4 1.2 5.36

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The effective pushing line force at the clamped-top position f1' (N·mm−1) in the first stage for each nipper was calculated by using Eq 3.

    f1(firststage)=(F1/widthofspecimen)(kinitialD1)(forD1<D11) (3)

    Since the second stage had a constant line force resistance, the effective pushing line force f1' in this stage was calculated by using Eq 4.

    f1(secondstage)=(F1/widthofspecimen)fstiffness(forD1>D11) (4)

    In the third stage, the nipper blade was shut in the case of idle cut. The kJIG was gotten in this stage and Eq 5 was used for calibrating the displacement of nipper arm from the raw displacement D1.

    D1=D1(F1/widthofspecimen/kJIG)(forD1>0) (5)

    Using Eqs 3–5, the relationship between the effective pushing line force f1' and the indentation displacement of nipper arm D1' is estimated in the following sections. The experiments were carried out under the following conditions: a room temperature of 297 K, and a room humidity of 50%RH.

    The cutting experiment of the 3 mm square bar was carried out using the three kinds of nippers. Figure 10 shows a big nipper which has the upper two-line wedge composed of apex angle α = 90° and the back angle α' = 72°, and the lower two-line wedge composed of α = 85° and α' = 72°. Figure 11 shows a medium nipper which has the upper two-line wedge composed of the apex angle α = 49° and the back angle α' = 42°, and the lower two-line wedge composed of α = 55° and α' = 50°, Figure 12 shows a small nipper which has a side wedge of apex angle α = 13° against an anvil of 0.35 mm width. In case of the small nipper, the blade structure didn't consist of symmetric wedges with the upper and lower. It was composed of a side-wedge blade against a narrow anvil.

    Figure 10.  Setup of big nipper. (a) General view, (b) Front view of blade.
    Figure 11.  Setup of medium nipper. (a) General view, (b) Front view of blade.
    Figure 12.  Setup of small nipper. (a) General view, (b) Front view of blade.

    Regarding the cutting load diagram using the nipper, the indentation velocity of blade V = dD1/dt was chosen as 1 mm·s−1 at the clamped-top position. The raw cutting load response (f1-D1) was calibrated using Eq 3–5, and the effective cutting load response (f1'-D1') was generated. Figure 13 showed an example of comparison of raw load response and calibrated load response with respect to the big nipper.

    Figure 13.  Comparison of a representative raw pushing response f1-D1 and its effective pushing response f1'-D1', in case of the big nipper.

    Seeing Figure 13, it was found that the peak maximum position of raw data was about 73% while that of calibrated data was about 53% of the full stroke. Using Eqs 3–5, all the cutting response of five specimens were calibrated with respect to the three kinds of nippers. The relationship between the effective pushing line force f1' and the indentation displacement of nipper arm at the clamped-top position D1' was shown in Figure 14.

    Figure 14.  Relationship of the effective pushing line force f1' and indentation displacement of nipper arm D1' under the indentation velocity V = 1 mm·s−1. Sample numbers were five for each nipper.

    Figure 14 revealed that the cutting force response f1'-D1' was stable and the reproducibility was sufficient in the early stage for each nipper. Here, the stability of load response was especially high in the range of D1' < 50% of 15 mm for the big nipper, in that of D1' < 67% of 15 mm for the medium nipper and in that of D1' < 75% of 20 mm for the small nipper, respectively. This means that the proposed rotary-linked fixture JIG is good enough for examining the cutting performance of various nippers.

    Seeing the last breaking stage, there was a certain dispersion in the cases of big and medium nippers, whereas the breaking down was quite stable in the case of small nipper. Because the wedge opening rate is relatively small and the frictional restriction by the anvil underlay fastens any unstable crack generation. The small nipper needs more displacement to finish the cutting process due to its low sensitivity ratio L2/L1. As the theoretical displacement D1' is estimated from the Eq 2: D2 ( = 3 mm)·L1/L2, the stroke difference is principally calculated as 3.7 mm (or 4.6 mm) between the small nipper and the medium (or large) nipper. Namely, the estimated D1' of medium nipper must be 0.9 mm larger than that of the big nipper. However, seeing Figure 14, the measured displacement D1' of the medium nipper was a little smaller than that of the big nipper. This difference seems to be caused by the effect of apex angle on the frictional restriction. The apex angle of big nipper was α = 85–90° while that of medium nipper was α = 49–55°.

    The pushed line force f1' was monotony increased with D1' for the first half (less than 30%). This tendency was common for the three nippers. However, in the latter half (larger than 50%), the big and medium nippers had a saturated load response and had a breaking point in the range D1' > 50–67% of 15 mm, while the small nipper had stably a reducing load response in the latter half (larger than 30% of 20 mm).

    Figure 15 shows a scene of pre-cracks generation for the three nippers. As shown in Figure 15, the small nipper had a static wedging without any large crack due to the frictional restrain of lower anvil. The big and medium nippers showed a sort of unstable crack in the cutting process. In the big nipper, the initial crack generated at D1'≈8.76 mm, while the initial crack generated at D1'≈8.81 mm in the medium nipper.

    Figure 15.  Generation of pre-cracks in specimen. (a) Big nipper (D1'≈8.76 mm, D2≈1.6 mm), (b) Medium nipper (D1'≈8.39 mm, D2≈1.5 mm) and (c) Small nipper (D1'≈20.5 mm, D2≈2.95 mm).

    The relationship between the blade biting line force f2 and the blade displacement at the biting position D2 was shown in Figure 16. The horizontal axis of D2 (mm) was converted from D1' by using Eq 2, while the vertical axis of f2 (N·mm−1) was converted from f1' by using Eq 1.

    Figure 16.  Relationship of the blade biting line force f2 and blade displacement at the biting position D2 under the constant indentation velocity of V = 1 mm·s−1 (See Table 5).
    Table 5.  Classification of cutting load response f2-D2.
    Stage Description
    Big nipper B21 Pushed early stage.
    B22 Pushed middle stage.
    B23 Penetrated stage, bending due to asymmetric indentation of upper/lower
    B24 Necked stage, Peak maximum point and Pre-crack.
    B25 Propagation of cracks
    B26 Cut off (Breaking down).
    Medium nipper M21 Pushed early stage.
    M22 Pushed middle stage.
    M23 Penetrated stage.
    M24 Necked stage, Peak maximum point and Pre-crack.
    M25 Propagation of cracks
    M26 Cut off (Breaking down).
    Small nipper S21 Pushed early stage.
    S22 Pushed middle stage.
    S23, S24 Penetrated and necked stage, Peak maximum point
    S25 Propagation of cracks plus bending
    S26 Static cut off.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    All the parameters described in Figure 16 were shown in Table 5. The representative cutting states were classified in 6 stages in Figure 16. In the case of the small nipper, since the penetrated and necked stage appeared to be merged, the table contents were arranged in 5 groups. The first half of wedge cutting was classified as the pushed (early and middle) stage and the penetrated stage, which included a slight bending due to asymmetric indentation of upper/lower blades. The early pushed stage was a state that the blade edge slightly indented to the surface of specimen. The middle pushed stage has the larger gradient than the early pushed stage and appeared to be under high pressure contact. Here, the yielding resistance and the friction coefficient seemed to increase with the strain increment. In the penetrated stage, since the blade indentation was about 20–50%, the central layer also slightly affected by the wedge thrust force. In the cases of big and medium nippers, meanwhile, the specimen was bent due to asymmetric indentation of upper/lower blades. This penetrated stage was not clearly observed, but as a sort of crack collapse occurred at this timing by the small nipper, the peak maximum point ocuured at near D2 = 27% of the height of specimen. After the penetrated stage, the cutting reaches the peak maximum load point. Since this peak point was generally observed at near the balance state of force variance by the sectional reducing of uncut area (necking) and the increment of wedge contact area [29], the deformation of this peak point is classified as the necked stage. In the latter half of big and mediate nippers, a pre-crack was observed at the necked stage. Then, the crack was dynamically propagated into the uncut area, and finally the specimen was separated under having the biting collision of upper/lower blades. Seeing Figure 15(a) and Figure 16, the indentation of the upper blade was larger than that of the lower blade in the early stage when choosing the big nipper, and a pre-crack was detected on the upper side.

    Figure 17, 18 and 19 show the intermediate deformation states of PS bar specimen in each stage refered from Figure 16. These figures show 4 or 5 stages of deformation, owing that the video movies by the CCD camera couldn't detect any difference between the pushed early stage and pushed middle stage.

    Figure 17.  Deformation states of PS bar specimen indented by big nipper. (a) Early pushed stage at D2 ≈ 0.07 mm, (b) Penetrated stage at D2 ≈ 0.35 mm, (c) Necked stage with bending and pre-crack at D2 ≈ 1.33 mm, (d) Crack propagated at D2 ≈ 1.89 mm, and (e) Cut off at D2 ≈ 2.71 mm.
    Figure 18.  Deformation states of PS bar specimen indented by medium nipper. (a) Early pushed stage at D2 ≈ 0.07 mm, (b) Penetrated stage at D2 ≈ 0.71 mm, (c) Necked stage with pre-crack at D2 ≈ 1.31 mm, (d) Crack propagated at D2 ≈ 1.85 mm and (e) Cut off at D2 ≈ 2.25 mm.
    Figure 19.  Deformation states of PS bar specimen indented by small nipper. (a) Early pushed stage at D2 ≈ 0.17 mm, (b) Penetrated stage at D2 ≈ 0.41 mm, (c) Crack propagated plus bending at D2 ≈ 0.76 mm and (d) Static cut off at D2 ≈ 2.94 mm.

    Using the sliding field theory [10,11,12,30], the gradient f2/D2 is estimated with Eq 6 as a function of apex angle of cutting blade and the friction coefficient in a shallow indentation stage.

    f2/D2=sin(ˇα/2)(1+2ψ+sin(2λ))(1+μ/(tan(ˇα/2))cos(ˇα/2)2cosλsinβσY (6)

    Here, β=(ˇα/2)ψ+(π/4)λ,cos(ˇα/2)sin(ˇα/2)=2sinβcosλ(2cosλcosβ+2sin(ˇα/2)) and cos(2λ) = µ(1 + 2ψ + sin(2λ)) are restricted. When ˇα and µ are large, since any arbitrary positive λ does not exist, then λ = 0 is assumed. The friction coefficient µ was assumed to be 0.31. The apex angle ˇα of big nipper, medium nipper and small nipper was representatively evaluated as 72°, 42° and 13° respectively. Therefore, the initial cutting resistance of PS bars by the big nipper, medium nipper and small nipper was estimated as Eqs 7–9 respectively, using the deformation diagram Figure 20 which was used in the sliding field theory of a shallow indentation of a wedge [30]. Here, ˇα = α was the apex angle of wedge blade, while the three angles λ, ψ and β were used for analyzing the stream line in Figure 20.

    Figure 20.  Slip line field diagram of shallow indentation of wedge against plastic surface (Ref. [30] Nagasawa, S. et al. 2016, p.81).

    In the case of ˇα = 72°, since the surface of wedge appeared to be adhered to the work material, the angle of λ was assumed to be zero (a special restricted condition).

    c72=f2/D2=4.790.5σY=2.394σY(forˇα=72,λ=0) (7)
    c42=f2/D2=2.5680.5σY=1.284σY(forˇα=42) (8)
    c13=f2/D2=1.213σY(forˇα=13) (9)

    The ratios of gradient c72/c13 and c42/c13 were 1.47 and 1.05, respectively. If the cutting resistance of the big and medium nipper is not symmetric with respect to the upper and lower blade, the resistance of the wedge indentation seems to be similar to one side wedge indentation. Since this seems to occur at the initial shallow indentation stage, the ratios of gradient appeared to increse up to two times of the symmetric condition. Namely, the ratios of gradient c72/c13 and c42/c13 appear to increase up to 2.94 and 2.1, respectively when the upper/lower blade indentation is not symmetric.

    Seeing Figure 16, the secant gradient k = Δf2/ΔD2 was observed as k72 = 124.0, k42 = 78.3 and k13 = 29.9 N·mm−1 for the big, medium and small nipper respectively in the early stage (D2 = 0~0.33 mm). In the case of small nipper, the equivalent yielding stress was reversely estimated as 24.6 MPa by using Eq 9.

    Seeing the compressive and tensile strength of PS (Table 1 and 2), the compressive yield stress σY = 85.6 MPa was larger than the tensile yield stress σY = 30.2 MPa, although the compressive yield stress included the frictional restriction. Therefore, it was found that the cutting resistance as the equivalent yield stress was fairly closed to the tensile yielding stress. Regarding the gradient of cutting resistance, the ratios of secant gradient k72/k13 and k42/k13 were 4.15 and 2.62, respectively. They were relatively close to the theoretical resistance of non-symmetric cutting with the big and medium nipper. The corresponded yielding stresses of the big and medium nipper were reversely estimated as 124.0/4.79 = 25.9 MPa, and 78.3/2.568 = 30.5 MPa, respectively. So far, it was found that the equivalent yielding stress of the PS bar material was close to the tensile yielding stress when cutting the PS bar material using the three nippers. This result means that the sliding field theory using the apex angle, the yielding stress and the friction coefficient is useful for estimating the initial-cutting resistance of the three kinds of nippers.

    The relationship between the apex angle of wedge ˇα (°) and the maximum blade biting force f2max was approximated as Eq 10. Here, ˇα = 72, 42 and 13° was chosen as the representative angle of wedge, and the Pearson's correlation coefficient of Eq 10 was 0.997. The peak maximum biting force f2max was linearly estimated with the blade apex angle. This scatter relation is plotted in the section 3.3.

    f2max=2.10ˇα()+6.51 (10)

    Regarding to the peak maximum biting force, the ratios of maximum biting force f2max of the big and medium nipper with the small nipper were 4.48 and 2.58, respectively. These values were almost same as that of secant gradient. Hence, the peak maximum biting force f2max appeared to be linearly related to the secant gradient k = Δf2/ΔD2.

    The cutting energy is principally calculated by Eq 11. Using the relationship of the line force at the biting position f2 and the corresponded displacement D2 in Figure 16, the trapezoidal rule was applied to estimate the cutting energy. Here, the range of integration was up to D2 (full stroke) ≈ 3 mm.

    CuttingenergyE=Fullstrokeofcut0f2dD2 (11)

    After finding the numerical integration of Eq 11 from Figure 16, the results of average cutting energy were shown in Table 6.

    Table 6.  Average cutting energy of three kinds of nipper at the indentation velocity V = 1 mm·s−1 (Maximum-Minimum measured).
    Cutting energy/N·mm·mm−1
    Big nipper Medium nipper Small nipper
    286.47 (279.69–295.1) 154.50 (152.23–161.04) 35.55 (34.41–36.39)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The relationship between the representative apex angle of wedge ˇα(°) and the cutting energy was approximated as Eq 12. Here, the Pearson's correlation coefficient of Eq 12 was 1.0.

    CuttingenergyE(Nmmmm1)=4.30ˇα()23.59 (12)

    Figure 21 shows the peak maximum biting line force f2 and the cutting energy E with respect to the representative apex angle of wedge ˇα. Seeing Eq 10, 12 and Figure 21, as the variation of cutting energy was similar to that of peak maximum line force, the relationship between the peak maximum line force f2max (N·mm−1) and the cutting energy E (N·mm·mm−1) was plotted in Figure 22, and its relation was linearly approximated by Eq 13. Since the cutting energy increased with the peak maximum line force and the apex angle of balde, that seemed to be mainly caused by the wedging plastic flow work.

    Figure 21.  The dependency of the peak maximum line force at the biting position f2max and the cutting energy on the representative apex angle of wedge ˇα (°).
    Figure 22.  Relationship between the cutting energy and the peak maximum line force f2max.
    CuttingenergyE(Nmmmm1)=2.05f2max(Nmm1)+36.79 (13)

    From these graphs, it was found that the big nipper had the largest dispersion of f2max and E, while the small nipper had the fewest dispersion of them. It appeared that the larger dispersion they are, the farther spread unsteady cracks are. Regarding the cutting energy performance, the ratios of cutting energy of the big and medium nipper with the small nipper were 8.06 and 4.35, respectively.

    After cutting PS bar specimens at V = 1 mm·s−1, the sheared profile of the specimens was observed by a microscope CCD camera. Figures 23 shows the representative side views of sheared zone of PS bar specimen using the three kinds of nipper. Here, the right side of specimen was located in the front side of Figures 10, 11 (the big, medium nippers) and in the rear side of Figure 12 (the small nipper). The profile parameters of the left sheared edge were defined as h1(mm), h2(mm), h3(mm), θ1(°), and θ2(°). That of the right sheared edge were defined as t1(mm), t2(mm), t3(mm), w and Ø(°). The parameters of sheared edge profile were measured from the photographs of a microscope CCD camera. The values of the left sheared edge parameters were shown in Table 7 and the values of the right sheared edge parameters were shown in Table 8. Seeing Figure 23(a), (b), and Table 7 and 8, the wedged profile was asymmetric with the thickness direction. This means that the indentation depths of upper/lower blades were asymmetric and then a certain extent of bent attitude occurred in the cutting process. The existence of the torn zone h2 seemed to correspond to the stages of B24-B25 and M24-M25.

    Figure 23.  Representative sheared profile of PS bar specimen that was cut off by using (a) Big nipper, (b) Medium nipper and (c) Small nipper.
    Table 7.  Values of left sheared edge parameters (Maximum-Minimum measured).
    h1/mm h2/mm h3/mm θ1 θ2
    Big nipper 1.23
    (0.96–1.42)
    0.70
    (0.53–0.87)
    1.18
    (0.92–1.40)
    46
    (36–59)
    61
    (55–67)
    Medium nipper 1.13
    (1.05–1.20)
    0.96
    (0.84–1.09)
    0.82
    (0.72–0.91)
    30
    (27–33)
    45
    (41–48)
    Small nipper - - - 9
    (8–10)
    -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 8.  Values of right sheared edge parameters (Maximum-Minimum measured).
    t1/mm t2/mm t3/mm w/mm Ø/°
    Big nipper 0.68
    (0.53–0.87)
    0.86
    (0.61–1.17)
    1.51
    (1.16–1.89)
    - 12
    (8–19)
    Medium nipper 0.97
    (0.87–1.06)
    1.22
    (1.12–1.37)
    0.75
    (0.68–0.83)
    0.24
    (0.19–0.31)
    -
    Small nipper - - - 0.14
    (0.13–0.15)
    -

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The sheared surfaces of specimens cut by the three kinds of nippers were captured by a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and shown in Figure 24, 25 and 26. In these figures, the symbol (a) denoted the left side and the symbol (b) denoted the right side of PS bar specimen in Figure 23.

    Figure 24.  SEM micrographs of sheared surfaces of PS bar specimen cut by big nipper. (a) Front view of left side of sheared specimen, (b) Front view of right side of sheared specimen shown in Figure 23(a).
    Figure 25.  SEM micrographs of sheared surfaces of PS bar specimen cut by medium nipper. (a) Front view of left side of sheared specimen, (b) Front view of right side of sheared specimen shown in Figure 23(b).
    Figure 26.  SEM micrographs of sheared surfaces of PS bar specimen cut by small nipper. (a) Front view of left side of sheared specimen, (b) Front view of right side of sheared specimen shown in Figure 23(c).

    When choosing the small nipper, any large pre-crack was not detected during the full stroke and there were not any variation (dispersion) of force drop for D2 > 30% of 3 mm in Figure 16. Therefore, the small nipper's wedge cutting of PS bar seemed to be kept in a certain restricted condition in the longitudinal (in-plane) direction by the friction of the lower anvil at the final cutting stage. This frictional restriction of wedging made the sheared profile smoother than that of other nippers, as shown in Figure 26. Due to the geometrical feature of side wedge form, the left side sheared surface was stably compressed by the inclined line of the blade while the right side sheared surface was weakly touched with the perpendicular line of the blade. In this case, the compressive force for wedging the left side work material makes a thrust force to the blade. As the result, the blade was a little inclined to the right side direction and then the sheared surface was slightly curved as shown in Figure 23(c). This asymmetric cutting condition seems to make the difference of surface roughness with the right and left side surface of the work material as shown in Figure 26. Seeing this situation, the contact pressure of wedge seemed to make the sheared surface in smooth.

    Since the big and medium nippers had the force drop after passing the peak position D2 ≈ 50% of bar height in Figure 16, the size of final breakage had almost a half of bar height. The final process of the big, medium nippers generated a torn zone in the sheared PS bar as shown in Figure 24 and 25, then a collision of upper/lower bites occurred after the force drop. Regarding the surface roughness of sheared surface, several features were detected from Figure 24 and 25.

    In the case of medium nipper, the upper and lower zones of the left side sheared surface were smoother than that of the right side sheared surface. However, in the case of big nipper, that of the left side and the right side sheared surface were evenly smooth. The difference of surface roughness seemed to be caused by the pressure level on the wedge. Namely, the contact pressure of wedge seemed to make the sheared surface in smooth.

    Seeing the middle (final breakage) zone of sheared surface of the work material, the both side sheared surfaces by the medium nipper were smoother than that by the big nipper. This difference of surface roughness seemed to be caused by the in-plane tensile stress level. Since the right side inclined angle of wedge was quite small in the case of the medium nipper, compared to the big nipper, the final breakage of the middle zone appeared to be weakly tensile. Therefore, the in-plane tensile force by the wedge ought to be relatively small for making the sheared surface in smooth.

    In order to reveal performance of JIG fixture and the effect of blade edge profile to the cutting line force and the sheared edge profile of 3 mm square Polystyrene(PS) bars, three kinds of nippers: a big nipper (the upper/lower asymmetric two-line wedge of angles: α = 85–90°, α' = 72°), a medium nipper (the upper/lower asymmetric two-line wedge of angles: α = 49–55°, α' = 42–50°) and a small nipper (the side wedge of angle α = 13° against the anvil of 0.35 mm width) were experimentally investigated. The results were as follow:

    (1) In order to perform a certain extent of reproducibility in the cutting test of a handheld nipper under a constant indentation velocity, the prototype JIG fixture was appropriate when considering the discussed calibration method of idle cutting response.

    (2) When comparing the three nippers in cutting process, the load response was varied with the blade apex angle. By evaluating the force and blade displacement at the biting position, the cutting load response was commonly analyzed using the sliding line field theory, and the cutting resistance was characterized as a function of the yielding strength of work material and the friction resistance. Through the discussion of yielding stress of work material based on the sliding line field theory, a certain extent of asymmetric wedge indentation became obvious, and also the effect of bending attitude by the asymmetric wedge indentation was revealed through a CCD camera observation.

    (3) Regarding the cutting behavior of PS bar material, the correlation between the cutting energy and the peak maximum line force was revealed. The larger angle of blade the nipper has, the more cutting energy and larger force the nipper handle needs.

    (4) When comparing the sheared edge trace with the three nippers, the small nipper generated a smooth sheared surface without any dynamic large force drop. When the apex angle was 13 degrees (small nipper), the pre-crack at the necked stage did not occurred, and also the frictional restriction by the counter anvil appeared to fasten the force drop and the dynamic crack propagation.

    (5) Synthetically, the difference of apex angle effect of nipper can be characterized using the cutting load response based on the prototype cutting test system.

    The authors thank Kazuo Hatari and Reo Chiba, who were the undergraduate students of NUT, for their assistance with preliminary experiment and a design of JIG elements.

    All authors declare there is no conflict in this paper.



    Conflict of interest



    The author hereby declares that there is no conflict of interest that could arise.

    [1] Fox PF, Guinee TP, Cogan TM, et al. (2016) Principal families of cheese. Fundamentals of Cheese Science New York: Springer, 27-69.
    [2] Bintsis T, Athanasoulas A (2015) Dairy starter cultures. Dairy Microbiology-A Practical Approach Boca Raton: CRC Press, 114-154.
    [3] Licitra G (2010) World wide traditional cheeses: Banned for business? Dairy Sci Technol 90: 357-374. doi: 10.1051/dst/2010016
    [4] Papademas P, Bintsis TKindstedt (2018) The history of cheese. Global Cheesemaking Technology: Cheese Quality and Characteristics UK: Wiley & Sons, 3-19.
    [5] Montel MC, Buchin S, Mallet A, et al. (2014) Traditional cheeses: Rich and diverse microbiota with associated benefits. Int J Food Microbiol 177: 136-154. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.02.019
    [6] Grattepanche F, Miescher-Schwenninger S, Meile L, et al. (2008) Recent developments in cheese cultures with protective and probiotic functionalities. Dairy Sci Technol 88: 421-444. doi: 10.1051/dst:2008013
    [7] Irlinger F, Layec S, Helinck S, et al. (2015) Cheese rind microbial communities: diversity, composition and origin. FEMS Microbiol Let 362: 1-11. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnu015
    [8] Goerges S, Mounier J, Rea MC, et al. (2008) Commercial ripening starter microorganisms inoculated into cheese milk do not successfully establish themselves in the resident microbial ripening consortia of a South German red smear cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 2210-2217. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01663-07
    [9] Bokulich NA, Mills DA (2013) Facility-specific ‘house’ microbiome drives microbial landscapes of artisan cheesemaking plants. Appl Environ Microbiol 79: 5214-5223. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00934-13
    [10] Fox PF, Guinee TP, Cogan TM, et al. (2000) Microbiology of Cheese Ripening. Fundamentals of cheese science Gaithersburg: Aspen Publishers, 206-235.
    [11] Beresford TP, Fitzsimons NA, Brennan NL, et al. (2001) Recent advances in cheese microbiology. Int Dairy J 11: 259-274. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(01)00056-5
    [12] Delavenne E, Mounier J, Asmani K, et al. (2011) Fungal diversity in cow, goat and ewe milk. Int J Food Microbiol 151: 247-251. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.029
    [13] Quigley L, O'Sullivan O, Stanton C, et al. (2013) The complex microbiota of raw milk. FEMS Microbiol Rev 37: 664-698. doi: 10.1111/1574-6976.12030
    [14] O'Sullivan O, Cotter PD (2017) Microbiota of Raw Milk and Raw Milk Cheeses. Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology New York: Academic Press, 301-316.
    [15] Angelidis AS (2014) The Microbiology of Raw Milk. Dairy Microbiology-A Practical Approach Boca Raton: CRC Press, 22-68.
    [16] Lavoie K, Touchette M, St-Gelais D, et al. (2012) Characterization of the fungal microflora in raw milk and specialty cheeses of the province of Quebec. Dairy Sci Technol 92: 455-68. doi: 10.1007/s13594-011-0051-4
    [17] Boutrou R, Gueguen M (2005) Interests in Geotrichum candidum for cheese technology. Int J Food Microbiol 102: 1-20. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.12.028
    [18] Cocolin L, Aggio D, Manzano M, et al. (2002) An application of PCR-DGGE analysis to profile the yeast populations in raw milk. Int Dairy J 12: 407-411. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(02)00023-7
    [19] Fadda ME, Mossa V, Pisano MB, et al. (2004) Occurrence and characterization of yeasts isolated from artisanal fioresardo cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 95: 51-59. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2004.02.001
    [20] Büchl NR, Seiler H (2011) Yeasts in milk and dairy products. Encyclopedia of Dairy Sciences London: Elsevier Academic Press, 744-753. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-374407-4.00498-2
    [21] Fröhlich-Wyder MT, Arias-Roth E, Jakob E (2019) Cheese yeasts. Yeasts 36: 129-141. doi: 10.1002/yea.3368
    [22] Cogan TM, Goerges S, Gelsomino R, et al. (2014) Biodiversity of the surface microbial consortia from limburger, Reblochon, Livarot, Tilsit, and Gubbeen Cheeses. Microbiol Spectrum 2: CM–0010–2012. doi: 10.1128/microbiolspec.CM-0010-2012
    [23] Cantor MD, van den Tempel T, Kronborg Hansen T, et al. (2017) Blue cheese. Cheese: Chemistry, Physics and Microbiology Major London: Elsevier Academic Press, 929-954.
    [24] Geronikou A, Srimahaeak T, Rantsiou K, et al. (2020) Occurrence of yeasts in white-brined cheeses: Methodologies for identification, spoilage potential and good manufacturing practices. Front Microbiol 11: 21. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.582778
    [25] Garnier L, Valence F, Mounier J (2017) Diversity and control of spoilage fungi in dairy products: an update. Microorganisms 5: 1-33. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms5030042
    [26] Lopandic K, Zelger S, Banszky LK, et al. (2006) Identification of yeasts associated with milk products using traditional and molecular techniques. Food Microbiol 23: 341-350. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2005.05.001
    [27] Gori K, Ryssel M, Arneborg N, et al. (2013) Isolation and identification of the microbiota of Danish farmhouse and industrially produced surface-ripened cheeses. Microbiol Ecol 65: 602-615. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0138-3
    [28] Buehler AJ, Evanowski RL, Martin NH, et al. (2017) Internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequencing reveals considerable fungal diversity in dairy products. J Dairy Sci 100: 8814-8825. doi: 10.3168/jds.2017-12635
    [29] Garnier L, Valence F, Pawtowski A, et al. (2017) Diversity of spoilage fungi associated with French dairy products. Int J Food Microbiol 241: 191-197. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.10.026
    [30] Haastrup MK, Johansen P, Malskær AH, et al. (2018) Cheese brines from Danish dairies reveal a complex microbiota comprising several halotolerant bacteria and yeasts. Int J Food Microbiol 285: 173-187. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.08.015
    [31] Mounier J, Le Blay G, Vasseur V, et al. (2010) Application of denaturing high-performance liquid chromatography (DHPLC) for yeasts identification in red smear cheese surfaces. Let Appl Microbiol 51: 18-23.
    [32] Ercolini D, Frisso G, Mauriello G, et al. (2008) Microbial diversity in natural whey cultures used for the production of Caciocavallo Silano PDO cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 124: 164-170. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.03.007
    [33] Andrade RP, Melo CN, Genisheva Z, et al. (2017) Yeasts from Canastra cheese production process: Isolation and evaluation of their potential for cheese whey fermentation. Food Res Int 91: 72-79. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.032
    [34] Wenning M, Seiler H, Scherer S (2002) Fourier-transform infrared microspectroscopy, a novel and rapid tool for identification of yeasts. Appl Environ Microbiol 68: 4717-4721. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.10.4717-4721.2002
    [35] Quigley L, O'Sullivan O, Beresford TP, et al. (2011) Molecular approaches to analysing the microbial composition of raw milk and raw milk cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 150: 81-94. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.08.001
    [36] Callon C, Delbes C, Duthoit F, et al. (2006) Application of SSCP-PCR finger-printing to profile the yeast community in raw milk Salers cheeses. System Appl Microbiol 29: 172-180. doi: 10.1016/j.syapm.2005.07.008
    [37] Lopez-Canovas L, Martinez Benitez MB, Herrera Isidron JA, et al. (2019) Pulsed Field Gel Electrophoresis: Past, present, and future. Anal Biochem 573: 17-29. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2019.02.020
    [38] Petersen KM, Jespersen L (2004) Genetic diversity of the species Debaryomyces hansenii and the use of chromosome polymorphism for typing of strains isolated from surface-ripened cheeses. J Appl Microbiol 97: 205-213. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2004.02293.x
    [39] Fasoli G, Tofalo R, Lanciotti R, et al. (2015) Chromosomes arrangement, differentiation of growth kinetics and volatile molecule profiles in Kluyveromyces marxianus strains from Italian cheeses. Int J Food Microbiol 214: 151-158. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.08.001
    [40] Naumova ES, Sadykova AZ, Michailova YV, et al. (2017) Polymorphism of lactose genes in the dairy yeasts Kluyveromyces marxianus, potential probiotic microorganisms. Microbiol 86: 363-369. doi: 10.1134/S0026261717030122
    [41] Padilla B, Manzanares P, Belloch C (2014) Yeast species and genetic heterogeneity within Debaryomyces hansenii along the ripening process of traditional ewes' and goats' cheeses. Food Microbiol 38: 160-166. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2013.09.002
    [42] Sohier D, Dizes AS, Thuault D, et al. (2009) Important genetic diversity revealed by inter-LTR PCR fingerprinting of Kluyveromyces marxianus and Debaryomyces hansenii strains from French traditional cheeses. Dairy Sci Technol 89: 569-581. doi: 10.1051/dst/2009032
    [43] Jacques N, Mallet S, Laaghouiti F, et al. (2017) Specific populations of the yeast Geotrichumcandidum revealed by molecular typing. Yeasts 34: 165-178. doi: 10.1002/yea.3223
    [44] Bokulich NA, Mills DA (2012) Next-generation approaches to the microbial ecology of food fermentations. BMB Rep 45: 377-389. doi: 10.5483/BMBRep.2012.45.7.148
    [45] Stellato G, De Filippis F, La Storia A, et al. (2015) Coexistence of lactic acid bacteria and potential spoilage microbiota in a dairy processing environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 81: 7893-7904. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02294-15
    [46] Ryssel M, Johansen P, Al-Soud WA, et al. (2015) Microbial diversity and dynamics throughout manufacturing and ripening of surface ripened semi-hard Danish Danbo cheeses investigated by culture-independent techniques. Int J Food Microbiol 215: 124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.09.012
    [47] Ercolini D (2013) High-throughput sequencing and metagenomics: moving forward in the culture independent analysis of food microbial ecology. Appl Environ Microbiol 79: 3148-3155. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00256-13
    [48] Wolfe BE, Button JE, Santarelli M, et al. (2014) Cheese rind communities provide tractable systems for in situ and in vitro studies of microbial diversity. Cell 158: 422-433. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.041
    [49] Quigley L, O'Sullivan O, Beresford TP, et al. (2012) High-throughput sequencing for detection of subpopulations of bacteria not previously associated with artisanal cheeses. Appl Environ Microbiol 78: 5717-5723. doi: 10.1128/AEM.00918-12
    [50] Bintsis T, Papademas P (2018) An overview of the cheesemaking process. Global Cheesemaking Technology Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 120-156.
    [51] Fleet GH, Mian MA (1987) The occurrence and growth of yeasts in dairy products. Int J Food Microbiol 4: 145-155. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(87)90021-3
    [52] Welthagen JJ, Viljoen BC (1996) The presence of yeasts in different cheese types. Yeasts in the dairy industry: positive and negative aspects, Copenhagen, Denmark Brussels, Belgium: International Dairy Federation, 78-87.
    [53] Tofalo R, Fasoli G, Schirone M, et al. (2014) The predominance, biodiversity and biotechnological properties of Kluyveromyces marxianus in the production of Pecorino di Farindola cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 187: 41-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.06.029
    [54] Gardini F, Tofalo R, Belletti N, et al. (2006) Characterization of yeasts involved in the ripening of Pecorino Crotonese cheese. Food Microbiol 23: 641-648. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2005.12.005
    [55] Capece A, Romano P (2009) ‘Pecorino di filiano’ cheese as a selective habitat for the yeast species, Debaryomyces hanseniiInt J Food Microbiol 132: 180-184. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2009.04.007
    [56] Cosentino S, Fadda ME, Deplano M, et al. (2001) Yeasts associated with sardinian ewe's dairy products. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 53-58. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00572-4
    [57] Fadda ME, Cosentino S, Deplano M, et al. (2001) Yeasts populations in Sardinian feta cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 153-156. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00586-4
    [58] Chombo-Morales P, Kirchmayr M, Gschaedler A, et al. (2016) Effects of controlling ripening conditions on the dynamics of the native microbial population of Mexican artisanal Cotija cheese assessed by PCRDGGE. LWT-Food Sci Technol 65: 1153-1161. doi: 10.1016/j.lwt.2015.09.044
    [59] Cardoso VM, Borelli BM, Lara CA, et al. (2015) The influence of seasons and ripening time on yeast communities of a traditional Brazilian cheese. Food Res Int 69: 331-340. doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.040
    [60] Corbo MR, Lanciotti R, Albenzio M, et al. (2001) Occurrence and characterization of yeasts isolated from milks and dairy products of Apulia region. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 147-152. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00585-2
    [61] Wyder MT, Puhan Z (1999) Role of selected yeasts in cheese ripening. Int Dairy J 9: 117-124. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(99)00032-1
    [62] Pereira-Dias S, Potes ME, Marinho A, et al. (2000) Characterisation of yeast flora isolated froman artisanal Portuguese ewes' cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 60: 55-63. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(00)00323-8
    [63] Borelli BM, Ferreira EG, Lacerda ICA, et al. (2006) Yeast populations associated with the artisanal cheese produced in the region of Serra da Canastra, Brazil. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22: 1115-1119. doi: 10.1007/s11274-006-9151-3
    [64] Goncalves Dos Santos MTP, Benito MJ, de Guia Cordoba M, et al. (2017) Yeast community in traditional Portuguese Serpa cheese by culture-dependent and -independent DNA approaches. Int J Food Microbiol 262: 63-70. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.09.013
    [65] Ceugniez A, Taminiau B, Coucheney F, et al. (2017) Fungal diversity of ‘Tomme d' Orchies’ cheese during the ripening process as revealed by a metagenomic study. Int J Food Microbiol 258: 89-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2017.07.015
    [66] Atanassova MR, Fernandez-Otero C, Rodriguez-Alonso P, et al. (2016) Characterization of yeasts isolated from artisanal short-ripened cows' cheeses produced in Galicia (NW Spain). Food Microbiol 53: 172-181. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2015.09.012
    [67] Dolci P, Barmaz A, Zenato S, et al. (2009) Maturing dynamics of surface microflora in Fontina PDO cheese studied by culture-dependent and -independent methods. J Appl Microbiol 106: 278-287. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.04001.x
    [68] Biagiotti C, Ciani M, Canonico L, et al. (2018) Occurrence and involvement of yeast biota in ripening of Italian Fossa cheese. European Food Res Technol 244: 1921-1931. doi: 10.1007/s00217-018-3104-6
    [69] Borelli BM, Ferreira EG, Lacerda ICA, et al. (2006) Yeast populations associated with the artisanal cheese produced in the region of Serra da Canastra, Brazil. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 22: 1115-1119. doi: 10.1007/s11274-006-9151-3
    [70] Welthagen JJ, Viljoen BC (1998) Yeast profile in Gouda cheese during processing and ripening. Int J Food Microbiol 41: 185-194. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(98)00042-7
    [71] Bonetta S, Carraro E, Rantsiou K, et al. (2008) Microbiological characterisation of Robiola di Roccaverano cheese using PCR-DGGE. Food Microbiol 25: 786-792. doi: 10.1016/j.fm.2008.04.013
    [72] Pangallo D, Sakova N, Korenova J, et al. (2014) Microbial diversity and dynamics during the production of may bryndza cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 170: 38-43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.10.015
    [73] Lioliou K, Litopoulou-Tzanetaki E, Tzanetakis N, et al. (2001) Changes in the microflora of Manouri, a traditional Greek whey cheese, during storage. Int J Dairy Technol 54: 100-106. doi: 10.1046/j.1364-727x.2001.00017.x
    [74] Romano P, Ricciardi A, Salzano G, et al. (2001) Yeasts from Water Buffalo Mozzarella, a traditional cheese of the Mediterranean area. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 45-51. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00571-2
    [75] Aponte M, Pepe O, Blaiotta G (2010) Short communication: Identification and technological characterization of yeast strains isolated from samples of water buffalo mozzarella cheese. J Dairy Sci 93: 2358-2361. doi: 10.3168/jds.2009-2948
    [76] Bintsis T, Papademas P (2002) Microbiological quality of white-brined cheeses: a review. Intern J Dairy Technol 55: 113-120. doi: 10.1046/j.1471-0307.2002.00054.x
    [77] Rantsiou K, Urso R, Dolci P, et al. (2008) Microflora of Feta cheese from four Greek manufacturers. Int J Food Microbiol 126: 36-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2008.04.031
    [78] El-Sharoud WM, Belloch C, Peris D, et al. (2009) Molecular identification of yeasts associated with traditional egyptian dairy products. J Food Sci 74: 341-346. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01258.x
    [79] Jacques N, Casaregola S (2008) Safety assessment of dairy microorganisms: the hemiascomycetous yeasts. Int J Food Microbiol 126: 321-326. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2007.08.020
    [80] Kauffman CA (2006) Fungal infections. Proc Am Thorac Soc 3: 35-40. doi: 10.1513/pats.200510-110JH
    [81] Seiler H, Busse M (1990) The yeasts of cheese brines. Int J Food Microbiol 11: 289-304. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(90)90022-W
    [82] Spinnler HE, Leclercq-Perlat MN (2007) White-mould cheese. Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 268-269.
    [83] Roostista R, Fleet GH (1996) The occurrence and growth of yeasts in Camembert and blue veined cheeses. Int J Food Microbiol 28: 393-404. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(95)00018-6
    [84] Viljoen BC, Khoury AR, Hattingh A (2003) Seasonal diversity of yeasts associated with white-surface mould-ripened cheeses. Food Res Int 36: 275-283. doi: 10.1016/S0963-9969(02)00169-2
    [85] Addis E, Fleet GH, Cox JM, et al. (2001) The growth, properties and interactions of yeasts and bacteria associated with the maturation of Camembert and blue-veined cheeses. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 25-36. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00569-4
    [86] Chen LS, Ma Y, Maubois JL, et al. (2010) Identification of yeasts from raw milk and selection for some specific antioxidant properties. Int J Dairy Technol 63: 47-54. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2009.00548.x
    [87] McSweeney PLH (2007) Bacterial surface-ripened cheeses. Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 289-290.
    [88] Scheehan JJ (2007) What organisms grow on the surface of smear cheeses? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 291-292.
    [89] Dugat-Bony E, Garnier L, Denonfoux J, et al. (2016) Highlighting the microbial diversity of 12 French cheese varieties. Int J Food Microbiol 238: 265-273. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2016.09.026
    [90] Masoud W, Jakobsen M (2005) The combined effects of pH, NaCl and temperature on growth of cheese ripening cultures of Debaryomyces hansenii and coryneform bacteria. Int Dairy J 15: 69-77. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2004.05.008
    [91] Goerges S, Mounier J, Rea MC, et al. (2008) Commercial ripening starter microorganisms inoculated into cheese milk do not successfully establish themselves in the resident microbial ripening consortia of a South German red smear cheese. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 2210-2217. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01663-07
    [92] Gori K, Ryssel M, Arneborg N, et al. (2013) Isolation and identification of the microbiota of Danish farmhouse and industrially produced surface-ripened cheeses. Microbiol Ecol 65: 602-615. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0138-3
    [93] Giannino ML, Buffoni JN, Massone E, et al. (2011) Internal transcribed spacer as a target to assess yeast biodiversity in italian taleggio PDO cheese. J Food Sci 76: 511-514. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-3841.2011.02288.x
    [94] Corsetti A, Rossi J, Gobbetti M (2001) Interactions between yeasts and bacteria in the smear surface-ripened cheeses. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 1-10. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00567-0
    [95] Mounier J, Monnet C, Vallaeys T, et al. (2008) Microbial interactions within a cheese microbial community. Appl Environ Microbiol 74: 172-181. doi: 10.1128/AEM.01338-07
    [96] Wojtatowicz M, Chrzanowska J, Juszczyk P, et al. (2001) Identification and biochemical characteristics of yeast microflora of Rokpol cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 135-140. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00582-7
    [97] Gkatzionis K, Yunita D, Linforth RS, et al. (2014) Diversity and activities of yeasts from different parts of a Stilton cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 177: 109-116. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.02.016
    [98] Viljoen BC, Knox AM, De Jager PH, et al. (2003) Development of yeast populations during processing and ripening of blue veined cheese. Food Technol Biotechnol 41: 291-297.
    [99] Kaminarides SE, Anifantakis M (1989) Evolution of the microflora of Kopanisti cheese during ripening. Study of the yeast flora. Lait 69: 537-546. doi: 10.1051/lait:1989637
    [100] Besançon X, Smet C, Chabalier C, et al. (1992) Study of surface yeast flora of Roquefort cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 17: 9-18. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(92)90014-T
    [101] Van den Tempel T, Jakobsen M (2000) The technological characteristics of Debaromyces hansenii and Yarrowia lipolytica and their potential as starter cultures for production of Danablu. Int Dairy J 10: 263-270. doi: 10.1016/S0958-6946(00)00053-4
    [102] Hansen TK, TempelTvd, Cantor MD, et al. (2001) Saccharomyces cerevisiae as a starter culture in Mycella. Int J Food Microbiol 69: 101-111. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(01)00577-3
    [103] Bintsis T (2006) Quality of the Brine. Brined Cheeses Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 264-301. doi: 10.1002/9780470995860.ch9
    [104] Zhang L, Huang C, Malskaer AH, et al. (2020) The effects of NaCl and temperature on growth and survival of yeast strains isolated from danish cheese brines. Curr Microbiol 77: 3377-3384. doi: 10.1007/s00284-020-02185-y
    [105] Gori K, Ryssel M, Arneborg N, et al. (2013) Isolation and identification of the microbiota of Danish farmhouse and industrially produced surface-ripened cheeses. Microbiol Ecol 65: 602-615. doi: 10.1007/s00248-012-0138-3
    [106] Jaeger B, Hoppe-Seyler T, Bockelmann W, et al. (2002) The influence of the brine microflora on the ripening of smear cheeses. Milchwissenschaft-Milk Sci Int 57: 645-648.
    [107] Ryssel M, Johansen P, Al-Soud WA, et al. (2015) Microbial diversity and dynamics throughout manufacturing and ripening of surface ripened semi-hard Danish Danbo cheeses investigated by culture-independent techniques. Int J Food Microbiol 215: 124-130. doi: 10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.09.012
    [108] Sørensen LM, Gori K, Petersen MA, et al. (2011) Flavour compound production by Yarrowia lipolytica, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Debaryomyces hansenii in a cheese-surface model. Int Dairy J 21: 970-978. doi: 10.1016/j.idairyj.2011.06.005
    [109] Bintsis T, Litopoulou-Tzanetaki E, Davies R, et al. (2000) Microbiology of brines used to mature feta cheese. Int J Dairy Technol 53: 106-112. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0307.2000.tb02671.x
    [110] Moatsou G, Govaris A (2011) White brined cheeses: A diachronic exploitation of small ruminants milk in Greece. Small Rumin Res 101: 113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.smallrumres.2011.09.031
    [111] Guinee TP (2007) How should cheese brine be prepared and maintained? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 94-95.
    [112] Alichanidis E (2007) What causes early and late gas blowing in white-brined cheeses? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 332-335.
    [113] Alichanidis E (2007) What causes blowing of the white-brined cheese containers? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 336-337.
    [114] Vivier D, Rivemale M, Reverbel JP, et al. (1994) Study of the growth of yeasts from Feta cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 22: 207-215. doi: 10.1016/0168-1605(94)90143-0
    [115] McSweeney PLH (2007) Why does cheese develop a pink discoloration? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 223-224.
    [116] Ardö Y (2007) Why does Blue cheese develop brown spots? Cheese Problems Solved Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited, 286.
    [117] Carreira A, Paloma L, Loureiro V (1998) Pigment producing yeasts involved in the brown surface discoloration of ewes' cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 41: 223-230. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(98)00054-3
    [118] Ben Tahar I, Kus-Liskiewicz M, Lara Y, et al. (2020) Characterization of a nontoxic pyomelanin pigment produced by the yeast Yarrowia lipolyticaBiotechnol Prog 36: e2912. doi: 10.1002/btpr.2912
    [119] Zheng X, Shi X, Wang B (2021) A Review on the General Cheese Processing Technology, Flavor Biochemical Pathways and the Influence of Yeasts in Cheese. Front Microbiol 12: 703284. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.703284
    [120] Nussinovitch A, Rosen B, Firstenberg-Eden R (1987) Effects of yeasts on survival of Staphylococcus aureus in pickled cheese brine. J Food Prot 50: 1023-1024. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-50.12.1023
    [121] Banjara N, Suhr MJ, Hallen-Adams HE (2015) Diversity of yeasts and mold species from a variety of cheese types. Curr Microbiol 70: 792-800. doi: 10.1007/s00284-015-0790-1
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Thepwachara RUCHIRABHA, Shigeru NAGASAWA, Effect of anvil profile on cutting characteristics of polystyrene bar subjected to wedge indentation, 2020, 14, 1881-3054, JAMDSM0093, 10.1299/jamdsm.2020jamdsm0093
    2. Thepwachara Ruchirabha, Shigeru Nagasawa, Effect of Wedge Tip Thickness of Nail Clipper on Cutting Characteristics of Polystyrene Ribbon, 2020, 859, 1757-899X, 012008, 10.1088/1757-899X/859/1/012008
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(7914) PDF downloads(402) Cited by(39)

Figures and Tables

Tables(7)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog