Scientists are exploring new methods to create postbiotics—the helpful parts of bacteria that benefit your health—without using traditional heat. While heat has been the standard way to make these supplements for years, it can damage important nutrients and create unpleasant flavors. This review looks at six newer technologies like high-pressure processing and special electric fields that might work better. These methods could make postbiotics more effective, longer-lasting, and easier to produce at large scales. However, researchers still need to test these approaches more thoroughly before they become common in stores.
The Quick Take
- What they studied: How new technologies without heat can create postbiotics (the beneficial parts of bacteria) better than traditional heating methods
- Who participated: This is a review paper that analyzed existing research rather than conducting a new experiment with human participants
- Key finding: Six emerging technologies—high-pressure processing, pulsed electric fields, ultrasound, cold plasma, supercritical CO2, and irradiation—show promise for making postbiotics while preserving more of their beneficial properties compared to heat treatment
- What it means for you: In the future, postbiotic supplements may be more effective and stable, though these technologies need more testing before becoming widely available in products you can buy
The Research Details
This is a comprehensive review paper, meaning researchers examined and summarized findings from many existing studies rather than conducting their own experiment. The authors looked at scientific literature about postbiotics and compared six different nonthermal technologies that could replace traditional heat processing. They evaluated each technology based on how well it preserves the beneficial properties of postbiotics, how stable the final product is, and whether it could work in large-scale manufacturing.
The review examined the basic principles of how each technology works, looked at what research shows about their effectiveness, and discussed practical challenges for using them in real-world production. The authors also considered safety, cost, and regulatory requirements that would affect whether these methods could actually be used by companies making supplements.
Understanding better ways to make postbiotics is important because the current heat-based method has real problems. Heat can destroy some of the beneficial molecules, create bad tastes and smells, and reduce how well the product works. If scientists can develop better methods, postbiotics could become more effective supplements that last longer on store shelves and cost less to produce. This could help more people access these health products.
This is a review of existing research rather than a new study, so it summarizes what scientists already know rather than providing new experimental data. The strength of this review depends on the quality of the studies it examined. The authors acknowledge that more research is needed to prove these new technologies actually work in real manufacturing settings and that regulatory approval would be required before companies could use them.
What the Results Show
The review identified six promising nonthermal technologies that could replace heat treatment. High-pressure processing uses extreme pressure to inactivate bacteria while preserving beneficial molecules. Pulsed electric fields apply short bursts of electricity to break down bacterial cells without damaging heat-sensitive nutrients. Ultrasound uses sound waves to disrupt bacteria. Cold plasma creates ionized gas that kills bacteria at low temperatures. Supercritical CO2 uses pressurized carbon dioxide to extract and process materials. Irradiation uses radiation energy to inactivate microorganisms.
Each technology has different strengths. Some are better at preserving specific beneficial compounds, while others are more practical for large-scale production. High-pressure processing and pulsed electric fields appear closest to being ready for industrial use. However, the review notes that research on these methods is still developing, and scientists haven’t yet fully tested how well they work compared to heat treatment in real-world manufacturing.
The authors found that these nonthermal methods generally preserve more of the beneficial molecules that heat can destroy. This means postbiotics made with these technologies might be more effective at supporting gut health. Additionally, these methods don’t create the burnt flavors and odors that heat treatment sometimes produces.
The review also discusses important practical considerations. Cost is a major factor—some of these new technologies are expensive to set up and operate, which could make postbiotic supplements more expensive for consumers. Regulatory approval is another challenge; government agencies haven’t yet established clear rules for using these technologies in food and supplement production. The review notes that companies would need to conduct safety studies and get approval before using these methods commercially. Additionally, the effectiveness of each technology depends on specific settings like pressure level, electric field strength, or ultrasound frequency, and these settings need to be carefully optimized for different types of postbiotics.
Heat treatment has been the standard method for making postbiotics because it’s simple, reliable, and inexpensive. However, research has shown that heat damages some beneficial compounds and creates undesirable changes in flavor and smell. The nonthermal technologies reviewed here represent the next generation of processing methods that scientists hope will overcome these limitations. While some of these technologies have been used in other food processing applications, their specific use for making postbiotics is relatively new. This review brings together research on these emerging methods and evaluates their potential specifically for postbiotic production.
This review has several important limitations. First, it’s based on existing research rather than new experiments, so the conclusions depend on the quality and completeness of studies already published. Second, most research on these nonthermal technologies for postbiotics is still in early stages—many studies are laboratory-based rather than real-world manufacturing tests. Third, there’s limited research comparing these technologies directly to each other or to heat treatment using the same postbiotics and measurement methods. Fourth, the review doesn’t include clinical studies showing whether postbiotics made with these new methods actually improve human health better than heat-treated versions. Finally, regulatory and economic data are limited, so it’s unclear which technologies will actually become practical for companies to use.
The Bottom Line
Based on current evidence, these nonthermal technologies show promise but aren’t yet ready for widespread use. If you’re considering postbiotic supplements, current heat-treated postbiotics remain a safe and effective option. In the future (likely several years from now), look for postbiotics made with nonthermal technologies as they become commercially available—these may offer improved effectiveness. Confidence level: Moderate. The evidence suggests these technologies could be better, but more research is needed to confirm this.
This research matters most to supplement manufacturers, food scientists, and regulatory agencies deciding how postbiotics should be produced. For consumers, it’s relevant if you’re interested in postbiotics and want to understand how they might improve in the future. People with specific gut health concerns might benefit most from better postbiotics once these technologies are available. However, this research doesn’t change current recommendations for anyone currently using postbiotic supplements.
The technologies reviewed here are still in development. Based on typical timelines for food technology adoption, it will likely take 3-5 years for the most promising methods to be tested thoroughly, get regulatory approval, and become available in commercial products. Some technologies might be ready sooner, while others may take longer. Don’t expect to see these products widely available immediately, but keep an eye on supplement labels for mentions of nonthermal processing methods in the coming years.
Want to Apply This Research?
- Track your postbiotic supplement intake and any digestive changes (bloating, regularity, energy levels) on a weekly basis. Note the processing method used if available, so you can compare how different types affect you once nonthermal options become available.
- Start documenting which postbiotic products you use and how you feel after taking them. When new nonthermal-processed postbiotics become available, try them and compare your results to your baseline. This personal tracking will help you identify which processing methods work best for your body.
- Create a long-term log tracking postbiotic use, digestive health markers (regularity, bloating, energy), and product details (brand, processing method). Review monthly to identify patterns. As new technologies become available, use this historical data to evaluate whether newer products offer better results than your current supplement.
This review discusses emerging technologies that are not yet widely available in commercial postbiotic products. Current postbiotic supplements using heat treatment remain safe and effective. Before starting any new supplement, including postbiotics, consult with your healthcare provider, especially if you have digestive conditions, take medications, or have a compromised immune system. This article summarizes scientific research but does not constitute medical advice. The technologies discussed require further clinical testing and regulatory approval before widespread use. Individual results with any postbiotic product may vary.