scholarly journals Efficacy of chlorine sanitizer spray bottles exposed to various temperatures and ambient light

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Kobylarz ◽  
BCIT School of Health Sciences, Environmental Health ◽  
Helen Heacock ◽  
Fred Shaw
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Hypochlorite ◽  
Light Exposure ◽  
Food Service ◽  
P Value ◽  
Ambient Light ◽  
Minimum Requirement ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Safe Level ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces

  Background: Gastroenteritis is largely under reported across Canada. It is estimated that one reported case represents on average 313 cases. In addition, improper cleaning is one of the top ten reported causes of food borne illness. Sanitization is important to reduce the number of pathogenic microorganisms present on food contact surfaces to a safe level. Correct concentrations of sodium hypochlorite are to be prepared and used within the range of 100ppm – 200ppm on food contact surfaces. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the rate of degradation of sodium hypochlorite in spray bottles to assess if these solutions need to be prepared fresh daily to achieve efficacy. Two variables seen within a food service establishment were chosen to evaluate the rate of degradation, temperature and ambient light. Method: Room temperature (20˚C), 35˚C and ambient light exposure were tested to evaluate their effect on the degradation of free chlorine in spray bottles over time in days. The experiment was preformed by setting up 3 individual spray bottles at 20˚C with no light, 20˚C with ambient light and 35˚C with no light. The sodium hypochlorite was then sampled and recorded periodically three times a week over a 15-day period to determine the stability of the chorine solutions prepared at around 200ppm. Results: In the order of spray bottles tested, 20˚C no light, 20˚C ambient light and 35˚C no light, a correlation coefficient of -0.3027, -0.8235 and -0.8169 were recorded. In addition, the following test spray bottles held a r-squared value of 0.0916, 0.6781 and 0.6674. A p-value of 0.5094, 0.0249 and 0.0249 were also assessed, with a corresponding power of 8.99%, 73.74% and 71.75%. Conclusions: By calculating the linear regression formula, it was concluded that chlorine solution in spray bottles do not need to be prepared fresh daily. For 200ppm 20˚C no light, 200ppm 20˚C ambient light and 200ppm 35˚C no light, at days 128, 67 and 45, the estimated concentration of sodium hypochlorite will be at the minimum requirement of 100ppm respectively.  

Concentration and Detection of Caliciviruses from Food Contact Surfaces

2002 ◽  
Vol 65 (6) ◽  
pp. 999-1004 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANIL TAKU ◽  
BALDEV R. GULATI ◽  
PAUL B. ALLWOOD ◽  
KERRIN PALAZZI ◽  
CRAIG W. HEDBERG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Contact Period ◽  
Norwalk Virus ◽  
Buffer Solution ◽  
Simple Method ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces ◽  
Elution Method

Outbreaks of human Norwalk virus (NV) and Norwalk-like viruses often originate in food service establishments. No reliable method is available for the detection of these human caliciviruses on food contact surfaces. We describe a simple method for the detection of NV from stainless steel work surfaces using cultivable feline calicivirus (FCV) as a model. Stainless steel surfaces were artificially contaminated with known amounts of FCV, followed by its elution in a buffer solution. Three methods of virus elution were compared. In the first method, moistened cotton swabs or pieces of nylon filter (1MDS) were used to elute the contaminating virus. The second method consisted of flooding the contaminated surface with eluting buffer, allowing it to stay in contact for 15 min, followed by aspiration of the buffer (aspiration method) after a contact period of 15 min. The third method, the scraping-aspiration method, was similar to the aspiration method, except that the surfaces were scraped with a cell scraper before buffer aspiration. Maximum virus recovery (32 to 71%) was obtained with the scraping-aspiration method using 0.05 M glycine buffer at pH 6.5. Two methods (organic flocculation and filter adsorption elution) were compared to reduce the volume of the eluate recovered from larger surfaces. The organic flocculation method gave an average overall recovery of 55% compared to the filter-adsorption-elution method, which yielded an average recovery of only 8%. The newly developed method was validated for the detection of NV by artificial contamination of 929-cm2 stainless steel sheets with NV-positive stool samples and for the detection of the recovered virus by reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction.

scholarly journals Evaluating the effectiveness of cleaning with detergent soap alone verses detergent soap followed by sanitizer on reducing aerobic microorganism numbers that are present on food contact surfaces

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vincent Man ◽  
BCIT School of Health Sciences, Environmental Health ◽  
Helen Heacock
Keyword(s):  
Research Study ◽  
Microbial Reduction ◽  
P Value ◽  
Cross Contamination ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Colony Forming Units ◽  
Contact Surfaces ◽  
Alfalfa Sprouts ◽  
Chlorine Bleach

  Background: Cross-contamination is one of the leading causes of foodborne illness which poses a massive burden to an individual’s health and to the healthcare system. One way to prevent cross-contamination is through the elimination of pathogens from surfaces by properly washing with a detergent soap followed by sanitizing with a sanitizer. However, as found from a previous research study, not all restaurants in British Columbia wash and sanitize their food contact surfaces. Thus, this study aims to compare the cleaning effectiveness between using detergent soap alone verses using detergent soap followed by sanitizer. Methods: Aerobic organisms were introduced to a cutting board by cutting alfalfa sprouts and then the surface was cleaned with Dawn Detergent soap and sanitized with 200ppm of chlorine bleach sanitizing solution. 3M™ Quick Swabs were used to sample the aerobic organisms (colony forming units) prior to and after each method of cleaning. The swabs were then transferred to 3M™ Petrifilm Plates, incubated at room temperature for 4 days, and then enumerated. Results: The results show that there is a statistically significant greater microbial reduction through cleaning with detergent soap followed by sanitizer (mean log microbial reduction of 4.10) as compared to cleaning with detergent soap alone (mean log microbial reduction of 3.53). The p-value obtained is 0.003843 when α=0.05. The power was determined to be 92%. Conclusions: This study was able to conclude that cleaning with detergent soap followed by sanitizer is 0.57 log (mean log microbial reduction of 4.10 - mean log microbial reduction of 3.53) more effective at cleaning than using detergent soap alone. However, the specific log microbial reduction value for the detergent soap followed by sanitizer achieved in this study is lower than what is found in the previous studies (Gilbert, 1970; Sores et al., 2012; Rossvoll et al., 2015). A possible reason for this discrepancy may be due to the presence of soil and food debris on the surface which may have had interfered with the sanitizing ability of the chlorine bleach (Lee et al., 2007).  

scholarly journals The Bactericidal Effect of a Combination of Food-Grade Compounds and their Application as Alternative Antibacterial Agents for Food Contact Surfaces

Foods ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyung Min Park ◽  
Sung-Geon Yoon ◽  
Tae-Ho Choi ◽  
Hyun Jung Kim ◽  
Kee Jai Park ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sodium Hypochlorite ◽  
Salmonella Enteritidis ◽  
Antibacterial Agents ◽  
Multicomponent System ◽  
Viable Cell ◽  
Bactericidal Effect ◽  
Food Grade ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces

Chemical antibacterials are widely used to control microbial growth but have raised concerns about health risks. It is necessary to find alternative, non-toxic antibacterial agents for the inhibition of pathogens in foods or food contact surfaces. To develop a non-toxic and “green” food-grade alternative to chemical sanitizers, we formulated a multicomponent antibacterial mixture containing Rosmarinus officinalis L., Camellia sinensis L., citric acid, and ε-polylysine and evaluated its bactericidal efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus, Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Salmonella Enteritidis, and Listeria monocytogenes on food contact surfaces. A combination of the agents allowed their use at levels lower than were effective when tested individually. At a concentration of 0.25%, the multicomponent mixture reduced viable cell count by more than 5 log CFU/area, with complete inactivation 24 h after treatment. The inhibitory efficacy of the chemical antibacterial agent (sodium hypochlorite, 200 ppm) and the multicomponent antibacterial mixture (0.25%) on utensil surfaces against S. aureus, E. coli, S. Enteritidis, and L. monocytogenes were similar, but the multicomponent system was more effective against B. cereus than sodium hypochlorite, with an immediate 99.999% reduction on knife and plastic basket surfaces, respectively, and within 2 h on cutting board surfaces after treatment. A combination of these food-grade antibacterials could be a useful strategy for inhibition of bacteria on food contact surfaces while allowing use of lower concentrations of its components than are effective individually. This multicomponent food-grade antibacterial mixture may be a suitable “green” alternative to chemical sanitizers.

Allergen Removal and Transfer with Wiping and Cleaning Methods Used in Retail and Food Service Establishments

2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (7) ◽  
pp. 1248-1260
Author(s):  
BINAIFER BEDFORD ◽  
GIRVIN LIGGANS ◽  
LAURIE WILLIAMS ◽  
LAUREN JACKSON
Keyword(s):  
Food Service ◽  
Food Environments ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Cleaning Procedures ◽  
Contact Surfaces ◽  
Cleaning Methods ◽  
Quaternary Ammonium Chloride ◽  
Flow Devices ◽  
Retail Food

ABSTRACT Preventing the transfer of allergens from one food to another via food contact surfaces in retail food environments is an important aspect of retail food safety. Existing recommendations for wiping and cleaning food contact surfaces is mainly focused on preventing microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, from contaminating foods. The effectiveness of these wiping and cleaning recommendations for preventing the transfer of food allergens in retail and food service establishments remains unclear. This project investigated (i) allergen removal from surfaces by wiping with paper wipes, terry cloth, and alcohol quaternary ammonium chloride (quat) sanitizing wipes; (ii) cleaning of allergen-contaminated surfaces by using a wash–rinse–sanitize–air dry procedure; and (iii) allergen transfer from contaminated wipes to multiple surfaces. Food contact surfaces (stainless steel, textured plastic, and maple wood) were contaminated with peanut-, milk- and egg-containing foods and subjected to various wiping and cleaning procedures. For transfer experiments, dry paper wipes or wet cloths contaminated with allergenic foods were wiped on four surfaces of the same composition. Allergen-specific lateral flow devices were used to detect the presence of allergen residues on wiped or cleaned surfaces. Although dry wipes and cloths were not effective for removing allergenic foods, terry cloth presoaked in water or sanitizer solution, use of multiple quat wipes, and the wash–rinse–sanitize–air dry procedure were effective in allergen removal from surfaces. Allergens present on dry wipes were transferred to wiped surfaces. In contrast, minimal or no allergen transfer to surfaces was found when allergen-contaminated terry cloth was submerged in sanitizer solution prior to wiping surfaces. The full cleaning method (wash–rinse–sanitize–air dry) and soaking the terry cloth in sanitizer solution prior to wiping were effective at allergen removal and minimizing allergen transfer. HIGHLIGHTS

scholarly journals Applications of Pulsed Light Decontamination Technology in Food Processing: An Overview

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3606 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ronit Mandal ◽  
Xanyar Mohammadi ◽  
Artur Wiktor ◽  
Anika Singh ◽  
Anubhav Pratap Singh
Keyword(s):  
Food Processing ◽  
Light Exposure ◽  
Food Products ◽  
Pulse Generation ◽  
Food Preservation ◽  
Pulsed Light ◽  
Minimal Processing ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces

Consumers of the 21st century tend to be more aware and demand safe as well as nutritionally balanced food. Unfortunately, conventional thermal processing makes food safe at the cost of hampering nutritional value. The food industry is trying to develop non-thermal processes for food preservation. Pulsed light (PL) is one such emerging non-thermal food processing method that can decontaminate food products or food contact surfaces using white light. Exposure to intense light pulses (in infrared, visible, and ultraviolet (UV) regions) causes the death of microbial cells, rendering the food safe at room temperature. PL technology is an excellent and rapid method of disinfection of product surfaces and is increasingly being used for food surfaces and packaging decontamination, enabling the minimal processing of food. This paper aims to give an overview of the latest trends in pulsed light research, discuss principles of pulse generation, and review applications of various PL systems for the inactivation of microorganisms in vitro, in various food products, and on food contact surfaces. Effects of PL on food quality, challenges of the process, and its prospects are presented.

scholarly journals Could food or food contact surfaces be the favourable hideouts for Listeria monocytogenes in Perak, Malaysia?

Food Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 174-182
Author(s):  
S.N. Chen ◽  
M.L. Yap ◽  
C.H. Kuan ◽  
Son Radu ◽  
S.H. Saw
Keyword(s):  
Listeria Monocytogenes ◽  
Food Processing ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Food Samples ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Minimally Processed ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Stressful Environment ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces

Listeria monocytogenes is a causative agent of foodborne listeriosis which causes a high rate of hospitalisation (>90%) and death (20-30%) worldwide. Due to its ubiquitous nature and high resistance to a stressful environment, L. monocytogenes is able to multiply to a threatening level during food processing, distribution and storage, which then causes an immense case of foodborne disease outbreak. Hence, the control of L. monocytogenes is required at all stages in the food chain to prevent its occurrence in the final product. The present study aimed to determine the prevalence of L. monocytogenes in food as well as food contact surfaces from food processing plants and food service premises located in Perak, Malaysia. A total number of 170 food samples, including raw, minimally processed, processed and ready-to-eat food, as well as 152 samples from surfaces, including food-contact and non-food-contact, were collected and isolated on culture, and confirmation was done using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). A total of 26 food samples (15.29%) were positive for L. monocytogenes, with the highest prevalence found in processed and minimally processed food at 33.33% and 31.25%, respectively; following by raw and ready-to-eat food at 26.32% and 4.26% respectively. On the other hand, a higher prevalence of L. monocytogenes was detected from food-contact surfaces at 11.83% compared to non-food contact surfaces at 6.78%. These findings demonstrated the potential risk of contamination by L. monocytogenes in food and it might be due to the exposure of the bacteria on food processing surfaces. Thus, regular surveillance and strict assessment should be conducted by the local authorities to ensure the safety of the food consumption for residents in Perak.

scholarly journals Bacteriophage Intervention Effectively Kills Listeria on Food Contact Surface Materials

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Sirdesai ◽  
B. De Vegt ◽  
R. Peterson ◽  
A. Moncho ◽  
J. Van Mierlo
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Food Processing ◽  
P Value ◽  
Bacterial Reduction ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Processing Plants ◽  
Food Contact Surface ◽  
Contact Surfaces ◽  
Phage Treatment

ObjectivesListeria is a pathogenic bacterium that is widespread in nature and can enter food processing plants through many vectors, like raw materials, process waste and personnel. Food processors work hard to keep Listeria out of the environment, but it can at times be found from food contact surfaces to floor drains. The sanitation can be compounded when equipment is pitted or cracked creating a harborage or niche in which Listeria can grow. Many control strategies for cleaning and biofilm removal have been put into place but may not suffice in eliminating Listeria from the food contact surface or environment. Bacteriophages are now being used to tackle these pathogens in food processing environments. Since they only target specific bacteria, they are harmless to humans, animals and plants, while effectively eliminating Listeria.This study determines the efficacy of a commercially available bacteriophage product, PhageGuard Listex, against Listeria on commonly found materials in food processing plants (stainless steel and UHMW polyethylene). Efficacy was determined by applying two phage concentrations, as well as two exposure times.Materials and MethodsOvernight cultures of L. monocytogenes ATCC13832 and L. innocua ATCC51742 were mixed in equal parts to create a Listeria cocktail (2 × 109 CFU/cm2). Sterile coupons (100 cm2) of stainless steel or UHMW polyethylene were artificially inoculated with the cocktail at 2.5ML/cm2 and left to dry at 37°C until completely dry. Subsequently, coupons were treated with 2 × 107 or 1 × 108 Plaque Forming Units (PFU)/cm2 using a spray system and incubated at room temperature for 1 and 3 h, before retrieval and enumeration of bacteria on selective agar plates. Sample size n:3. Results were analyzed using two-way ANOVA, with Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test on the normalized data.ResultsA dose dependent response to the phage treatment was observed, where an increasing phage concentration resulted in an increase in Listeria kill on both surfaces. On stainless steel, a treatment dose of 2 × 107 PFU/cm2 resulted in a statistically significant bacterial reduction of 1.27 log after 1 h (p value < 0.0001), while application of 1 × 108 PFU/cm2 showed a 2.16 log reduction (p value < 0.0001). On UHMW polyethylene, a bacterial reduction of 0.47 log was observed 1 h after applying 2 × 107 PFU/cm2, while the application of 1 × 108 PFU/cm2 led to a reduction of 1.95 log. However, these reductions were not statistically significant (p value > 0.05). After 3 h of treatment, the reductions were slightly higher in both materials (Table 3). After this time, the difference between control and 5% treatment on UHMW polyethylene obtained a p-value < 0.05.ConclusionPhage technology is an easy and safe intervention which can be used as an additional tool to control Listeria in processing environments. The above results indicate that the commercially available phage solution, PhageGuard Listex, can reduce Listeria contamination on food contact surfaces by 0.4 to 3.4 logs after 3 h of treatment.Table 3Log reduction of Listeria cells after applicatio nof two bacteriophage concentrations, measured at 1 and 3 h post phage treatment

scholarly journals Methods for cleaning & sanitizing food contact surfaces (countertops) to prevent cross contamination in restaurant kitchens

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Matthewson ◽  
BCIT School of Health Sciences, Environmental Health ◽  
Helen Heacock
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Health ◽  
Food Service ◽  
Cross Contamination ◽  
Bacterial Reduction ◽  
Step Method ◽  
Cleaning Method ◽  
Food Contact ◽  
Health Officer ◽  
Food Contact Surfaces ◽  
Contact Surfaces

  Background: Cross contamination can occur in restaurant kitchens when food contact surfaces such as countertops are inadequately cleaned between preparation of raw and ready to eat foods. Previous research has demonstrated that washing with detergent and water, rinsing, then applying a sanitizer solution is the most effective cleaning method. The second most effective cleaning method is to use detergent and water alone. In practice, the author has observed kitchen staff using sanitizer alone to clean kitchen countertops. This study surveyed British Columbia restaurant kitchen staff on current practices and makes recommendations to improve cleaning and sanitization practices for the purpose of preventing cross contamination. Methods: A survey was prepared using SurveyMonkey and distributed through Facebook to the author’s contacts in the restaurant industry. The Facebook post included a request for anyone to share the survey link with their contacts who work in BC restaurant kitchens. The survey was shared 21 times by 14 different people. The survey asked questions about restaurant type and position, Foodsafe level, and about cleaning practices such as frequency and cleaning compounds used. Results: When asked what cleaning compounds are most often used to clean work surfaces (countertops) in their restaurant, 56.5% of respondents reported sanitizer solution only, 30.4% of respondents reported soap & water followed by sanitizer solution, and 13.0% reported soap and water only. When asked why sanitizer solution only was used to clean countertops, 46.2% of respondents said it was company policy, 23.1% of respondents said time savings, and 15.4% of respondents indicated that an Environmental Health Officer had recommended sanitizer use and that is what lead to sanitizer alone being used to clean countertops. Conclusions: In practice, some restaurant staff do not use sanitizer effectively and may believe it is a substitute for detergent. Using sanitizer alone is not as effective as using detergent alone. Detergent alone can provide a 2-3 log bacterial reduction. If staff are busy and are only going to use one cleaning step, detergent alone is the best method. Environmental Health Officers should review sanitation plans and talk with operators to determine current cleaning practices in food service establishments. Operators and staff should be re-educated on the importance of the three-step method. It may be beneficial to recommend that sanitizer use be decreased overall to encourage the use of soap and water. It may only be necessary to use sanitizer after high-risk jobs such as preparing raw meat or at the end of the day.  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document