目视检查、ATP和微生物分析在评价牛油果包装厂表面清洁和消毒中的表现。

IF 2.8 4区农林科学 Q3 BIOTECHNOLOGY & APPLIED MICROBIOLOGY

Journal of food protection Pub Date : 2025-08-05 DOI:10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100593

J.A. Muñiz-Flores , J.A. Pérez-Montaño , M.A. Pineda-Macias , A. Castillo , O. Rodriguez-García

{"title":"目视检查、ATP和微生物分析在评价牛油果包装厂表面清洁和消毒中的表现。","authors":"J.A. Muñiz-Flores , J.A. Pérez-Montaño , M.A. Pineda-Macias , A. Castillo , O. Rodriguez-García","doi":"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100593","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Effective cleaning and sanitizing (C&S) of food contact surfaces (FCSs) is critical for minimizing microbial contamination risks in fresh produce environments. This study evaluated the performance of visual inspection, ATP bioluminescence, and microbial analysis as verification tools for C&S procedures in an avocado packing plant, based on surface conditions before and after sanitation. Cleanliness was classified using a four-level visual scale, from 1 (cleanest) to 4 (dirtiest). ATP levels were measured via bioluminescence. Microbial analysis included the quantification of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, <em>Enterobacteriaceae</em>, and yeasts and molds, as well as the qualitative detection of <em>Listeria</em> spp.</div><div>Surface temperatures ranged from 17 °C to 30.9 °C, and relative humidity from 54.3% to 97.0%. Brushes and receiving crates showed the highest visual scores after C&S; however, receiving crates exhibited minimal improvement compared to pre-C&S levels. ATP levels ranged from 2.6 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 1.0 log<sub>10</sub> relative light units (RLU)/100 cm<sup>2</sup>, with no significant reductions observed. Microbial counts showed inconsistent decreases, and no surface achieved the expected 3-log reduction. <em>Listeria</em> spp. was detected on 14% and 13% of FCS before and after C&S, respectively. Noncontact surfaces, especially drains, also remained contaminated.</div><div>Notably, the verification tools often produced contradictory results. In some surfaces, visual inspection and microbial indicators suggested effective C&S, while ATP readings showed no significant change. In others, only visual improvements were detected, with no corroborating reduction in ATP or microbial levels. These inconsistencies underscore the limitations of relying on a single method and highlight the importance of using complementary tools in a sequential verification approach. A decision tree (Fig. 4) is proposed to guide the integration of these tools and improve hygiene monitoring strategies in produce packing environments.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15903,"journal":{"name":"Journal of food protection","volume":"88 10","pages":"Article 100593"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance of Visual Inspection, ATP, and Microbial Analysis in Evaluating Cleaning and Sanitizing of Surfaces in an Avocado Packing Plant\",\"authors\":\"J.A. Muñiz-Flores , J.A. Pérez-Montaño , M.A. Pineda-Macias , A. Castillo , O. Rodriguez-García\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jfp.2025.100593\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Effective cleaning and sanitizing (C&S) of food contact surfaces (FCSs) is critical for minimizing microbial contamination risks in fresh produce environments. This study evaluated the performance of visual inspection, ATP bioluminescence, and microbial analysis as verification tools for C&S procedures in an avocado packing plant, based on surface conditions before and after sanitation. Cleanliness was classified using a four-level visual scale, from 1 (cleanest) to 4 (dirtiest). ATP levels were measured via bioluminescence. Microbial analysis included the quantification of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, <em>Enterobacteriaceae</em>, and yeasts and molds, as well as the qualitative detection of <em>Listeria</em> spp.</div><div>Surface temperatures ranged from 17 °C to 30.9 °C, and relative humidity from 54.3% to 97.0%. Brushes and receiving crates showed the highest visual scores after C&S; however, receiving crates exhibited minimal improvement compared to pre-C&S levels. ATP levels ranged from 2.6 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 1.0 log<sub>10</sub> relative light units (RLU)/100 cm<sup>2</sup>, with no significant reductions observed. Microbial counts showed inconsistent decreases, and no surface achieved the expected 3-log reduction. <em>Listeria</em> spp. was detected on 14% and 13% of FCS before and after C&S, respectively. Noncontact surfaces, especially drains, also remained contaminated.</div><div>Notably, the verification tools often produced contradictory results. In some surfaces, visual inspection and microbial indicators suggested effective C&S, while ATP readings showed no significant change. In others, only visual improvements were detected, with no corroborating reduction in ATP or microbial levels. These inconsistencies underscore the limitations of relying on a single method and highlight the importance of using complementary tools in a sequential verification approach. A decision tree (Fig. 4) is proposed to guide the integration of these tools and improve hygiene monitoring strategies in produce packing environments.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15903,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of food protection\",\"volume\":\"88 10\",\"pages\":\"Article 100593\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"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/S0362028X25001450\",\"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/S0362028X25001450","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

食品接触面（FCS）的有效清洁和消毒（C&S）对于最大限度地减少新鲜农产品环境中微生物污染的风险至关重要。本研究基于卫生前后的表面条件，评估了目视检查、ATP生物发光和微生物分析作为牛油果包装厂C&S程序验证工具的性能。清洁度用四个视觉等级进行分类，从1（最干净）到4（最脏）。通过生物发光法测定ATP水平。微生物分析包括中温好氧菌、肠杆菌科、酵母和霉菌的定量检测，以及李斯特菌的定性检测。表面温度为17℃~ 30.9℃，相对湿度为54.3% ~ 97.0%。刷子和收货箱在C&S之后的视觉得分最高；然而，与c&s之前的水平相比，接收板条箱的改善很小。ATP水平范围为2.6±0.7至3.8±1.0 log10相对光单位(RLU)/100 cm2，未观察到显著降低。微生物计数呈现不一致的下降，没有一个表面达到预期的3对数下降。李斯特菌在C&S前后分别在FCS中检出14%和13%。非接触面，尤其是排水管，也仍然受到污染。值得注意的是，验证工具经常产生相互矛盾的结果。在一些表面，目视检查和微生物指标显示C&S有效，而ATP读数没有明显变化。在其他情况下，只检测到视觉上的改善，没有证实ATP或微生物水平的减少。这些不一致强调了依赖单一方法的局限性，并强调了在顺序验证方法中使用补充工具的重要性。本文提出了一个决策树（图4）来指导这些工具的整合，并改善农产品包装环境中的卫生监测策略。

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

Performance of Visual Inspection, ATP, and Microbial Analysis in Evaluating Cleaning and Sanitizing of Surfaces in an Avocado Packing Plant

Effective cleaning and sanitizing (C&S) of food contact surfaces (FCSs) is critical for minimizing microbial contamination risks in fresh produce environments. This study evaluated the performance of visual inspection, ATP bioluminescence, and microbial analysis as verification tools for C&S procedures in an avocado packing plant, based on surface conditions before and after sanitation. Cleanliness was classified using a four-level visual scale, from 1 (cleanest) to 4 (dirtiest). ATP levels were measured via bioluminescence. Microbial analysis included the quantification of mesophilic aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, and yeasts and molds, as well as the qualitative detection of Listeria spp.

Surface temperatures ranged from 17 °C to 30.9 °C, and relative humidity from 54.3% to 97.0%. Brushes and receiving crates showed the highest visual scores after C&S; however, receiving crates exhibited minimal improvement compared to pre-C&S levels. ATP levels ranged from 2.6 ± 0.7 to 3.8 ± 1.0 log₁₀ relative light units (RLU)/100 cm², with no significant reductions observed. Microbial counts showed inconsistent decreases, and no surface achieved the expected 3-log reduction. Listeria spp. was detected on 14% and 13% of FCS before and after C&S, respectively. Noncontact surfaces, especially drains, also remained contaminated.

Notably, the verification tools often produced contradictory results. In some surfaces, visual inspection and microbial indicators suggested effective C&S, while ATP readings showed no significant change. In others, only visual improvements were detected, with no corroborating reduction in ATP or microbial levels. These inconsistencies underscore the limitations of relying on a single method and highlight the importance of using complementary tools in a sequential verification approach. A decision tree (Fig. 4) is proposed to guide the integration of these tools and improve hygiene monitoring strategies in produce packing environments.

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.