Comparison of sodium hypochlorite and peracetic acid as sanitising agents for stainless steel food processing surfaces using epifluorescence microscopy.

The effects of the sanitising agents sodium hypochlorite and peracetic acid on Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Staphylococcus aureus adhering to stainless steel were compared using epifluorescence microscopy. The bacteria were isolated from chicken carcasses and allowed to adhere to stainless steel coupons for 1 h before being rinsed with sterile distilled water and treated with the sanitising agents at 250 or 1000 mg l(-1) (peracetic acid) or 100 or 200 mg l(-1) (hypochlorite) for 10 min. P. fluorescens showed the greatest adhesive ability, followed by E. coli, while S. aureus adhered in lowest numbers. In all cases, sodium hypochlorite was more effective than peracetic acid in killing or removing the adherent cells. After treatment with either concentration of hypochlorite, the number of adhered cells per field (area 8.66 x 10(-3) mm2) was reduced from 118.5, 52.0 and 28.0 to 1.0, 0.0 and 0.0 for E. coli, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Staphylococcus aureus, respectively. These are equivalent to reductions from 13.7 x 10(3), 6.0 x 10(3) and 3.2 x 10(3) to 1.2 x 10(2) cells mm(-2) for E. coli and less than this number for the other two species. A median value of zero was not attained for any of the peracetic acid-treated coupons. This sanitising agent was the least effective against S. aureus, achieving only a little over 50% reduction in viable adhered cell numbers at 250 mg l(-1). In view of the importance of these microorganisms as food contaminants, and on economic grounds, peracetic acid cannot be recommended as the sanitising agent of choice for chicken processing equipment.

[1]  E. A. Zottola,et al.  Relationship Between the Growth Phase of Pseudomonas fragi and Its Attachment to Stainless Steel. , 1985 .

[2]  S. Notermans,et al.  Contribution of surface attachment to the establishment of micro‐organisms in food processing plants: A review , 1991 .

[3]  J. Hobbie,et al.  Use of nuclepore filters for counting bacteria by fluorescence microscopy , 1977, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[4]  O. Cerf,et al.  Biofilms and their consequences, with particular reference to hygiene in the food industry. , 1993, The Journal of applied bacteriology.

[5]  M. Hamilton,et al.  The influence of surface features on bacterial colonization and subsequent substratum chemical changes of 316L stainless steel , 1996 .

[6]  Alexandre P. Blanchard,et al.  Peroxygen disinfection of pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilms on stainless steel discs , 1998 .

[7]  S. Gorman,et al.  On the statistical evaluation of adherence assays. , 1987, The Journal of applied bacteriology.

[8]  S. Bloomfield,et al.  Comparative testing of disinfectants using proposed European surface test methods , 1993 .

[9]  A. Gilmour,et al.  The influence of milk and milk components on the attachment of bacteria to farm dairy equipment surfaces. , 1985, The Journal of applied bacteriology.

[10]  C. Higgs,et al.  A conductance‐based surface disinfection test for food hygiene , 1990 .

[11]  A. C. Hunter,et al.  Evaluation of the direct epifluorescent filter technique for assessing the hygienic condition of milking equipment , 1983, Journal of Dairy Research.

[12]  D. Roy,et al.  Attachment of Listeria monocytogenes to Stainless Steel, Glass, Polypropylene, and Rubber Surfaces After Short Contact Times. , 1990, Journal of food protection.

[13]  L. Boulané-Petermann Processes of bioadhesion on stainless steel surfaces and cleanability: A review with special reference to the food industry. , 1996, Biofouling.