化学消毒剂对食品加工表面单核增生李斯特菌、肠炎沙门氏菌和产志贺毒素大肠杆菌生物膜效果的系统评价和meta分析。

IF 2.1 4区农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY

Journal of food protection Pub Date : 2025-03-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100495

Allyson N. Hamilton , Sarah L. Jones , Christopher A. Baker , Xinya Liang , Adam Siepielski , Ashlynn Robinson , Gayatri R. Dhulappanavar , Kristen E. Gibson

{"title":"化学消毒剂对食品加工表面单核增生李斯特菌、肠炎沙门氏菌和产志贺毒素大肠杆菌生物膜效果的系统评价和meta分析。","authors":"Allyson N. Hamilton , Sarah L. Jones , Christopher A. Baker , Xinya Liang , Adam Siepielski , Ashlynn Robinson , Gayatri R. Dhulappanavar , Kristen E. Gibson","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100495","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Chemical sanitizers are applied to food processing surfaces to inactivate bacterial pathogens. Pathogen type, surface type along with sanitizer type, concentration, and contact time are important factors potentially impacting sanitation efficacy. Numerous studies on chemical agents and lab-generated biofilms have been published; however, cross-study comparisons can be difficult. A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate chemical sanitizer efficacy against Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) within lab-generated biofilms on food contact surfaces (FCSs). The SLR included 13 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020. Sanitizer concentration, type, contact time, surface type, and bacteria type were explored using multilevel mixed effects models to determine their impact on bacterial log reduction on FCS. The overall estimated log reduction was 2.90 (effect size [ES]) with a 95% CI = 2.40, 3.39 (p < 0.0001). The multilevel mixed effects model estimated log reductions of 2.67–3.82 for peracetic acid (PAA), quaternary ammonium compounds, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide + PAA, and calcium hypochlorite, with significant differences across sanitizers. No significant differences were found between L. monocytogenes and STEC; however, both pathogens were significantly different from Salmonella spp. All pathogens were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between surface types, while all were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). Neither sanitizer concentration (p = 0.5554) nor sanitizer contact time (p = 0.1800) were found to be significant predictors of estimated mean log reduction. These findings highlight the importance of specific sanitizers and tailored approaches based on surface types and pathogen considerations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 5","pages":"Article 100495"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Chemical Sanitizer Efficacy Against Biofilms of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica, and STEC on Food Processing Surfaces\",\"authors\":\"Allyson N. Hamilton , Sarah L. Jones , Christopher A. Baker , Xinya Liang , Adam Siepielski , Ashlynn Robinson , Gayatri R. Dhulappanavar , Kristen E. Gibson\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100495\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Chemical sanitizers are applied to food processing surfaces to inactivate bacterial pathogens. Pathogen type, surface type along with sanitizer type, concentration, and contact time are important factors potentially impacting sanitation efficacy. Numerous studies on chemical agents and lab-generated biofilms have been published; however, cross-study comparisons can be difficult. A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate chemical sanitizer efficacy against Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) within lab-generated biofilms on food contact surfaces (FCSs). The SLR included 13 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020. Sanitizer concentration, type, contact time, surface type, and bacteria type were explored using multilevel mixed effects models to determine their impact on bacterial log reduction on FCS. The overall estimated log reduction was 2.90 (effect size [ES]) with a 95% CI = 2.40, 3.39 (p < 0.0001). The multilevel mixed effects model estimated log reductions of 2.67–3.82 for peracetic acid (PAA), quaternary ammonium compounds, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide + PAA, and calcium hypochlorite, with significant differences across sanitizers. No significant differences were found between L. monocytogenes and STEC; however, both pathogens were significantly different from Salmonella spp. All pathogens were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between surface types, while all were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). Neither sanitizer concentration (p = 0.5554) nor sanitizer contact time (p = 0.1800) were found to be significant predictors of estimated mean log reduction. These findings highlight the importance of specific sanitizers and tailored approaches based on surface types and pathogen considerations.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"volume\":\"88 5\",\"pages\":\"Article 100495\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-22\",\"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/S0362028X2500047X\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of food protection","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X2500047X","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

化学消毒剂用于食品加工表面以灭活细菌病原体。病原体类型、表面类型、消毒剂类型、浓度和接触时间是影响卫生效果的重要因素。许多关于化学制剂和实验室生成的生物膜的研究已经发表；然而，交叉研究比较可能很困难。通过系统文献综述和荟萃分析，评价了化学消毒剂在食品接触面（FCS）生物膜中对单核增生李斯特菌、沙门氏菌和产志贺毒素大肠杆菌（STEC）的杀灭效果。SLR收录了2000年至2020年间发表的13篇同行评议文章。采用多层混合效应模型探讨了消毒剂浓度、类型、接触时间、表面类型和细菌类型对降低FCS细菌对数的影响。总体估计对数减少量为2.90（效应大小[ES]）， 95% CI = 2.40, 3.39 (p

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Chemical Sanitizer Efficacy Against Biofilms of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica, and STEC on Food Processing Surfaces

Chemical sanitizers are applied to food processing surfaces to inactivate bacterial pathogens. Pathogen type, surface type along with sanitizer type, concentration, and contact time are important factors potentially impacting sanitation efficacy. Numerous studies on chemical agents and lab-generated biofilms have been published; however, cross-study comparisons can be difficult. A systematic literature review (SLR) and meta-analysis were conducted to evaluate chemical sanitizer efficacy against Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC) within lab-generated biofilms on food contact surfaces (FCSs). The SLR included 13 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2020. Sanitizer concentration, type, contact time, surface type, and bacteria type were explored using multilevel mixed effects models to determine their impact on bacterial log reduction on FCS. The overall estimated log reduction was 2.90 (effect size [ES]) with a 95% CI = 2.40, 3.39 (p < 0.0001). The multilevel mixed effects model estimated log reductions of 2.67–3.82 for peracetic acid (PAA), quaternary ammonium compounds, sodium hypochlorite, hydrogen peroxide + PAA, and calcium hypochlorite, with significant differences across sanitizers. No significant differences were found between L. monocytogenes and STEC; however, both pathogens were significantly different from Salmonella spp. All pathogens were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). No significant differences were found between surface types, while all were significant predictors of mean log reduction (p < 0.0001). Neither sanitizer concentration (p = 0.5554) nor sanitizer contact time (p = 0.1800) were found to be significant predictors of estimated mean log reduction. These findings highlight the importance of specific sanitizers and tailored approaches based on surface types and pathogen considerations.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

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.