4.7 Article

Attachment of Salmonella serovars and Listeria monocytogenes to stainless steel and plastic conveyor belts

Journal

POULTRY SCIENCE
Volume 91, Issue 8, Pages 2004-2010

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3382/ps.2011-01689

Keywords

bacterial attachment; conveyor belt; stainless steel; plastic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In poultry industry, cross-contamination due to processing equipment and contact surfaces is very common. This study examined the extent of bacterial attachment to 6 different types and design of conveyor belts: stainless steel-single loop, stainless steel-balance weave, polyurethane with mono-polyester fabric, acetal, polypropylene mesh top, and polypropylene. Clean conveyor belts were immersed separately in either a cocktail of Salmonella serovars (Salmonella Typhimurium and Salmonella Enteritidis) or Listeria monocytogenes strains (Scott A, Brie 1, ATCC 6744) for 1 h at room temperature. Soiled conveyor chips were dipped in poultry rinses contaminated with Salmonella or Listeria cocktail and incubated at 10 degrees C for 48 h. The polyurethane with mono-polyester fabric conveyor belt and chip exhibited a higher (P < 0.05) mean number of attached Salmonella serovars (clean: 1.6 to 3.6 cfu/cm(2); soiled: 0.8 to 2.4 cfu/cm(2)) and L. monocytogenes (clean: 4.0 to 4.3 cfu/cm(2); soiled: 0.3 to 2.1 cfu/cm(2)) in both clean and soiled conditions. The stainless steel conveyor belt attached a lower (P < 0.05) number of Salmonella serovars (clean: 0 to 2.6 cfu/cm(2); soiled: 0.4 to 1.3 cfu/cm(2)) and L. monocytogenes (clean: 0.4 to 2.9 cfu/cm(2); soiled: 0 to 0.7 cfu/cm(2)) than the polymeric materials, indicating weaker adhesion properties. Plastic conveyor belts exhibited stronger bacterial adhesion compared with stainless steel. The result suggests the importance of selecting the design and finishes of conveyor belt materials that are most resistant to bacterial attachment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available