Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Biofilm and Disinfection in Meat Processing Plants
Biofilm and Disinfection in Meat Processing Plants
www.elsevier.com/locate/ibiod
b Novo
Abstract
Like other food branches the meat industry is met by increasing demands to cleaning and disinfection in order to remove microbial
coatings such as bio lm. A crucial point is, however, to document the presence of bacteria in bio lm on processing equipment. This paper
describes an indirect way to detect foodborne bio lms on visually clean equipment surfaces.
If at all possible, elimination of bio lm-bound bacteria on processing equipment is an arduous task. If the bio lm is established, it is not
removed in daily sanitation unless extra actions are employed. Various methods such as mechanical treatment as well as extra disinfection
have been investigated in practice. The results show that a reduction in bacterial load could be achieved, but at present neither one single
method nor one single chemical completely eliminated the microorganisms.
In conclusion, in order to minimise bio lm-bound bacteria on processing equipment, the critical sites should be identi ed and paid full
attention to during sanitation. Further, the right choice and usage of cleaners and disinfectants as well as an adequate sanitation programme
must be thoroughly considered.
? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
In terms of food safety, the Danish meat industry regard
Listeria monocytogenes the most troublesome microorganism due to its capability to survive and even grow at chill
temperature in vacuum packed or modi ed atmosphere
packed ready-to-eat meat products.
It is well documented that L. monocytogenes can be
found in meat processing areas even at very high incidences
(van den Elzen and Snijders, 1993; Wendlandt and Bergann,
1994). Further, it is impossible that, given the currently
available technology, to eradicate L. monocytogenes from
the processing environment or to totally eliminate the potential for contamination of nished products (Tompkin et al.,
1999). Pasteurisation or cooking usually guarantee the absence of L. monocytogenes, but as the bacterium can persist
in the production environment for years (Nesbakken et al.,
1996), probably in foodborne bio lms, it may contaminate
the meat products during processing, e.g. during slicing.
The Danish meat industry has initiated a number of
projects in order to control this hazard. Among these, a
project speci cally focusing on the possibility to eliminate
L. monocytogenes in bio lms on processing equipment has
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bjs@danishmeat.dk (B. Jessen).
0964-8305/03/$ - see front matter ? 2003 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0964-8305(03)00046-5
266
Table 1
Evaluation of bio lm on processing equipment by method A (aerobic
count)
Table 2
Evaluation of bio lm on processing equipment by method B (aerobic
cfu=cm2 )
Area
CFU/area
Bio lm
Plant/Line
Swabbing = scraping
(n = 36)
Swabbing scraping
(n = 21)
Swabbing scraping
Swabbing scraping
Swabbing 6 scraping
Swabbing scraping
Result
No bio lm 81%
Bio lm
19%
Bio lm
71%
No bio lm 29%
Sample 1
Sample 2
Sample 5
Sample 8
Sample 3
Sample 4
Sample 6
Sample 7
Sample 9
Sample 10
Sample 11
Sample 12
Sample 13
Sample 14
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
415
1500
495
1
1
1
96
104
96
1
1
20
1
1
1
1
1
1
7
8
11
33
33
77
1
1
6
5
4
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
16
1
1
1
700
700
65
3
1
1
1
1
22
1
1
1
21
5
7
1
1
1
19
1
1
1
1
1
39
183
250
325
22
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
420
200
325
1
1
4
1
1
1
16
155
82
1
1
1
229
61
139
1
1
1
1
1
1
294
294
352
1
4
13
30
39
37
1
1
1
267
Table 3
The eLect of two sanitation methods in a meat processing company
(aerobic cfu=cm2 )
Bacterial load=cm2
Alkaline sanitationa
Acid sanitationb
1
1 10
10 100
100 1; 000
1,000 10,000
Samples in total
64%
25%
5%
2%
4%
55
40%
31%
17%
6%
6%
52
268
Table 4
The eLect of extra disinfection next to regular sanitation (aerobic cfu=cm2 )
Bacterial load=cm2
Alkaline sanitationa +
extra disinfection (chlorine)
Before
After
Acid sanitationa +
extra disinfection (peracetic acid)
Before
After
1
1 10
10 100
100 1; 000
1,000 10,000
Samples in total
64%
25%
5%
2%
4%
55
40%
31%
17%
6%
6%
52
a See
58%
29%
11%
2%
0%
55
27%
35%
23%
12%
2%
52
Table 3.
Table 5
The eLect of scrubbing next to regular sanitation (aerobic cfu=cm2 )
47%
16%
22%
13%
3%
32
59%
19%
22%
0%
0%
32
cytogenes contamination. When L. monocytogenes was detected, it was in low numbers, 0.025 cfu=cm2 or less.
Another outcome of the investigations was that, based on
contamination frequency and bacterial load, selected areas
could be categorised as critical sites respectively observation
sites, i.e. sites that were contaminated occasionally. Typically, critical sites were control panels and rollers along the
conveyor belt while observation sites were knives and holders for keeping the cooked meat sausage in place.
4.2.2. The e5ect of extra disinfection
It was believed that a thorough disinfection could improve
the bacteriological level of the equipment. Therefore, after
nishing regular sanitation, the eLect of carrying out an extra
careful disinfection was investigated. The extra disinfection
was followed by a rinse prior to sampling. The results are
given in Table 4.
Comparison of the results before and after performing the
extra disinfection step shows that apart from a reduction in
the count of the most contaminated sites, it is evident that
the general bacteriological standard was not improved.
4.2.3. The e5ect of mechanical treatment
The results obtained by extra disinfection were discouraging. Therefore, another method that preliminarily had shown
very promising results was transferred for investigation in a
meat processing plant. After nishing regular sanitation the
method was to scrub the surfaces with a household sponge
followed by disinfection and rinsing. The eLect was assessed
by swabbing the surface and by determination of the aerobic
count, Table 5.
The high counts in certain sites were removed by scrubbing, and the percentage of sites with 1 aerobic cfu=cm2
was increased. Scrubbing was therefore more eAcient than
extra disinfection although in practice not as eAcient as
the preliminary results, which all showed results down to
0:05 aerobic cfu=cm2 .
5. Discussion
It was shown that bacteria established in a bio lm could
not be eradicated by using one single treatment or one single
detergent or disinfectant. The most eAcient method was
to scrub the surfaces. Other researchers have also reported
brushing as an eLective way of removing bio lm (Gibson
et al., 1999). Scrubbing or brushing can be an ardous task.
Consequently, it is usually not part of the regular sanitation
programme. Instead, it is recommended as part of rotation
sanitation respectively frequency sanitation.
In addition to an adequate sanitation programme, the industry must realise that consistency and attention to detail
are necessary in order to avoid bacteria in bio lms or to
solve the problem in case of their appearance. The following
precautions and actions are recommended:
Introduce good manufacturing practice:
Ensure hygienic pre-slicing procedures.
Introduce high-risk production zone.
Employ frequent hygiene training of personnel.
Make a risk assessment in order to introduce good sanitation
practice:
De ne critical sites.
De ne observation sites.
Introduce good sanitation practice:
Expose critical sites to rotation sanitation.
Expose observation sites to frequency sanitation.
Measure the bacteriological eLect of the sanitation regularly.
Choose appropriate detergents and disinfectants as well
as sanitation programme.
Rotation sanitation means that critical sites are given special attention in daily turns and if necessary, special treatment. Frequency sanitation means that certain parts of the
processing equipment are thoroughly sanitised at e.g. 7-days
or 14-days intervals. Scrubbing is recommended as special
treatment.
6. Conclusion
The presence of bio lm on equipment in meat processing plants could not be de nitively concluded. It was, however, shown that the same number of bacteria was present
after three consecutive swabbings each including a mechanical treatment and thus indicating a strong attachment to
the equipment surfaces. To avoid the entrance and the dispersion of bacteria in general and of L. monocytogenes in
particular into the processing areas, it is recommended to
implement good manufacturing practice.
Bacteria attached to surfaces could be reduced but not
eradicated by using one single method or one single detergent or disinfectant. Laboratory experiments and many reports have claimed disinfectants containing peracetic acid to
be the most eAcient to remove bio lm, whereas chlorine in
practice appeared more eAcient in meat processing plants.
Extra disinfection on top of the regular sanitation did not
improve the hygienic level, but the introduction of a scrubbing step reduced the bacterial load and is recommended on
critical sites and observation sites as well.
In order to minimise the risk of bio lm it is recommended
to introduce good sanitation practice, i.e. identi ed critical
sites should undergo rotation sanitation and observation sites
frequency sanitation.
References
Beresford, M.R., Andrew, P.W., Shama, G., 2001. Listeria
monocytogenes adheres to many materials found in food-processing
environments. Journal of Applied Microbiology 90, 10001005.
Blackman, I.C., Frank, J.F., 1996. Growth of Listeria monocytogenes
as a bio lm on various food-processing surfaces. Journal of Food
Protection 59 (8), 827831.
Bourion, F., Cerf, O., 1996. Disinfection eAcacy against pure-culture
and mixed population bio lms of Listeria innocua and Pseudomonas
269