Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effectiveness of Alternative 7
Summary
• A review of alternative antimicrobial
agents reveals the need for
standardized methodology for efficacy
testing as well as considerations of
• Silver has been demonstrated to show
toxicity, safety, cost, ease of use,
residual antimicrobial properties. Its
availability, storage, and application-
effectiveness in making materials/surfaces
specific testing.
resistant to microbial growth has potential
• The appropriateness of alternative implications for expanding its use in medical
antimicrobial agents, such as vinegar, and commercial applications.
lemon juice, and baking soda appear to
• Further research is needed to explore
be limited for commercial disinfection or
potential uses of alternative agents in
sanitization, but some emerging
formulating novel disinfectants with
technologies such as ozonated water
desirable characteristics (e.g., lower toxicity,
and electrolyzed water have
economical, environmentally friendly).
demonstrated substantial antimicrobial
properties.
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
Alternative registered
agent Advantages Disadvantages disinfectant Conclusions
b
A brief discussion, including references, for the advantages and disadvantages in this table is available within the reviews for
each alternative antimicrobial agent.
2
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
Alternative registered
agent Advantages Disadvantages disinfectant Conclusions
3
Primary active
ingredient of at
least one
Health Canada
Alternative registered
agent Advantages Disadvantages disinfectant Conclusions
4
Antimicrobial efficacy products containing lavender oil and/or lavender oil
13,14
combined with TTO (both are essential oils).
Researchers have used European Standards for Investigations through mammalian cell culture studies
evaluating the use of TTO as a sanitizer for food have revealed that TTO has slight “estrogenic and
12,13,15
areas (EN 1276) and as an antiseptic agent for hand antiandrogenic activities”. However, another
8
washing (EN 12054). The minimum standard is a 5 study emphasizes the need to consider bioavailability
log reduction in 5 minutes for use as a sanitizer and a when conducting human health risk assessments and
2.52 log reduction in 1 minute for use as a hand that the aforementioned in vitro results are unlikely to
15
washing agent. Test suspensions of Staphylococcus represent in vivo human health risks. Results from
aureus, Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas this study supported the in vitro estrogenic and
aeruginosa were treated with 1% to 10% (v/v) TTO antiandrogenic effects of TTO, but also illustrated that
and log reductions were recorded after 1 minute and 5 TTO components, known to penetrate the skin, do not
8 15
minutes of treatment. Treatment with 5% TTO induce measurable effects. From this, the report
resulted in a 5 log reduction of E. coli in 1 minute and suggests that further human health risk assessments
a 4 log reduction of P. aeruginosa in 5 minutes. regarding TTO should characterize TTO components
Treatment with 8% TTO resulted in a 5 log reduction and their bioavailability, in conjunction with
of P. aeruginosa in 1 minute. Log reductions of S. observations for possible estrogenic and/or
aureus ranged from 0.19 (1% TTO, 1 minute) to 0.80 antiandrogenic properties. Furthermore, threshold
(10% TTO, 1 min) and did not significantly differ with levels of TTO required to induce these effects have
8
varying concentrations of TTO or contact time. As an yet to be characterized. More evidence is required in
antiseptic hand wash agent, 2.75% TTO resulted in order to evaluate these potential health effects and
the reduction of E. coli and P. aeruginosa by 4 logs their significance, if any, to the population and to
and 2 logs, respectively, in 1 minute; the same public health.
treatment resulted in a log reduction of <0.5 for S.
8
aureus. Other studies have determined minimum
inhibitory concentrations for E. coli and S. aureus to Thyme Oil
9
be 0.25% and 0.50% (v/v), respectively.
Thymol and carvacrol are the main components in
thyme oil that are believed to exhibit the most
Potential use for disinfection: 16
antimicrobial activity. They have been demonstrated
applicability and pertinent issues to cause an increase in permeability of the cell
membranes of bacteria, a reduction in the proton
Ingestion of undiluted TTO may induce temporary motive force, and an associated decrease in
neurological effects in children and adults. Symptoms intracellular levels of adenosine triphosphate (ATP, a
include confusion, inability to walk, disorientation, high-energy molecule responsible for providing energy
17,18
ataxia, unconsciousness, and coma.
5,10
Allergic skin to drive reactions in the cell). Although there is
reactions, systemic reactions, and irritation are also insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness for
associated with dermal exposure to TTO. The LD50 of health benefits, thyme oil has been taken orally to
tea tree oil is estimated to be 1.9-2.6 mL/kg in rats treat sore throat, cough, bronchitis and inflammatory
19
and when used undiluted has been determined to be conditions of the gastrointestinal tract. As a topical
unsafe by scientific committees of the European agent, it can be used as an anti-inflammatory
Commission; it can be irritating to the skin at mouthwash and for treatment of ear infections. Thyme
11
concentrations as low as 5% (v/v). Therefore, uses oil is also a food additive and, in the United States, is
of TTO on food contact surfaces and in settings with Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for ingestion
20
sensitive individuals may be limited by its oral and (21 CFR 182.10).
dermal toxicity to humans.
6
safeguards and response measures must be present Accepted Construction Materials, Packaging Materials and
27 46
should leakage occur. The toxicity of EO water has Non-Food Chemical Products.
also been noted as lower than that of conventional
disinfectants and no adverse oral or digestive health
effects were observed in mice given EO water as Antimicrobial efficacy
32,37
drinking water.
Lettuce dipped in ozonated water (4 ppm O3, 20°C) for
2 minutes had significant reductions in
Similar to chlorine-based sanitizing treatments,
Enterobacteriaceae (1.3 log CFU/g) as well as
microbial reduction may vary depending on the
psychrotrophic (1.5 log CFU/g) and mesophilic
susceptibility of test organisms, contact time, 43
bacteria (1.7 log CFU/g). These results were
treatment methodology, presence of organic
comparable to treatment with 100 ppm chlorine in the
residues/debris, and the surface/texture of the area
same conditions and researchers have suggested that
being sanitized. The presence of organic residues,
ozonated water may be a potential alternative to
uneven textures, and porous surfaces has been 43
chlorine dippings. Use of ozonated water in place of
demonstrated to impair the antimicrobial efficacy of
38,39 chlorine in produce processing may avoid the
EO water. Studies have also shown inactivation of
formation of undesirable chlorine disinfection by-
microbes to be dependent on temperature of EO
products (e.g., trihalomethanes). When used to
water, for example, EO water at 45°C favours
decontaminate cattle hides, ozonated water was able
microbial inactivation when compared to EO water at
33 to achieve a 2.1 log reduction in aerobic plate count,
23°C.
3.4 log reduction in Enterobacteriaceae count, and
58% reduction in number of hides testing positive for
Ozonated Water (Aqueous
31
E. coli O157:H7.
7
discharges (e.g., corona discharge) are required to demonstrated that a 24-hour silver release rate of
convert oxygen in the air (or pure oxygen) into ozone approximately 93 ppm can result in >3.46 log
42 56
gas. These processes require special equipment reduction (30 min contact time) in S. aureus.
and substantial amounts of electrical energy to However, with a dressing of a different matrix type, no
operate, leading to high initial and operating costs for log reduction was observed (30 min contact time)
large-scale commercial applications. even though the dressing had a higher 24-hour silver
release rate of 318 ppm.
Limited information exists on the toxicity of ozonated
water, but studies have shown no significant adverse In one study, stainless steel coupons and cups were
effects on human oral epithelial cells after acute coated with a silver-zinc zeolite (2.5% w/w silver and
49
exposure. Other potential limitations for its use 14% zinc), then inoculated with test organisms (e.g.,
include damage to sensitive materials (e.g., rubber S. aureus, E. coli, P. aeruginosa, and L.
gaskets) and occupational safety associated with monocytogenes) to evaluate bactericidal activity by
42,49
exposure to ozone gas. recovery of organisms at different time intervals (e.g.,
0h, 4h, 24h). Microbial reduction of up to 5 logs was
observed in 24 hours, when compared to untreated
Silver 57
controls. Microbial reductions observed at 4h
diminished after 5 washings with a towel, but
Studies have shown that the likely modes of microbial 57
reductions at 24h remained >90% after 11 washings.
inactivation by silver is through interference with A similar study using the same silver-zinc zeolite
cellular respiration and transport, interactions with coatings showed that the numbers of vegetative cells
DNA, disruption of proteins, and destruction of the cell of B. cereus were reduced by 3 logs after 24h, but
50 58
membrane. Contrary to many disinfectants, potential spores were not inactivated even after 48 hours.
applications of silver are commonly associated with
slow release of silver from silver-impregnated Furthermore, an alcohol-based (79%) disinfectant
51
materials and residual antimicrobial effects. spray with silver iodide (0.005%) was tested for
residual bactericidal activity. When compared to
Silver has been used for its antimicrobial properties in untreated controls, populations of P. aeruginosa and
drinking water/cooling tower disinfection, swimming S. aureus were reduced by >3 logs in 2 hours and by
52
pools, and for medical uses. Notably, Health Canada >4 logs in 8 hours; a chlorine based disinfectant
has issued a DIN for a silver dihydrogen citrate-based showed similar residual activity, but only with S.
disinfectant (silver dihydrogen citrate 0.003% and 59
aureus. Multiple rinses, abrasion, and re-
citric acid 4.846%) for use as a hard surface contamination did not affect residual activity.
53
disinfectant with demonstrated residual activity.
8
Nanotechnology: A Review of Exposure, Health Risks, and likely insufficient to inhibit the growth of many
63
Recent Regulatory Developments. foodborne microorganisms, many of which can grow
70,78
in conditions with up to pH 9 to 10. However, at
The World Health Organization (WHO) has suggested least one study has suggested its chemical properties
that the NOAEL of silver in drinking water to be 10 g (e.g., alkaline pH, mild abrasive) can be effective for
consumed over a lifetime (i.e., daily ingestion of 2 L of 79
cleaning kitchen surfaces.
64
water containing 0.2 mg/L silver for 70 years).
Importantly, the levels of silver in natural waters and
drinking water have been noted to be thousands, if not Antimicrobial efficacy
millions, of times lower than the NOAEL (e.g.,
5 µg/L).
64 Numerous studies have demonstrated the
antimicrobial efficacy of acetic acid (AA), citric acid
Other issues noted with the use of silver as an (CA), and sodium bicarbonate (SB) using suspensions
antimicrobial include: the emergence of silver- of bacteria, recovery from treated hard surfaces,
resistant microbes (e.g., cellular efflux pumps), rinsing meat, and washing produce (summarized in
68,80-92
interference from proteins and salts, current lack of Appendix A). However, it is difficult to compare
standardization for efficacy testing, and loss of results between studies as there are no standardized
antimicrobial properties once all active silver is experimental parameters used to test efficacy.
released from impregnated materials.
52,65-67
Also, the Notably, efficacy demonstrated in suspensions are
slow-acting antimicrobial activity of silver limits its use drastically different from efficacy demonstrated on
for immediate disinfection of hard surfaces. produce (i.e., in the absence or presence of organic
Nevertheless, the residual antimicrobial activity of matter).
silver may allow for potential applications in
formulations of disinfectants or to reduce the Results from studies suggest that vinegar (acetic acid)
harbourage of microbes on surfaces and subsequent exhibits the most antimicrobial efficacy, followed by
transfer of microbes from one surface to another. lemon juice (citric acid) and baking soda (sodium
68,90
bicarbonate). Typically, Gram-negative bacteria,
such as Shigella sonnei, Salmonella spp., E. coli, P.
Vinegar (acetic acid), Lemon aeruginosa, and Yersinia enterocolitia are more
susceptible to organic acids (e.g., acetic acid, citric
Juice (citric acid), and Baking acid) than Gram-positive bacteria, such as S. aureus
Soda (sodium bicarbonate) and L. monocytogenes. The highly cross-linked cell
walls of Gram-positive bacteria are believed to impair
The antimicrobial properties of vinegar and lemon the diffusion of the organic acids into the cell,
68,69,83
juice are commonly associated with their acetic acid preventing antimicrobial action. Baking soda is
68
and citric acid content, respectively. These organic generally ineffective against E. coli, P. aeruginosa, S.
acids are hypothesized to cross the cell membrane of aureus, and Salmonella spp., but had notable virucidal
+
bacteria where the release in protons (H ) causes the activity against feline calicivirus (norovirus
69 68,72,89
cells to die. As the growth of many pathogenic surrogate). The efficacy of AA, CA, and SB vary
organisms are inhibited in conditions where the pH is greatly (<1 log to >5 log reduction in test microbes;
<4.6, these organic acids, with a pH 2 to 3, are contact times ranged from 0.5 min to 15 min)
69
commonly added to foods as a preservative. depending on test organisms and test conditions.
When used at higher temperatures, vinegar and
Baking soda has been used to formulate toothpaste, lemon juice are observed to result in increased
68,91,93
cosmetic products, and is known for its acid- antimicrobial efficacy. The difficulty in assessing
neutralizing properties, but limited peer-reviewed antimicrobial efficacy and narrow antimicrobial
evidence exists for its antimicrobial activity on hard spectrum of these alternative agents may limit their
70
surfaces. It has been reported to be virucidal and applications as hard surface disinfectants.
inhibit the growth of several fungi, but its mechanism
71,72
of action is unclear. Baking soda has also been
shown to enhance the effectiveness of other agents Potential use for disinfection:
for controlling mould growth on produce, but its
73-77
applicability and pertinent issues
antifungal spectrum may be limited. In addition,
because the pH of baking soda in a neutral solution Vinegar, lemon juice, and baking soda have the
equilibrates at a maximum near 8.34, its pH alone is advantage of being readily available, environmentally
9
95-97
friendly, low in toxicity, and natural. Although these microbes and organic debris from surfaces. For
agents are commonly used to eliminate odours, example, microfibre cloths (with water) have been
residual odour and taste on surfaces may be documented to reduce S. aureus, E. coli, and
unwanted in applications where public or occupational Clostridium difficile spores on hard surfaces, by an
97,98
exposure is undesirable, especially at concentrations average of 1 to 3 logs. However, it is difficult to
that exhibit antimicrobial activity. Organoleptic make general statements regarding efficacy due to
properties of produce washed with AA or CA may also the lack of standardized testing methods and
90
be adversely affected (e.g., wilting or souring). manufacturing parameters for microfibre cloths. Even
Furthermore, like chlorine-based disinfectants, the so, the application of microfiber cloths/fabrics for
efficacy of organic acids (AA and CA) is drastically cleaning may help maximize the effectiveness of
reduced in the presence of organic matter. Potential conventional antimicrobial products.
safety concerns are also noted with the use of
vinegar, lemon juice, and/or baking soda for sanitation
purposes. For example, if chlorine-based disinfectants Potential use for cleaning:
(e.g., bleach) are used simultaneously with vinegar applicability and pertinent issues
and/or lemon juice to sanitize hard surfaces, there is
potential for an increased risk of accidental mixing, Although microfibre cloths are more expensive than
which may result in the formation of chlorine gas. cotton cloths, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Designated containers (e.g., spray bottles or buckets) Agency has a case study to demonstrate that the use
with proper labelling would be necessary, as with all of microfibre mops, in place of conventional mops in
chemical disinfectants, to indicate the contents and hospital cleaning programs, can be more economical
reduce the chance of mixing incompatible chemicals. by saving on labour, chemical, water, and electrical
99
The low pH of AA and CA can also make these costs. However, the cleaning efficacy of microfibre is
agents a potential eye, nose, and respiratory tract reduced through damage that can be caused by high
irritant. heat (e.g., process temperatures of industrial washing
machines), some disinfectants (e.g., bleach), and
95,98,99
Overall, it is unlikely that vinegar, lemon juice or fabric softeners. In addition, studies have
baking soda, by themselves, will become mainstream emphasized that the lack of antimicrobial properties
antimicrobial agents in commercial settings, but the allows for the potential for cross-contamination or re-
notable efficacy of vinegar and lemon juice may have contamination of subsequently cleaned surfaces if
indications for their potential use as household used with water alone (i.e., transmission of diseases
88,96,100,101
antimicrobial agents or in formulations of disinfectants. in institutional and food processing settings).
References
1. Barker J, Naeeni M, Bloomfield SF. The effects of
cleaning and disinfection in reducing Salmonella 10. Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV, Nielsen JB. A review
contamination in a laboratory model kitchen. J Appl of the toxicity of Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil. Food
Microbiol. 2003;95(6):1351-60. Chem Toxicol. 2006 May;44(5):616-25.
2. Health Canada. Drug product database. Ottawa, ON: 11. European Commmission - Health & Consumer Protection
Health Canada; 2010 [cited 2011 Jun 20]; Available from: Directorate-General. Scientific Committee on Consumer
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp- Products. Opinion on tea tree oil. Brussels: EC; 2008
mps/prodpharma/databasdon/index-eng.php. Dec. Available from:
http://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_risk/committees/04_sccp/d
3. International Standards Organization. ISO 4730:2004. Oil ocs/sccp_o_160.pdf.
of Melaleuca, terpinen-4-ol type (Tea Tree oil).
12. Henley DV, Korach KS. Physiological effects and
4. Carson CF, Hammer KA, Riley TV. Melaleuca alternifolia mechanisms of action of endocrine disrupting chemicals
(tea tree) oil: A review of antimicrobial and other that alter estrogen signaling. Hormones. 2010 Jul-
medicinal properties. Clin Microbiol Rev. 2006 Sep;9(3):191-205.
Jan;19(1):50-62.
13. Henley DV, Lipson N, Korach KS, Bloch CA. Prepubertal
5. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Tea tree gynecomastia linked to lavender and tea tree oils. N Engl
oil. Stockton, CA: NMCD; 2011 [cited 2011 Jun 20]; J Med. 2007 Feb 1;356(5):479-85.
Available from:
http://naturaldatabase.therapeuticresearch.com/nd/Searc 14. A.D.A.M. Medical Encyclopedia. Gynecomastia. Atlanta,
h.aspx?cs=&s=ND&fs=ND&pt=100&id=113. GA: A.D.A.M., Inc; 2009 [cited 2011 August 24];
Available from:
6. Carson CF, Mee BJ, Riley TV. Mechanism of action of http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/003165.h
Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree) oil on Staphylococcus tm.
aureus determined by time-kill, lysis, leakage, and salt
tolerance assays and electron microscopy. Antimicrob 15. Nielsen JB. What you see may not always be what you
Agents Chemother. 2002 Jun;46(6):1914-20. get--bioavailability and extrapolation from in vitro tests.
Toxicol In Vitro. 2008 Jun;22(4):1038-42.
7. Cox SD, Gustafson JE, Mann CM, Markham JL, Liew
YC, Hartland RP, et al. Tea tree oil causes K+ leakage 16. Burt S. Antibacterial activity of essential oils: potential
and inhibits respiration in Escherichia coli. Lett Appl applications in food [PhD thesis]. Utrech: Utrecht
Microbiol. 1998 May;26(5):355-8. University; 2007. Available from: http://igitur-
archive.library.uu.nl/dissertations/2007-1129-
8. Messager S, Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV. 200539/full.pdf#page=55
Assessment of the antibacterial activity of tea tree oil
using the European EN 1276 and EN 12054 standard 17. Ultee A, Kets EP, Smid EJ. Mechanisms of action of
suspension tests. J Hosp Infect. 2005 Feb;59(2):113-25. carvacrol on the food-borne pathogen Bacillus cereus.
Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999 Oct;65(10):4606-10.
9. Carson CF, Hammer KA, Riley TV. Broth micro-dilution
method for determining the susceptibility of Escherichia 18. Xu J, Zhou F, Ji BP, Pei RS, Xu N. The antibacterial
coli and Staphylococcus aureus to the essential oil of mechanism of carvacrol and thymol against Escherichia
Melaleuca alternifolia (tea tree oil). Microbios. coli. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2008 Sep;47(3):174-9.
1995;82(332):181-5.
11
19. Natural Medicines Comprehensive Database. Thyme. 31. Bosilevac JM, Shackelford SD, Brichta DM, Koohmaraie
Stockton, CA: NMCD; 2011 [cited 2011 Jul 7]; Available M. Efficacy of ozonated and electrolyzed oxidative waters
from: to decontaminate hides of cattle before slaughter. J Food
http://naturaldatabase.therapeuticresearch.com/nd/Searc Prot. 2005 Jul;68(7):1393-8.
h.aspx?pt=100&sh=1&id=823.
32. Al-Haq MI, Sugiyama J, Isobe S. Applications of
20. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 Food and drugs, electrolyzed water in agriculture & food industries. Food
Part 182. Substances generally recognized as safe. Sci Technol Res. 2005;11(2):135-50.
Essential oils, oleoresins (solvent-free), and natural
extractives (including distillates), Subpart A--General 33. Venkitanarayanan KS, Ezeike GO, Hung YC, Doyle MP.
provisions. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.182.20 Efficacy of electrolyzed oxidizing water for inactivating
(1985). Available from: Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enteritidis, and
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text- Listeria monocytogenes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1999
idx?c=ecfr&sid=786bafc6f6343634fbf79fcdca7061e1&rgn Sep;65(9):4276-9.
=div5&view=text&node=21:3.0.1.1.13&idno=21.
34. Vorobjeva NV, Vorobjeva LI, Khodjaev EY. The
21. Friedman M, Henika PR, Mandrell RE. Bactericidal bactericidal effects of electrolyzed oxidizing water on
activities of plant essential oils and some of their isolated bacterial strains involved in hospital infections. Artif
constituents against Campylobacter jejuni, Escherichia Organs. 2004 Jun;28(6):590-2.
coli, Listeria monocytogenes, and Salmonella enterica. J
Food Prot. 2002 Oct;65(10):1545-60. 35. Deza MA, Araujo M, Garrido MJ. Inactivation of
Escherichia coli, Listeria monocytogenes, Pseudomonas
22. Hammer KA, Carson CF, Riley TV. Antimicrobial activity aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus on stainless steel
of essential oils and other plant extracts. J Appl Microbiol. and glass surfaces by neutral electrolysed water. Lett
1999 Jun;86(6):985-90. Appl Microbiol. 2005;40(5):341-6.
23. Mayaud L, Carricajo A, Zhiri A, Aubert G. Comparison of 36. Ayebah B, Hung YC. Electrolyzed water and its
bacteriostatic and bactericidal activity of 13 essential oils corrosiveness on various surface materials commonly
against strains with varying sensitivity to antibiotics. Lett found in food processing facilities. J Food Process Eng.
Appl Microbiol. 2008 Sep;47(3):167-73. 2005;28:247-64.
24. U.S. Environmental Health Protection Agency. Minimum 37. Morita C, Nishida T, Ito K. Biological toxicity of acid
risk pesticides under FIFRA section 25(b). Washington, electrolyzed functional water: Effect of oral administration
DC: EPA; 2011; Available from: on mouse digestive tract and changes in body weight.
http://www.epa.gov/oppbppd1/biopesticides/regtools/25b Arch Oral Biol. 2010 Nov 23.
_list.htm.
38. Park EJ, Alexander E, Taylor GA, Costa R, Kang DH.
25. Sensible Life Products. Benefect - FAQ's. Brampton, Effects of organic matter on acidic electrolysed water for
ON: Sensible Life Products; 2010; Available from: reduction of foodborne pathogens on lettuce and
http://www.benefect.com/CA_benefect/CAN_docs_faq.ph spinach. J Appl Microbiol. 2008 Dec;105(6):1802-9.
p.
39. Koseki S, Yoshida K, Isobe S, Itoh K. Efficacy of acidic
26. Association of Occupational and Environmental Clinics. electrolyzed water for microbial decontamination of
[Exposure code lookup]: Thymol. [Display all cucumbers and strawberries. J Food Prot. 2004
asthmagens]. Washington, DC: AOEC; 2011; Available Jun;67(6):1247-51.
from: http://www.aoecdata.org/ExpCodeLookup.aspx.
40. Rodgers SL, Cash JN, Siddiq M, Ryser ET. A
27. Huang Y-R, Hung Y-C, Hsu S-Y, Huang Y-W, Hwang D- comparison of different chemical sanitizers for
F. Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry. inactivating Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria
Food Control. 2008;19(4):329-45 monocytogenes in solution and on apples, lettuce,
strawberries, and cantaloupe. J Food Prot. 2004
28. Park H, Hung YC, Brackett RE. Antimicrobial effect of Apr;67(4):721-31.
electrolyzed water for inactivating Campylobacter jejuni
during poultry washing. Int J Food Microbiol. 2002 Jan 41. Beltran D, Selma MV, Marin A, Gil MI. Ozonated water
30;72(1-2):77-83. extends the shelf life of fresh-cut lettuce. J Agric Food
Chem. 2005 Jul 13;53(14):5654-63.
29. Hricova D, Stephan R, Zweifel C. Electrolyzed water and
its application in the food industry. J Food Prot. 2008 42. Guzel-Seydim ZB, Greene AK, Seydim AC. Use of ozone
Sep;71(9):1934-47. in the food industry. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und-
Technologie. 2004;37(4):453-60.
30. Cao W, Zhu ZW, Shi ZX, Wang CY, Li BM. Efficiency of
slightly acidic electrolyzed water for inactivation of 43. Akbas MY, Olmez H. Effectiveness of organic acid,
Salmonella enteritidis and its contaminated shell eggs. Int ozonated water and chlorine dippings on microbial
J Food Microbiol. 2009 Mar 31;130(2):88-93. reduction and storage quality of fresh-cut iceberg lettuce.
J Sci Food Agric. 2007 Nov;87(14):2609-16.
12
44. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 Food and drugs, 56. Cavanagh MH, Burrell RE, Nadworny PL. Evaluating
Part 173. Secondary direct food additives permitted in antimicrobial efficacy of new commercially available silver
food for human consumption, final rule, Subpart D-- dressings. Int Wound J. 2010 Oct;7(5):394-405.
Specific usage additives. U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.173.368 Ozone (2001). Available from: 57. Cowan ME, Allen J, Pilkington F. Small dishwashers for
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/C hospital ward kitchens. J Hosp Infect. 1995;29(3):227-31.
FRSearch.cfm?fr=173.368.
58. Galeano B, Korff E, Nicholson WL. Inactivation of
45. NSF International. NSF nonfood compounds registration vegetative cells, but not spores, of Bacillus anthracis, B.
and listing program: AGW-0500 Mobile Ozone Surface cereus, and B. subtilis on stainless steel surfaces coated
Sanitation System. Ann Arbor, MI: NSF Int; 2002; with an antimicrobial silver- and zinc-containing zeolite
Available from: formulation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003 Jul;69(7):4329-
http://www.nsf.org/usda/letters/123680.pdf. 31.
46. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Reference listing of 59. Brady MJ, Lisay CM, Yurkovetskiy AV, Sawan SP.
accepted construction materials, packaging materials and Persistent silver disinfectant for the environmental control
non-food chemical products. Ottawa, ON: CFIA; 2011; of pathogenic bacteria. Am J Infect Control.
Available from: 2003;31(4):208-14.
http://active.inspection.gc.ca/scripts/fssa/reference/refsea
rec.asp?lang=e&c=1. 60. National Center for Complementary Alternative Medicine.
Colloidal silver products. Bethesda, MD: National
47. Bialoszewski D, Bocian E, Bukowska B, Czajkowska M, Institutes of Health; 2010; Available from:
Sokol-Leszczynska B, Tyski S. Antimicrobial activity of http://nccam.nih.gov/health/silver/.
ozonated water. Med Sci Monit. 2010 Aug 7;16(9):MT71-
5. 61. Kim Y, Suh HS, Cha HJ, Kim SH, Jeong KS, Kim DH. A
case of generalized argyria after ingestion of colloidal
48. Restaino L, Frampton EW, Hemphill JB, Palnikar P. silver solution. Am J Ind Med. 2009 Mar;52(3):246-50.
Efficacy of ozonated water against various food-related
microorganisms. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995 62. Lansdown AB. A pharmacological and toxicological
Sep;61(9):3471-5. profile of silver as an antimicrobial agent in medical
devices. Adv Pharmacol Sci. 2010;2010:910686.
49. Manitoba Agriculture Food and Rural Initiatives.
Ozonation in food applications. Winnipeg, MB: 63. Green CJ, Ndegwa S. Nanotechnology: A review of
Government of Manitoba; 2011; Available from: exposure, health risks, and recent regulatory
http://www.gov.mb.ca/agriculture/foodsafety/processor/cf developments Vancouver, BC: National Collaborating
s02s139.html. Centre for Environmental Health; 2011 Sept.
50. Chamakura K, Perez-Ballestero R, Luo Z, Bashir S, Liu J. 64. World Health Organization. Silver in drinking-water.
Comparison of bactericidal activities of silver Background document for development of WHO
nanoparticles with common chemical disinfectants. Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva,
Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces. 2011 May 1;84(1):88-96. Switzerland: WHO; 2003. Available from:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemical
51. Cowan MM, Abshire KZ, Houk SL, Evans SM. s/silver.pdf.
Antimicrobial efficacy of a silver-zeolite matrix coating on
stainless steel. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 2003 65. Silver S. Bacterial silver resistance: molecular biology
Feb;30(2):102-6. and uses and misuses of silver compounds. FEMS
Microbiol Rev. 2003 Jun;27(2-3):341-53.
52. Silvestry-Rodriguez N, Sicairos-Ruelas EE, Gerba CP,
Bright KR. Silver as a disinfectant. Rev Environ Contam 66. Li WR, Xie XB, Shi QS, Duan SS, Ouyang YS, Chen YB.
Toxicol. 2007;191:23-45. Antibacterial effect of silver nanoparticles on
Staphylococcus aureus. Biometals. 2011 Feb;24(1):135-
53. Health Canada. Summary Basis of Decision (SBD) for 41.
Swish Silver Supreme. Ottawa, ON: Health Canada,
Health Products and Food Branch; 2010; Available from: 67. Chopra I. The increasing use of silver-based products as
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd- antimicrobial agents: a useful development or a cause for
smd/drug- concern? J Antimicrob Chemother. 2007 Apr;59(4):587-
med/sbd_smd_2010_swish_silver_supreme_121017- 90.
eng.php.
68. Yang H, Kendall PA, Medeiros L, Sofos JN. Inactivation
54. Fernandez A, Picouet P, Lloret E. Cellulose-silver of Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7,
nanoparticle hybrid materials to control spoilage-related and Salmonella typhimurium with compounds available in
microflora in absorbent pads located in trays of fresh-cut households. J Food Prot. 2009 Jun;72(6):1201-8.
melon. Int J Food Microbiol. 2010 Aug 15;142(1-2):222-8.
69. Bjornsdottir K, Breidt F, Jr., McFeeters RF. Protective
55. Fernandez A, Picouet P, Lloret E. Reduction of the effects of organic acids on survival of Escherichia coli
spoilage-related microflora in absorbent pads by silver O157:H7 in acidic environments. Appl Environ Microbiol.
nanotechnology during modified atmosphere packaging 2006 Jan;72(1):660-4.
of beef meat. J Food Prot. 2010 Dec;73(12):2263-9.
13
70. United Nations Environment Programme. Sodium 83. McKee LH, Neish L, Pottenger A, Flores N, Weinbrenner
bicarbonate - CAS N°: 144-55-8. Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP; K, Remmenga M. Evaluation of consumable household
2002 Oct. Available from: products for decontaminating retail skinless, boneless
http://www.chem.unep.ch/irptc/sids/OECDSIDS/Sodium_ chicken breasts. J Food Prot. 2005;68(3):534-7.
bicarbonate.pdf.
84. Yucel Sengun I, Karapinar M. Effectiveness of lemon
71. Arslan U, Ilhan K, Vardar C, Karabulut OA. Evaluation of juice, vinegar and their mixture in the elimination of
antifungal activity of food additives against soilborne Salmonella typhimurium on carrots (Daucus carota L.).
phytopathogenic fungi. World J Microbiol Biot. Int J Food Microbiol. 2004;96(3):301-5.
2009;25(3):537-43.
85. Yucel Sengun I, Karapinar M. Effectiveness of household
72. Malik YS, Goyal SM. Virucidal efficacy of sodium natural sanitizers in the elimination of Salmonella
bicarbonate on a food contact surface against feline typhimurium on rocket (Eruca sativa Miller) and spring
calicivirus, a norovirus surrogate. Int J Food Microbiol. onion (Allium cepa L.). Int J Food Microbiol.
2006 May 25;109(1-2):160-3. 2005;98(3):319-23.
73. Palou L, Smilanick JL, Crisosto CH. Evaluation of food 86. Bauer JM, Beronio CA, Rubino JR. Antibacterial activity
additives as alternative or complementary chemicals to of environmentally “green” alternative products tested in
conventional fungicides for the control of major standard antimicrobial tests and a simulated in-use
postharvest diseases of stone fruit. J Food Prot. assay. J Environ Health. 1995;57:13-8.
2009;72(1037-1046).
87. Chang J, Fang TJ. Survival of Escherichia coli O157:H7
74. Yao H, Tian S, Wang Y. Sodium bicarbonate enhances and Salmonella enterica serovars Typhimurium in
biocontrol efficacy of yeasts on fungal spoilage of pears. iceberg lettuce and the antimicrobial effect of rice vinegar
Int J Food Microbiol. 2004 Jun 15;93(3):297-304. against E. coli O157:H7 Food Microbiol. 2007;24(7-
8):745-51.
75. Hang YD, Woodams EE. Control of Fusarium oxysporum
by baking soda. LWT - Food Sci Technol 2003;36(8):803- 88. Parnes CA. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite bleach and
5. "alternative" products in preventing transfer of bacteria to
and from inanimate surfaces. J Environ Health.
76. Wan YK, Tian SP, Qin GZ. Enhancement of biocontrol 1997;59(6):14-9.
activity of yeasts by adding sodium bicarbonate or
ammonium molybdate to control postharvest disease of 89. Rutala WA, Barbee SL, Aguiar NC, Sobsey MD, Weber
jujube fruits. Lett Appl Microbiol. 2003;37(3):249-53. DJ. Antimicrobial activity of home disinfectants and
natural products against potential human pathogens.
77. Casals C, Teixidó N, Viñas I, Silvera E, Lamarca N, Usall Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2000 Jan;21(1):33-8.
J. Combination of hot water, Bacillus subtilis CPA-8 and
sodium bicarbonate treatments to control postharvest 90. Vijayakumar C, Wolf-Hall CE. Evaluation of household
brown rot on peaches and nectarines. Eur J Plant Pathol. sanitizers for reducing levels of Escherichia coli on
2010;128(1):51-63. iceberg lettuce. J Food Prot. 2002 Oct;65(10):1646-50.
78. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Chapter 3. Factors 91. Wu FM, Doyle MP, Beuchat LR, Wells JG, Mintz ED,
that influence microbial growth. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Swaminathan B. Fate of Shigella sonnei on parsley and
FDA; 2001 [cited 2011 Nov]; Available from: methods of disinfection. J Food Prot. 2000
http://www.fda.gov/Food/ScienceResearch/ResearchAre May;63(5):568-72.
as/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094145.htm.
92. Karapinar M, Gonul SA. Removal of Yersinia
79. Olson W, Vesley D, Bode M, Dubbel P, Bauer T. Hard enterocolitica from fresh parsley by washing with acetic
surface cleaning performance of six alternative acid or vinegar. Int J Food Microbiol. 1992 Jul;16(3):261-
household cleaners under laboratory conditions. J 4.
Environ Health. 1994;56(6):28-31.
93. Virto R, Sanz D, Alvarez I, Condon, Raso J. Inactivation
80. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Evaluation and kinetics of Yersinia enterocolitica by citric and lactic acid
definition of potentially hazardous foods Silver Spring, at different temperatures. Int J Food Microbiol. 2005 Sep
MD: FDA; 2001; Available from: 15;103(3):251-7.
http://www.fda.gov/food/scienceresearch/researchareas/s
afepracticesforfoodprocesses/ucm094145.htm. 94. Wren MWD, Rollins MSM, Jeanes A, Hall TJ, Coën PG,
Gant VA. Removing bacteria from hospital surfaces: a
81. Allende A, McEvoy J, Tao Y, Luo Y. Antimicrobial effect laboratory comparison of ultramicrofibre and standard
of acidified sodium chlorite, sodium chlorite, sodium cloths. J Hosp Infect. 2008;70(3):265-71.
hypochlorite, and citric acid on Escherichia coli O157:H7
and natural microflora of fresh-cut cilantro. Food Control. 95. Rutala WA, Gergen MF, Weber DJ. Microbiologic
2009;20:230-4. evaluation of microfiber mops for surface disinfection. Am
J Infect Control. 2007;35(9):569-73.
82. Kişla D. Effectiveness of lemon juice in the elimination of
Salmonella Typhimurium in stuffed mussels. J Food Prot. 96. Moore G, Griffith C. A laboratory evaluation of the
2007;70(12):2847-50. decontamination properties of microfibre cloths. J Hosp
Infect. 2006;64(4):379-85.
14
97. Smith DL, Gillanders S, Holah JT, Gush C. Assessing the 100.Bergen LK, Meyer M, Hog M, Rubenhagen B, Andersen
efficacy of different microfibre cloths at removing surface LP. Spread of bacteria on surfaces when cleaning with
micro-organisms associated with healthcare-associated microfibre cloths. J Hosp Infect. 2009 Feb;71(2):132-7.
infections. J Hosp Infect. 2011 Jul;78(3):182-6.
101.Lalla F, Dingle P, Cheong C. The antibacterial action of
98. Diab-Elschahawi M, Assadian O, Blacky A, Stadler M, cloths and sanitizers and the use of environmental
Pernicka E, Berger J, et al. Evaluation of the alternatives in food industries. J Environ Health.
decontamination efficacy of new and reprocessed 2005;68(5):31-5.
microfiber cleaning cloth compared with other commonly
used cleaning cloths in the hospital. Am J Infect Control.
2010;38(4):289-92.
15
Appendix A: Antimicrobial efficacy data of vinegar (acetic acid),
lemon juice (citric acid), and baking soda (sodium bicarbonate)
Concentration (v/v, unless otherwise
indicated), contact time Log reduction
Organism Test conditions (at 4 to 25°C unless otherwise indicated) (CFU/mL or g) Ref.
Aerobic plate Microflora on Vinegar (1.9% acetic acid), 10 min w/ agitation 2.3 (Vijayakumar &
90
count lettuce Wolf-Hall, 2002)
Lemon juice (0.6% citric acid), 10 min w/ 1.8
agitation
Raw skinless/ Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min w/ agitation 2.2 (McKee et al.,
83
boneless chicken 2005)
Baking soda (10% sodium bicarbonate 1.0
breast
solution), 1 min w/ agitation
Escherichia coli Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 2.4 (Rutala et al.,
89
O157:H7 2000)
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.7
Inoculated lettuce Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 3.0 (Chang & Fang,
87
2007)
81
Inoculated cilantro Citric acid (0.6% prepared solution), 1 min <1 (Allende, 2009)
Escherichia coli Inoculated Vinegar (1.9% acetic acid), 10 min 5.4 (Vijayakumar &
90
CDC1932 lettuce Wolf-Hall, 2002)
Lemon juice (0.6% citric acid), 10 min w/ 2.1
(nalidixic acid
agitation
resistant strain)
Staphylococcus Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 0.3-2.3 (Rutala et al.,
89
aureus 2000)
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.5
Salmonella Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 0.5 min >6.0 (Rutala et al.,
89
choleraesuis 2000)
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 2.3
Salmonella Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min >5.0 (Yang et al.,
68
Typhimurium 2009)
Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 1 min at >5.0
55°C
Inoculated spring Lemon juice (4.2% citric acid), 15 min 2.95 (rocket (Yucel Sengun &
onion and rocket leaves), 1.70 Karapinar,
85
leaves (spring onion) 2005)
Vinegar (3.95% acetic acid), 15 min 2.20 (rocket (Yucel Sengun &
leaves), 1.19 Karapinar,
85
(spring onion) 2005)
16
Appendix A Table (cont’d)
Inoculated carrots Vinegar (4.03% acetic acid), 15 min 1.87 (Yucel Sengun &
Karapinar,
Lemon juice (4.46 citric acid), 15 min 2.68 84
2004)
(Kişla, 2007)
82
Inoculated stuffed Lemon juice (5.88% citric acid), 15 min 0.56
mussels
Pseudomonas Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 0.5 min >5.8 (Rutala et al.,
89
aeruginosa 2000)
Baking Soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 1.1
Listeria Suspension Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 1 min at 55°C >5.0 (Yang et al.,
68
monocytogenes 2009)
Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 10 min at 25°C
Yersinia Suspension Citric acid (5% prepared solution), 10 min at <1 (Virto et al.,
93
enterocolitica 4°C 2005)
Inoculated parsley Vinegar (1.96 and 2.45% acetic acid), 15 min 5 (Karapinar &
92
Gonul, 1992)
91
Shigella sonnei Inoculated parsley Vinegar (5.2% acetic acid), 5 min w/ agitation >6.0 (Wu et al., 2000)
Poliovirus Suspensions Vinegar (5% acetic acid), 5 min 0.32 (Rutala et al.,
89
2000)
Baking soda (8% sodium bicarbonate), 5 min 0.42
Feline Inoculated stainless Baking soda (5% sodium bicarbonate), 1 min 4 (Malik & Goyal,
calicivirus steel disks 2006)
(norovirus
surrogate)
17
Appendix B. Search Methodology
Literature searches were conducted to locate articles • Action • Disadvantage
that support a brief review and discussion of the • Activity • Disinfect*
mechanism of action, disinfection potential, pertinent
• Advantage • Effectiv*
issues, and safety/toxicity concerns of each
alternative antimicrobial agent. Bibliographies of • Adverse • Efficac*
retrieved articles were scanned to further retrieve • Antimicrobial • Food
more extensive and detailed information on a • Applica* • Germicid*
particular subject of interest. Any related articles and
• Bacteri* • Health effect
suggested articles, appearing within the search
engine, were also considered for inclusion. This • Biocid* • Mechanism
process subsequently aided in refining search • Characteristic • Microbicid*
terminology and finding additional and specific articles • Potential • Safety
of interest. • Propert* • Surface
Inclusion of articles, with publishing dates from years • Review • Toxic*
2001-2011, were preferable; articles were not Each alternative agent was reviewed on the basis of
excluded by date if their material was of particular antimicrobial activity against microorganisms
interest or the date of publication did not adversely significant to public health; the emphasis was on
impact the quality of evidence. Grey literature was comparisons with similar bacteria. Microorganisms
included for descriptive and illustrative purposes. included:
•
Search engines/databases for Escherichia coli O157: H7
18
This document was produced by the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health in September 2011.
ISBN: 978-1-926933-23-8
Production of this document has been made possible through a financial contribution from the Public Health
Agency of Canada.
Tel.: 604-707-2445
Fax: 604-707-2444
contact@ncceh.ca
www.ncceh.ca
19