ARTICLE IN PRESS

Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460

Use of ozone in the food industry

Zeynep B. Guzel-Seydima,*, Annel K. Greeneb, A. C. Seydima,b
a
Department of Food Engineering, Suleyman Demirel University, 32260, Cunur, Isparta 32260, Turkey
b
Department of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0361, USA
Received 28 October 2002; accepted 8 October 2003

Abstract

Ozone is a strong oxidant and potent disinfecting agent. Even though it is new for the US, it has been utilized in European
countries for a long time. Ultraviolet radiation (188 nm wavelength) and corona discharge methods can be used to generate ozone.
The bactericidal effects of ozone have been documented on a wide variety of organisms, including Gram positive and Gram negative
bacteria as well as spores and vegetative cells. In this review, chemical and physical properties of ozone, its generation, and
antimicrobial power of ozone with two suggested mechanisms were explained as well as many advantages of ozone use in the food
industry. There are numerous application areas of ozone in the industry such as food surface hygiene, sanitation of food plant
equipment, reuse of waste water, treatment and lowering biological oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of
food plant waste. Treating fruits and vegetables with ozone has been found to increase shelf-life of the products. Notably, when
ozone is applied to food, it leaves no residues since it decomposes quickly. In this review, use of ozone in food industry was
discussed.
r 2003 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ozone; Food; Sanitation; Antimicrobial; Food waste; Disinfectant

1. Introduction in accordance with good manufacturing practices. Since

Ozonation has been used for years to disinfect water
for drinking purposes in Europe. A number of other
commercial uses have been found for ozone including
disinfection of bottled water, swimming pools, preven-
tion of fouling of cooling towers, and wastewater
treatment (Rice, Robson, Miller, & Hill, 1981; Legeron,
1982; Schneider, 1982; Echols & Mayne, 1990; Coster-
ton, 1994; Videla, Viera, & Guiamet, 1995; Strittmatter,
Yang, & Johnson, 1996). In the US ozone application in
the food industry has not been widely used; however, the
United States Food and Drug Administration granted
generally recognized as safe (GRAS) status for use of
ozone in bottled water in 1982. Ozone use was approved
by the US Department of Agriculture for reconditioning
recycled poultry chilling water in 1997. After a year of
reviewing the worldwide database on ozone, an expert
panel in 1997 decreed that ozone was a GRAS substance
for use as a disinfectant or sanitizer for foods when used
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +90-246-211-1681; fax: +90-246-237-
0437.
E-mail address: zeyneps@ziraat.sdu.edu.tr (Z.B. Guzel-Seydim).
the US Food and Drug Administration did not object to
the expert panel’s findings, ozone has now been
approved for use as a disinfectant or sanitizer in foods
and food processing in the United States (USDA, 1997).
Ozone is a powerful antimicrobial substance due to
the its potential oxidizing capacity. Ozone use may have
many advantages in the food industry. There are
suggested applications of ozone in the food industry
such as food surface hygiene, sanitation of food plant
equipment, reuse of waste water, lowering biological
oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical oxygen demand
(COD) of food plant waste (Rice, Farguhar, & Bollyky,
1982; Guzel-Seydim, 1996; Majchrowicz, 1998; Dosti,
1998). Multifunctionality of ozone application makes
ozone a promising agent. Although ozone has not been
commonly used in the dairy and food industry, it has
found limited applications in a few areas such as
conversion of green tea to black tea (Graham, Struder,
& Gurkin, 1969), cleansing of shellfish (Anonymous,
1972), and disinfection of poultry carcasses and chill
water in the poultry industry (Yang & Chen, 1979;
Sheldon & Brown, 1986; Chang & Sheldon, 1989). In
this review, mainly its chemical properties, generation,

0023-6438/$30.00 r 2003 Swiss Society of Food Science and Technology. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2003.10.014
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
454 Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460

antimicrobial properties, application on food surfaces, Table 3

application on food plant equipment as an alternative Temperature and solubility relationship of ozone in water (Rice et al.,
1981)
sanitizer.
Temperature (
C) Solubility(liter ozone/liter water)

0 0.640
15 0.456
2. Chemical and physical properties of ozone 27 0.270
40 0.112
60 0.000
Ozone was first discovered by the European research-
er C.F. Schonbein in 1839. It was first used commer-
cially in 1907 in municipal water supply treatment in
Nice and in 1910 in St. Petersburg (Kogelschatz, 1988).
Major physical properties of pure ozone were given in
Table 1. Ozone is the second most powerful common
oxidizing agent (Table 2).
Ozone is formed in the stratosphere, in photochemical
smog and by UV sterilization lamps, high voltage
electric arcs, and gamma radiation plants (Mustafa,
1990). At room temperature, ozone decomposes rapidly
and, thus, does not accumulate substantially without
continual ozone generation ( Peleg, 1976; Miller et al.,
1978). At room temperature, ozone is a nearly colorless
gas. Ozone has a pungent, characteristic odor described
as similar to ‘‘fresh air after a thunderstorm’’ (Coke,
1993). It is readily detectable at 0.01–0.05 ppm level
(Miller et al., 1978; Mustafa, 1990; Mehlman & Borek,
1987). It is found in low concentration in nature. Ozone Fig. 1. Resonance structures of ozone molecule (Oehlschlaeger 1978).
has a longer half-life in the gaseous state than in
aqueous solution (Rice, 1986). Ozone in pure water
rather quickly degrades to oxygen, and even more
rapidly in impure solutions (Hill and Rice, 1982). Ozone color is not noticeable. At 112
C, ozone condenses to
solubility in water is 13 times that of oxygen at 0–30
C a dark blue liquid. Liquid ozone is easily exploded if
and it is progressively more soluble in colder water greater than 20% ozone to oxygen mixtures occur.
(Rice, 1986) (Table 3). Ozone decomposition is faster at Explosions may be detonated by electrical sparks or by
higher water temperatures (Rice et al., 1981). sudden changes in temperature or pressure. However, in
Ozone is a blue gas at ordinary temperature, but at practical usage explosions of ozone are extremely rare.
concentrations at which it is normally produced the The three atoms of oxygen in the ozone molecule are
arranged at an obtuse angle whereby a central oxygen
Table 1 atom is attached to two equidistant oxygen atoms; the
Major physical properties of pure ozone (Manley and Niegowski, included angle is approximately 116
490 and the bond
1967) ( Four structures of ozone are shown in
length is 1.278 A.
Boiling point 111.970.3
C Fig. 1 (Oehlschlaeger, 1978).
Melting point 192.570.4
C Although in low concentrations ozone is not an
Critical temperature 12.1
C
Critical pressure 54.6 atm
extremely toxic gas, at high concentration ozone may be
fatal to humans. After 1–2 h exposure to ozone
(0.65 ppm) dogs exhibited rapid breathing whereas
Table 2 long-term (4–6 weeks) ozone exposure (0.2 ppm) to
Oxidizing agents and their oxidation potential (Manley and Niegows- young rats exhibited lung distension (Barlett, Faulkner,
ki, 1967)
& Cook, 1974). It was found that 0.2 ppm and higher
Oxidizing agent Oxidation potential (mV) concentrations of ozone can cause varying degrees of
Fluorine 3.06 damage to the respiratory tract, depending on exposure
Ozone 2.07 length (Schwartz, Dungworth, Tarkington, & Tyler,
Permanganate 1.67 1976). Damage of pulmonary system involves the
Chlorine dioxide 1.50 trachea (Schwartz, et al., 1976), bronchi (Castleman,
Hypochlorus acid 1.49
Dungworth, & Tyler, 1973), and alveoli (Schwartz et al.,
Chlorine gas 1.36
1976).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of ozone generation by corona discharge method (Rice et al. 1981).
3. Ozone generation
Rice et al. (1981) explained the general ozone
generation. In order to generate ozone, a diatomic
oxygen molecule must first be split. The resulting free
radical oxygen is thereby free to react with another
diatomic oxygen to form the triatomic ozone molecule.
However, in order to break the O–O bond a great deal
of energy is required. Ultraviolet radiation (188 nm
wavelength) and corona discharge methods can be used
to initiate free radical oxygen formation and, thereby
generate ozone. In order to generate commercial levels
of ozone, the corona discharge method is usually used
(Fig. 2).
There are two electrodes in corona discharge, one of
which is the high tension electrode and the other is the
low tension electrode (ground electrode). Those are
separated by a ceramic dielectric medium and narrow
discharge gap is provided (Fig. 2). When the electrons
have sufficient kinetic energy (around 6–7 ev) to
dissociate the oxygen molecule, a certain fraction of
these collisions occur and a molecule of ozone can be
formed from each oxygen atom. If air is passed through
the generator as a feed gas, 1–3% ozone can be
produced, however, using pure oxygen allows yields to
reach up to 6% ozone (Rice et al., 1981). Consequently,
ozone concentration cannot be increased beyond the
point that the rates of formation and destruction are
equal (Manley & Niegowski, 1967). Ozone gas cannot
be stored since ozone spontaneously degrades back to
oxygen atoms (Kogelschatz, 1988; Wickramanayaka,
1991; Coke, 1993).
4. Antimicrobial effects of ozone
The bacteriocidal effects of ozone have been studied
and documented on a wide variety of organisms,
including Gram positive and Gram negative bacteria
as well as spores and vegetative cells (Fetner & Ingols,
1956; Foegeding, 1985; Ishizaki, Shinriki, & Matsuya-
ma, 1986; Restaino, Frampton, Hemphill, & Palnikar,
1995).
455
Restaino et al. (1995) also investigated the antimicro-
bial effects of ozonated water against food related
microorganisms and determined that ozone effectively
killed such gram positive bacteria as Listeria mono-
cytogenes, Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus, En-
terococcus faecalis, and such Gram negative bacteria as
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Yersinia enterocolitica.
Restaino et al. (1995) also determined that ozone
destroyed the yeasts Candida albicans and Zygosacchar-
omyces bacilli and spores of Aspergillus niger. Ozone
destruction of bacteria is accomplished by attack on the
bacterial membrane glycoproteins and/or glycolipids.
Khadre and Yousef (2001) compared the effects of
ozone and hydrogen peroxide against foodborne Bacil-
lus spp. spores. It has been found that ozone was more
effective than hydrogen peroxide.
Guzel-Seydim, Bever and Greene (2004) worked on
the efficacy of ozone to reduce bacterial populations in
food components using sterile Class C buffer, whipping
cream, and 1% solutions of locust bean gum, soluble
starch, and sodium caseinate in sterile distilled, deio-
nized water. These substrates were inoculated with
spores of Bacillus stearothermophilus or vegetative cells
of Escherichia coli or Staphylococcus aureus and, then
ozonation was applied. Spore populations at 10 min
were reduced by 4.93 log cycles in buffer, 4.56 in starch,
0.95 for locust bean gum, and 0.24 for caseinate
(po0:05). There was not a significant reduction in the
bacterial populations in the cream (p > 0:05). Statisti-
cally significant (po0:05) log cycle reductions in the E.
coli populations at 10 min were observed in buffer
(6.10), starch (6.11), locust bean gum (3.86), caseinate
(3.76), and whipping cream (1.98). For the S. aureus,
statistically significant (po0:05) log reductions were
detected at 10 min in buffer (6.48), starch (6.47), locust
bean gum (4.94), caseinate (1.47) and whipping cream
(1.02). The locust bean gum provided an intermediate
level of protection, while the caseinate and whipping
cream provided the greatest levels of protection to the
bacterial populations.
It is the potent oxidation capacity that makes ozone
very effective in destroying microorganisms. Ozone has
been demonstrated to destroy a wide range of viruses
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
456 Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
including Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus,
hepatitis A, influenza A, vesicular stomatitis virus, and
infectious bovine rhinotracheitis virus as well as several
bacteriophage strains (Burleson, Murray, & Pollard,
1975; Kim, Gentile, & Sproul, 1980; Bolton, Zee, &
Osebold, 1982; Roy, Englebrecht, & Chian, 1982; Akey
& Walton, 1985; Herbold, Fleming, & Botzenhart, 1989;
Botzenhart, Tarcson, & Ostruschka, 1993; Hall &
Sobsey, 1993; Helmer & Finch, 1993; Tyrrell, Rippey,
& Watkins, 1995). Oocysts of the protozoan Cryptos-
poridium parvum were susceptible to the bacteriocidal
effects of ozone (Peeters, Mazas, Masschelein, Martinez
De Maturana, & Debacker, 1989).
5. Suggested mechanisms of antimicrobial power
Ozone destroys microorganisms by the progressive
oxidation of vital cellular components. The bacterial cell
surface has been suggested as the primary target of
ozonation. Two major mechanisms have been identified
in ozone destruction of the target organisms (Victorin,
1992): first mechanism is that ozone oxidizes sulfhydryl
groups and amino acids of enzymes, peptides and
proteins to shorter peptides. The second mechanism is
that ozone oxidizes polyunsaturated fatty acids to acid
peroxides (Victorin, 1992). Ozone degradation of the cell
envelope unsaturated lipids results in cell disruption and
subsequent leakage of cellular contents. Double bonds
of unsaturated lipids are particularly vulnerable to
ozone attack. In Gram negative bacteria, the lipoprotein
and lipopolysaccharide layers are the first sites of
destruction resulting in increases in cell permeability
and eventually cell lysis (Kim, Yousef, & Dave, 1999).
Chlorine selectively destroys certain intracellular en-
zyme systems; ozone will cause widespread oxidation of
internal cellular proteins causing rapid cell death
(Mudd, Leavitt, Ongun, & Mcmanus, 1969; Hinze,
Prakash, & Holzer, 1987; Takamoto, Maeba, &
Kamimura, 1992; Kim et al., 1999). Cellular death can
also occur due to the potent destruction and damage of
nucleic acids. Thymine is more sensitive to ozone than
cytosine or uracil. Ozone also destroys viral RNA and
alters polypeptide chains in viral protein coats (Kim
et al., 1999).
6. Use of ozone for food hygiene
Ozone has been used for disinfecting recycled poultry
chill water and disinfection of poultry carcasses (Shel-
don & Brown, 1986). According to the Code of Federal
Regulations (USDA, 1997), there must be at least 60%
reduction in total microorganisms and similar reduction
in coliforms, E. coli, and Salmonella spp. Waldroup,
Hierholzer, Forsythe, and Miller (1993) investigated the
use of ozone for recycling of poultry chill water and
determined that there were no viable E. coli or
presumptive coliforms after ozonation. In addition, the
total aerobic plate count was low and use of ozone for
disinfecting poultry chill water met USDA recycling
requirements. Sheldon and Brown (1986) applied ozone
directly to poultry carcasses. Ozone destroyed more
than 2 log-units of all carcass microorganisms with no
significant lipid oxidation, off-flavor development or
loss in carcass skin color. They concluded that using
ozone on recycling chilled water partially fulfilled
USDA requirements.
Treating fruits and vegetables with ozone has been
used to increase shelf-life (Norton, Charig, & Demoran-
ville, 1968; Rice et al., 1982). Treatment of apples with
ozone resulted in lower weight loss and spoilage. An
increase in the shelf-life of apples and oranges by ozone
has been attributed to the oxidation of ethylene. Fungal
deterioration of blackberries and grapes was decreased
by ozonation of the fruits (Beuchat, 1992). Onions have
been treated with ozone during storage. Mold and
bacterial counts were greatly decreased without any
change in chemical composition and sensory quality
(Song, Fan, Hildebrand, & Forney, 2000). Shredded
lettuce in water bubbled with ozone gas had decreased
bacterial content (Kim et al., 1999). Ozone has been
used experimentally as a substitute for ethylene oxide
for the decontamination of whole black peppercorns
and ground black pepper (Zhao & Cranston, 1995).
Ozone treatment of ground black pepper resulted in
slight oxidation of volatile oil constituents but ozone
had no significant effect on the volatile oils of whole
peppercorns. Caryophyllene was the most abundant
component in the pepper followed by d-2-carene,
limonene, b-pinene, a-pinene, and a-phellandrene. No
new components were detected as a result of ozonation.
Because ozonation successfully reduced microbial loads
and did not cause significant oxidation of the volatile
oils in whole black peppercorns, this method was
recommended for industrial treatment of the spice
(Zhao & Cranston, 1995). A number of patents have
been issued for using ozone to treat fruits and
vegetables. Ozone has been used experimentally to
control mold on Cheddar cheese surfaces and in cheese
rooms. At high ozone concentrations ozone appeared to
destroy the molds present. However, upon termination
of ozonation, mold populations flourished (Gibson,
Elliot, & Beckett, 1960).
7. Use of ozonated water for plant equipment sanitation
In the food industry, after proper cleaning many
different types of sanitizing agents are used such as
derivatives of chlorine, acid, iodine, and quaternary
ammonium compounds (Marriott, 1994). Some food
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
industries use thermal sanitation methods and/or
irradiation. Thermal sanitation is very effective in
destroying contaminating microorganisms; however,
steam and hot water are quite expensive to generate
and excessive heat can be damaging to food processing
equipment (Troller, 1993). Radiation methods are not
practical for use in food processing plants because of the
inherent hazards associated with radioactive materials.
Chemical sanitation methods are the most commonly
utilized sanitizers in the food industry. Chlorinated
agents are used worldwide for disinfecting water,
wastewater and for sanitizing food processing plant
equipment. Even though chlorine sanitizers have several
disadvantages including being harmful and irritating in
high concentrations, being prone to forming carcino-
genic compounds and being toxic to the environment,
these compounds are economical bactericides that
inactivate all types of vegetative cells. Chlorine has been
a preferred disinfectant in the food and water industries
for many years. Although chlorination efficiently
decreases the spread of food borne infectious disease,
chlorine combines with many organic compounds to
form toxic by-products. These by-products are released
in drinking water and adversely affect public health as
well as the environment (Bellar, Lichtenberg, & Kroner,
1974; Trussell and Umphres, 1978). Among these by-
products, trihalomethanes (THM) and haloacetic acids
(HAA) are mutagenic and carcinogenic. Trussell and
Umphres (1978) have stated that levels of haloforms
(such as chloroform), THM and HAA increased
markedly after chlorination of organic-laden water.
The effect of chlorinated compounds on the environ-
ment is of major concern. Aquatic humus compounds
are common natural substances found in rivers, streams
and lakes. Metahydroxy aromatic ring, the functional
group in humus structures, reacts with chlorine and
forms hazardous trihalomethane compounds (Trussell
and Umphres, 1978). Releases of chlorinated com-
pounds into the environment can result in formation
of carcinogenic THM in rivers, streams and lakes.
Potential drinking water can be affected along with
native aquatic and terrestrial species. Consequently,
efforts are being made to minimize releases of chlorine
into the environment. Although the hazards of carcino-
gen/mutagen formation from chlorine are extensive,
lack of suitable sanitizer/disinfectant would result in
much greater illness and loss of life due to microbial
contamination of foods and water. Therefore, chlorine
use continues, even though it is known to be hazardous.
It is imperative that effective, yet safe sanitizers are
needed for use in food and water processing (Bellar et al.,
1974; Trussell & Umphres, 1978; Krasner et al., 1989;
Minear & Amy, 1995).
Food researchers are searching for alternative clean-
ing and sanitizing agents effective against food spoilage
and pathogenic bacteria, yet harmless to humans and
457
the environment. Additionally, these agents must also be
non-corrosive to expensive food processing equipment.
Ozone is a potential alternative to chlorine for use in the
food industry.
Greene, Few, and Serafini (1993) proposed the use of
ozonated water as a sanitizer for dairy and food plants.
They compared the effectiveness of ozonated water and
chlorinated sanitizer for the disinfection of stainless steel
surfaces which had been incubated with UHT milk
inoculated with either Pseudomonas fluorescens (ATCC
949) and Alcaligenes faecalis (ATCC 337) at 32
C for 4–
24 h. Stainless steel plates were used to simulate dairy
plant equipment. It has been found that ozone was as
effective as chlorination against dairy surface attached
bacteria, both treatments reduced bacterial populations
by 99%. Ozone, chlorine and heat were compared for
killing effectiveness against food spoilage bacteria in
synthetic broth (Dosti, 1998). Fresh 24 h bacterial
cultures of P. fluorescens (ATCC 948), Pseudomonas
fragi (ATCC 4973), Pseudomonas putida (ATCC 795),
Enterobacter aerogenes (ATCC 35028), Enterobacter
cloacae (ATCC 35030), and Bacillus licheniformis
(ATCC 14580) were exposed to ozone (0.6 ppm for 1
and 10 min), chlorine (100 ppm for 2 min) or heat
(7771
C for 5 min). One min ozonation had little effect
against the bacteria. There were significant differences
(po0:05) among 10 min ozonation, chlorine or heat
inactivation of all bacteria except Bacillus licheniformis.
Ten min ozonation caused the highest bacterial popula-
tion reduction with a mean reduction over all species of
7.3 log units followed by heat (5.4 log reduction) and
chlorine (3.07 log reduction).
If the cleaning process is ineffective, microorganisms
may form biofilms on equipment surfaces. Microorgan-
isms accumulate and proliferate in the porous biofilm
material. Once embedded in this matrix, the micro-
organisms often become resistant to the action of
sanitizers. Dosti, (1998) tested ozone against bacteria
which are able to form biofilm, P. fluorescens (ATCC
948), P. fragi (ATCC 4973) and P. putida (ATCC 795)
for 24–72 h. After biofilm formation, the SS metal
coupons were rinsed with phosphate buffered saline
(1 min) and exposed to ozone (0.6 ppm for 10 min) and
chlorine (100 ppm for 2 min). Results indicated that both
ozone and chlorine significantly reduced the biofilm
bacteria adhered to the SS metal coupons as compared
to the control (po0:05). However, there was no
significant difference (P > 0:05) between ozone and
chlorine inactivation of the bacteria with the exception
of P. putida. Ozone killed P. putida more effectively than
chlorine (Dosti, 1998).
Guzel-Seydim, Wyffels, Greene, and Bodine (2000)
studied the use of ozonated water in dairy equipment.
Soiled stainless steel coupons were treated with ozo-
nated water as a pre-rinse. Results implied that ozone
treatment removed 84% of dairy soil when compared to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
458 Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
warm water (40
C) treated samples removed only 51%.
Scanning electron microscopy pictures were consistent
with the results. From the results of this experiment, it is
hypothesized that ozone use in the pre-rinse stage may
allow for decreased detergent use in the cleaning
solution recirculation step. Greene, Vergano, Few, and
Serafini (1994) studied the effect of ozone and chlorine
on seven gasket materials which are used in fluid food
processing, Buna N, white Buna N, ethylene propylene
diene monomer (EPDM), polyethlene, silicone rubber,
polytetrafluoroethylene or Teflon (PTFE), and stream
resistant Viton. Gaskets of each material were treated
with either chlorine or ozonated water (0.5 ppm ozone)
for 36 h at 25–33
C. Both treatments did not signifi-
cantly affect the tensile strength. The elasticity of ozone
treated PTFE gaskets was significantly affected by
ozone treatment. Both treatments had a bleaching effect
on black gaskets such as Buna N, EPDM, and Viton.
The tensile strength of EPDM and Viton was decreased
by ozone treatment but not significantly when compared
to chlorine treatment (Greene et al., 1994).
‘‘Criteria for the bacteriological quality of recirculat-
ing chilling water for dairy operations have been
established in Appendix G of the United States Grade
‘‘A’’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance.’’ (Anonymous, 1995)
Ozone was suggested for using in chilled water to reduce
bacterial content. Greene, Smith, and Knight (1999)
studied the effect of ozone on metals in dairy chilling
water systems. Aluminum, copper, carbon steel, 304
stainless steel and 316 stainless steel were examined to
record durability of metals against ozone. Metals have
been analyzed according to weight loss of metals and by
using scanning electron microscopy. Carbon steel has
the significantly different weight loss than the control.
There was no significant difference among other metals
within control and ozone treatments. SEM pictures
showed that there was severe pitting on ozone treated
copper samples (Greene et al., 1999).
Since food plant waste often contains large amounts
of carbohydrates, fats, proteins and mineral salts,
complete degradation of this effluent is complex. Dairy,
meat, poultry, and seafood processing plant effluent
may cause significant water pollution due to heavily
loaded waste. These wastes are likely treated by
biological methods. The primary concern with these
food processing wastes is that organic matter provides a
food source for microbial growth. Microorganisms can
therefore proliferate rapidly and subsequently cause a
decreasing amount of dissolved oxygen in the water.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and chemical
oxygen demand (COD) values of wastes are very
important. Worldwide, hazardous cleaner and sanitizer
compounds are also routinely dumped into sewage
systems. Eventually, these chemicals enter the environ-
ment with deleterious effects on delicate ecosystems.
These compounds complicate waste degradation and
also maybe toxic to the environment. Artificial dairy
waste samples were treated with ozone; ozonation
treatment lowered the biochemical oxygen demand of
dairy waste by 15% (Guzel-Seydim, 1996). Ozone pre-
oxidizes organic material so that it is easier for
biodegradation. With lowered treatment needs, required
sewage treatment capacities and levied surcharges could
possibly be reduced. Ozone is a promising cleaning and
waste treatment agent for the dairy and food industry.
8. Ozone toxicity
Ozone toxicity is the most important criterion for
approval of ozone in food and dairy processing plants.
It is important to monitor people who might have
contact with ozone in industry. In humans, ozone
primarily affects the respiratory tract. Symptoms of
ozone toxicity include headache, dizziness, a burning
sensation in the eyes and throat, a sharp taste and smell,
and cough. Chronic toxicity symptoms might cause
headache, weakness, decreased memory, increased pre-
valence of bronchitis and increased muscular excitability
(Hoof, 1982).
9. Conclusions
Food industry is seeking for more effective applica-
tions to ensure the safer food products. System design
will be the most important issue for the food plant.
There are sound advantages of ozone applications in
food industry such as food surface hygiene, sanitation of
food plant equipment, reuse of waste water, treatment
and lowering BOD and COD of food plant waste. The
bactericidal effects of ozone have been documented on a
wide variety of organisms, including Gram positive and
Gram negative bacteria as well as spores and vegetative
cells. Even though it does not leave any residue due to
quick decomposition of its structure, restrictions should
be applied to human exposure to ozone.
References
Akey, D. H., & Walton, T. E. (1985). Liquid-phase study of ozone
inactivation of Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology, 50(4), 882–886.
Anonymous. (1972). Use of ozone in sea water for cleansing shellfish.
Effluent Water Treatment Journal, 12, 260–262.
Anonymous. (1995). Grade A pasteurized milk ordinance. US Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug
Administration Publication, No. 229.
Barlett, D., Faulkner, C. S., & Cook, K. (1974). Effect of chronic
ozone exposure on lung elasticity in young rats. Journal of Applied
Physiology, 37, 92–96.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
Bellar, T. A., Lichtenberg, J. J., & Kroner, R. C. (1974). The
occurrence of organohalides in chlorinated drinking water. Journal
of the American Water Works Association, 66(12), 703–706.
Beuchat, L. R. (1992). Surface disinfection of raw produce. Dairy,
Food and Environmental Sanitation, 12(1), 6–9.
Bolton, D. C., Zee, Y. C., & Osebold, J. W. (1982). The biological
effects of ozone on representative members of five groups of animal
viruses. Environmental Research, 27, 476–484.
Botzenhart, K., Tarcson, G. M, & Ostruschka, M. (1993). Inactivation
of bacteria and coliphages by ozone and chlorine dioxide in
a continuous flow reactor. Water Science Technology, 27(3-4),
363–370.
Burleson, G. R., Murray, T. M., & Pollard, M. (1975). Inactivation of
viruses and bacteria by ozone, with and without sonication. Applied
Microbiology, 29(3), 340–344.
Castleman, W. L., Dungworth, D. L., & Tyler, W. S. (1973).
Cytochemically detected alterations of lung acid phosphatase
reactivity following ozone exposure. Laboratory Investigation, 9,
310–319.
Chang, Y. H., & Sheldon, B. W. (1989). Application of ozone with
physical waste water treatments to recondition poultry process
waters. Poultry Science, 68, 1078–1087.
Coke, A. L. (1993). Mother nature’s best remedy: Ozone. Water
Conditioning and Purification, (October) pp. 48–51.
Costerton, J. W. (1994). Structure of biofilms. In G. G. Geesey, Z.
Lewandowski, & H. C. Flemming (Eds.), Biofouling and biocorro-
sion in industrial water systems (pp. 1–15). Lewis Publishers: Boca
Raton, FL.
Dosti, B. (1998). Effectiveness of ozone, heat and chlorine for
destroying common food spoilage bacteria in synthetic media and
biofilms. Thesis. Clemson Universtiy, Clemson, SC, pp. 69.
Echols, J. T., & Mayne, S. T. (1990). Cooling tower management using
ozone instead of multichemicals. ASHRAE Journal, 32, 34–38.
Fetner, R. H., & Ingols, R. S. (1956). A comparison of the activity of
ozone and chlorine against E. coli at 1
C. Journal of General
Microbiology, 15, 381–385.
Foegeding, P. M. (1985). Ozone inactivation of Bacillus and
Clostridium spore populations and the importance of the spore
coat to resistance. Food Microbiology, 2, 123–134.
Gibson, C. A., Elliot, J. A., & Beckett, D. C. (1960). Ozone for
controlling mold on Cheddar cheese. Canadian Dairy and Ice
Cream Journal, 14, 24–28.
Graham, H. N., Struder, V. V., & Gurkin, M. (1969). Conversion of
green tea using ozone. US patent, 3,484,247.
Greene, A. K., Few, B. K., & Serafini, J. C. (1993). Ozonated vs
chlorinated sanitization of stainless stell surfaces soiled with milk
spoilage organisms. Journal of Dairy Science, 76, 3617–3620.
Greene, A. K., Vergano, P. J., Few, B. K., & Serafini, J. C.
(1994). Effects of ozonated water sanitization on gasket materials
used in fluid food processing. Journal of Food Engineering, 21,
439–446.
Greene, A. K., Smith, G. W., & Knight, C. S. (1999). Ozone in dairy
chilling water systems: Effect on metal materials. International
Journal of Dairy Technology, 52(4), 126–128.
Guzel-Seydim, Z. B. (1996). The use of ozonated water as a cleaning
agent in dairy processing equipment. Thesis.
Guzel-Seydim, Z., Bever, P., & Greene, A.K. (2004). Effiacy of ozone
to reduce bacterial populations in the presence of food compo-
nents. Journal of Food Microbiology (in press).
Guzel-Seydim, Z. B., Wyffels, J. T., Greene, A. K., & Bodine, A. B.
(2000). Removal of dairy soil from heated stainless steel surfaces:
Use of ozonated water as a prerinse. Journal of Dairy Science, 83,
1887–1891.
Hall, R. M., & Sobsey, M. D. (1993). Inactivation of hepatitis A virus
and MS2 by ozone and ozone–hydrogen peroxide in buffered
water. Water Science Technology, 27(3-4), 371–378.
459
Helmer, R. D., & Finch, G. R. (1993). Use of MS2 coliphages as a
surrogate for enteric viruses in surface waters disinfected with
ozone. Ozone Science and Engineering, 15, 279–293.
Herbold, K., Fleming, B., & Botzenhart, K. (1989). Comparison of
ozone inactivation, in flowing water, of hepatitis A virus, poliovirus
1, and indicator organisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiol-
ogy, 55(11), 2949–2953.
Hill, A. G., & Rice R, . G. (1982). Historical background, properties
and applications. In R. G. Rice (Ed.), Ozone treatment of water for
cooling application (pp. 1–37). Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science
Publishers.
Hinze, H., Prakash, D., & Holzer, H. (1987). Effect of ozone on atp,
cytosolic enzymes and permeability of Saccharomyces cerevisiae.
Archives of Microbiology, 147, 105–108.
Hoof, F. V. (1982). Professional risks associated with ozone. In W. J.
Masschelein (Ed.), Ozonation manual for water and waste water
treatment (pp. 200–201). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Ishizaki, K., Shinriki, N., & Matsuyama, H. (1986). Inactivation of
Bacillus spores by gaseous ozone. Journal of Applied Microbiology,
60, 67–72.
Khadre, M. A., & Yousef, A. E. (2001). Sporicidal action of ozone and
hydrogen peroxide: A comparative study. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 71(2-3), 131–138.
Kim, C. K., Gentile, D. M., & Sproul, O. J. (1980). Mechanism of
ozone inactivation of bacteriophage f2. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 39(1), 210–218.
Kim, J. G., Yousef, A. E., & Dave, S. (1999). Application of ozone for
enhancing the microbiological safety and quality of foods: A
review. Journal of Food Protection, 62(9), 1071–1087.
Kogelschatz, U. (1988). Advanced ozone generation. In S. Stucki
(Ed.), Process technologies for water treatment (pp. 87–120). New
York: Plenum Publishers.
Krasner, S. W., Mcguire, M. J., Jacangelo, J. G., Patania, N. L.,
Reagan, K. M., & Aieta, E. M. (1989). The occurrence of
disinfection by-products in US drinking water. Journal of the
American Water Works Association, pp. 41–53.
Legeron, J. P. (1982). Utilization of ozone in swimming pools. In W. J.
Masschelein (Ed.), Ozonization manual for water and wastewater
treatment (pp. 243–247). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Majchrowicz, A. (1998). Food safety technology: a potential role for
ozone? Agricultural Outlook, Economic Research Service/USDA,
pp. 13–15.
Manley, T. C., & Niegowski, S. J. (1967). Ozone. In Encyclopedia of
chemical technology (Vol. 14, 2nd ed., pp. 410–432). Wiley: New
York, NY.
Marriott, N. G. (1994). Principles of food sanitation (3rd ed.).
Chapman & Hall: New York, NY.
Mehlman, M. A., & Borek, C. (1987). Toxicity and biochemical
mechanisms of ozone. Environmental Research, 42, 36–53.
Miller, G. W., Rice, R. G., Robson, C. M., Scullin, R. L, Kuhn, W.,
& Wolf, H. (1978). An assessment of ozone and chlorine
dioxide technologies for treatment of municipal water supplies.
US Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-600/
2-78-147. Washington, DC: US Government printing
Office.
Minear, R. A., & Amy, G. L. (1995). Disinfection by-products in water
treatment. The chemistry of their formation and control. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Mudd, J. B., Leavitt, R., Ongun, A., & Mcmanus, T. T. (1969).
Reaction of ozone with amino acids and proteins. Atmospheric
Environment, 3, 669–682.
Mustafa, M. G. (1990). Biochemical basis of ozone toxicity. Free
Radical Biology and Medicine, 9, 245–265.
Norton, J. S., Charig, A. J., & Demoranville, I. E. (1968). The effect of
ozone on storage of cranberries. Proceedings of the American
Society for Horticultural Science, 93, 792–796.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
460 Z.B. Guzel-Seydim et al. / Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol. 37 (2004) 453–460
Oehlschlaeger, H. F. (1978). Reactions of ozone with organic
compounds. In R. G. Rice, & J. A. Cotruvo (Eds.), Ozone/chlorine
dioxide oxidation products of organic material (pp. 20–37). Cleve-
land: Ozone Press International.
Peeters, J. E., Mazas, E. A., Masschelein, W. J., Martinez De
Maturana, I. V., & Debacker, E. (1989). Effect of disinfection of
drinking water with ozone or chlorine dioxide on survival of
Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 55(6), 1519–1522.
Peleg, M. (1976). Review paper: The chemistry of ozone in the
treatment of water. Water Research, 10, 361–365.
Restaino, L., Frampton, E. W., Hemphill, J. B., & Palnikar, P. (1995).
Efficacy of ozonated water against various food-related micro-
organisms. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 61(9),
3471–3475.
Rice, R. G. (1986). Application of ozone in water and waste water
treatment. In R. G. Rice, & M. J. Browning (Eds.), Analytical
aspects of ozone treatment of water and waste water (pp. 7–26).
Syracuse, NY: The Institute.
Rice, R. G., Robson, C. M., Miller, G. W., & Hill, A. G. (1981). Uses
of ozone in drinking water treatment. Journal of the American
Water Works Association, 73(1), 44–57.
Rice, R. G., Farguhar, J. W., & Bollyky, L. J. (1982). Review of the
applications of ozone for increasing storage times of perishable
foods. Ozone Science and Engineering, 4, 147–163.
Roy, D., Englebrecht, R. S., & Chian, E. S. K. (1982). Comparative
inactivation of six enteroviruses by ozone. Journal of the American
Water Works Association, 74, 660–664.
Schneider, W. (1982). Ozonization of bottled water. In W. J.
Masschelein (Ed.), Ozonization manual for water and wastewater
treatment (pp. 259–261). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Schwartz, L. W., Dungworth, D. L., Mustafa M, . G., Tarkington, B.
K., & Tyler, W. S. (1976). Pulmonary responses of rats to
ambient levels of ozone. Laboratory Investigation, 34,
565–578.
Sheldon, B. W., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Efficacy of ozone as a
disinfectant for poultry carcasses and chill water. Journal of Food
Science, 51(2), 305–309.
Song, J., Fan, L., Hildebrand, P. D., & Forney, C. F. (2000).
Biological effects of corona discharge on onions in a commercial
storage facility. Horticulture Technology, 10(3), 608–612.
Strittmatter, R. J., Yang, B., & Johnson, D. A. (1996). Ozone
application for cooling tower water. ASHRAE Journal, 38, 27–34.
Takamoto, Y., Maeba, H., & Kamimura, M. (1992). Changes in
survival rate enzyme activities and in E. coli with ozone. Applied
Microbiology and Biotechnology, 37, 393–395.
Troller, J. A. (1993). Sanitation in food processing (2nd ed.). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Trussell, R. R, & Umphres, M. D. (1978). The formation of
trihalomethanes. Journal of the American Water Works Associa-
tion, 70, 604–612.
Tyrrell, S. A., Rippey, S. R., & Watkins, W. D. (1995). Inactivation of
bacterial and viral indicators in secondary sewage effluents, using
chlorine and ozone. Water Research, 29(11), 2483–2490.
USDA.Code of Federal Regulations, Title 9, Part 381.66—poultry
products; temperatures and chilling and freezing procedures.
(1997). Office of the Federal Register National Archives and
Records Administration, Washington, DC.
Victorin, K. (1992). Review of the genotoxicity of ozone. Mutation
Research, 277, 221–238.
Videla, H. A., Viera, M. R., & Guiamet, P. S. (1995). Using ozone to
control biofilms. Material Performance, 34, 40–44.
Waldroup, A. L., Hierholzer, R. H., Forsythe, & Miller, M. J. (1993).
Recycling of poultry chill water using ozone. Journal of Applied
Poultry Science Research, 2, 330–336.
Wickramanayaka, G. B. (1991). Disinfection and sterilization by
ozone. In S. B. Seymour (Ed.), Disinfection, sterilization and
preservation (4th ed.) (pp. 182–190). Malvern, PA: Lea and
Febiyer.
Yang, P. P. W., & Chen, T. C. (1979). Effects of ozone treatment on
microflora of poultry meat. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservation, 3, 177–185.
Zhao, J., & Cranston, P. M. (1995). Microbial decontamination of
black pepper by ozone and the effect of the treatment on volatile oil
constituents of the spice. Journal of Science Food and Agriculture,
68, 11–18.