Sam Van Haute

Physicochemical Quality and Chemical Safety of Chlorine as a Reconditioning Agent and Wash Water Disinfectant for Fresh-Cut Lettuce Washing

ABSTRACT Chlorine was assessed as a reconditioning agent and wash water disinfectant in the fresh-cut produce industry. Artificial fresh-cut lettuce wash water, made from butterhead lettuce, was used for the experiments. In the reconditioning experiments, chlorine was added to artificial wash water inoculated with Escherichia coli O157 (6 log CFU/ml). Regression models were constructed based on the inactivation data and validated in actual wash water from leafy vegetable processing companies. The model that incorporated chlorine dose and chemical oxygen demand (COD) of the wash water accurately predicted inactivation. Listeria monocytogenes was more resistant to chlorine reconditioning in artificial wash water than Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli O157. During the washing process with inoculated lettuce (4 log CFU/g), in the absence of chlorine, there was a rapid microbial buildup in the water that accumulated to 5.4 ± 0.4 log CFU/100 ml after 1 h. When maintaining a residual concentration of 1 mg/liter free chlorine, wash water contamination was maintained below 2.7, 2.5, and 2.5 log CFU/100 ml for tap water and artificial process water with COD values of 500 and 1,000 mg O2/liter, respectively. A model was developed to predict water contamination during the dynamic washing process. Only minor amounts of total trihalomethanes were formed in the water during reconditioning. Total trihalomethanes accumulated to larger amounts in the water during the wash water disinfection experiments and reached 124.5 ± 13.4 μg/liter after 1 h of execution of the washing process in water with a COD of 1,000 mg O2/liter. However, no total trihalomethanes were found on the fresh-cut lettuce after rinsing.

Effect of Disinfectants on Preventing the Cross-Contamination of Pathogens in Fresh Produce Washing Water

The potential cross-contamination of pathogens between clean and contaminated produce in the washing tank is highly dependent on the water quality. Process wash water disinfectants are applied to maintain the water quality during processing. The review examines the efficacy of process wash water disinfectants during produce processing with the aim to prevent cross-contamination of pathogens. Process wash water disinfection requires short contact times so microorganisms are rapidly inactivated. Free chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, and peracetic acid were considered suitable disinfectants. A disinfectant’s reactivity with the organic matter will determine the disinfectant residual, which is of paramount importance for microbial inactivation and should be monitored in situ. Furthermore, the chemical and worker safety, and the legislative framework will determine the suitability of a disinfection technique. Current research often focuses on produce decontamination and to a lesser extent on preventing cross-contamination. Further research on a sanitizer’s efficacy in the washing water is recommended at the laboratory scale, in particular with experimental designs reflecting industrial conditions. Validation on the industrial scale is warranted to better understand the overall effects of a sanitizer.

Selection criteria for water disinfection techniques in agricultural practices

This paper comprises a selection tool for water disinfection methods for fresh produce pre- and postharvest practices. A variety of water disinfection technologies is available on the market and no single technology is the best choice for all applications. It can be difficult for end users to choose the technology that is best fit for a specific application. Therefore, the different technologies were characterized in order to identify criteria that influence the suitability of a technology for pre- or postharvest applications. Introduced criteria were divided into three principal components: (i) criteria related to the technology and which relate to the disinfection efficiency, (ii) attention points for the management and proper operation, and (iii) necessities in order to sustain the operation with respect to the environment. The selection criteria may help the end user of the water disinfection technology to obtain a systematic insight into all relevant aspects to be considered for preliminary decision making on which technologies should be put to feasibility testing for water disinfection in pre- and postharvest practices of the fresh produce chain.

Organic acid based sanitizers and free chlorine to improve the microbial quality and shelf-life of sugar snaps

A screening in a sugar snap packaging company showed a converged build-up of aerobic psychrotrophic plate count (APC) (ca. 6.5 log CFU/100mL), yeasts and molds (Y&M), and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) (both ca. 4.5 log CFU/100mL) in the wash water in the absence of water sanitizer, and a low build-up of chemical oxygen demand (30 ± 5 mg O2/L) and turbidity (5.2 ± 1.1 NTU). Decontamination experiments were performed in the lab with Purac FCC 80® (80% L(+) lactic acid), two other commercial water sanitizers based on organic acids (NATRApHASe-ABAV®, and NATRApHASe-FVS®) and chlorine to evaluate their performance in reduction of the sugar snap microbial load as well as their functionality as disinfectant of the wash water to avoid cross-contamination. An additional 1 log reduction of APC on the sugar snaps was achieved with lactic acid in the range 0.8 to 1.6%, ABAV 0.5%, and free chlorine 200mg/L when compared to a water wash, while no significant difference in the numbers of Y&M was obtained when washing in sanitizer compared to water. There was no significant influence of the studied concentration and contact time on decontamination efficiency. Treatment with lactic acid 0.8% resulted in a lower APC contamination on the sugar snaps than on the untreated and water washed samples for 10 days. Chlorine 200mg/L was the only treatment able to maintain the Y&M load lower than the untreated samples throughout the entire storage duration. The use of water sanitizers could not extend the sensorial shelf-life. Microbial loads were not indicative/predictive of visual microbial spoilage (shelf-life limiting factor), whereas maturity and amount of damage at the calyx end of the pods were. The APC wash water contamination (5.2 log CFU/100mL) was reduced significantly by chlorine 20 to 200mg/L (to 1.4 log CFU/100mL), ABAV 0.5 to 1.5% (to 2.7 log CFU/100mL), FVS 0.5% (to 2.7 log CFU/100mL) and lactic acid 0.8 to 1.6% (to 3.4 log CFU/100mL). Only the use of chlorine enabled the reduction of the Y&M wash water contamination significantly (from 3.4 to 1.4 log CFU/100mL). The low physicochemical build-up of the sugar snap wash water during the industrial washing process makes free chlorine attractive as a water disinfectant to prevent bacterial and fungal cross-contamination, whereas the sanitizers based on organic acids are not, due to their weak water disinfection efficiency.

Decontamination of Pangasius fish (Pangasius hypophthalmus) with chlorine or peracetic acid in the laboratory and in a Vietnamese processing company

This study evaluated the decontamination of Pangasius fillets in chlorine or peracetic acid treated wash water. First, the decontamination efficacy of the washing step with chlorinated water applied by a Vietnamese processing company during trimming of Pangasius fillets was evaluated and used as the basis for the experiments performed on a laboratory scale. As chlorine was only added at the beginning of the batch and used continuously without renewal for 239min; a rapid increase of the bacterial counts and a fast decrease of chlorine in the wash water were found. This could be explained by the rapid accumulation of organic matter (ca. 400mg O2/L of COD after only 24min). Secondly, for the experiments performed on a laboratory scale, a single batch approach (one batch of wash water for treating a fillet) was used. Chlorine and PAA were evaluated at 10, 20, 50 and 150ppm at contact times of 10, 20 and 240s. Washing with chlorine and PAA wash water resulted in a reduction of Escherichia coli on Pangasius fish which ranged from 0-1.0 and 0.4-1.4logCFU/g, respectively while less to no reduction of total psychrotrophic counts, lactic acid bacteria and coliforms on Pangasius fish was observed. However, in comparison to PAA, chlorine was lost rapidly. As an example, 53-83% of chlorine and 15-17% of PAA were lost after washing for 40s (COD=238.2±66.3mg O2/L). Peracetic acid can therefore be an alternative sanitizer. However, its higher cost will have to be taken into consideration. Where (cheaper) chlorine is used, the processors have to pay close attention to the residual chlorine level, pH and COD level during treatment for optimal efficacy.

Erratum for Van Haute et al., Physicochemical Quality and Chemical Safety of Chlorine as a Reconditioning Agent and Wash Water Disinfectant for Fresh-Cut Lettuce Washing.

Volume 79, no. 9, p. 2850–2861, 2013. Page 2855, column 1, equation 9: “ N ( t ) =