Self-Reported Sanitation, Moisture Management, and Microbial Testing Practices Among Low-Moisture Food Safety Survey Respondents

IF 3.7 4区 农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY
Journal of food protection Pub Date : 2026-12-01 Epub Date: 2026-10-08 DOI:10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938
Grace Buechner, Calvin Slaughter, Abigail B. Snyder
{"title":"Self-Reported Sanitation, Moisture Management, and Microbial Testing Practices Among Low-Moisture Food Safety Survey Respondents","authors":"Grace Buechner,&nbsp;Calvin Slaughter,&nbsp;Abigail B. Snyder","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In low-moisture food (LMF) processing environments, sanitation and uncontrolled water events can introduce moisture that supports pathogen growth. However, commercial practices for sanitation, lot segregation, moisture management, and microbial monitoring remain poorly characterized. This study surveyed food safety and quality professionals with LMF production experience to describe these practices. A 56-question online survey distributed from October 2025 to January 2026 yielded 40 eligible responses. Sanitation break definitions varied, with 47% of respondents defining breaks by sanitation method. Respondents generally reported practices to limit water introduction. Wiping, brushing, or scraping and vacuuming were performed at least weekly by 95% and 84%, respectively; 68% reported never using flood cleaning. Equipment buildup reduction was the most common factor influencing dry-cleaning frequency (74%), while pathogen control was the most common factor influencing wet-cleaning frequency (82%). Among respondents using wet sanitation, 81.1% used at least one active drying measure afterward. However, uncertainty about relative humidity (RH) was common: 32.5% of eligible respondents were unsure of their dry-zone target RH, and 47.5% were unsure of the highest RH during normal operations. More than 20% reported condensation, equipment leaks, or water puddling at least monthly. Environmental monitoring for pathogens and hygiene indicators was most commonly performed weekly, while finished-product testing varied by analyte and facility size. These exploratory findings indicate that LMF manufacturers are monitoring microbial populations and limiting moisture introduction during sanitation, but opportunities remain to strengthen moisture management and improve consistency in sanitation break classification.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"89 12","pages":"Article 100938"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X26002437","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/10/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In low-moisture food (LMF) processing environments, sanitation and uncontrolled water events can introduce moisture that supports pathogen growth. However, commercial practices for sanitation, lot segregation, moisture management, and microbial monitoring remain poorly characterized. This study surveyed food safety and quality professionals with LMF production experience to describe these practices. A 56-question online survey distributed from October 2025 to January 2026 yielded 40 eligible responses. Sanitation break definitions varied, with 47% of respondents defining breaks by sanitation method. Respondents generally reported practices to limit water introduction. Wiping, brushing, or scraping and vacuuming were performed at least weekly by 95% and 84%, respectively; 68% reported never using flood cleaning. Equipment buildup reduction was the most common factor influencing dry-cleaning frequency (74%), while pathogen control was the most common factor influencing wet-cleaning frequency (82%). Among respondents using wet sanitation, 81.1% used at least one active drying measure afterward. However, uncertainty about relative humidity (RH) was common: 32.5% of eligible respondents were unsure of their dry-zone target RH, and 47.5% were unsure of the highest RH during normal operations. More than 20% reported condensation, equipment leaks, or water puddling at least monthly. Environmental monitoring for pathogens and hygiene indicators was most commonly performed weekly, while finished-product testing varied by analyte and facility size. These exploratory findings indicate that LMF manufacturers are monitoring microbial populations and limiting moisture introduction during sanitation, but opportunities remain to strengthen moisture management and improve consistency in sanitation break classification.
自我报告卫生,湿度管理,和微生物测试实践在低湿度食品安全调查受访者。
在低水分食品(LMF)加工环境中,卫生和不受控制的水事件可以引入支持病原体生长的水分。然而,卫生、批次隔离、水分管理和微生物监测的商业实践仍然缺乏特征。本研究调查了具有LMF生产经验的食品安全和质量专业人员来描述这些做法。从2025年10月到2026年1月,一项包含56个问题的在线调查获得了40份合格回复。卫生休息的定义各不相同,47%的答复者按卫生方法定义休息。答复者普遍报告了限制引水的做法。分别有95%和84%的患者至少每周进行一次擦拭、刷牙或刮拭和吸尘;68%的人表示从未使用过洪水清洗。减少设备堆积是影响干洗频率的最常见因素(74%),而病原体控制是影响湿法清洗频率的最常见因素(82%)。在使用湿式卫生设施的受访者中,81.1%随后至少使用了一种主动干燥措施。然而,相对湿度(RH)的不确定性很常见:32.5%的合格受访者不确定他们的干区目标RH, 47.5%不确定正常操作期间的最高RH。超过20%的报告凝结,设备泄漏,或水坑至少每月。病原体和卫生指标的环境监测最常见的是每周进行一次,而成品检测因分析物和设施规模而异。这些探索性发现表明,LMF制造商正在监测微生物种群并限制卫生过程中的水分引入,但仍有机会加强水分管理并提高卫生间隙分类的一致性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of food protection
Journal of food protection 工程技术-生物工程与应用微生物
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
296
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Food Protection® (JFP) is an international, monthly scientific journal in the English language published by the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP). JFP publishes research and review articles on all aspects of food protection and safety. Major emphases of JFP are placed on studies dealing with: Tracking, detecting (including traditional, molecular, and real-time), inactivating, and controlling food-related hazards, including microorganisms (including antibiotic resistance), microbial (mycotoxins, seafood toxins) and non-microbial toxins (heavy metals, pesticides, veterinary drug residues, migrants from food packaging, and processing contaminants), allergens and pests (insects, rodents) in human food, pet food and animal feed throughout the food chain; Microbiological food quality and traditional/novel methods to assay microbiological food quality; Prevention of food-related hazards and food spoilage through food preservatives and thermal/non-thermal processes, including process validation; Food fermentations and food-related probiotics; Safe food handling practices during pre-harvest, harvest, post-harvest, distribution and consumption, including food safety education for retailers, foodservice, and consumers; Risk assessments for food-related hazards; Economic impact of food-related hazards, foodborne illness, food loss, food spoilage, and adulterated foods; Food fraud, food authentication, food defense, and foodborne disease outbreak investigations.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书