See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232734892

Effectiveness of two sanitation procedures for

decreasing the microbial contamination levels
(including Listeria monocytogenes) on food
contact and non-food contact surfaces in a d...

Article in Food Control · January 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.05.017

CITATIONS READS

10 370

5 authors, including:

Montserrat Campdepadrós Alberto Miguel Stchigel

Universitat Rovira i Virgili Universitat Rovira i Virgili
2 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS 83 PUBLICATIONS 1,133 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Joan Quilez Rosa Solà

Universitat Ramon Llull Universitat Rovira i Virgili
26 PUBLICATIONS 389 CITATIONS 100 PUBLICATIONS 848 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

European Youth Tackling Obesity (EYTO) View project

Available from: Joan Quilez

Retrieved on: 19 October 2016
This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright
 Author's personal copy

Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Food Control
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/foodcont

Effectiveness of two sanitation procedures for decreasing the microbial

contamination levels (including Listeria monocytogenes) on food contact and
non-food contact surfaces in a dessert-processing factory
Montserrat Campdepadrós a, *, Alberto Miguel Stchigel a, Marta Romeu b, Joan Quilez c, d, Rosa Solà e
a
Microbiology Unit e Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/ Sant Llorenç 21, 43201 Reus, Spain
b
Pharmacology Unit e Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/ Sant Llorenç 21, 43201 Reus, Spain
c
Human Nutrition Unit e Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/ Sant Llorenç 21,
43201 Reus, Spain
d
CIBER Fisiopatologia de la Obesidad y la Nutrición (CIBEROBN), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain
e
Lipids and Arteriosclerosis Research Unit (CIBERDEM), Hospital Universitari Sant Joan, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, IISPV, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, C/ Sant Llorenç 21,
43201 Reus, Spain

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The aim of this study was to determine the presence and persistence of Listeria monocytogenes (LM) after
Received 21 December 2010 using two sanitization protocols in different parts of a dessert-processing factory. The sampling for LM
Received in revised form detection was performed: a) on various food contact and non-food surfaces; b) after and before treat-
19 May 2011
ment using two different sanitization protocols. LM was not detected on food contact surfaces while its
Accepted 24 May 2011
identification was restricted to non-food contact surfaces (mostly the floor). Both sanitizing protocols
managed to reduce the LM load (as well for the rest of the microbial parameter studied) but not to
Keywords:
eradicate the microorganism completely.
Contamination
Environments
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Food processing
Hygiene
Pastry

1. Introduction eat industrial products consumed without cooking or reheating

Listeriosis due to Listeria monocytogenes (LM), a food-borne
disease-causing bacterium can produce infections in susceptible
human populations, such as immunodepressed people, infants and
pregnant women (Garrido, Torroba, Garcia-Jalón & Vitas, 2008;
Klontz et al., 2008), causing septicaemia, meningitis, meningo-
encephalitis, foetus abortion, and death (Mead et al., 1999;
Vázquez-Boland et al., 2001; CDC, 2010). However, there are
several reports of a non-invasive form of listeriosis, which causes
gastroenteritis, affecting persons with no (or unknown) predis-
posing factors (Aureli et al., 2000; Salamina et al., 1996), as an
outbreak of febrile gastroenteritis associated with corn contami-
nated by LM. A variety of foods have been found to be contaminated
with LM (Inoue et al., 2000). This occurs most frequently with soft
cheeses, dairy products, pâtés, sausages, smoked fish, salads, infant
cereals, cakes, cream, butter and, in general, refrigerated ready-to-
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ34 654139196; fax: þ34 977 759378.
E-mail address: montserrat.campdepadros@urv.cat (M. Campdepadrós).
(Dalton et al., 1997; Leite et al., 2006; Lyytikäinen et al., 2000;
Miettinen et al., 1999; Rocourt, 1996).
LM is quite resistant to the deleterious effects of freezing, drying,
and heating, despite not forming endospores, and can grow
between 0 and 45
C (Bell & Kyriakides, 2005), surviving for long
periods in refrigerated, frozen and dried foods, and shows a high
tolerance to acidic conditions and high salt concentrations (Lou &
Yousef, 1999). LM also survives in lubricants employed in the food
industry, especially when the lubricants are contaminated with
organic material and water (Aarnisalo, Raaska, & Wirtanen, 2007).
LM is particularly difficult to control, since it is ubiquitous and
widespread in nature, and because it possesses physiological
characteristics that allow it to grow under conditions that are
usually adverse for most human pathogenic bacteria. Due to its
ubiquity, LM can produce several problems in food-processing
factories (Lundén, 2004; Møretrø & Langsrud, 2004). LM was iso-
lated in 4.27% of samples from cakes collected at different hotels,
restaurants and pastry shops over a year (Uhitil, Jaksic, Petrak,
Medic, & Gumhalter-Karolyi, 2004). The bacterium usually enters
the food through raw materials, water and workers. However, LM

0956-7135/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.05.017
 Author's personal copy
M. Campdepadrós et al. / Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31
has also been isolated from a large variety of food-processing
equipment (Tompkin, 2002), and can persist in these for a long
time (Miettinen, Björkroth, & Korkeala, 1999).
Normally, the routine application of good sanitization practices
should be capable of killing LM, but we must bear in mind that if
contamination levels are high, or the sanitization procedures are
inappropriate, the transient micro-organisms may be able to
establish themselves, then multiply and become resident (Kumar &
Anand, 1998; Gram, Bagge-Ravn, Ng, Gymoese & Vogel, 2007).
LM is capable of forming biofilms, a multi-cellular layer of
adherent bacteria surrounded by a matrix of extra-cellular poly-
saccharides (Costerton, Lewandowski, Caldwell, Korber, & Lappin-
Scott, 1995; Wirtanen & Mattila-Sandholm, 1992). The biofilms
composed of a range of multiple microbial taxa can form on
a variety of materials used in packaging and equipment, such as
stainless steel, TeflonÒ and other plastics for packaging, rubber,
glass and others (Krysinski, Brown, & Marchisello, 1992; Midelet &
Carpentier, 2002; Sofia, Charalambia, Efstathios, Antonia, & George-
John, 2009). Thus, biofilms are an important reservoir for micro-
organisms, and have not received enough attention within food
processing areas (Mittelman, 1998; Araújo & Carballo, 2004;
Unnerstad et al., 1996), particularly due to the resistance of LM to
sanitizing agents employed in food-processing environments
(Blackman & Frank, 1996; Kumar et al., 1998; Pan, Breidt, Jr., &
Kathariou, 2006).
Apart from the program to eliminate microorganisms in
industrial environments, effective cleaning and sanitation steps
must both be included to prevent the development of biofilms and
reduce the possibility of food contamination.
The aim of this study was to detect the presence and persistence
of LM using two sanitization protocols at different points in
a dessert-processing factory. The first objective of our work was to
identify possible environments as sources of contamination by LM
but subject to structural improvements. The second objective was
to assess the effectiveness of a variety of products commonly used
as sanitizers in food industries, and their methodology of imple-
mentation. The knowledge acquired during this research could help
in establishing microbiological critical control points, and would
suggest changes to cleaning protocols, the design and location of
some equipment, and/or of work schedules in the factory.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Cleaning and sanitizer products
Two types of cleaning and disinfection agents were tested:
Easyfoam VF32Ô (JohnsonDiversey España, S.L.) (2.71% sodium
hypochlorite, as active chloride; 7% sodium hydroxide; excipients,
qs 100%) and Aciplusfoam VF59Ô (JohnsonDiversey España, S.L.)
(15e30% phosphoric acid; 5e15% nitric acid; excipients, qs 100%).
In both cases, Suredis VT 01 LÔ (JohnsonDiversey España, S.L.) (1.6%
N-(3-aminopropyl)-N-dodecylpropane-1,3-diamine; excipients, qs
100%) was later applied to the treated surfaces.
Another hygienisation method was using alternatively F-66Ô
(José Collado S.A.) (0.25% benzalkonium chloride; excipients, qs
100%) and Divosan 2080 TNÔ (JohnsonDiversey España, S.L.) (3%
glutaraldehyde; excipients, qs 100%) aerosolized.
The places where the sanitizers were applied included the
pastry preparation, elaboration and packaging areas. The treat-
ments were applied to cream dispensers, working tables,
conveyors, floors, drains, walls, doors, curtains, etc. The removable
parts of the equipment from the production lines were cleaned in
the washing room.
The cleaning and disinfection agents were applied to the
surfaces with DivercleanÔ equipment (Johnson Diversey España,
27
S.L., Barcelona, Spain), a system for dispensing a wide variety of
automatically diluted sanitizers. The surfaces in contact with food
were rinsed with clean water, and dried with single-use flannels.
Surfaces not in contact with food were not dried.
Complementarily, an AerobrumerÔ (José Collado, S.A., Barce-
lona, Spain) was the equipment employed for air disinfection by
thermal fogging with biocide agents.
The protocols employed for surface sanitizing were as follows:
Protocol A: Applied daily. Visible dust was removed by manual
scanning. The surface was rinsed with warm water (45e50
C) at
low pressure. Easyfoam VF32Ô (diluted to 3e4%) was applied
and left for 15e20 min followed by manual scrubbing, and
abundant rinsing with tap water. Suredis VT 01 LÔ (diluted to
1e2%) was applied and left for 15e20 min. Finally, it was rinsed
abundantly with tap water. Weekly air disinfection was per-
formed after work (Saturday afternoon to Sunday morning) (see
below).
Protocol B: Once every three weeks. Visible dust was removed
by manual scanning. The surface was rinsed with warm water
(45e50
C) at low pressure. Easyfoam VF32Ô (diluted to 3e4%)
was applied and left for 15e20 min followed by manual scrub-
bing, and abundant rinsing with tap water. Aciplusfoam VF59Ô
(diluted to 3e4%) was applied and left for 15e20 min. It was
then scrubbed manually, and rinsed abundantly with tap water.
Suredis VT 01 LÔ (diluted to 3e4%) was applied and left for
15e20 min. Finally, it was rinsed abundantly with tap water.
Weekly air disinfection was performed after work (Saturday
afternoon to Sunday morning) (see below).
Aerial treatments were performed with the electro thermal and
molecular fogger. This emits a totally dry spray, either disinfectant
or insecticide, whose particles are between 0.5 and 1 mm large, to
the environment. It is a process where the air is used as a means of
transmission for the biocide aerosol, which has an effect on both
horizontal and vertical surfaces.
Air disinfection: Thermal fogging with F-66TM and Divosan
2080 TNÔ from AerobrumerÔ, was alternated between both
disinfectants every two months. The recommended product
quantity for preventative treatment was 6 min misting every
100 m3 of establishment.
2.2. Sampling
All surfaces analyzed were within the cake-making area. The
food contact surfaces comprised all the elements and equipment on
the production line made of stainless steel, rubber or plastic. Non-
food contact surfaces included auxiliary elements, such as doors,
walls, floor, drains, and personnel access areas, made of stainless
steel, plastic, epoxy resins, aluminium or rubber. These surfaces
surround the food contact area, or are around the production lines.
Before starting the sampling phase, and together with the
historical controls, a study was performed to identify those areas
with the highest levels of microorganisms. The microbial contam-
ination parameters were analyzed: a) at the beginning of the
workday; b) at the end of the workday, before sanitizing. These
studies were conducted during 4 months in early 2009, sampling
the surfaces analysed three consecutive sequences of three times
with protocol A and once with protocol B. During this period,
the factory produced several types of cakes with a variety of
ingredients, and a wide range of raw materials and presentations.
The samples were obtained from two types of surface: food
contact and non-food contact. The food contact surfaces included
conveyor belts, equipment, dosage pipes, the freezing tunnel, and
various tools. The second group consisted of floors, walls, cleaning
 Author's personal copy
28 M. Campdepadrós et al. / Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31
supplies, drains, a walk-through sole-washer system, and recircu-
lation air grilles. Surfaces suspected to be the sources of contami-
nation were investigated, as summarized in Table 1, which
describes the number of samples taken before and after cleaning,
according to the type of sanitizing protocol done.
The samples were obtained with pre-moistened sterile swabs.
The Path-Chek Hygiene Pathogen System from Microgen Bio-
products (Microgen Bioproducts Ltd., Camberley, UK) consisted of
two units; a pre-moistened Path-Chek Hygiene swab and Path-
Chek Hygiene Detection Broths, a highly specific and sensitive
detection media. The standard sample area of 10  10 cm was
evaluated. The swabs used for sampling were rubbed three times in
several directions. Samples were taken in duplicate. A sterile paper
was used as a template to outline a selected area, inside which the
swabbing was done. If the sampled areas were irregular, or it was
not possible to take a standard sample, such as on the legs of tables
or machines, a sampling area of 100 cm2 was estimated de visu and
processed as above.
2.3. Microbiological analysis
The following microbiological contamination parameters were
evaluated for the selected surfaces to sample: total aerobic plate
count (TAPC), Enterobacteriaceae (ENT), and mould and yeast
(M&Y) counts. TAPC, ENT and M&Y were determined by culturing
on plate count agar (PCA; Merck - España, Madrid, Spain), violet red
bile glucose agar (VRBG; Oxoid España, S.A., Madrid, Spain) and
chloramphenicol glucose yeast extract agar (CGY; Oxoid España,
S.A., Madrid, Spain), respectively, and according to ISO 4833:2003,
ISO 5552:1997 and ISO 7954:1987. The results were given in colony
forming units by surface area (cfu/cm2), in line with the microbi-
ological criteria adopted in the D 2001/471/EC.
The Path-Check Hygiene Pathogen SystemÔ kit was employed
for presumptive detection of LM. This detection system meets the
requirements of ISO 18593:2004, but unlike similar methods, it
requires no pre-enrichment step. To obtain the samples, the cap
from the pre-moistened Path-Chek Hygiene swab was removed,
and it was swabbed on the surface of a pre-selected standard area,
rotating it while performing this operation. The swab was then
placed in the tube of the Path-Chek Hygiene Detection Broth (if the
swab could not be transferred immediately to the Path-Chek
Hygiene Detection Broth, it was returned to its holding tube and
stored at less than 20
C for not more than 24 h). The inoculated
tubes, placed in a rack, were incubated for 24e48 h at 28e30
C.
Presumptive positive tests (turning from yellow to black) were
confirmed by plating of a 0.1 ml of the Path-Chek Hygiene Detection
Broth onto Chrom’ID Ottaviani Agosti agar (bioMérieux S.A., Marcy-
l’Etoile, France), and incubating it at 37  1
C for 24e26 h. Blue
colonies with halos were presumptive for LM and L. ivanovii. Five
such presumptive colonies were grown on horse blood agar
37  1
C for 21e27 h, and the isolates were biochemically iden-
tified by using APIÒ Listeria (bioMérieux S.A., Marcy-l’Etoile,
France).
Table 1
Food contact and non-food contact surfaces sampled before and after sanitizing with
protocols A and B.
Before After After
cleaning protocol A protocol B
Food contact 17 118 43
surfaces
Non-food contact 147 137 25
surfaces
Total samples (%) 164 (33.7) 255 (52.3) 68 (14.0)
2.4. Statistical analysis
Pre-specified subgroup analyses were performed according to
food contact and cleaning protocol during sampling (Table 1). The
data were presented as means  SD. To test differences in groups,
statistical significance was determined either by ANOVA and
Student’s “t” tests for parametric data, or the KruskaleWallis and
ManneWhitney U tests for non-parametric data. Two-sided p
values of less than 0.05 were considered to indicate statistical
significance. The data were analyzed with the use of SPSS statistical
software, version 17.0.
3. Results
3.1. Presence of LM before and after cleaning and sanitizing
A total of 285 analyses were carried out for TAPC and ENT, 323
for M&Y, and 498 for LM. The presence of pathogenic bacteria
before and after sanitation of the production areas with both
protocols is shown in Table 2. Note that the presence of bacteria was
significantly higher in all cases in the samples taken before sani-
tizing. The results indicate that the cleaning procedures were
effective at reducing the presence of microorganisms, but unable
to eliminate those completely. The values of TAPC and M&Y were
low, even before sanitizing, with a mean of 4.9 (cfu/cm2) and 1.7
(cfu/cm2) before cleaning and 2.8 (cfu/cm2) and 0.8 (cfu/cm2) after
cleaning, respectively. According to D 2001/471/EC, in the case of
food contact surfaces, acceptable TAPC values are between 0 and
10/cm2, and unacceptable if >10 cm2; for ENT, they are acceptable
between 0 and 1/cm2, and unacceptable > 1/cm2. The ENT average
before sanitizing indicates that the surfaces were initially “dirty”
(with a mean of 1.3 cfu/cm2), but acceptable (0.6 cfu/cm2) after
cleaning. The LM showed a presence of 15.2% before cleaning,
falling to 6.9% after cleaning. There was a significant reduction in
the presence of LM after cleaning whichever sanitizing protocol
was used (p ¼ 0.003). However, LM did not totally disappear and
showed an ability to survive on floors that had undergone sani-
tizing treatments.
3.2. Presence of LM according to the type of sanitizing protocol used
As mentioned above, clean-up operations reduced all microbial
populations, including LM. Table 3 shows the results obtained
according to the type of sanitizing procedure (Protocol A or B)
employed. LM was detected in 15.2% of the places sampled before
sanitizing, 7% after applying protocol A and 5.9% after employing
protocol B. The decrease of the % of presence of LM was significant
after applying protocol A (p ¼ 0.007). Although there was a greater
decrease in the percentage with protocol B, this cannot be
considered significant (p ¼ 0.05). This can be due to the small
sample size in the group of analyses carried out after cleaning with
protocol B (n ¼ 4).
Table 2
Total aerobic plate count (TAPC), Enterobacteriaceae (ENT), moulds and yeasts
(M&Y), and Listeria monocytogenes (LM), before and after applying the sanitizing
protocols.
Parameters measured Before cleaning After cleaning Significance
Total Mean  SD (n) Mean  SD (n) p
samples (%) TAPC (cfu/cm2) 4.9  5.3 (72) 2.8  4.3 (213) 0.006
178 (36.6) ENT (cfu/cm2) 1.3  2.5 (72) 0.6  1.8 (213) 0.002
M&Y (cfu/cm2) 1.7  2.7 (84) 0.8  1.8 (239) 0.001
309 (63.4) LM (% presence) 15.2 (164) 6.9 (334) 0.003
Results are expressed as mean  Standard deviation (SD); n: number of samples; p:
e
significance level between before and after cleaning.
 Author's personal copy

M. Campdepadrós et al. / Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31 29

Table 3 Table 5
Frequency and percentage of presence/absence of Listeria monocytogenes (LM) by Enumeration and description of the places where Listeria monocytogenes (LM) was
sanitizing protocol. detected.

Sanitizing Presence of LM, Absence of LM, Significance p Total Type of Locations in the Samples where Samples where
samples (%) samples (%) samples surfaces factory LM was absent LM was present
0 - Before cleaning 25 (15.2) 139 (84.8) e 164 Food contacting All places 178 e
1 - Protocol A 18 (7.0) 237 (92.2) 0e1 p ¼ 0.007 255 Non-food contacting Walls 9 e
2 - Protocol B 4 (5.9) 64 (94.1) 0e2 p ¼ 0.050 68 Doors 14 e
Air conditioning grid 7 e
Walk-through 17 5
sole-washer system
3.3. Relationship between TAPC, ENT, and M&Y counts and the Floor 127 41
presence/absence of LM Floor drains 5 e
Cleaning supplies 10 1 (sponge mop)

Table 4 shows the presence of selected microorganisms (TAPC,

ENT and M&Y) and their average, related to the presence/absence of
LM. The averages of all microbiological parameters studied were
higher in those cases where LM was detected, in comparison with
those in which LM was not detected. The analyses indicated that the
differences between those values in the presence and absence of
LM were statistically significant (TAPC, p ¼ 0.001; ENT, p ¼ 0.006;
and M&Y, p < 0.001). However, the standard deviations of each of
the parameters had a wide range. These results could be influenced
by the fact that the number of positive results from the presence of
LM was low despite the large number of samples analyzed.
3.4. Description of the sites around the factory where LM was
located
Table 5 shows the locations where LM was detected. The fomites
on the surfaces in contact with food, such as conveyor belts,
equipment and implements, etc, were included in Table 5, because
no positive results for the presence of LM were found on these. The
sites that showed systematic presence of LM were the floor of the
factory and objects in close contact with it (sanitary barrier, shoe
soles, equipment brackets, stair treads, small pools of water, etc).
We can emphasise the similarity of the values obtained before and
after sanitizing in such locations, which are characterized by being
wet for long periods of time.
4. Discussion
In the present study, surfaces in contact with foods were found
to be free of LM, and its presence was not detected in any case after
sanitization. On the other hand, LM was occasionally detected on
some non-food contact surfaces, where the bacterium can survive,
always accompanied by the other three indicators of potential food
microbial contamination (TAPC, ENT and M&Y).
This study shows that both the cleaning and disinfection treat-
ments (protocols A and B) assayed successfully reduced TAPC, ENT,
M&Y, and LM, and that a significant reduction of the presence of
these microbial indicators was found before and after cleaning of
the food or non-food contact surfaces. However, there are some
Table 4
TAPC, ENT, and M&Y according to the presence or absence of LM.
Parameter measured Presence of LM Absence of LM Significance
Mean  SD (n) Mean  SD (n) p von Holy, 2008; Legnani, Leoni, Berveglieri, Mirolo, & Alvaro, 2004;
TAPC (cfu/cm2) 8.7  4.9 (16) 4.6  5.3 (111) 0.001
ENT (cfu/cm2) 2.5  3.1 (16) 1.3  2.7 (111) 0.006
M&Y (cfu/cm2) 3.9  4.1 (18) 1.4  2.2 (129) <0.001
Results are expressed as mean  standard deviation (SD).
cfu/cm2: colony forming units by area (in square centimetres).
TAPC: total aerobic plate count; ENT: Enterobacteriaceae count; and M&Y: mould
and yeast count; LM: Listeria monocytogenes.
n: number of samples; p: significance level between presence and absence LM.
places where these microorganisms, including LM, can survive and
persist over time despite the sanitization treatment applied
(Thévenot, Delignette-Muller, Christieans, & Vernozy-Rozand,
2005). Our results are consistent with those of other authors
(Salo, Ehavald, Raaska, Vokk, & Wirtanen, 2006; Talon et al., 2007),
who also found persistence of TAPC, ENT, M&Y and LM after sani-
tizing non-food contact surfaces. Moreover, in our case, the places
where LM was absent also showed a low level of TAPC, ENT and
M&Y.
The results for LM in this study were comparable with those
described in similar processing plants (Aguado, Vitas, & García-
Jalón, 2004). In our case, the detection of LM was always repeated
in the same sampling places. This suggests that the presence of LM
in certain niches could be determined by a) increased awareness
among workers involved in cleaning activities of the negative
consequences of the presence of micro-organisms on food contact
surfaces, thus inducing them to carry out more vigorous cleaning of
these; b) the existence of pools of water, condensation from
refrigeration equipment or traces of water remaining on the floor
after clean-up operations. In food-processing areas, a final step is
carried out after sanitization, which consists of drying wet surfaces
with hand mops, but this is not applied to the floor or the base of
the equipment.
Certain authors (Lundén, 2004; Wirtanen & Salo, 2004) stated
that LM represented a problem in the food industry because it was
especially present in refrigerated areas, fridges and freezers, as well
as on floors and in drains. Similarly, in our study it was most often
found on the floor and on shoe cleaning equipment. These are
places that retain moisture thus allowing LM to multiply (Bell et al.,
2005). Thus, the process of drying the surfaces seems to be of great
importance for controlling microbial growth (Montville, Chen, &
Schaffner, 2002). Moreover, the efficiency of cleaning and disin-
fection products against LM is strongly influenced by the sort of the
food matrix present in the environment, and in most cases, it is
reduced by the presence of food debris (Chaitiemwong, Hazeleger,
& Beumer, 2010; Gram, Bagge-Ravn, Ng, Gymoese & Vogel, 2007).
After assessing the results, given the survival of LM in cold and wet
environments, such as the floor and objects in contact with it, the
latter should be considered the reservoir for LM and other potential
hazardous micro-organisms that can contaminate foods by bio-
aerosol formation, and should therefore be included within the
good-hygiene practices and HACCP systems (Christison, Lindsay, &
Sharma & Anand, 2002; Reij & Den Aantrekker, 2004). Various
authors (Aarnisalo, Tallavaara, Wirtanen, Maijala, & Raaska, 2006;
Bell & Kyriakides, 2005; Cox et al., 1989; Fuster-Valls, Hernández-
Herrero, Marín-de-Mateo, & Rodríguez-Jerez, 2008) have already
highlighted the importance of rapid drying of wet surfaces after
cleaning and disinfection when the manufactured processes were
completed, because this helps to reduce the proliferation of
 Author's personal copy
30 M. Campdepadrós et al. / Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31
bacteria as water is an essential factor for microbial growth and the
formation of biofilm. However, the resistance of LM could also be
due to inefficient cleaning with remnants of organic material
remaining. Thus, persistent organic matter could be removed
physically by chemical sanitising products (adsorption and
absorption phenomena) or chemically (by redox phenomena), thus
reducing their biocide activity.
The present study highlights the specific locations where LM is
able to survive in a food-processing factory, thus enabling efforts to
be concentrated on sanitizing these places. In addition, it is
important to note that infrastructure changes could be useful for
reducing the presence of potential human pathogens by reducing
water condensation and ponding, while making cleaning and
disinfection easier (Miettinen, Björkroth et al., 1999). Finally, note
that the results obtained through sanitization protocol B, although
not statistical significant, suggest that it might be effective at
reducing all indicators of microbial contamination. However,
further studies will be needed to increase the frequency or number
of samples to prove this.
The findings of our study suggest that LM is able to remain in
specific places, particularly floor, in the factory, despite the saniti-
zation treatments performed, although it is not detected on food
contact surfaces. The identification of these LM survival points
could be of value for improving their control as part of HACCP
program. Both sanitizing protocols managed to reduce the LM load
(as well the rest of the microbial parameters studied) but not to
eradicate this microorganism completely.
References
Aarnisalo, K., Raaska, L., & Wirtanen, G. (2007). Survival and growth of Listeria
monocytogenes in lubricants used in the food industry. Food Control, 18(9),
1019e1025.
Aarnisalo, K., Tallavaara, K., Wirtanen, G., Maijala, R., & Raaska, L. (2006). The
hygienic working practices of maintenance personnel and equipment hygiene
in the Finnish food industry. Food Control, 17(12), 1001e1011.
Aguado, V., Vitas, A. I., & García-Jalón, I. (2004). Characterization of Listeria mono-
cytogenes and Listeria innocua from a vegetable processing plant by RAPD and
REA. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 90(3), 341e347.
Anonymous. (2010). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Preliminary
FoodNet data on the incidence of infection with pathogens transmitted
commonly through food - 10 states, 2009. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly
Report, 59(14), 418e422.
Anonymous. (2001). Commission Decision (2001/471/EC) of 8 June 2001 laying
down rules for the regular checks on the general hygiene carried out by the
operators in establishments according to Directive 64/433/EEC on health
conditions for the production and marketing of fresh meat and Directive 71/
118/EEC on health problems affecting the production and placing on the market
of fresh poultry meat. Official Journal of the European Communities, L 165, 48e53,
21/06/2001.
Araújo, A. B., & Carballo, J. (2004). Adherencia de "Listeria monocytogenes"
a superficies de la industria alimentaria. Alimentaria: Revista de tecnología e
higiene de los alimentos, 354, 33e44.
Aureli, P., Fiorucci, G. C., Caroli, D., Marchiaro, G., Novara, O., Leone, L., et al. (2000).
An outbreak of febrile gastroenteritis associated with corn contaminated by
Listeria Monocytogenes. The New England Journal of Medicine, 342(17),
1236e1241.
Bell, C., & Kyriakides, A. (2005). Listeria. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Pub.
Blackman, I. C., & Frank, J. F. (1996). Growth of Listeria monocytogenes as a biofilm
on various food-processing surfaces. Journal of Food Protection, 59(8),
827e831.
Chaitiemwong, N., Hazeleger, W. C., & Beumer, R. R. (2010). Survival of Listeria
monocytogenes on a conveyor belt material with or without antimicrobial
additives. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 142(1e2), 260e263.
Christison, C. A., Lindsay, D., & von Holy, A. (2008). Microbiological survey of ready-
to-eat foods and associated preparation surfaces in retail delicatessens,
Johannesburg, South Africa. Food Control, 19(7), 727e733.
Costerton, J. W., Lewandowski, Z., Caldwell, D. E., Korber, D. R., & Lappin-Scott, H. M.
(1995). Microbial biofilms. Annual Review of Microbiology, 49, 711e745.
Cox, L. J., Kleiss, T., Cordier, J. L., Cordellana, C., Konkel, P., Pedrazzini, C., et al. (1989).
Listeria spp. in food processing, non-food and domestic environments. Food
Microbiology, 6, 49e61.
Dalton, B. C., Austin, C. C., Sobel, J., Hayes, P. S., Bibb, W. F., Graves, L. M., et al. (1997).
An outbreak of gastroenteritis and fever due to Listeria monocytogenes in milk.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 336(2), 100e105.
Fuster-Valls, N., Hernández-Herrero, M., Marín-de-Mateo, M., & Rodríguez-Jerez, J. J.
(2008). Effect of different environmental conditions on the bacteria survival on
stainless steel surfaces. Food Control, 19(3), 308e314.
Garrido, V., Torroba, L., García-Jalón, I., & Vitas, A. I. (2008). Surveillance of listeriosis
in Navarre, Spain, 1995e2005 -epidemiological patterns and characterisation of
clinical and food isolates. Euro Surveillance, 13(49), 1e6.
Gram, L., Bagge-Ravn, D., Ng, Y. Y., Gymoese, P., & Vogel, B. F. (2007). Influence of
food soiling matrix on cleaning and disinfection efficiency on surface attached
Listeria monocytogenes. Food Control, 18(10), 1165e1171.
Inoue, S., Nakama, A., Arai, Y., Kokubo, Y., Maruyama, T., Saito, A., et al. (2000).
Prevalence and contamination levels of Listeria monocytogenes in retail foods in
Japan. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 59(1e2), 73e77.
ISO 18593. (2004). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs e Horizontal
methods for sampling techniques from surfaces using contact plates and swabs.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 4833. (2003). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal method
for the enumeration of microorganisms - Colony-count technique at 30 degrees C.
Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
ISO 5552. (1997). Microbiology of food and animal feeding stuffs - Horizontal methods
for the detection and enumeration of Enterobacteriaceae - Part 2: Colony-count
method. Geneva: International Organization for Standardization.
Klontz, K., McCarthy, P., Datta, A., Lee, J., Acheson, D. W. K., & Brackett, R. (2008).
Role of the U.S. food and drug administration in the regulatory management of
human listeriosis in the United States. Journal of Food Protection, 71(6),
1277e1286.
Krysinski, E. P., Brown, L. J., & Marchisello, T. J. (1992). Effect of cleaners and sani-
tizers on Listeria monocytogenes attached to product contact surfaces. Journal of
Food Protection, 55, 246e251.
Kumar, C. G., & Anand, S. K. (1998). Significance of microbial biofilms in food
industry: a review. Int. J. Food Microbiol., 42(1e2), 9e27.
Legnani, P., Leoni, E., Berveglieri, M., Mirolo, G., & Alvaro, N. (2004). Hygienic control
of mass catering establishments, microbiological monitoring of food and
equipment. Food Control, 15(3), 205e211.
Leite, P., Rodrigues, R., Ferreira, M., Ribeiro, G., Jacquet, C., Martin, P., et al. (2006).
Comparative characterization of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from Portu-
guese farmhouse ewe’s cheese and from humans. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 106(2), 111e121.
Lou, Y., & Yousef, A. E. (1999). Characteristics of Listeria monocytogenes important
to food processors. In E. T. Ryser, & E. H. Marth (Eds.), Listeria, listeriosis and food
safety (2nd ed). (pp. 131e224). New York, USA: Marcel Dekker.
Lundén, J. (2004). Persistent Listeria monocytogenes contamination in food processing
plants. Helsinki, Finland: Yliopistopaino.
Lyytikäinen, O., Autio, T., Maijala, R., Ruutu, P., Honkanen-Buzalski, T., Miettinen, M.,
et al. (2000). An outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes serotype 3a infections from
butter in Finland. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 181(5), 1835e1841.
Mead, P. S., Slutsker, L., Dietz, V., McCaig, L. F., Bresee, J. S., Shapiro, C., et al. (1999).
Food-related illness and death in the United States. Emerging Infectious Diseases,
5, 607e625.
Midelet, G., & Carpentier, B. (2002). Transfer of microorganisms, including Listeria
monocytogenes, from various materials of beef. Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 68(8), 4015e4024.
Miettinen, M. K., Björkroth, K. J., & Korkeala, H. J. (1999). Characterization of Listeria
monocytogenes from an ice cream plant by serotyping and pulsed-field gel
electrophoresis. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 46(3), 187e192.
Miettinen, M. K., Siitonen, A., Heiskanen, P., Haajanen, H., Björkroth, K. J., &
Korkeala, H. J. (1999). Molecular epidemiology of an outbreak of febrile
gastroenteritis caused by Listeria monocytogenes in cold-smoked rainbow trout.
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 37(7), 2358e2360.
Mittelman, M. W. (1998). Structure and functional characteristics of bacterial bio-
films in fluid processing operations. Journal of Dairy Science, 81, 2760e2764.
Montville, R., Chen, Y., & Schaffner, D. W. (2002). Risk assessment of hand washing
efficacy using literature and experimental data. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 73(2e3), 305e313.
Møretrø, T., & Langsrud, S. (2004). Review article. Listeria monocytogenes: biofilm
formation and persistence in food-processing environments. Biofilms, 1,
107e121.
Pan, Y., Breidt, F., Jr., & Kathariou, S. (2006). Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes
biofilms to sanitizing agents in a Simulated food processing environment.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 72(12), 7711e7717.
Reij, M. W., & Den Aantrekker, E. D. (2004). Recontamination as a source of path-
ogens in processed foods. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 91(1), 1e11.
Rocourt, J. (1996). Risk factors for listeriosis. Food Control, 7(4e5), 195e202.
Salamina, G., Dalle Donne, E., Niccolini, A., Poda, G., Cesaroni, D., Bucci, M., et al.
(1996). A foodborne outbreak of gastroenteritis involving. Listeria Mono-
cytogenes. Epidemiology and Infection, 117(3), 429e436.
Salo, S., Ehavald, H., Raaska, L., Vokk, R., & Wirtanen, G. (2006). Microbial surveys
in Estonian dairies. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft [i.e. und] Technologie, 39(5),
460e471.
Sharma, M., & Anand, S. K. (2002). Biofilms evaluation as an essential component of
HACCP for food/dairy processing industry e a case. Food Control, 13(6e7),
469e477.
Sofia, P., Charalambia, A. B., Efstathios, D. G., Antonia, S. G., & George-John, E. N.
(2009). Listeria monocytogenes Attachment to and Detachment from stainless
steel surfaces in a simulated dairy processing environment. Applied and Envi-
ronmental Microbiology, 75(22), 7182e7188.
 Author's personal copy
M. Campdepadrós et al. / Food Control 23 (2012) 26e31
Talon, R., Lebert, I., Lebert, A., Leroy, S., Garriga, M., Aymerich, T., et al. (2007).
Traditional dry fermented sausages produced in small-scale processing units in
Mediterranean countries and Slovakia. 1: microbial ecosystems of processing
environments. Meat Science, 77(4), 570e579.
Thévenot, D., Delignette-Muller, M. L., Christieans, S., & Vernozy-Rozand, C. (2005).
Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes in 13 dried sausage processing plants and
their products. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 102(1), 85e94.
Tompkin, R. B. (2002). Control of Listeria monocytogenes in the food-processing
environment. Journal of Food Protection, 65(4), 709e725.
Uhitil, S., Jaksic, S., Petrak, T., Medic, H., & Gumhalter-Karolyi, L. (2004). Prevalence
of Listeria monocytogenes and the other Listeria spp. in cakes in Croatia. Food
Control, 15(3), 213e216.
31
Unnerstad, H., Bannerman, E., Bille, J., Danielsson-Tham, M.-L., Waak, E., & Tham, W.
(1996). Prolonged contamination of a dairy with Listeria monocytogenes.
Netherlands Milk and Dairy Journal, 50, 493e499.
Vázquez-Boland, J. A., Kuhn, M., Berche, P., Chakraborty, T., Domínguez-Bernal, G.,
Goebel, W., et al. (2001). Listeria pathogenesis and molecular virulence deter-
minants. Clinical Microbiology Reviews, 14(3), 584e640.
Wirtanen, G., & Mattila-Sandholm, T. (1992). Removal of foodborne biofilms-
comparison of surface and suspension tests. Part I. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft
[i.e. und] Technologie, 25(1), 43e49.
Wirtanen, G., & Salo, S. (2004). Disinfection in food processing e efficacy testing
of disinfectatants. Reviews in Environmental Science and Biotechnology, 2,
293e306.