See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/352378688

Microbiological environmental monitoring in food processing

Article · June 2021

CITATION READS

1 7,196

2 authors, including:

Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra

Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and Animal Sciences University
76 PUBLICATIONS 333 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Surveillance of anti-microbial resistance (AMR) in microflora of milk and dairy cattle from organized and unorganized dairy sector of Punjab region View project

M. Tech Thesis View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra on 14 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021

Microbiological environmental monitoring in food processing

Manju G1 and Santosh K. Mishra2

PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dairy Microbiology,
1

GN Patel College of Dairy Technology, Sardarkrushinagar Dantiwada Agricultural University,

Dantiwada-385506 (Gujarat), India.
PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Dairy Microbiology,
2

College of Dairy Science and Technology, Guru Angad Dev Veterinary and
Animal Sciences University (GADVASU), Ludhiana 141004, Punjab, India.
Email: manjugdsc@gmail.com
Received: 19th November 2020 | Accepted: 15th January 2021

Abstract In a food processing plant certain areas

are likely to proliferate microorganisms where
Microorganisms can survive on different
pathogens may be harboring. If the sanitation
material surfaces when foodstuffs come in
program is not taken properly those areas
contact with are contaminated and sometimes
become potential sources of contamination.
become hazardous to health of consumers. In
Cross contamination is the process of
order to prevent food safety issues it is essential
contamination of food or food contact surface
to confirm that the food processing equipment
which was previously decontaminated.
and surfaces are properly sanitized and are free
Inadequately cleaned food contact surfaces
from microbiological hazards. Microbiological
(FCS) can cause cross-contamination of food
environmental monitoring program assist
products, resulting in transfer of microorganisms
the food processor to determine presence
in large numbers even though food is exposed
of microorganisms including problematic
for shorter duration (Lunden et al., 2000).
ones and enable to maintain a high level of
hygienic production of food items. It supports An efficient cleaning and sanitation
in producing safe food products in compliance program is important for food processing
with international standards and guidelines industry to minimize the risk of food safety
and helps to prevent the release of potentially issues and accumulation of bacteria or formation
contaminated products to market. of biofilm. The following factors contribute to
the success 1) Zoning, partitioning of plants to
Introduction zones based on risk; 2) Effective CIP, dose and
type of detergent, temperature and turbulence
Food safety is the concept that food
of water etc.; 3) Assessment of cleanliness of
will not cause any adverse effect on health of
surface using reliable methods. The surfaces
consumers when consumed as per intended
which are rough and irregular like pits, folds
use. It is indispensable to sustain the food
or crevices, surface projections, edges are
TARs

processing industry to provide safe food to the

difficult to clean. The amount and type of
consumers. At the same time ensuring hazard
soil and number of microorganisms influence
free food from farm to fork is a challenging
the obtained results. Regular monitoring of
task.
46

cleanliness of surfaces before operations
involves cost but this should be undertaken
seriously over concerns as a result of failure
in testing.
• Cost of no monitoring
- Inefficient processing
- Food poisoning
- Ineffective cleaning
- Poor quality with reduced shelf life
- Loss of product yield
- High cost of reprocessing
- More scrap generation
- Loss to brand value
HACCP is a science based approach to
prevent cross-contamination and to eliminate
food safety issues during food processing. Ever
since the HACCP approach is popularized the
food processing industries focus on preventive
approach, any deviations are proactively
corrected to overcome problems related to
food safety. Hence microbiological analysis
of surfaces is critical to control and prevent
contamination of hazardous microorganisms
as well as to monitor effectiveness of routine
cleaning and sanitation regimes. The obtained
counts on a particular surface can be compared
with predetermined specification to describe
as satisfactory or not satisfactory.
Need of Microbiological Environmental
Monitoring Program (MEMP)
Successful building of strong pre-
requisite programs in food processing plant is
crucial for an effective HACCP-based system
and minimize food borne disease outbreaks.
Hygienic processing environment is a necessary
requirement to produce quality and safe food
products. It is best achieved by proper hygienic
plant design and operations and strict cleaning
and sanitation regimes. MEMP a systematic
approach is imperative for the reason, such
47
Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
as verification of hygiene status of plant, hard
to clean areas are reduced, minimize cross-
contamination and improve effectiveness
of cleaning protocols. The importance of
implementation of MEMP in food processing
environment is described as below
• Provides data to establish baseline for
acceptability criteria for cleanliness of
facility
• Provide data on the quality of processing
environment during manufacturing
• Identify potential routes of contamination
• Prevent possible microbial contamination
by identifying and responding to adverse
trends.
• Validation and verification sanitation
protocol of food plant
• Understand microbiological ecology of
processing environment
• Reduce food recall
• Effective implementation of HACCP
Microbiological Environmental Monitoring
Program
Microbiological environmental
monitoring program is regarded as a critical
laboratory control to determine the quality
of food processing environment. It is a
defined program specifically intended to
monitor effectiveness of the routine cleaning
and sanitation regimes. Microbiological
environmental monitoring program is to
demonstrate that microbiological quality of
controlled environment of food processing
facility is within acceptable limits and also
reveals any lapses. It involves obtaining
microbial numbers recovered from samples of
air, surface and personnel. The areas monitored
TARs
are FCSs including equipment parts that are
in direct contact with product and on the
outside of processing equipment. Sometimes
air analysis is also included under MEMP.
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
Food processing environments harbor
microorganisms which are often adopted
to these environments using the food being
processed as a substrate. The food processing
plant must consider which microorganism
is pertinent to develop microbiological
monitoring program which is either generalized
approach using indicator organisms or focus
on a specific type of organism. Therefore one
program does not fit all the facilities and the
product. Accordingly the scope and purpose
of environmental monitoring programs is to be
defined. Consequently a microbiologist with
sufficient knowledge about indicator organisms
and environmental monitoring is required for
purpose. An approach that can be undertaken
to develop a microbiological environmental
monitoring program is illustrated in Fig. 1. An
effective EMP typically should have following
key elements (Cinar and OnbaŞI, 2020)
• Microorganisms to be monitored
• Scope of the test
• Sampling sites
TARs
Fig. 1. Strategic approach to environmental
monitoring program (Trond and Solveig, 2017)
48
• Frequency and time of sampling
• Sampling techniques
• Testing methodology
• Acceptable criteria/limit
• Corrective actions
Further beyond the scope of this article
which is important for the reason of involving
time and money that there should responsibility
and commitment from top management to
realize success of EMP.
Target Microorganism for Environmental
Monitoring
Indicator organisms are bacteria that
are used to provide evidence of overall food
quality and hygienic status of the processing
environment and to some extent as possible
presence or absence of pathogens (Trond and
Solveig, 2017). The routine environmental
microbiological testing usually focuses on first
determination of levels of indicator organisms
and second is testing for specific pathogens.
Indicator organisms are frequently tested
across all zones of sampling to detect whether
contamination is present or absent or within
unacceptable limits. Various microbes targeted
during microbiological EMP are as follows.
• Total viable count: Total bacterial count or
aerobic plate count is the most common
test that does not provide details of type
of bacteria in a sample; is an indicator
of total population of microorganisms on
the surface. In addition TPC is a poor
indicator of safety due to no correlation
with pathogens. High TPC observed in an
environmental sample is an indication of
poor sanitation conditions.
• Coliforms: These bacteria are practical
surrogates for enteric pathogens and are
traditionally used as hygiene indicators
of fecal contamination in water and
environmental samples. Analysis of samples
for coliforms is common indicator of

inadequate sanitation and post-processing
contamination (Marouani-Gadri et al.,
2010).
• Enterobacteriaceae: This family has been
used as indicators of food quality and food
safety. Enterobacteriaceae have greater
tolerance to environment than coliforms
therefore testing for Enterobacteriaceae
may be superior to the coliform counts
as indicator of improper sanitation of
FCS. Although Enterobacteriaceae family
includes coliform group and other genera
known to be pathogenic; it cannot be
a good indicator to monitor pathogenic
bacteria. Testing for specific pathogens is
a more reliable method to get confidence
that production area is free from pathogens
(Jones et al., 2018).
• Yeast and molds: These are fungi,
eukaryotic in nature and involved in food
spoilages, remain unaffected to general
food processing and formulation controls.
These microorganisms can spread from
dust and aerosols in the air, food process
environments are consistently tested for
yeast and molds.
• Specific pathogens: Pathogens in most
cases are found to be introduced into
the product via processing environment
and not raw contaminated product.
Therefore pathogens are utmost important
microorganisms when monitoring the food
processing. The major foodborne pathogens
which are well known risk food industry
are Salmonella sp., L. monocytogenes, and
Cronobacter sp.
Surface Sampling Areas and Frequency
For effective environmental monitoring
it is important to decide sampling areas, type
of surface to be tested, frequency of sampling
and scope of analysis. It should be based on
risk analysis and consider the previous history
of sampling points (Zacharski et al., 2018).
49
Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
Testing of surfaces from different areas of
a food processing plant provides an estimate of
overall performance of cleanliness. The MEMP
primarily concerned of two types of surfaces
1) FCS include all the surfaces that may come
in direct contact with food at any step during
production, processing and packaging viz.,
inside of pipe lines, conveyors, storage vessels,
packing tables, cutting boards, knives, fillers,
slicers and mixers etc.. Most often surfaces with
smooth, non-porous, and abrasion resistant
surface materials made of stainless steel, plastic
are used. 2) Environmental surfaces where FCS
is situated within food manufacturing facility
viz., outside of equipment, walls, floors,
maintenance and cleaning tools etc (Jones et
al., 2018).
One approach to select sampling sites is
by implementing the zoning as recommended
by ICMSF. Zoning is a concept that identifies the
areas based on levels of risk of contamination
to the finished product and to prevent those
though proper controls. Accordingly all
operations of a food plant can be divided into
four zones from low risk zone (zone 4) to high
risk zone (zone 1) as illustrated in Fig. 2 below.
The zoning categorization of food processing
facility helps in selection of sampling sites
not just food contact surfaces but also other
environmental areas and managing the overall
EMP. Further, it supports in reducing chances
of cross-contamination, to implement “seek
and destroy” processes’, and improve design
of plant and equipment hygiene (Trond and
Solveig, 2017; Jones et al., 2018).
Microbiological Environmental Monitoring
Methods
Sampling Methods
Sampling of surfaces is very challenging
TARs
depending upon the product being processed.
FCSs are made of various materials with
varying surface roughness and irregularities.
The microorganisms are attached to the surface
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
Fig. 2. Zone concept illustrating areas of contamination
being tested and they have to be removed
using specific or generic sampling techniques,
it is further detected using different methods.
Therefore sampling protocol essentially should
ensure maximum recovery of microorganisms
from the surface of interest. Sometimes the
sampling protocols need to be validated
with the detection method for recovery
and repeatability to describe the surface as
clean from microorganisms/ready to start
processing. In practice, sampling method is
either qualitative to determine whether the
number of microorganisms is within threshold
level or quantitative to determine number of
microorganisms on the surface. Nevertheless it
is also important to maintain necessary hygiene
precautions to avoid contamination of samples.
Rinsing, Immersion Sampling
It is an indirect type of sampling used
to sample areas or equipment which are
TARs
inaccessible for direct sampling for example
tanks, pipelines, fillers etc. A sterile water is
added upstream of the process and samples are
collected downstream at various points of the
50
process. The collected rinse water is tested for
microbial load. This method has the advantage
that sampling of a large surface area can be
done and the equipment dismantling is not
necessary. Alternatively, surfaces such as plastic
or wooden cutting boards are kept soaked in
a rinse solution for a few minutes before the
solution is tested for microorganisms. However
this rinse water sampling is not suitable to
collect biofilm formed as the shear force
generated during flow may not be sufficient
for their removal. In practice, using either a
specific or generic sampling technique any
residue or microorganisms from the surface
is transferred to an extraction or swabbing
solution.
Swab method
The swab method is a traditional way
of direct contact sampling of surfaces which
is most commonly used for many decades.
The traditional swabbing procedure involves
an applicator stick with one end with sterile
bud (e.g. cotton, rayon, calcium alginate etc.)
remaining dipped in an extraction solution,

usually 0.1 % sterile peptone water. Sampling
is done using the bud; the microorganisms
on a defined area are extracted by rubbing
thoroughly. After sampling the swab is cut into
the extraction solution to release recovered
microorganisms. Finally the extraction solution
is enumerated for microorganisms using
method of choice. It is also important that the
solution used for swab should not harm the
recovered microorganisms and be compatible
with detection methods. Once the swabbing is
done the left over solution is wiped or rinsed
off from the sampled surface.
Scrubbing Methods
An alternative to conventional swabs
are sterile sponges or fabrics (e.g. Cellulose
or polyurethane or polyester rayon blend)
which have relatively large surfaces that can
be used to sample larger areas (>100 cm2).
The sponges are pre-moistened with a rinse
solution by rubbing over the surface. Sterile
dry sponges are used to sample the surface
in moisture free processing sections. After
sampling the swab is placed in the diluent
or enrichment broth. Before microbiological
analysis vortexing is necessary to facilitate
release of microorganisms from the sponge.
Wipe sampling it is another sampling
method for assessing surface contamination.
Microorganisms on the surface are picked up
by the wipe. When using the wipe for sampling
the surface of interest sometimes is moistened
with an appropriate solvent. The percent
recovery is influenced by characteristics of
surface, solvent used and wiping technique
during wiping of surface.
Printing or RODAC
Another common direct sampling
method is using microbiological media
solidified in sterile dish is commonly referred
to as replicate organism direct afar contact
(RODAC). During sampling the agar meniscus
is placed in contact with the surface to be
51
Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
tested for a few seconds. The attached cells
are counted after incubation at optimum
growth temperatures. This method is more
suitable to obtain quantitative data on the flat
surfaces which are cleaned and sanitized prior
to sampling.
Commercially available sampling methods
Commercial test kits are simple, easy
and more practical to perform and they require
less material as well as labor gives results faster
(Table 1).
Petrifilm™ plate: composed by a double film
system, comes in sealed foil pouches. On film
is the basis and is coated with dehydrated
nutrients, indicator dye and gelling agents are
to be moistened using sterile distilled water
before sampling. When the gel is solid, the top
film is lifted and the gel is allowed to contact
the sample surface by gently pressing to ensure
better contact. The top film is overlaid back
on the gel and incubated to obtain the results.
This system is suitable only for direct contact
sampling of flat or curved surfaces which are
free from crevices.
Dip slides: These are plastic paddles coated
with microbiological media used to sample
surfaces packed in capped vials. The media
used is specific for microorganisms to be tested
if present on the surface. While sampling agar
slide is removed from the vial by holding
the stopper. The agar is pressed against the
surface to be sampled with gentle press to
ensure contact. The other side of the slide was
also used similarly. The dip slide is returned
to its original vial and incubated for 24-48 h
for bacterial growth and 48-120 h for fungal
growth. The microbial level is assessed by
using the chart provided by the manufacturer.
Microbiological Assay
TARs
Traditionally standardized methods for
microbiological analysis have been developed
by experts and decided upon by international
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021

Table 1. Few examples of surface sampling methods available in the market (Ismaïl et al., 2013).
Type of method Name and description Manufacturer
Swabs 3M™ Swab-Samplers, 3M™ Quick Swab 3M, Minnesota, USA
HiMedia Foam Tipped Swab HiMedia, India
Q-Swab™ Hygiena/Scigiene Corporation
Path-Chek Hygiene surface swabs for Microgen Bioproducts Ltd
Salmonella spp., Listeria spp. and coliform
Spatula 3M™ Sponge-Sticks 3M, Minnesota, USA
3M™ Hydrated-Sponges 3M, Minnesota, USA
Swab rinse kits, SRK® COPAN Diagnostics, USA
HiMedia Nasco Sponge HiMedia, India
Microbiological Aerobic microbes, Hygicult® TPC Orion Diagnostica, Finland
dipslide Enterobacteria / *β-glucuronidase-positive organisms
(e.g. E. coli), Hygicult® E–/β -Gur
Yeasts and molds, Hygicult® Y&F
Total bacteria / *enterobacteria
Petrifilm™ Aerobic Count Plates 3M, Minnesota, USA
3M™ Petrifilm™ E. coli/Coliform Count Plates
Yeasts & molds,
RIDA® Count Aerobic Count Plates, E. coli/Coliform Count, R-Biopharm AG
Yeasts and moulds, Salmonella
enterobacteria
HYCON contact Total bacterial Count, Coliform Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
slides Yeasts and moulds

consensus. Most standardized methods of requires interpretation by microbiologists.

bacterial identification are culture-dependent
methods and have been in use since the
beginning of environmental monitoring
programs. These methods are still in use by
regulatory agencies and recognized as gold
standards for examination of surfaces. In
standardized methods samples of surfaces are
taken and enumeration of microorganisms in
samples is done in routine laboratory. Samples
may require enrichment steps to increase the
TARs
However, despite the simplicity of use, viable
culture methods are tedious as it requires
incubation steps and results will not be
available when required earlier.
Inconvenience caused by traditional
methods has triggered the invention of rapid
methods that are derived from the standardized
methods. Rapid methods minimize the amount
of time needed to obtain the microbiological
results. Petrifilm™ is made for a variety of

numbers if the low counts are expected. This microorganisms as an alternative to pour
approach is still proven effective at targeting plates as described earlier is widely used
indicator organisms or specific pathogens and in food microbiology. It is a sample-ready

52

method that can minimize the laboratory
preparatory work such as preparation of
media, pouring solidification etc. The use of
Petrifilm™ for detection of bacteria including
aerobic microorganisms, E. coli/coliforms, and
environmental Listeria spp. are more practical
and have approval from AOAC (Jones et al.,
2018).
Alternative to culturing of microorganisms
in swab sample molecular methods can be
used for detection of group or specific type
of microorganisms. Culture cultivation can be
overcome by means of molecular methods
which provide speed. These methods often
target either a small section of DNA or RNA,
amplify them to a detectable level and offer
greater sensitivity and specificity. Few examples
examples of those methods are polymerase
chain reaction (PCR), reverse transcriptase
(RT-PCR), and nucleic acid sequence based
amplification (NASBA). Nevertheless, DNA
even after cell death can remain intact therefore
the PCR process cannot differentiate living
microorganism and noninfective nucleic acid.
In addition at present molecular methods are
expensive and compulsorily require technical
expertise. However, it is believed that with
further advancement of protocols they are
likely to be part of routine assessment of
sanitation protocols.
Unlike a cotton swab is used to recover
pathogen from the surface followed by
releasing and pour plating, Alamer et al. (2017)
investigated a calorimetric immune-biosensor
for rapid detection of four pathogens including
S. Typhimurium, S. enteritidis, S. aureus and
C. jejuni which is a single device for collection
and detection of target bacteria. It is based
on an immunoassay where cotton swabs are
immobilized with specific antibody for the
corresponding bacteria. The captured bacteria
in swab are then detected calorimetrically with
a secondary antibody conjugated to specific
colored nanobeads. The entire analysis was
rapid, simple and of low cost.
53
Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
ATP Assay
ATP bioluminescence has been widely
used to evaluate the hygiene level of surfaces
in diverse contexts. The assessment of
bacterial contamination by this method relies
on measurement of ATP, is a biomolecule
found in all living organisms therefore is an
indicator for microbial load on the surface.
The working principle of bioluminescence
is a reaction between the luciferase-enzyme
extracted from firefly (Photinus pyrlis) with its
substrate luciferin. In the presence of adenosine
triphosphate (ATP) luciferase catalyzes process
of conversion of luciferin to oxyluciferin. The
ATP is converted to adenosine monophosphate
(AMP) with the release of pyrophosphate
and the emission of light. The light emitted
is measured using a device luminometer is
expressed as relative light units (RLU). The
high output of expressed RLU can be correlated
with a higher amount of ATP on the surface.
The benefits of this method are that it is rapid,
easy to perform and fast turn-around of results.
Luciferase
Luciferin + ATP Oxyluciferin +
AMP + Co2 + Light
The ATP monitoring systems which are
available in the market allows users to simply
swab the surface to be tested and place the
swab into a detection system i.e. luminometer
that immediately measures the results and
data output is obtained through print or to
specialized software for analysis. Some of
commercially available methods are listed in
table 2.
This method however, cannot detect the
type of organism remaining on the surface;
only microbiological assay can do the job. ATP
TARs
testing cannot differentiate the ATP from non-
microbial sources, such as food residues are
a source of energy for bacteria. Surface which
have less microbial number but improperly
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
Table 2. Commercially available ATP based detection methods
ATP Test System
HY-LiTE® 2 Luminometer (with HY-LiTE Hygiene Swab)
Hygiena EnSURE™ Luminometer (with UltraSnap™ ATP swabs)
Hygiena SystemSURE Plus™ (with SuperSnap™ ATP swabs)
Clean-Trace™ Luminometer (with Surface ATP test swabs)
Charm novaLUM (with PocketSwab Plus ATP swabs)
Kikkoman Lumitester PD-20 (with LuciPac Pen swabs),
Accupoint Advanced® Luminometer (Accupoint surface sampler)
cleaned is more likely to increase ATP readings.
But they have shown promise as a reliable
means of measuring general cleanliness of a
surface before starting food processing.
Acceptable Limits
This preliminary examination of surfaces
in food processing facilities many times the
judgement of cleanliness of surface is on basis
of on visual assessment. There are no standards
existing for cleaned surfaces however the
microbiological guidelines are available that
alerts the food processor (Table 3). Presence
of microorganisms on the surface beyond these
levels indicate that the cleaning protocol is not
properly established or the surface is in poor
condition or not satisfactorily cleaned.
Conclusions
In conclusion, environmental sampling
is an effective tool for checking the sources
of contamination and the adequacy of the
sanitation process, helping to increase the
frequency and intensity of cleaning and
sanitation, detecting hot spots, validating food
safety systems and providing early notice of
issues that may need corrective action. It offers,
above all, the guarantee that the products
TARs
being manufactured are made under sanitary
conditions.
54
Manufacturer
Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
Hygiena/Scigiene Corporation
Hygiena/Scigiene Corporation
3M Company
Charm Sciences Inc.
Luminultra Technologies Ltd.
Neogen
Further reading
David, J. and Egan, S. 2020. Environmental
monitoring handbook for food and beverage
industry. Available at https://engage.3m.
com/food-and-beverage-environmental-
monitoring-handbook?utm_term=hcbg-
fsd-envmon-en_us-eng-environmental_
monitoring-ona-disp-rapid_microbiology_-
dwln-na-dec19-na Accessed on 01/10/2020.
Alamer, S., R. Chinnappan, and M. Zourob.
2017. Development of rapid immuno-
based nanosensors for the detection of
pathogenic bacteria in poultry processing
plants. Procedia Technology 27:23-26.
Carrascosa, C., P. Saavedra, R. Millán, J. R.
Jaber, E. Pérez, R. Grau, A. Raposo, C.
Mauricio, and E. Sanjuán. 2012. Monitoring
of cleanliness and disinfection in dairies:
Comparison of traditional microbiological
and ATP bioluminescence methods. Food
Control 28(2):368-373.
Cinar, A. and E. OnbaŞI. 2020. Monitoring
environmental microbiological safety in
a frozen fruit and vegetable plant. Food
Science and Technology 2061:1-6.
Evancho, G., W. Sveum, L. Moberg, and J.
Frank. 2001. Microbiological Monitoring
of the Food Processing Environment.
In: Compendium Methods for the
Microbiological Examination of Foods.
(Eds.: F.P. Downes and K. Ito). 4th Edn.,
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021

Table 3. Recommended acceptable limits for

microbiological indicator of cleaned and disinfected surfaces

Microbiological Parameter Limit Reference

Public Health Aerobic colony Counts < 80 CFU/cm2 is satisfactory (Food Safety Authority
Laboratory Service Ireland, 2006)
80-1000 CFU/cm2 is borderline
(PHLS) in UK
>1000 CFU/cm2 is
unsatisfactory
US public health Total bacterial count <100 CFU/50 cm2 (Evancho et al., 2001)
service
Swedish Food Aerobic plate counts Target < 1/cm2 (Griffith, 2016)
Authority
Maximum <3/cm2
Almond Board of Aerobic plate counts Target < 10/250 cm2 (David and Egan,
California 2020 )
Acceptable < 100/250 cm2
Coliforms Target < 10/250 cm2
Acceptable < 50/250 cm2
Total Enterobacteriaceae Target < 10/250 cm2
Acceptable < 50/250 cm2
Catering service Total aerobic microorganism 1--4 CFU/cm2 (Garayoa et al., 2017)
Fruits and TPC, Coliform, yeast and <10 CFU/cm2 (Cinar and OnbaŞI,
Vegetables mold 2020)
Meat Total Viable Counts ≤10 CFU/cm2 (Carrascosa et al.,
establishments 2012)
Total Enterobacteriaceae ≤1 CFU/cm2
Cheese factory Total aerobic microorganism <2.5 CFU/cm2 (Carrascosa et al.,
2012)
yeast and mold ≤1 CFU/cm2
Enterobacteriaceae 0 CFU/side
ATP bioluminescence <100 RLU
Dairy ACC ≤4.72 CFU/cm2 Satisfactory Zacharski et al., 2018
>4.72 CFU/cm2 Unsatisfactory
Enterobacteriaceae ≤1 CFU/cm2 Satisfactory
>1 CFU/cm2 Unsatisfactory
≤0.16 CFU/cm2 Satisfactory
Yeast Mold
>0.16 CFU/cm2 Unsatisfactory
TARs

Listeria sp. Salmonella sp. Not detected Satisfactory

Cronobacter sp.
Detected Unsatisfactory

55
 Indian Food Industry Mag
Vol 3 No 2, Mar-Apr 2021
American Public Health Association,
Washington D.C., pp. 25-35 (2001).
Food Safety Authority Ireland, 2006.
Examination of the Microbiological Status
of Food Preparation Surfaces https://www.
fsai.ie/uploadedfiles/food_prep_surfaces.
pdf
Garayoa, R., C. Abundancia, M. Díez-Leturia,
and A. I. Vitas. 2017. Essential tools for
food safety surveillance in catering services:
On-site inspections and control of high risk
cross-contamination surfaces. Food Control
75:48-54.
Griffith, C. 2016. Chapter 44 - Surface Sampling
and the Detection of Contamination. In:
Handbook of Hygiene Control in the Food
Industry (Eds.: H. Lelieveld, J. Holah, and
D. Gabrić). 2nd Edn. Woodhead Publishing,
San Diego. pp. 673-696 (2016).
Ismaïl, R., F. Aviat, V. Michel, I. Le Bayon,
P. Gay-Perret, M. Kutnik, and M.
Fédérighi. 2013. Methods for recovering
microorganisms from solid surfaces used in
the food industry: a review of the literature.
International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health 10(11):6169-
6183.
Jones, S. L., S. C. Ricke, D. Keith Roper, and
K. E. Gibson. 2018. Swabbing the surface:
TARs
56
View publication stats
critical factors in environmental monitoring
and a path towards standardization and
improvement. Critical Reviews in Food
Science and Nutrition 60(2):225-243.
Lunden, J. M., M. K. Miettinen, T. J. Autio,
and H. J. Korkeala. 2000. Persistent Listeria
monocytogenes strains show enhanced
adherence to food contact surface after
short contact times. Journal of Food
Protection 63(9):1204-1207.
Marouani-Gadri, N., O. Firmesse, D. Chassaing,
D. Sandris-Nielsen, N. Arneborg, and B.
Carpentier. 2010. Potential of Escherichia
coli O157:H7 to persist and form viable
but non-culturable cells on a food-contact
surface subjected to cycles of soiling and
chemical treatment. International Journal of
Food Microbiology 144(1):96-103.
Trond, M, Solveig L. 2017. Residential bacteria
on surfaces in the food industry and their
implications for food safety and quality.
Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science
and Food Safety 16: 1022-1145.
Zacharski, K.A., Southern, M., Ryan, A., Adley,
C.C. 2018. Evaluation of an Environmental
Monitoring Program for the Microbial
Safety of Air and Surfaces in a Dairy Plant
Environment. Journal of Food Protecttion
81(7): 1108-1116.