Effect of Disinfectants on Preventing the Cross-Contamination of Pathogens in Fresh Produce Washing Water

Banach, J.L.; Sampers, Imca; Haute, Sam Van; Fels-Klerx, H J Ine Van der

doi:10.3390/ijerph120808658

Cited by 166 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Wash water quality parameters including organic load and water temperature have a significant influence on disinfectant efficacy (Goodburn and Wallace, 2013;Banach et al, 2015). These parameters primarily reduce the residual concentration of the disinfectant and therefore reduce its antimicrobial activity over time.…”

Section: Om- No Organic Contamination; Om+ Presence Of Organic Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and Peroxyacetic Acid in Reducing Salmonella Contamination in Wash Water and on Mangoes Under Simulated Mango Packinghouse Washing Operations

Mathew

Muyyarikkandy

Bedell

et al. 2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Om- No Organic Contamination; Om+ Presence Of Organic Contmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and Peroxyacetic Acid in Reducing Salmonella Contamination in Wash Water and on Mangoes Under Simulated Mango Packinghouse Washing Operations

Mathew

Muyyarikkandy

Bedell

et al. 2018

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…1. Similar numbers are not available for PFA, but it is probably used at significantly lower quantities.The largest user, the food industry, applies PAA as a disinfectant in fresh produce washing water, clean-in-place (CIP) processes, on food processing equipment, and in pasteurizers, to name just a few examples [21,22]. PFA is also a suitable disinfectant in low-temperature refrigerated food processing and storage rooms [23].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Luukkonen

Pehkonen

2016

Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology

255

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Peracids have gained interest in the water treatment over the last few decades. Peracetic acid (CH 3 CO 3 H) has already become an accepted alternative disinfectant in wastewater disinfection whereas performic acid (CHO 3 H) has been studied much less, although it is also already commercially available. Peracids have also been tested for drinking water disinfection, oxidation of aqueous (micro)pollutants, sludge treatment and ballast water treatment, to name just a few examples. The purpose of this review paper is to represent comprehensive up-to-date information about the water treatment applications, aqueous reaction mechanisms, and disinfection byproduct formation of peracids, namely performic, peracetic and perpropionic acids. and PFA have several of the qualities of an ideal disinfectant: toxicity to microorganisms, but not to higher forms of life; effectivity at ambient temperatures; stability and long shelf-life; low corrosivity; deodorizing ability; widespread availability and reasonable cost [12].PAA and PFA are colorless liquids with characteristic pungent odors. Both are thermodynamically unstable and can decompose spontaneously or explode when highly concentrated, heated, under mechanical stress or exposed to catalytic effects of impurities [1,13,14]. The recommended storage temperatures are below 30 and 20°C for PAA and PFA, respectively [6,14]. Longer carbon chain length increases stability, and thus PAA is more stable than PFA [1]. However, the O-O bond dissociation energy of PFA and PAA has been calculated to be similar: 48 kcal/mol [15]. Percarboxylic acids have typically pK a values 3-4 units higher than the parent carboxylic acids [1]. Nonetheless, PFA and PAA are corrosive [16]. ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 3Exposure to PAA and PFA causes irritation and possibly permanent damage to the skin (cutaneous emphysema), eyes and the respiratory system. In the skin contact, 0.2% is proposed as the no-observed-effect concentration (NOEC) for short and medium length exposure [17].When inhaled, airborne concentrations less than 0.16-0.17 ppm (0.50-0.52 mg/m 3 ) are considered to cause no irritation [17,18]. However, higher concentrations are harmful and a case study suggested that PAA could cause occupational asthma [19].The largest users of PAA on a global scale (estimated in 2013) are shown in Fig. 1. Similar numbers are not available for PFA, but it is probably used at significantly lower quantities.The largest user, the food industry, applies PAA as a disinfectant in fresh produce washing water, clean-in-place (CIP) processes, on food processing equipment, and in pasteurizers, to name just a few examples [21,22]. PFA is also a suitable disinfectant in low-temperature refrigerated food processing and storage rooms [23]. In healthcare, PAA is used for instance in Recently, methods to determine the residual PAA from wastewater were compared: the spectrophotometric method using DPD and catalase was recommended for 0.1-0.5 mg/L PAA concentrations and the cerimetric/iodometric titration...

show abstract

“…There was no temperature control for sanitizing in all the evaluated establishments. The best activity of chlorinated compounds is at a pH range between 6.0 and 7.5 and at low temperature (Banach et al, 2015). All commercial products used at participating restaurants were approved by the Ministry of Health, under the Brazilian regulations that are described in the DRC 216/2004.…”

Section: Survey Of Sanitization Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sanitization protocols applied to commercial restaurants: Effects on natural contaminant microbiota and Salmonella enterica Enteritidis adhered on tomatoes

Machado¹,

Lyra²,

Silva³

et al. 2017

Afr. J. Microbiol. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sanitization is considered as essential for the microbial control of vegetables. The aim of this study was to evaluate the sanitization procedures used in commercial restaurants located in Vitória, Brazil. The efficacy of these sanitization procedures in reducing the presence of natural microbiota and Salmonella enterica Enteritidis cells on tomatoes were evaluated. All the restaurants in this study applied the sanitization methods using containers for diluting the sanitization solution. After the sanitization treatments, a reduction in mesophilic aerobic counts, yeasts, moulds and S. enterica occurred in all the treatments. A higher reduction in microorganisms was observed after treatment with 2% acetic acid. There was no significant difference between tomatoes treated with a sodium dichloroisocyanurate solution and sodium hypochlorite for all microorganisms which were evaluated. Chlorinated compounds are the most used products but a limitation in microbial inactivation was observed in this study.

show abstract

Effect of Disinfectants on Preventing the Cross-Contamination of Pathogens in Fresh Produce Washing Water

Cited by 166 publications

References 77 publications

Efficacy of Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and Peroxyacetic Acid in Reducing Salmonella Contamination in Wash Water and on Mangoes Under Simulated Mango Packinghouse Washing Operations

Efficacy of Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and Peroxyacetic Acid in Reducing Salmonella Contamination in Wash Water and on Mangoes Under Simulated Mango Packinghouse Washing Operations

Peracids in water treatment: A critical review

Sanitization protocols applied to commercial restaurants: Effects on natural contaminant microbiota and Salmonella enterica Enteritidis adhered on tomatoes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About