4.7 Article

Assessing manufacturers' recommended concentrations of commercial sanitizers on inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes

期刊

FOOD CONTROL
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 194-199

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.01.041

关键词

Listeria monocytogenes; Biofilm; Suspension; Inactivation; Sanitizers

资金

  1. New Zealand Foundation for Research, Science Technology [CAWX0703]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Listeria monocytogenes is the causative agent of listeriosis in humans. Its wide distribution in the environment is one of the main reasons it is a source of food poisoning. L. monocytogenes also forms biofilms, making cleaning and sanitation difficult. Microtiter plate assays have previously been used to assess biofilm formation of L. monocytogenes and to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of disinfectants in suspension. In this study, we have used a microplate assay to evaluate the minimum sanitizer concentrations required for a 5 log(10) CFU/ml decrease of L. monocytogenes cells in suspension and in biofilm. Twenty-one sanitizers were tested against 20 strains of L. monocytogenes. The results showed that all tested sanitizers achieved a 5-log(10) reduction of viable cells in suspension at concentrations below the manufacturers' recommended concentrations, of a biguanide-based product. When tested against L. monocytogenes in biofilm, only the peroxyacetic acid, chlorine dioxide and acidified sodium chorite-based products gave a 5-log(10) decrease, within or close to the manufacturers' recommended concentrations. No relationship was observed between susceptibility to chemical sanitizers and other characteristics of the isolates: pulsotypes, sources, biofilm forming ability or persistence. This work suggests that caution must be taken in selecting an appropriate sanitizer for use in food processing plants and an effective cleansing programme is required to ensure thorough inactivation and removal of L. monocytogenes in biofilms. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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