Comparative efficacies of various chemical sanitizers for warewashing operations in restaurants

Sigua, Gerald; Lee, Yoon-Hee; Lee, Jae-Sung; Lee, Ken; Hipp, Joel; Pascall, Melvin A.

doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.05.003

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A loop of each culture was transferred into a bottle containing 200 mL tryptic soy broth (Difco, MI, USA) and incubated for 18-24 h at 35°C. After this incubation, a loop of the broth was spread on a Trypticase Soy Agar (Difco, USA) supplemented with 0.3 percent (w/w) yeast extract (TSAYE) and incubated at 35°C for 18-24 h (Sigua et al, 2011).…”

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does electrolyzed water have different sanitizing effects than sodium hypochlorite on different vegetable types?

Yoon

et al. 2017

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the efficacy of microbial elimination using different sanitizers in raw vegetables (cherry tomatoes, spring onions, Chinese chives, and chicory) and to analyze the efficacy of Escherichia coli O157:H7 reduction by type of sanitizer and vegetable. Design/methodology/approach To assess the sanitizing effects of microbial elimination by variety of vegetable, the samples were grouped into four different washing methods: control (no sanitizer), 100 ppm chlorine, 100 ppm electrolyzed water, and 200 ppm electrolyzed water after prewashing. Subsequently, quantitative microbiological experiments were conducted to assess aerobic mesophilic plate count (APC), coliform, E. coli, and Bacillus cereus, and sensory changes of the sanitized vegetables were tested. Thereafter, measurement of the sanitizing effects on bacterial reduction after inoculation with E. coli O157:H7 was conducted. Findings The microbial levels of four types of vegetables ranged from 3.37 to 5.24 log CFU/g for APC, 2.41 to 5.57 log CFU/g for E. coli, 0.25 to 5.40 log CFU/g for coliform, and 0.83 to 5.44 log CFU/g for B. cereus. After three types of sanitizing treatments, microbial reduction effects showed 0.94-1.84 log CFU/g for APC, 0.56-1.00 log CFU/g for E. coli, 0.18-1.26 log CFU/g for coliform, and 0.56-1.23 log CFU/g for B. cereus (p<0.05). In sensory evaluation, there were no significant differences in taste and flavor between with and without sanitizing treatments. Regarding bacterial reduction after inoculation with E. coli O157:H7, the microbial reduction on vegetables was shown to be in the range of 0.27-1.57 log CFU/g with 100 ppm sodium hypochlorite, 0.66-3.07 log CFU/g with 100 ppm electrolyzed water, and 0.79-2.55 log CFU/g with 200 ppm electrolyzed water. Chicory, cherry tomato, and spring onion showed significant reduction levels of E. coli O157:H7 after sanitation (p<0.05). Originality/value This study revealed that different sanitization methods are required for different types of vegetables. Electrolyzed water treatment (100 ppm) is a more effective and safe method of washing raw vegetables. Given that the main purpose of sanitizing fresh-cut produce is to maximally reduce microorganism levels, different methods of sanitizing fresh-cut produce with an adequate washing method should be used according to vegetable type.

show abstract

Section: 3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Does electrolyzed water have different sanitizing effects than sodium hypochlorite on different vegetable types?

Yoon

et al. 2017

BFJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The U.S. Marine Corps began testing ECA anolyte (ECASOL) as a highly effective biocidal agent solution in 1998 to assess safety, efficacy and the potential to scale-up field units for use with first or secondary response personnel (Grosser 2001). Overall, anolyte products have been tested by many institutions nationally and internationally and received regulatory approvals for application in different fields (Activated Environmental Solutions Inc. 2012) Electrochemically activated anolytes were proved to be outstandingly effective, environmentally safe biocides that are well comparable with, or even exceeding efficacy of conventional germicides (Sigua et al 2011). However, as a liquid germicide ECA anolyte has almost the same disadvantages for decontamination of beyond "high-touch" inanimate surfaces and air, as all other liquid disinfectants.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Rainina¹,

McCune²,

Luna³

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryA recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report estimated that annually 1.7 million patients acquire an infection while in a hospital (known as healthcare-associated infections, or HAIs), and the annual medical costs of healthcare associated with HAIs in U.S. hospitals are estimated to be between $5 billion and $11 billion. In other words, the patients contracted the infection while in the hospital, and the infection was not a result of their medical condition when admitted to the hospital. It is estimated that about 90,000 individuals die every year from HAIs. The list of HAIs is extensive; some are relatively easy to treat and some, like methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA), are life-threatening to both patients and staff. At least one third of HAIs are considered preventable and can be directly related to a standard of practice in infection control cleaning techniques. Although important in reducing surface contamination, manual cleaning methods have limited efficacy in reducing the bioburden on the surfaces beyond "high touch" areas, and they are completely ineffective in disinfecting airborne pathogens disseminated via aerosols in healthcare environments. Therefore new, more effective methods are needed to enhance the decontamination of various hospital facilities where diseases can rapidly and easily spread.Alternative disinfection technologies such as gaseous decontaminations are being marketed to the healthcare sector. Gaseous decontamination offers a complementary technology to manual cleaning that increases the probability of an effective reduction in pathogens by providing a comparatively uniform distribution of disinfectant in an entire confined environment. Three commercially available gaseous decontamination technologies have been extensively examined and reported as effective in reducing HAIs: gaseous hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and ozone. While there is a role to play for these new technologies in the decontamination of healthcare settings, the requirement for both a thorough preclean of surfaces and safety measures to ensure no gases and vapors penetrate beyond the space being decontaminated calls into question the safety and cost-effectiveness of these methods in healthcare facilities.The goal of this study was to validate the previously observed high biological kill performance of the PAEROSOL decontamination technology against common HAIs in a non-human subject trial within a hospital setting of Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC) on Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington. PAEROSOL-a semi-dry micro-aerosol atomized from a 0.5-0.25% aqueous solution of table salt that has been electrochemically activated-was previously shown to be non-toxic, environmentally safe, and requiring no precautions for its application. As compared to gaseous hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and ozone, PAEROSOL application requires neither thorough pre-cleaning of the surfaces, nor special safety measures. In addition to validating the disinfecting efficacy...

show abstract

“…Em razão da baixa eficácia dos sanitizantes usuais na redução de contaminantes em produtos minimamente processados, com possibilidade de adesão microbiana, e além do fato da sanitização a base de cloro poder resultar na formação de produtos tóxicos à saúde, como os trihalometanos, tem-se a necessidade de desenvolvimento de sanitizantes alternativos que possuam a capacidade de reduzir a carga microbiana, além serem menos corrosivos para equipamentos e menos tóxico para seres humanos (SIGUA et al, 2010).…”

unclassified

Sanitização de cenoura minimamente processada com nanopartículas de prata

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparative efficacies of various chemical sanitizers for warewashing operations in restaurants

Cited by 8 publications

References 17 publications

Does electrolyzed water have different sanitizing effects than sodium hypochlorite on different vegetable types?

Does electrolyzed water have different sanitizing effects than sodium hypochlorite on different vegetable types?

Exploratory Use of Microaerosol Decontamination Technology (PAEROSOL) in Enclosed, Unoccupied Hospital Setting

Sanitização de cenoura minimamente processada com nanopartículas de prata

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About