George J. Flick, Jr., Ph.D. Food Science and Technology Department Virginia Tech/Virginia Sea Grant (0418) Blacksburg, Viginia 24061 USA fickg@vi.edu Peracetic Acid Offers Alternative Sanitizing For Seafood Processors ‘Studies that show the effectiveness of peracetic acid against bactoria and other microorganisms on pouttry hold promise for similar treatment with seafood. ‘The sources of spoilage and pathogenic microorgan. isms in fish- and shellfish-processing facilities include raw materials, workers, equipment, containers, floor drains, ventilation systems, and water applied under pressure during cleaning and sanitation procedures. Even when cleaning and sanitizing operations are regu arly performed, not all microorganisms are eliminated from food and nonfood contact surfaces. If microorganisms are not destroyed, they can grow during processing, distribution, retailing, and prepara: tlon, which reduces the quality of the product and can present a possible food safety hazard. The removal of contaminant microflora from surfaces in processing fa- cilities can be achieved using different sanitizers. Sanitizers and Sanitation ‘The question of which sanitizer to use will depend on cost, availability, the nature of the soil in the facility, the processing equipment and facility materials, and the con- ditions under which food is processed. Sanitizer selec- tion is made more difficult by the increased resistance to antimicrobials exhibited by adherent cells (biofilms) and the fact that Information on the effectiveness of most sanitizers was obtained from tests on suspended plank- tonic cells. When microorganisms settle on or adhere to a sur: face, they can be protected by irregularities in the sur- face that hamper the action of sanitizers. Therefore, the efficiency of sanitizers under specific application condi- 36 June 2005 GLosaL AquacuLTuRE ADVOCATE tions must be well defined for effective sanitation pro: grams to be implemented. Peracetic Acid Peracetic acid possesses many advantages when com- pared to sodium hypochlorite, one of the most common sanitizers, One important advantage is that it does not react with proteins to produce toxic or carcinogenic com- pounds. It also has a low environmental impact, and has been reported more effective than sodium hypochlorite against biofilms. Peracetic acid can be used over wide spectrums of temperature (0-40° C) and pH (3.0-7.5), in clean-in-place processes, and with hard water. In addition, protein residues do not affect its efficiency: However, it may not provide the microbial reduction sometimes achieved by sodium hypochlorite. Poultry Studies Only limited research has been performed on the ef: fectiveness of peracetic acid as a sanitizer in fish and shellfish processing. However, studies with other food products provide an excellent reference for what might be achieved with seafood. In a 2004 study, three treatments ~ 80 mg/l hydrogen peroxide, 0.5% peracetic acid, and 125 mg/l ozone — anda chlorine control were applied to birds that were then sam- pled for the presence of Salmonella bacteria (Figure 1). ‘The bacterial load was significantly (P < 0.05) reduced after treatment with peracetic acid. The effectiveness of chlorine asa disinfectant was reduced when pH exceeded 60, temperature was below 30° C, and in the presence of some organic sub- stances. The chlo- 25 rine also led to the formation of ag biofilms, which ex- acerbated cleaning and sanitizing, 15 Assecond pou try study exam- 49 ined the popula tions of Campy- lobacter jejuni 5 after exposure to water containing chlorine and per- acetic acid (Table 1). Peracetic acid and chlorine were equally effective, o Sion pgs Peace Figure 1. Salmonella prevalence ‘on chicken meat after the apptication of varied sanitizers.producing a 90% decrease in numbers Table 1. Campylobacter jejeuni populations on chicken skin ‘when used at 100 ppm for 15 minutes of ‘exposed to chlorine and peracetic acid. exposure, and no significant decrease =e 3 aa when used at 40 ppm for two minutes. ‘Chemical __| __ Concentration (ppm) _| _Live Cell Count (log CFU/em2)" Other Studies Control 55206 In another study, waters contain- Chlorine 40 5.0 20.1% ing {otal coliforms, fecal coliforms, 100 4805 Eschericihia coli, and enterococci _ | Peracetic acid 40 49205% were treated with chlorine dioxide 100 4820.1 and peracetic acid. Results from the study (Table 2) showed that per: acetic acid was as effective as chlo- rine dioxide in reducing total col: Table 2. Escherichia coli populations in water exposed to chlorine dioxide and peracetic acid. forms, fecal coliforms, and Zs [i ; Reduction (6) chertehia coll, Chlorine dioxide was | : : ; cna more effective in reducing the total s i Eom Aad Eiiomme, Diced plate count and enterococci count. Stainless steel plates containing 1 Heterotrophic total count 80-28 air x 108 colony-forming units (CFU)/em? at 36° C (CFU mrt) of Listerla monoeytogenes and Pseu- | Total coltorms 98-30 6-09 domanas sp bciims were sblected | qyen so i ‘oa hypochlorite compound and per acetic acid at varying concentra _ | Fecalcotforms so p20 tions for one and five minutes (Table (MPN 100 mit) 8). There were no differences be- | escnenchia col 99-45 00-07 tween residual Listeria populations, | (PN 100 mi") but some significant differences be tween residual Pseudomonas popula- Enea he eget tions were observed. The differ- EN TO0 ne!) ences, however, were probably not large enough to be of practical con- Table 3. Effects of chlorine and peracetic acid on stainless cern, since large reductions in the steel inoculated with Listeria and Pseudomonas biofilms. microorganism were achiev A disinfection study was per Concentration (mg/l) and Exposure Time" formed on lettuce comparing the ef. oe fectiveness of 80-ppm peracetic acid - and 200-ppm sodium hypochlorite. fe at ea ve eae See ‘The results showed that the effective- Listeria Peracetic acid 4.0 3.8 3.88 278 ness of peracetic acid was equivalent Chlorine sa | 320 | se | 26 {othatof sodium hypochlorite (Table | pseudomonas | peracetic cit | 4s» | 720 | 720 | ase 4), Both sanitizers were capable of ef ae : a5 = : feeting a 99% reduction in mesophilic cu Me = oe bs plate count and total coliforms "TTR SAECO, TUS WHTOUTE OTON TT GT TORTI BOB) Soe Oecd * Increases Production Capabilities + Ideal for Zero Exchange Systems Spree seam ete Oa eeu CeO Rese cca iL AY Peale (ONMING UC 0g cM Renn sone See Cr PRES Porat SMALL) Cesreya eet eee GLoBAL Aquacutture ApvocaTe June 2005 37