4.7 Article

Comparing the susceptibility to sanitizers, biofilm-forming ability, and biofilm resistance to quaternary ammonium and chlorine dioxide of 43 Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes strains

期刊

FOOD MICROBIOLOGY
卷 117, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fm.2023.104380

关键词

Foodborne pathogens; Persistence; Stainless steel; Disinfectants; Biocide tolerance

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the susceptibility to sanitizers and biofilm-forming ability of 43 Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes strains on stainless steel surfaces. The results showed variations in susceptibility to sanitizers and biofilm resistance among different strains of the pathogens, with chlorine compounds being more effective in inactivating planktonic cells and biofilms.
This study determined the susceptibility to sanitizers and biofilm-forming ability on stainless steel of 43 Sal-monella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes strains. Besides, the biofilm resistance to sanitizers of four bacterial pathogen strains was evaluated. Four sanitizers commonly used in the food industry were tested: peracetic acid (PAA), chlorine dioxide (ClO2), sodium hypochlorite (SH), and quaternary ammonium compound (QAC). The susceptibility to sanitizers varied widely among the strains of both pathogens. On the other hand, the number of biofilm-associated cells on the stainless-steel surface was >5 log CFU/cm(2) for all of them. Only one Salmonella strain and two L. monocytogenes strains stood out as the least biofilm-forming. The resistance of biofilms to sanitizers also varied among strains of each pathogen. Biofilms of L. monocytogenes were more susceptible to the disinfection process with ClO2 and QAC than those of Salmonella. However, no correlation was observed between the ability to form denser biofilm and increased sanitizer resistance. In general, chlorine compounds were more effective than other sanitizers in inactivating planktonic cells and biofilms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据