Antimicrobial Coatings for Food Contact Surfaces:

Legal Framework, Mechanical Properties, and

Potential Applications
Eduardo Torres Dominguez, Phong H. Nguyen, Heather K. Hunt , and Azlin Mustapha

Abstract: Food contact surfaces (FCS) in food processing facilities may become contaminated with a number of
unwanted microorganisms, such as Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Staphylococcus aureus. To reduce
contamination and the spread of disease, these surfaces may be treated with sanitizers or have active antimicrobial
components adhered to them. Although significant efforts have been devoted to the development of coatings that improve
the antimicrobial effectiveness of FCS, other important coating considerations, such as hardness, adhesion to a substrate,
and migration of the antimicrobial substance into the food matrix, have largely been disregarded to the detriment of their
translation into practical application. To address this gap, this review examines the mechanical properties of antimicrobial
coatings (AMC) applied to FCS and their interplay with their antimicrobial properties within the framework of relevant
regulatory constraints that would apply if these were used in real-world applications. This review also explores the various
assessment techniques for examining these properties, the effects of the deposition methods on coating properties, and the
potential applications of such coatings for FCS. Overall, this review attempts to provide a holistic perspective. Evaluation
of the current literature urges a compromise between antimicrobial effectiveness and mechanical stability in order to
adhere to various regulatory frameworks as the next step toward improving the industrial feasibility of AMC for FCS
applications.
Keywords: antimicrobial, coatings, food, surfaces, regulations

Introduction There are numerous sanitary practices intended to prevent mi-

The World Health Organization (2019) estimates that 600
million people fall ill and 420,000 die each year due to con-
taminated food. Contaminated food contact surfaces (FCS) may,
in part, be responsible for such incidences. For instance, coliforms
were found on product contact surfaces at a broiler slaughter plant
in Taiwan with concentrations ranging from 104 to 106 CFU/cm2
(Ho, Huang, & Chen, 2004). At two red pepper powder pro-
duction facilities at South Korea, Bacillus cereus was found in 1
of 35 samples obtained by swabbing machinery surfaces (Oh,
Koo, & Kim, 2012). At two different peeled-shrimp processing
plants in Iceland, 11.2% of 695 samples taken from conveyer belts,
tubs, and forklifts throughout the entirety of the cooking process
tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. Notably, however, no L.
monocytogenes were found in samples taken from the final prod-
uct due to sanitation and prevention efforts (Gudmundsdóttir,
Gudbjörnsdóttir, Einarsson, Kristinsson, & Kristjansson, 2006).
CRF3-2019-0093 Submitted 4/14/2019, Accepted 8/29/2019. Authors Torres
Dominguez, Nguyen, and Hunt are with Dept. of Biomedical, Biological & Chemical
Engineering, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A. Author Mustapha
is with Food Science Program, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, U.S.A.
Direct inquiries to authors Hunt and Mustapha (E-mail: hunthk@missouri.edu,
mustaphaa@missouri.edu)
crobial contamination of food products and FCS, but the practice
per excellence is prevention. With this in mind, the Food Safety
Modernization Act (FSMA) was passed in the United States in
January 2011, changing the focus of the U.S. food safety system
from a responsive strategy to a preventative one (FDA, 2007a).
This reform was passed in response to changes observed in the
global food trade system. Australia has also responded, not only
to ensure the safety of food imported from its closest neighbor,
New Zealand, but also to facilitate food trade by the homologa-
tion of the food safety standards between both countries (FSANZ,
2018). Similar to other preventative strategies, the use of antimi-
crobial coatings (AMCs) for FCS is impacted by these regulatory
changes by the jurisdiction under which they must be observed
and by the minimum safety features they must possess. For practi-
cal applications, AMCs must meet not only a variety of stringent
regulatory requirements, but also performance metrics related to
functionality and use.
The ideal AMC is potent, chemically resistant, mechanically re-
sistant, chemically stable, nonabsorbent, innocuous, inexpensive,
and easy-to-clean when placed in complex environments (Provder
& Baghdachi, 2007). However, in the pursuit of this ideal, the pri-
mary focus of most AMC development has been on improving
the coatings’ antimicrobial properties. This has been detrimental
to the field due to the lack of focus toward developing AMCs


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®

doi: 10.1111/1541-4337.12502 Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 1
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
that adhere to regulatory standards, which out of necessity include
their chemical and mechanical stability. An AMC that does not
adhere to these regulatory limits cannot be applied to real food
applications, even if that coating exhibits most of the ideal an-
timicrobial properties. Because AMCs exhibiting all of these ideal
characteristics are not currently available, assessing the degree of
compliance with those ideals (most of which are regulated by
laws) would allow us to quantify the progress attained in the field
of AMCs for FCS.
This review seeks to present a broad perspective on the progress
of development of AMCs, with a particular focus on their under-
explored mechanical properties. This perspective will include dis-
cussions on how the mechanical properties are assessed, what met-
rics must be achieved, how the mechanical properties impact their
usability, and the regulations that impact AMC development and
use (Brotzen, 1994). These factors are interrelated and complex,
and although the assessment of mechanical properties for AMCs
is accomplished in a similar fashion around the globe, the AMC
regulatory framework is a country-specific matter. Therefore, this
portion of the topic is presented in this article for a variety of
countries (Australia, the European Union [EU], Mexico, and the
United States) to give the reader a global context, and to allow the
reader to understand the complexity that needs to be considered
when developing AMCs for FCS. This review will contribute to
the current field of AMCs for FCS by presenting a summary and
analysis of the progress in the development of AMCs in relation
to the global regulatory perspective. It should be noted that this
review focusses on supported AMCs. Free-standing films, or films
that do not possess substrates or are removed from their substrates,
are beyond the scope of this review.
FCS in the Food Processing Industry
AMCs must withstand decontamination methods for FCS cur-
rently in use or intended to be used in the food processing indus-
try because: (i) it is highly risky to rely on one decontamination
method only, (ii) each method has a different range of action and it
is wise to decontaminate the FCS in a range as ample as econom-
ically feasible, and (iii) cross-contamination can adopt different
forms, and it is unrealistic to expect that an AMC will prevent all
forms of cross-contamination. In this section, AMCs are placed in
the context of decontamination of FCS and the implications for
AMCs in terms of decontamination strategies.
Overview of FCS
FCS are surfaces present on equipment, utensils, and containers
for the production, processing, and packaging of food. The most
common FCS are made of stainless steel, copper, plastic, rubber,
ceramic, glass, and wood (Skåra & Rosnes, 2016). It is impossible
to compile a complete list of FCS because surface types depend on
the processing facility, the type of process, and the different alloys
that make up the process equipment. However, common exam-
ples of such process equipment include conveyors, filler hoppers,
slicers, blenders, cutting boards, dishes, cutlery, waxed cardboard,
and food containers (Chen et al., 2009). When FCS are treated
with an antimicrobial agent, there are three general intended pur-
poses (see Table 1):
(i) To improve the properties of food packaging
(ii) To decontaminate the surface
(iii) To induce antimicrobial properties at the surface.
It should be noted that free-standing antimicrobial films, mostly
used for food packaging purposes, are excluded from this review,
2 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
because they cannot be considered as coatings due to their lack of a
rigid or semi-rigid substrate. Readers interested in the mechanical
properties of active and antimicrobial free-standing films for food
packaging should consult other published work (Barros-Velazquez,
2016; Bastarrachea, Dhawan, & Sablani, 2011; Kuorwel, Cran,
Orbell, Buddhadasa, & Bigger, 2015).
We also note that the classification given in Table 1 below
is only one logical grouping; other groupings may be found in
the literature. For instance, Bastarrachea et al. (2011) classified
antimicrobial packaging systems into four different groups based
on how the antimicrobial agent is immobilized or implanted into
the material, namely:
(i) The antimicrobial substance is directly incorporated into the
matrix of the substrate
(ii) The antimicrobial agent is released from an inner/outer layer
and migrates across a secondary layer before arriving at the
food matrix
(iii) The antimicrobial agent is released from a coating
(iv) The antimicrobial substance is immobilized on top of the
substrate’s surface (Bastarrachea et al., 2011).
Although more precise than the classifications presented in this
document, the categorizations from Bastarrachea et al. (2011) are
less useful for discussing regulatory issues, particularly assessments
of antimicrobial agent migration into food (Bastarrachea et al.,
2011). We suggest that the classifications presented here that sort
antimicrobial agents used on FCS according to their applications
will help the reader frame AMCs in terms of their legal require-
ments.
In this classification framework, a food additive is an ingredient
intentionally added to foods to maintain or improve their safety,
freshness, nutritional value, taste, or appearance (FDA, 2010).
When an antimicrobial substance is intentionally added to a pack-
aging material’s composition or onto its surface, the antimicrobial
substance is expected to migrate, partially or completely, into the
food, where the preservative effects take place. Because the an-
timicrobial agent is consumed together with the food product, the
substance is regarded, for this specific group of circumstances, as a
food additive (Lück, 1997).
The same is not true for the antimicrobial substances used to
clean, sanitize, and sterilize surfaces. In this case, the primary pur-
poses of the antimicrobial substances are for controlling foodborne
pathogen populations, decontaminating the surfaces, and comply-
ing with microbiological occurrence regulations (Miller, 2009).
Because the ingestion of such substances may present a threat to
consumer health, they must be completely removed with a final
rinse treatment, and any antimicrobial substance that remains on
the food is therefore considered a food contaminant (Dunsmore,
Twomey, Whittleston, & Morgan, 1981). Food contamination
by antimicrobial substances can be avoided with careful design
of equipment/facilities and with appropriate cleaning/sanitation
programs (Miller, 2009). For example, research on the mitigation
of the contamination of food products by antimicrobial substances
as a result of FCS sanitation processes has led to the development
of cleaning programs that use natural essential oils as an alterna-
tive to chemically prepared disinfectants (Falcó, Verdeguer, Aznar,
Sánchez, & Randazzo, 2018). However, although essential oils
pose less of a health risk, they are still considered contaminants
when they contact food products, because the essential oils affect
the organoleptic characteristics of food, such as flavor and aroma
(Vital et al., 2018).

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Table 1–Classifying the antimicrobial agents used on FCS by their specific applications is useful in discussions of antimicrobial agent migration and
legal requirements.
Antimicrobial
FCS application presence in food
Food packaging Intentionally added
Ongoing effect from Unintentionally added
the surface
Decontamination of Unintentionally added
the surface
a For the purposes of this review, free-standing films (films with no substrate) for packaging purposes are excluded in this classification.
Similarly, the unintentional diffusion of antimicrobial substances
from FCS to food products is also considered contamination.
However, in this case, the migration of the active agent occurs
due to a failure, because the antimicrobial substance is expected
to remain adhered to the FCS and to exert its action from the
surface upon which it remains. The facile detachment of active
coatings from their substrates and their low durability when sub-
jected to complex environments are some of the main reasons
for the scarcity of AMCs observed in commercial applications
(Yemmireddy & Hung, 2017). Given this, surface adhesion has
been a subject of multiple investigations (Bera, Rout, Udayab-
hanu, & Narayan, 2016; Karbay, Budakoglu, & Zayim, 2015; Lv
et al., 2018).
As is apparent from Table 1, whether an AMC is applied to
protect the food or the surface dictates whether the antimicrobial
substance is considered a food additive (preservative) or a food
contaminant once the antimicrobial agent reaches the food prod-
uct. This difference defines the regulatory stipulations applicable
to the antimicrobial substance.
The need for microbial control on FCS
Food is among the most basic of human necessities. When
safety requirements are not met during the food production pro-
cess, foodborne illnesses are likely to result (Trachman et al., 2014).
Harmful microorganisms, such as bacteria and viruses, and chem-
icals, such as toxins and pesticide residues, are the primary causes
of foodborne illness. The improper handling of food has led to
approximately 48 million cases of foodborne illness and 3,000
deaths per year in the United States alone (Scallan, Griffin, An-
gulo, Tauxe, & Hoekstra, 2011). Foodborne pathogens are also
a public health threat, as they can lead to large-scale outbreaks
with potentially devastating impacts to human health, as well as
the food industry (Hussain & Dawson, 2013). As an example, a
Salmonella outbreak that occurred in the United States in 2009
led to the recall of peanut products, ultimately resulting in an es-
timated economic loss of $70 million for the producer involved
(Hussain & Dawson, 2013). More recently, the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) closed investigations, concluding that between
March 3, 2019 and May 1, 2019, a Salmonella outbreak originating
at a precut melon packaging facility in Indiana infected 137 peo-
ple in Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri,
North Carolina, and Ohio (CDC, 2019).
Due to their potential to cause large-scale public health
and economic threats, the occurrence of foodborne pathogens contamination in foodstuffs. As can be observed in Table 2, specific
in food is subject to intense research, especially on tracing decontamination methods cover varying ranges of contamination,

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial
regulatory
classification Example of antimicrobial Example of surfacea
Food additive Silver ion (El Arrassi et al., 2017) Bulk food storage containers, paperboard
cartons, jars, and bottles with
antimicrobial action
Food contamination Titanium dioxide (Veerachandra Cutting boards, conveyor belts, and other
or residue K. Yemmireddy & Hung, 2017) food processing equipment with
antimicrobial action
Food contamination Peracetic acid (Dinu et al., 2010) Countertops, table tops, cutlery,
or residue dishware, cookware, and other
processing equipment
decontaminated by antimicrobial
substances
cross-contamination and the mechanisms involved in the spread
of foodborne pathogens along the food processing chain (see
Figure 1 and Table 2). At broiler and slaughter plants, for in-
stance, microorganisms were found on food products, such as
carcasses, even before any secondary processing step has occurred
(Ho et al., 2004). Depending on the specific steps involved in the
process, the bacterial counts on food and FCS vary, but they in-
crease when the process includes evisceration (Wang et al., 2014).
The tools employed in food processing activities, such as knives,
table-tops, operators’ gloves, and handlers, are important sources
of cross-contamination (Ho et al., 2004; Remya, Sunil, Latha, K.,
& Kumar, 2014). The contamination at processing facilities is then
aggravated by the presence of pathogens resistant to benzylpeni-
cillin, imipenem, and fusidic acid (Sala et al., 2016). Once the
food leaves the processing center, it may be further contaminated
in transport or in retail stores, and or from contact with workers’
shoes, aprons, and cutting tools (Kim & Yim, 2017). In some cases,
the microbial counts from meat samples are higher at the retail
shops than at the abattoir, suggesting that the hygienic procedures
are less stringent when it comes to handling meat outside of in-
dustrial environments (Pradhan et al., 2018). Finally, even though
foodborne pathogens are kept under control at processing facilities
and in retail environments, foodborne pathogens may arise within
the consumer’s domestic purlieu because of nonhygienic handling
of food at home (Kilonzo-Nthenge, Chen, & Godwin, 2008).
In the instances described above, FCS are always involved, al-
though the specific nature of the food process influences contami-
nation in complex ways. For example, consider the contamination
of polyethylene-based FCS, which has an unsteady process of at-
tachment of L. monocytogenes to the FCS (Beltrame et al., 2014).
In another example, differences in surface finishing may not in-
fluence the degree of contamination of stainless steel surfaces, but
the proportion of different microbial species on the surface of the
FCS does influence the degree of contamination (Guobjornsdottir,
Einarsson, & Thorkelsson, 2005). Finally, consider how abrasive
cleaning treatments applied to rubber surfaces may disinfect the
surface, but also increase surface roughness due to wear. This may
degrade the ability of the surface to resist bacterial adhesion over
time (Santos et al., 2011). Table 1 lists more details on the studies
on cross-contamination and foodborne pathogens found on FCS,
despite cleaning and sanitation efforts.
Current FCS cleaning practices
The primary purpose of cleaning practices is to reduce cross-
Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 3
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Food Harvesting Handling and Storage Processing and Distribution and Market Consumption
• Agricultural • Bacterial Packaging • Bacterial growth during • Contact between
chemicals contamination from • Bacterial storage raw and
(pesticides, fouled process contamination from • Contact between raw and processed food
herbicides, equipment fouled process processed food • Pests (insects,
fungicides, • Bacterial growth equipment surfaces • Cross-contamination of rodents, etc.)
fertilizers, etc.) during storage • Bacterial growth foods with allergy inducing • Improper food
• Crop infestation • Equipment during storage foods (e.g., peanuts, containers (e.g.
(disease, maintenance • Contact between raw shellfish, milk, etc.) non-reusable
parasites, etc.) substances (e.g. and processed food • Cross-contamination from containers)
• Dirt, husks, and equipment oil) • Cross-contamination utensils (knives, cutting • Improper storage
other organic • Inadequate waste of foods with allergy boards, wash cloths, etc.) conditions (e.g.,
residuals
control inducing foods (e.g., • Improper storage conditions humidity,
• Improper peanuts, shellfish, (e.g. humidity, temperature) temperature)
decontamination milk, etc.) • Migration of contaminants • Inadequate waste
(removal of food • Equipment from storage materials control
harvesting maintenance • Personal hygiene (from • Migration of
contaminants) substances (e.g. clothing, hair, unwashed contaminants from
• Improper storage equipment oil) hands, etc.) storage materials
conditions (e.g., • Inadequate waste • Pests (insects, rodents, etc.)
humidity, temperature) control • Pest control agents
• Migration of • Migration of • Petrol and diesel fumes from
contaminants from contaminants from transport
storage materials storage materials • Residual kitchen cleaning
• Pests (insects, • Pests (insects, agents
rodents, etc.) rodents, etc.)

Figure 1–Steps during food processing and where contamination might occur from various sources.

Table 2–Recent studies of cases where foodborne pathogens have been found on food contact surfaces.

Facility/surface/equipment Pathogen/indicator Occurrence Main testa Reference

Broiler slaughter plant E. coli and other coliforms 104 to 106 CFU/cm2 Occurrence on surface Ho et al. (2004)
Fish and shrimp processing Pseudomonas and 27% to 66% of the Occurrence in situ and Guobjornsdottir et al. (2005)
plant Aeromonas samples were positive adhesion ex situ
Domestic refrigerators Listeria and Not detected to 8.39 log Occurrence on surface Kilonzo-Nthenge et al. (2008)
Enterobacteriaceae CFU per sample
Dairy, fish, and meat facilities L. monocytogenes 15% of 258 samples Occurrence on surface Kovacevic, McIntyre,
positive Henderson, and Kosatsky
(2012)
Table tops and knives at meat Listeria 3% of 100 samples Occurrence on surface Remya et al. (2014)
processing facilities positive
Rubber and silicone surfaces Streptococcus agalactiae Reduction from 4.5 to Hydrophobicity and Santos et al. (2011)
of milk machine 2.5 CFU/cm2 after bacteria detachment
treatment
Chicken slaughter line Salmonella 23 isolates from 104 Occurrence on surface Wang et al. (2014)
samples
Polyethylene cutting boards L. monocytogenes 6.11 to 6.92 log CFU/cm2 Microbial adherence to Beltrame et al. (2014)
surface
Pig slaughterhouse L. monocytogenes 25.8% of 97 samples Occurrence on surface Sala et al. (2016)
positive
Retail outlets: raw meat, Salmonella and L. From nondetectable to Occurrence on surface Losito et al. (2017)
fishery products, deli, monocytogenes >500 CFU/cm2
pastry, and dairy products
Meat processing plants Aerobic plate count 23.5% of the samples Occurrence on surface Kim and Yim (2017)
equipment were positive
Retail meat shops and Coliforms and S. aureus 1.98 to 5.69 log CFU/cm2 Occurrence on surfaces Pradhan et al. (2018)
abattoirs
a Occurrence on surfaces was determined by swabbing unless stated otherwise.

namely, there is no single decontamination method capable of
covering the entire range of decontamination levels.
Decontamination can be understood as a group of actions ex-
erted to partially or completely eliminate harmful substances from
FCS by means of cleaning, sanitizing, and/or sterilizing such sur-
faces (Miller, 2009). The harmful substances may be pathogens
(bacteria, viruses, and parasites), pesticides, natural toxins, metals,
and other chemical contaminants (FDA, 2018b). There are differ-
ent degrees of decontamination: cleaning, sanitization, and steril-
ization. Cleaning is the removal of visible fouling (Li et al., 2014).
Sanitization, also known as disinfection, denotes the reduction of
the number of microorganisms to a safe level. Finally, sterilization
can be interpreted as the complete destruction of microorganisms
(Miller, 2009). The different approaches to the decontamination

4 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

of FCS can be classified into five methods: thermal, mechani- Table 3–Classification of disinfection methods by decontamination level.
cal, chemical, physical (Otto et al., 2011), and biological (Dinu
Decontamination level (increasing from
et al., 2010). It should be noted that this review focuses on the left-to-right)
removal or inactivation of microorganisms only, although clean- Sanitizing
ing procedures in general may focus on the elimination of other Cleaning (disinfection) Sterilizing
contaminants too. Biological √
Decontamination via cleaning methods. Current investigations Chitosan, Lactobacillus
bacteriocins, and phages √ √
on FCS cleaning methods focus primarily on alternatives to those Detergents with enzymes
methods that rely on the use of water and/or hazardous disinfec- Chemical √
tants. Widely found in industrial food processing facilities, clean- Detergents √
in-place (CIP) systems deactivate microorganisms on equipment Ethylene oxide √
Hydrogen peroxide √
surfaces using rinse cycles and aqueous solutions of cleaners. For Ozone and chlorine dioxide √ √
instance, Clostridium perfringens, adhered to stainless steel, was de- Peracetic acid, iodine
activated using different CIP regimes by adding sodium hydroxide compounds, and chlorine
compounds
(NaOH) as an active cleaning agent (Alzubeidi, Udompijitkul, Mechanical √ √
Talukdar, & Sarker, 2018). However, CIP systems are not always Brushing and water jet √
effective. For instance, Khamisse, Firmesse, Christieans, Chassaing, Rinsing
Physical √ √
and Carpentier (2012) found that an industrial cleaning and disin- Gamma rays √ √
fection system at a ricotta facility did not significantly reduce the Dry ice, ice pigging, and
total cell counts from stainless steel and PVC surfaces, although ultrasound √ √
Gas plasma √
the surfaces appear visually clean after the cleaning procedure UV light
(Khamisse et al., 2012). Furthermore, some cleaning agents accel- Thermal √
erate the deterioration of rubber and silicon surfaces, such as those Autoclave √ √
Hot water √ √ √
encountered in milking machines (Santos et al., 2011). Perhaps Steam
more importantly, there are a large number of food commodi-
ties (cereals, dry seasonings, infant formulas, peanut butter, and
so on) that must be handled in low-moisture environments to
control Salmonella (NAMI, 2015) that do not permit the use of enumerating the effects of the surface properties and food prod-
conventional CIP systems based on water and cleaning agents. ucts’ components on the effectiveness of mechanical–chemical
Therefore, alternative methods, such as ice blasting, UV irradi- methods. For example, the application of aqueous NaOH on
ation, and ultrasound, have been tested on dairy surfaces, ceramic stainless steel plates followed by rinsing with an aqueous chlo-
tiles, and bamboo cutting boards, with results comparable to those rine compound was proposed as an alternative disinfecting process
obtained by radiation, vapor blasting, and brushing (Witte et al., (Jiménez-Pichardo et al., 2016). In another study, Park and Kang
2017). For example, the use of UV light has been evaluated to (2017) found that the effectiveness of chlorine dioxide gas was
reduce Salmonella populations on different FCS (Lim & Harri- negatively correlated to the contact angle observed on FCS made
son, 2016). In some instances, these alternative methods are paired of silicon, TeflonR
, rubber, stainless steel, and PVC, and that the
with conventional cleaning agents when the adherence strength of average roughness had a less pronounced effect on the gas’ antimi-
bacterial biofilms to the FCS is so great that a combination of con- crobial activity (Park & Kang, 2017).
ventional cleaning agents and an alternative, such as ultrasound, is Physical methods of sanitization, listed in Table 6, such as UV
more effective than using a conventional method only (Fink, Oder, and white light irradiation or plasma treatment, have received sig-
Stražar, & Filip, 2017). For example, Kuda et al. (2011) found that nificant attention in research studies. For instance, a 2-s treatment
removing dried egg plasters from the FCS before washing the completely deactivated viruses on surfaces and in aqueous sus-
FCS via CIP increased the cleaning efficacy (Kuda et al., 2011). pensions. However, the addition of a small quantity of organic
A standing issue is the proper disposure of the waste water con- matter simulant to the surface or to the suspensions reduced the
taining spent cleaning agents. Therefore, environmentally friendly effectiveness of the treatment (Jean, Morales-Rayas, Anoman, &
enzymes have been studied as substitutes for chemical decontam- Lamhoujeb, 2011). The results suggest that UV light is more effec-
ination methods, but with limited effectiveness (Lequette, Boels, tive when inactivating microorganisms placed on abiotic surfaces
Clarisse, & Faille, 2010). than on food surfaces (Haughton et al., 2012; Sommers & Sheen,
Decontamination via sanitizing methods. As a more effective 2015). These findings are in agreement with the accepted fact
method of decontamination, sanitizing or disinfecting can be ac- that UV light has low penetrating power into food matrices and
complished by mechanical, physical, chemical, thermal, and/or surfaces (Jay, Loessner, & Golden, 2005). Comparable results (see
biological means (Table 3 to 8). Mechanical and chemical meth- Table 6) to those obtained with UV light irradiation can be ob-
ods can, in fact, be regarded as a single disinfection method because tained with nonthermal plasmas using air (Niemira, Boyd, & Sites,
rinsing (see Table 3) and detergents or disinfectants (see Table 4) 2014) and nitrogen (Dasan et al., 2016) as feed gases. Both meth-
are synergistically employed together in practice. The effectiveness ods, UV light irradiation and nonthermal plasma, are convenient
of electrolytic solutions (Guentzel, Liang Lam, Callan, Emmons, methods when the presence of moisture in the processing envi-
& Dunham, 2008), strong bases or acids (Furukawa, Akiyoshi, Ko- ronment is a concern or when the FCS cannot withstand high
moriya, Ogihara, & Morinaga, 2010), and the effects of detergent temperatures.
concentration, water temperature, and surface material have been When the presence of water and high temperatures are not lim-
extensively investigated (Reynisson, Guobjornsdottir, Marteins- iting constraints, thermal methods of disinfection are acceptable
son, & Hreggviosson, 2009). Recent research has focused on de- (see Table 7). Steam is an inexpensive sanitizing agent that is read-
veloping combinations of less toxic sanitizing solutions, as well as ily available in most industrial food processing plants (McCann,


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 5
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 4–Selection of publications on mechanical decontamination of food contact surfaces.

Decontamination Decontamination Intended

Surface Microbe level method Treatment result Variables tested application Reference
Stainless steel E. coli O26, P. Cleaning and Rinsing with water The bactericidal The effect of Food-related Kuda, Yano, and
dishes aerugi- sanitation and application effect rinsing before environ- Kuda (2008)
nosa, and S. of disappeared the application ments
aureus benzalkonium because of food sanitizer
chloride residues
Stainless steel and Not identified Cleaning Rinsing regime 0.8 to 1.5 log CFU Effectiveness of an Cutting at beef Khamisse et al.
PVC reductions actual cleaning processing (2012)
and disinfection facilities
regime
Wood, triclosan- Salmonella Cleaning and No treatment, From 1.90 to 2.80 Effectiveness of Food contact Soares et al.
treated plastic, Enteritidis sanitation rinsing, and log to each treatment surfaces, in (2012)
glass, and application of undetectable on different general
stainless steel sanitizers materials
cutting boards

Sheridan, McDowell, & Blair, 2006). It has been shown that it
takes less than a minute to inactivate foodborne pathogens from
FCS made of stainless steel or PVC using steam at 75 to 85 °C
(Park & Kang, 2013).
Prey–predator relationships and different abilities to compete
for limited resources have been suggested as the working princi-
ples of biological methods to disinfect FCS (see Table 8). Tomat,
Quiberoni, Mercanti, and Balagué (2014) achieved different de-
grees of decontamination on FCS by means of phages inoc-
ulated into populations of foodborne microorganisms (Tomat,
Quiberoni, Mercanti, & Balagué, 2014), whereas Gomes, Piard,
Briandet, and Mergulhão (2017) reported that colonization and
biofilm formation on FCS by Escherichia coli is retarded by pur-
posely added Pseudomonas grimontii. In both cases, further investi-
gations are needed to assess these biological methods’ compatibil-
ity with commonly used practices of sanitizing FCS, as chemical,
physical, mechanical, and thermal disinfection methods do not
discriminate among microbial species. Because of this, the effec-
tiveness of biological methods might be diminished when used in
combination with other disinfection approaches, because the bio-
logical methods described above rely on the existence of specific
living microbial strains.
Decontamination via sterilizing methods. Sterilization of FCS
is routinely accomplished by autoclaving, gamma ray radiation,
or washing with hydrogen peroxide or concentrated solutions of
strong acids or bases (Jay et al., 2005). However, plasma treat-
ment has been explored as an alternative of those routine meth-
ods. Deilmann, Halfmann, Bibinov, Wunderlich, and Awakowicz
(2008) reported sterilization of PET bottles using plasma from a
mixture of nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen, with results compa-
rable to that obtained by hydrogen peroxide washing. Sen and
Mutlu (2012) reported water vapor as the most effective gas for
sterilization purposes using glow discharge plasma. In both cases,
the inherent nature of the plasma sterilization process required the
use of a chamber or reactor to accomplish the plasma formation
described above.
In this context, AMCs can be listed among the chemical meth-
ods for cleaning and sanitizing FCS and may be used simultane-
ously, depending on the specific application, with other chemical,
mechanical, physical, or thermal methods. In such cases, AMCs
must be able to synergistically interact with different cleaning
practices.
Legal Framework Pertaining to FCS
The process by which food is harvested, processed, and deliv-
ered to the consumer involves unavoidable contact with multiple
surfaces. These FCS may modify, to some extent, the quality of
the final food product. The limits of changes to a food product’s
quality due to its contact with surfaces is something that neither
food producers nor consumers can fairly set or predict, because
both consumers and producers have competing economic interests
(Boulding, 1945) that are more related to changes in market prices
than food safety. Therefore, a third factor, a central government
and/or a regulator, must enter the scene to set strict requirements
(Cooper & Tice, 2001) that not only ensures consumers’ safety,
but also allows producers the flexibility to develop profitable and
safe food processes.
A central government is able to establish statutory requirements
through a congress or a group of peoples’ representatives. Ap-
pointed by a central government, regulators are then autonomous
entities that are granted authority to stipulate regulatory require-
ments. Both regulatory and statutory requirements form the legal
framework that oversee the use of AMCs in FCS. Globally, the
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)
and the World Health Organization (WHO) are recognized food
safety regulators. These organizations produce international food
standards and help to regulate food production, including shipment
and intake, among countries (FAO, 2018). Among countries, reg-
ulations and statutory laws vary greatly (see Table 9). For instance,
in Mexico and the United States, the rules and laws related to
AMCs for FCS are established by different but complimentary
institutions; this is not the case in Australia. The antimicrobial
component of any existing or novel AMC must be listed in at least
one of the following, depending on which jurisdiction the FCS is
beholden to:
r Australia: ANZFS Code, Chapter 1, part 1.3, Standard 1.3.1;
Schedule 15 and Schedule 20.
r EU: Regulation (EU) No. 1130/2011, Regulation (EC) No.
10/2011, and Regulation (EC) No. 450/2009.
r Mexico: Codex Alimentarius.
r USA: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, part 182, and
U.S. Code, Title 21, Chapter 9, Subchapter IV, section 346a.
In the same manner, the AMC, as an integral part of the FCS,
must comply with at least the following:
r Australia: ANZFS Code, Chapter 3, Part 3.2, Standard 3.2.3
r EU: Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 and Regulation (EC)
No. 450/2009.
r Mexico: Mexican Official Standard, NOM-251-SSA1-2009.
r USA: Code of Federal Regulations, title 21, subchapter B,
part 110.

6 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
 
Table 5–Selection of chemical decontamination research studies of food contact surfaces.
Surface
C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Food service areas
Plastic and stainless steel
coupons
Stainless steel, wood, and
rubber conveyor
material
Stainless steel plates
Glass dishes
Stainless steel and PP
Rubber and silicon
surfaces
Stainless steel coupons
Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 7
Decontamination Decontamination Intended
Microbe level method Treatment result Variables tested application Reference
E. faecalis, E. coli, Sanitation Hypochlorous acid 79% to 100% Concentration of sanitizer Food contact Guentzel et al. (2008)
S. aureus, L. reduction of surfaces
monocytogenes, and microbial growth
S. Typhimurium
Gammaproteobacteria Sanitation Washing protocol with 99.9% of bacterial Water, temperature, and Fish processing Reynisson et al. (2009)
detergents removal detergent plant
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
concentration
Alicyclobacillus Sanitation Chlorine dioxide and Reductions from 0 to Time of treatment and Food handling and Friedrich,
sodium hypochlorite 4.5 log CFU/ concentration of processing Goodrich-Schneider,
coupon sanitizers surfaces Parish, and Danyluk,
(2009)
S. aureus and E. coli Cleaning and Cleaning in place agents Reduction from 107 to Different cleaning agents Food processing Furukawa et al. (2010)
sanitation containing NaOH, KOH, 106 CFU/cm2 and food additives plants
nitric acid, phosphoric
acid, and sodium
hypochlorite
S. Typhimurium and Cleaning and Benzalkonium chloride The bactericidal effect The effect of the presence Food-related Kuda et al. (2011)
S. aureus sanitation and alkyldiaminoethyl- of sanitizers of dried and adhered environments
glycine disappeared in the egg compounds on
hydrochloride presence of yolk treatment efficacy
and whole egg
S. aureus Sanitation Peracetic acid and sodium Cell detachment The efficacy of the Food service da Silva Meira, de
hypochlorite around 3 log CFU/ sanitizers surfaces Medeiros Barbosa,
cm2 Alves Aguiar Athayde,
de Siqueira-Júnior, and
de Souza (2012)
S. agalactiae Cleaning and 1.5% sodium hydroxide 2.5 to 4.5 CFU/cm2 The relation between Milking machine Santos et al. (2011)
sanitation coupon adhesion and contact surface
angle
C. perfringens Sanitation Ethanol, iodophore, 0.33 to 2.70 log Treatment time, Food industry Udompijitkul, Alnoman,
quaternary ammonium reductions disinfectant, and environments Paredes-Sabja, and
compounds, and Decon microbial species Sarker (2013)
Spore
(Continued)
 Table 5–Continued.
Surface
PE and ceramic dishes
Buna and PVC chips
PE cutting boards
Rubber, glass, stainless
steel, PVC, wood, and
ceramic tile disks
Stainless steel coupons
8 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
Stainless steel coupons
Silicon, Teflon, rubber,
stainless steel, and PVC
Biofilms on dairy surfaces
Stainless steel, HDPE,
Buna N, and
polyurethane

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Decontamination Decontamination Intended
Microbe level method Treatment result Variables tested application Reference
B. cereus spores, Sanitation Benzalkonium chloride Reductions of around The effect remnants of Food industry Li, Kuda, and Yano (2014)
P. aeruginosa, S. and alkyldiaminoethyl- 3 and 4 log food on efficacy of environments
aureus, and E. coli glycine CFU/dish were treatment at different
O26 hydrochloride obtained concentrations
Cronobacter Sanitation Sodium hypochlorite Reduction of 3 log Surface material, Conveyor belt Song, Chon, Kim, Park,
concentration of and Seo (2014)
sanitizer, and pH
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
L. monocytogenes Sanitation Organic acids, peracetic For all contact times The efficacy of the Surfaces of cutting Beltrame et al. (2014)
acid, sodium tested, biofilm sanitizers on used and boards
hypochlorite, and formation was new cutting boards
chlorhexidine avoided
Human norovirus Sanitation Ethanol, sodium Reductions of <1 log Concentration of Surfaces in Liu et al. (2015)
hypochlorite, sodium sanitizers and different general
metasilicate, and surface materials
quaternary compounds
E. faecalis and Cleaning and Several detergents and Reductions of below Detergent and sanitizer Ricotta processing da Silva Fernandes,
Enterococcus faecium sanitation sanitizers 0.4 log CFU/cm2 combinations facility Kabuki, and Kuaye
(2015)
P. aeruginosa, E. Cleaning and Alkaline electrolyzed Reduction of 3.20 to Concentration of Dairy industry Jiménez-Pichardo et al.
faecalis, and sanitation water and neutral 3.90 log CFU sanitizers, time, and (2016)
Micrococcus luteus electrolyzed water temperature
S. Typhimurium, E. coli Sanitation Gaseous chlorine dioxide 5.91 to 6.81 log CFU Time of treatment and Food contact Park and Kang (2017)
O157:H7, and L. reduction surface material surfaces
monocytogenes
Bacillus subtilis, Sanitation Iodophore, sodium 550 to 650 ppm were Microbial biofilm Dairy niches Makwana, Ram Grover,
Salmonella, hypochlorite, and required eradicating and Kumar (2018)
Pseudomonas, benzalkonium chloride concentration and
Listeria, and E. coli effectiveness minimum inhibitory
concentration
L. monocytogenes Sanitation Phosphoric acid, Biofilm formation was Temperature and Fishery facility Dhowlaghar et al. (2018)
dodecylbenzene lower in Buna than concentration of catfish surfaces
sulfonic acid, in the other mucus on FCS
quaternary ammonium materials
compounds, hydrogen
peroxide, peracetic
acid, octanoic acid, and
sodium hypochloride
 
Table 6–Selection of physical decontamination investigations of different food contact surfaces.

Decontamination Decontamination Intended

Surface Microbe level method Treatment result Variables tested application Reference
PET bottles Bacillus atrophaeus and Sterilization Low-pressure microwave Reduction of 105 and Treatment time and Aseptic filling of Deilmann et al. (2008)
Aspergillus niger plasma 104 CFU plasma reactor design beverages
Stainless steel knife L. monocytogenes and E. Sanitation White light Total deactivation of Time and type of meat Food contact Rajkovic et al. (2010)
coli O157:H7 6.5 log CFU/side of product surfaces

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®

knife
Stainless steel and PVC Murine norovirus Sanitation UV light 3 to 5 log CFU Timing, distance of Drinking water or Jean et al. (2011)
disks (MNV-1) and irradiation, and food-handling
hepatitis A virus presence of bovine surfaces
(HAV) serum
Stainless steel and PVC Campylobacter jejuni Sanitation UV light No microorganisms Treatment time and Chicken contact Haughton et al. (2012)
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

coupons 1136 DF were recovered distance of irradiation surfaces

after treatment
Stainless steel and PE E. coli K12 Sterilization Nonthermal plasma 7 log CFU reduction Different plasma Food contact Sen and Mutlu (2012)
coupons parameters surfaces
Glass slides Salmonella biofilms Sanitation Cold plasma Reduction up to 2.13 Time of treatment and Conveyor belt Niemira et al. (2014)
log CFU/mL distance from plasma
emitter
HDPE, PE, and stainless Yersinia pestis Sanitation UV light and freezing >6 log was eliminated Power of irradiation, Food contact Sommers and Sheen
steel chips at 1 J/cm2 surface material, and surfaces in (2015)
effect of freezing general
Plastic jerry cans Coliforms Cleaning Detergents 40% to 96% Occurrence after cleaning Milk handling Wafula, Matofari, Nduko,
microbial load of surface and Lamuka (2016)
reductions
Stainless steel, HDPE, Salmonella Cleaning Rinsing and detergents Reduction of 1.91 to Occurrence on surface Tomato handling Lim and Harrison (2016)
PVC, and waxed 3.50 log facility
cardboard CFU/coupon
Stainless steel, silicone, S. epidermidis and E. coli Sanitation Non-thermal plasma Reduction of 2.95 to Effectiveness of different General surfaces Dasan et al. (2016)
and PET 4.43 log CFU/mL sanitizers
Polyurethane conveyor B. cereus Cleaning Ultrasound and cleansers Reduction from 0.47 Effectiveness of the Bakery facility Fink et al. (2017)
belts to 0.205 of biofilm’s combination of both
optical density methods
Ceramic tiles, and Micrococcus roseus R4 Cleaning and Dry ice blasting Approximately 90% CO2 quantity, pressure, Food production Witte et al. (2017)
materials of smear sanitizing removal of bacteria pellet size, and equipment
robots bacterial concentration
Stainless steel dishes Saccharomyces Sanitation UV light and sanitizers Reductions from 6 to Effects of food residues on Processed food Shikano, Kuda, Takahashi,
cerevisiae and De- <2 and 3 to 4 log the survival rates industries and Kimura (2017)
baryomyces CFU/dish,
hansenii
Knifes Enterobacteriaceae, S. Sanitation Ultrasound, detergents, Migration rate of The method was Cattle slaughter Brasil et al. (2017)
aureus, molds, and and chlorinated water residues: 1.61 It compared to a process
yeasts should be conventional method
mg/L.min

Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 9

Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 7–Selection of thermal decontamination investigations of food contact surfaces.

Decontamination Decontamination Variables Intended

Surface Microbe level method Treatment result tested application Reference
Stainless steel and E. coliO157:H7, Sanitation Steam 1.78 to 3.0 log Stream tem- Steam pas- Park and Kang
PVC coupons S. Typhimurium, CFU/coupon perature teurization (2013)
and reductions and
L. monocytogenes treatment
biofilms timing
Peanut processing Salmonella Sanitation Hot oil and 60% <0.16 log Effectiveness Peanut butter Grasso, Grove,
equipment isopropanol ± CFU/cm2 of cleaning pilot plant Halik, Arritt,
quaternary and and Keller
ammonium sanitation (2015)
compounds procedure
Wooden boards Listeria innocua Sanitation Steam 2 log CFU Different tem- Cheese manu- Imhof,
reduction peratures facturing Schwendi-
mann, and
Riva
Scettrini
(2017)

Table 8–Selection of biological decontamination studies of food contact surfaces.

Decontamination Decontamination Intended

Surface Microbe level method Treatment result Variables tested application Reference
Stainless steel Pseudomonas Cleaning Polysaccharidases Serine proteases Seven enzymes tested Clean-in-place Lequette et al.
slides fluorescens and proteolytic removed Bacillus to remove biofilms for food (2010)
and B. cereus enzymes and from 16 bacterial industries
polysaccharidases species
removed P.
fluorescens biofilms
more efficiently
Glass slides E. coli Sanitation Myoviridae phages Viable cell Three different Food Tomat et al.
and concentration phages as a cocktail processing (2014)
stainless decreases from 1.2 or on surfaces surfaces
steel chips to 5.4 log CFU/mL
Bare and E. coli Sanitation Competitive The biovolume of E. Time of growth and Food contact Gomes et al.
coated with microbe, coli was lower in surface coating surfaces (2017)
diamond- Pseudomonas presence of P.
like carbon grimon- grimontii 13A10
stainless tii 13A10
steel
coupons
Stainless steel S. aureus Sanitation Oregano essential Decrease of ≥2 log Time of treatment and Surfaces of Rodrigues et al.
coupons oil CFU/cm2 concentration of stainless (2018)
essential oil steel
Stainless steel E. coli O157:H7, Sanitation Thyme and tea Decrease of biofilm Minimum Food industry Sadekuzzaman,
and rubber L. monocyto- tree oils cells up to 3.5 log concentration for surfaces Mizan, Kim,
genes, CFU/cm2 biofilm eradication Yang, and Ha
and Salmonella (2018)

Despite these variations, the intended goal of all such regulations
is to guarantee safe food for consumers through prevention, moni-
toring, and enforcement. Correctly identifying the regulatory and
statutory laws for a given scenario is a necessary first step toward
the commercial adoption of AMCs for FCS. Understanding this
framework can allow researchers to appropriately design AMCs
that, from the beginning, meet the requirements, thus simplifying
the process of translation outside the laboratory. Unfortunately,
the requirements are often so complex that many researchers do
not take these into consideration when designing new AMCs.
Here, we present an overview of the legal framework that governs
AMCs for FCSs both globally and in our specific case studies of
the United States, Mexico, the EU, and Australia.
Legal requirements for AMCs
Globally, FCS are controlled in four different ways: statutory
requirements, regulatory requirements, risk assessment, and good
manufacturing practices (Assent, 2016). Because antimicrobial
agents adhered to FCS will migrate from the coatings’ surfaces
to food products and become a constituent of the food prod-
uct (a contaminant), the antimicrobial substance is regulated by
food statutory and regulatory requirements. Therefore, from a le-
gal perspective, the antimicrobial agent must be regarded not as
a component of the coating, but as a food component (Lück,
1997). The other two modes of control, risk assessment and good
manufacturing practices, are defined by governmental institutions
or by organizations, committees, and institutions whose technical
experience and expertise lend them a certain level of authority
within the industry; that is, risk assessment and good manufac-
turing practices are self-regulations. Good practices for equipment
surfaces (Chen et al., 2009) or good practices for equipment de-
sign (NAMI, 2015) for food processing plants are examples of
good practices relating to FCS.
Table 10 and 11 give a general view of the legal requirements
expected to be met by FCS and antimicrobial substances, respec-
tively. These requirements, intended for national and regional
applications, are nonnegotiable and enforceable. Thus, descrip-
tions of laws should be both general enough to facilitate their
practical use and sufficiently specific to prevent voids in what is
and is not allowed regarding FCS and AMCs. Although many of
the mechanical requirements for FCS listed in Table 10 are qual-
itative guidelines, such as easy to clean, smooth, nonabsorbent,

10 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 9–Legal classifications of antimicrobial agents and governing bodies in various regions of the world.

Antimicrobial legal Mexican

FCS application classification Australian authority EU authority authority U.S. authority
Food packaging Food additive Territories and state authorities, Food European Food Safety Cofeprisb Food and Drug
Standards Australia New Zealande Authority Administration
Ongoing effect Food contamination Territories and state authorities, European Food Safety Cofeprisb Environmental
from the surface or residue Department of Agriculture and Authority Protection
Water Resourcesa , Food Standards Agency
Australia New Zealande
Decontamination Food contamination Territories and state authorities, European Food Safety Secretarı́a de Environmental
of the surface or residue Australian Pesticides and Authority Saludc Protection
Veterinary Medicines Authority, Agencyd
Food Standards Australia New
Zealande
a For imported food.
b Federal Commission for the Protection Against Sanitary Risk. Decentralized regulator supervised by the federal Secretariat of Health.
c Secretariat of Health.
d Except when the antimicrobial is used to disinfect food packaging materials, in which case, jurisdiction belongs to the Food and Drug Administration.
e Develops and administers the Food Standards Code, does not have enforcement responsibilities.

Table 10–List of legal mechanical requirements for FCS by country or region and the corresponding regulation that establishes such requirements.a

Country/region Legal requirement Mechanical requirement Comments Reference

Australia ANZFS Code, Chapter Made of innocuous materials. Easy to clean Chapter 3 applies to Australia Food Standards
3, Part 3.2, and to sanitize if needed. Incapable of only, while the rest of the Australia New
Standard 3.2.3. absorbing soil and water. Standard is applicable in New Zealand (2016)
Zealand as well. State-level
regulations also apply.
EU Regulation (EC) No. Does not transfer components to food at Provides the guidelines for European Parliament
1935/2004 harmful levels. Does not alter food quality. harmlessness for all food (2004)
contact surfaces.
Regulation (EC) No. Active and intelligent materials exempted Applies to active and intelligent European Parliament
450/2009 from the rule that prohibits releasing of materials that absorb or (2009)
substances into food. release compounds to or from
the food or the surroundings.
Mexico Rules for innocuous Rules for food packaging. Describes the chemical and Presidencia de la
control of products physical characteristics food República, 1999
and services, title packaging must meet.
27
Mexican Official Must be smooth, washable, and crack free. The standard is mandatory Secretarı́a de Salud
Standard, NOM- Must resist effective washing and across all Mexican territory (2010)
251-SSA1-2009 disinfection. for food, beverages, and food
supplements production
processes.
USA Code of Federal Food process equipment manufactured to The FDA establishes sanitation U.S. Congress (2011a)
Regulations, title allow its disassembly for cleaning and requirements and inspects
21, subchapter B, sanitizing. Rough finishes are not allowed food processors (all food
part 110. Accumulation of food, debris, and water excluding meat, poultry, and
must be prevented. Must be able to resist egg products).
standard cleaning chemicals.
a The requirement statements have been paraphrased to reduce wording size.

and resistant to chemical attack, special attention should be paid
to European Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 and Regulation
(EC) No. 450/2009, because these documents clearly separate the
difference in requirements between protective coatings for FCS
and active coatings for FCS, which is not the case for Australian,
Mexican, and American laws.
On the other hand, Table 11 lists legal requirements with large
amounts of quantitative content. For Australia, approved antimi-
crobial substances and their dose limits are given by the Australia
New Zealand Food Authority (Australia New Zealand Food Au-
thority, 2016). For the EU, three main lists are available:
(i) Regulation (EU) No. 1130/2011, which lists approved an-
timicrobial substances and their maximum levels in food
(European Commission, 2011b)
(ii) Regulation (EC) No. 10/2011, listing polymers for coatings
of cans for food products
(iii) Regulation (EC) No. 450/2009, which lists the require-
ments to consider a material as an intelligent component of
food packaging.
For Mexico, the Rules for Innocuous Control of Products
and Services makes reference to the WHO’s Codex Alimenta-
rius (FAO, 2018) as the official list of approved antimicrobial sub-
stances and their limits in food applications. For the United States,
several lists exist. However, they can be classified into two main
groups: those for food additives (U.S. Congress, 1999) and those
for chemical pesticides (U.S. Congress, 2015).
Legal compliance
Compliance to legal requirements must be demonstrated for
both the surface and the antimicrobial substance to authorities,
regulatory bodies, or third-party authorized agents. Legal com-
pliance is demonstrated by documented evidence collected by an
authority’s agents or its authorized representatives during site vis-
its, and/or submission of required documentation or applications
(Australian Government, 2003; European Parliament, 2004; Presi-
dencia de la República, 1999; U.S. Congress, 2011a). The specific
aspects of compliance of FCS and AMC regulations are discussed
in the following sections.
Legal compliance of the FCS. All the legal requirements per-
taining to FCS characteristics emphasize the surfaces’ ability to


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 11
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 11–List of legal requirements for antimicrobials for food applications by country or region and the requirements’ corresponding regulation.a

Country/region Legal requirement Scope/Content Comments Reference

Australia ANZFS Code, Chapter Substances permitted as food The considered antimicrobial substances Australia New
1, Part 1.3, additives for food purposes are: sorbic acid, Zealand Food
Standard 1.3.1; benzoic acid, sodium, potassium, Authority (2016)
Schedule 15 calcium benzoates, sulfur dioxide,
among others.
Australian Total Diet Evaluation of the intake or Lists chemicals, dietary exposure, risk FSANZ (2016)
Study dietary exposure to food management, and qualifiers (food
contaminants in Australia tested).
ANZFS Schedule 20 Maximum residue limits in Lists the maximum residue limits of Australian Pesticides
foodstuff agricultural or veterinary chemical and Veterinary
residue that is legally allowed in a food Medicines
product. Authority (2018)
EU Regulation (EC) No. Materials allowed for food Indicates how to manage active and European Parliament
1935/2004 contact intelligent materials not inert by (2004)
design. It also establishes the safety
assessments used to manufacture FCS.
Regulation (EC) No. Polymers and their articles for Regulates the composition of the European
10/2011 food contact purposes polymers permitted as FCS material of Commission,
construction. (2011a)
Regulation (EC) No. Active and intelligent This regulation does not apply to the European Parliament
450/2009 materials food contact materials considered in (2009)
Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004
Regulation (EU) No. Substances approved for food The considered antimicrobial substances European
1130/2011 applications as additives for food purposes are: sorbic acid, Commission,
sulfur dioxide, sodium benzoate, (2011b)
among others.
Register of substances Lists more than 40 substances Activated carbon, bentonite, silicon European Parliament
under Regulation with potential use as active dioxide, sodium hydroxide, talc, and so (2009)
(EC) No. 450/2009 and intelligent material, on. No maximum levels are given.
but the specific application
has to be approved by the
European Food Safety
Authority.
Mexico Rules for innocuous Food additives Lists the types of food additives allowed Presidencia de la
control of products and their general definitions. República, 1999
and services, title
23
Mexican Official Disinfection with chlorine, Applies to potable water quality Secretarı́a de Salud
Standard, NOM- chlorine compounds, ozone, parameters and water purification (1994)
127-SSA1-1994 or UV light are allowed. processes
Mexican Official The maximum levels allowed A guideline to establish maximum levels SAGARPA (2017)
Standard, of chemical pesticides of chemical pesticides allowed for
NOM-082-SAG- found in human food must agriculture in the Mexican territory.
FITO/SSA1-2017 comply those established
by the Food and
Agriculture Organization
(FAO) and the World
Health Organization (OMS).
USA Code of Federal Status List for food additives Establishes the general principles for U.S. Congress (2016)
Regulations, Title evaluating the safety of food additives.
21, and Part 170
Code of Federal Lists the food additives Applies when the substance is added U.S. Congress (1999)
Regulations, Title generally recognized as intentionally to food.
21, part 182 safe (GRAS) in food.
Code of Federal Lists the substances affirmed Applies when the substance is added U.S. Congress (2011b)
Regulations, Title as GRAS in food. intentionally to food.
21, part 184
Code of Federal A list with almost 700 This regulation applies to antimicrobial U.S. Congress (2014)
Regulations, Title pesticide chemicals with substances on food contact surfaces.
40, Part 180, tolerances are given.
Subpart C
Code of Federal Substances affirmed as GRAS Applies when the substance is added U.S. Congress (2000)
Regulations, Title for use in food packaging intentionally to food.
21, part 186
U.S. Code, Title 21, Lists the maximum levels of Describes the cases for which the U.S. Congress (2015)
Chapter 9, pesticides in food and the tolerances must be met and those for
Subchapter IV, substances exempted from which an exemption can be requested.
section 346a this classification.
U.S. Code, Title 7, An antimicrobial pesticide is Details the requirements for cleaning and U.S. Congress (2017)
Chapter 6, intended to protect objects, sanitizing of food contact utensils.
Subchapter II. industrial processes or
systems, surfaces, and so on
from microorganisms
a The requirement statements have been paraphrased to reduce wording size.

12 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 12–Suggestions for the refinement of the legal terms into mechanical property designations and the techniques that can be applied to quantify
them (see Table 10 and 11).a

Regulatory requirement Translation into mechanical property Characterization techniques

Easy to clean Hydrophobicity and porosity Contact angle analysis, microscopy, and adsorption
test
Unable to absorb water or dirt
Smooth finishing Roughness Profilometry
Withstand cleaning Abrasion, adhesion, hardness, fracture Crosscut test, curvature test, indentation testing,
toughness, and stress pencil hardness, scratch test, scotch tape test,
rubbing test, sand test, and Taber test
Migration into food (as contaminant or as Adhesion and migration Crosscut test, extractability test, indentation testing,
additive) scratch test, and scotch tape test
a Adherence to these suggestions does not guarantee the satisfaction of regulatory statutes. Their interpretation must be carefully reviewed to determine compliance with standards set forth by various governing
bodies.

withstand microbial contamination. Although not explicitly stated, conditions, and the mechanical forces to which the equipment
the material of construction and the finish of the surface must be will be subjected, scientists and engineers should be able to de-
selected in such a way as to avoid microbial attachment. This se- sign equipment with surfaces meeting regulatory statutes. Table 12
lection relies on the fact that microbial adherence to surfaces varies shows the interpretation of the general quantitative requirements
considerably with both the surface composition and structure and listed in Table 10 and the more specific quantitative parameters
the microbial genera (Cunault, Faille, Dubois, & Bénézech, 2018; listed in Table 11. The interpretations allow researchers to express
Lopes, Morin, Oliveira, & Melo, 2005; Storgards, Simola, Sjöberg, requirements, such as ease of cleaning and smooth finish, in quan-
& Wirtanen, 1999). For instance, removal of bacteria is easier from titative, measurable quantities. On the other hand, it should be
stainless steel than from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and high den- noted that although the quantities of antimicrobial additives and
sity polyethylene (HDPE) (Sommers & Sheen, 2015). Following contaminants in food are clearly defined, the actual amount of any
this reasoning, compliance with FCS regulations may be met by additive or contaminant that migrates from an AMC to the food
demonstrating that the material of construction, as well as the has to be assessed for each specific application, because, as will be
finish of the surface, discourage bacterial deposition and/or facil- shown in the coming sections, the transport of active substances
itates bacterial detachment. As mentioned previously, authorities from the FCS to the food’s matrix is a multivariable process. All the
or authorized third-party companies judge compliance by means regulations contained in Table 11 set stipulations for the migra-
of on-site inspections and/or document records. It is generally tion of food additives or contaminants into food. Therefore, these
accepted that stainless steel grade 316 with 2B finishing and food regulations make no distinctions among the assessment methods
grade HDPE both meet FCS regulations in general terms (Sarava- of migration, except for release, which should be thought of as a
cos & Kostaropoulos, 2016). controlled ejection of the active substance into the surroundings.
Legal compliance of antimicrobial agents. The steps to assess
compliance of AMC on FCS are, in general terms, the following Mechanical Properties of AMCs
(Assent, 2016): FCS are those surfaces present on equipment, utensils, and con-
(i) Assess which surfaces come into contact with food tainers for the production, processing, and packaging of food. This
(ii) Determine which surfaces’ materials of construction (in- definition is useful in identifying the FCS at the process facility
cluding the antimicrobial substance) are already in the level and simplifies the analysis of the regulatory framework. In the
approved-substances lists in the country or region of interest present section, an AMC is defined as a liquid mixture, solution,
(iii) Track parts whose materials of construction and active in- or suspension that is applied to a surface and undergoes solidifica-
gredients are unknown to their suppliers to verify the parts’ tion afterward (Hochberg, 1979) with the purpose of sanitizing,
materials of construction and active ingredients compliance disinfecting, reducing, or mitigating microbial growth on FCS
(iv) Gather support documentation regarding materials’ compli- (U.S. Congress, 2017). The coating layer is defined as the region
ance where the coating’s properties can be distinguished from those of
(v) Perform migration tests through an authorized third-party its substrate. In this section, different techniques for characteriz-
if documentation is not available. ing the AMC coating layers are explored, listed, and contrasted.
Additionally, some of the results that have arisen from investiga-
Regardless of whether the antimicrobial substance is considered tions using the characterization techniques given in Table 13 are
under a statutory or a regulatory system, the amount of antimi- discussed.
crobial that has migrated, intentionally or unintentionally, into the
food has to be determined quantitatively (Codex Alimentarius, Mechanical properties of AMCs for FCS
1995a, 1995b). For AMCs to be an industrially viable option, they must en-
dure and perform in a variety of conditions inherent to both food
Translation of legal requirements into mechanical property and cleaning processes, namely, over time, at variable tempera-
requirements for AMCs tures, and be compatible with both the food and cleaning process.
Following from the previous section, if an AMC is to be applied Firstly, an AMC must adhere most strongly to its substrate. Second,
on a FCS, the coating should be in compliance with antimicrobial the coating must be durable and lasting; high abrasion resistance is
regulations and keep the surface in compliance with applicable desirable in maximizing the operating lifetime of a coating. Hard-
regulations for FCS. From a design perspective, the AMC should ness, fracture toughness, and other related properties are directly
be considered as a component of the food processing equipment related to how coatings perform over time and with exposure to
at the early stages of the equipment’s design. With information mechanical stressors. Hydrophobicity, a property describing the
about the equipment’s specific application, the food processing coating’s affinity for water, is frequently reported, although no


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 13
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 13–Common methods to characterize various mechanical properties of coatings.

Characterized
Mechanical property Characterization technique Equipment parameter Standard/Approved method
Abrasion Rubbing test Cotton fabric or hard Resistance against DIN norm 58196-5
eraser abrasion
Sand test Sand cradle/sand slide Haze and light ASTM D F735-17, DIN
scattering 52348:1985-02
Taber test Spinning wheels with Haze of the coating ISO 3537:2015
abrasives
Tribological testing Test rig Friction force and –
surface damage
Air blast Air blast abrasive Resistance to abrasion ASTM D 658–91
Adhesion Adhesion test Tensiometer rig Surface energy –
Adhesion test Dynamic load cell Force needed to tear DIN EN ISO 4624
off the coating
Crosscut test Pressure-sensitive tape Surface energy ASTM D 3359-09, BS
and cutting tool 3900-E6:2007, ISO
2409:2007, and (JIS) K5400
Indentation testing Nanoindenter Interfacial cracking –
Fracture toughness Indentation testing Nanoindenter Critical load of –
cracking
Hardness and elastic Indentation testing Nanoindenter Local plastic –
properties deformation
Pencil hardness Calibrated pencils Local plastic ASTM norm D 3363-05 and JISK
deformation 5400 norm
Scratch test Indenter Local plastic ASTM G 171-03
deformation
Hydrophobicity Contact angle Goniometer Surface energy –
Migration Extractability test Extraction cell Mass transfer rate CD 82/711/EEC, CD
85/572/EEC, and FDA
Guidance for industry 2007
Porosity Nitrogen adsorption Gas sorption system –
Scanning electron microscopy Scanning electron Distribution and –
microscope energy of scattered
electrons
Surface roughness Total integrated scattering Helium laser scatter Light scattering ASTM F1048-87 1999a
Stylus profiling Stylus profilometer Vertical deflection of ISO 4288:1996
stylus
Scanning electron microscopy Scanning electron Distribution and –
microscope energy of scattered
electrons
Scanning tunneling –
microscope
Stress Indentation testing Indenter Local plastic –
deformation
Curvature test Tensile and –
compressive
stresses
Thickness Ellipsometry and scanning Ellipsometry and scanning Refractive indexes and –
electron microscopy electron microscope direct measurement
from the generated
image
a Withdrawn in 2003.

definitive correlation between hydrophobicity and cell adhesion
to FCS has been demonstrated. In terms of performance and
compatibility, the coating microstructure not only influences the
coating’s antimicrobial activity, but also the migration of antimi-
crobial substances from the coating into food. As will be discussed
in the subsequent section, the microstructure of a coating is largely
dependent, not only on the chemical composition and defects of
the coating, but also the deposition method. Last, the impact of a
coating on its substrate’s surface roughness must be evaluated, as a
coating will tend to make the substrate smooth, thus influencing
the tendency of bacteria to adhere to the modified surface.
Characterization of coating mechanical properties. The selec-
tion of mechanical property characterization equipment for coat-
ings depends on three parameters: the type of investigation con-
ducted, the availability of multiple methods to assess the same
property, and the amount of detectable response from the coating
when perturbed by the characterization tool. Research experi-
mentation requires more precise (and more expensive) instrumen-
tation, whereas field and industrial studies are performed by less
exact equipment and, often, with more repeatable procedures.
Aegerter (2017) suggests using easy, inexpensive, and standardized
methods as screening tests and before proceeding further to obtain
more accurate data with more sophisticated and sensitive equip-
ment to study coatings that already meet the expectations for the
intended application (Aegerter, 2017).
The existence and availability of several methods to assess the
same mechanical property also influences the selection of charac-
terization equipment (for example, the case of abrasion, with at
least five different characterization techniques that may be used
to quantify abrasion). Porosity of AMCs, for example, can be ex-
pressed as percentage of surface area covered by pores and deter-
mined by microscopic observation (Ctibor et al., 2012). Porosity
is also reported as percentage of the coating total volume cor-
responding to pores (Liu, Wang, Yang, & Yang, 2008). Better
yet, porosity of AMCs can be described with a combination of
multiple characterization technique results, such as average pore
size and pore surface coverage from scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging and
pore volume percentage from H2 O/D2 O exchange experiments
(Atefyekta et al., 2016).

14 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
The amount of detectable response is a third factor to con-
sider when choosing the characterization equipment. For instance,
Anne Pauline, Kamachi Mudali, and Rajendran (2013) deter-
mined that the incorporation of strontium (Sr) into porous titania
(TiO2 ) gave the same adhesion level, namely, no failed regions,
whereas Palanivelu and Kumar (2014) found that the addition of
TiO2 and hydroxyapatite to alumina (Al2 O3 ) coatings showed ad-
hesion values that varied up to 30%, depending on the amount
of TiO2 and hydroxyapatite incorporated into the coating. These
differences in the results of the two studies may be attributed to
differences in the sensitivity of the characterization methods used,
namely, adhesion by tape and nanoindentation, respectively. When
choosing a characterization technique, the desired level of accu-
racy should be known, and the option chosen should be evaluated
to ensure that the technique provides adequate resolution.
The characterization techniques given in Table 12 are further
segmented and matched to specific testing equipment in Table 13.
Often, one mechanical property can be assessed with different
equipment and with different characterization parameters. Equip-
ment and tests that have found applications at industrial levels are
already standardized, which is advantageous when comparing the
same mechanical property of different coatings. The main dis-
advantage of standardized characterization methods is that they
provide little, if any, fundamental information to explain the ob-
served antimicrobial activity.
Adhesion. Adhesion is the force of attraction between two sur-
faces that keep them attached together. Adhesion characterization
techniques work based on the principle that under certain cir-
cumstances, it is possible to measure the energy required to sep-
arate two attached surfaces. Adhesion can be expressed in units
of energy per surface area, force, or in terms of a value taken
from an arbitrary scale that reflects the level of adhesion (namely,
the cross-cut test scale). The classification of adhesion assessment
methods can be separated into two groups: macroscopic and mi-
croscopic. The crosscut and adhesive tape tests belong to the first
group, whereas indentation and scratching correspond to the sec-
ond group. Macroscopic techniques are inexpensive, simple, and
are useful in selecting coatings for industrial applications. The ad-
vantage of using microscopic techniques is that these techniques
provide quantitative information, whereas macroscopic techniques
often do not (Aegerter, 2017).
The crosscut and the tape test consist of placing an adhesive
tape on the coating to be evaluated. In the tape test, the adhesive
film is placed directly onto the coating’s surface, whereas in the
crosscut test, perpendicular incisions are first cut into the coating
to form a grid and subsequently, an adhesive tape is placed on
the sample. Uniform force is applied to adhere the tape to the
sample surface and then firmly removed. The coating is inspected,
and the amount of coating substance removed is graded according
to a graphical scale. Following ASTM D 3359-09, Hung and
Yemmireddy (2015) rated the adhesion of AMCs with different
binders and TiO2 nanoparticles to stainless steel according to the
cross cut test scale, from 2B to 4B (Hung & Yemmireddy, 2015).
Microscopic techniques, such as indentation and scratch meth-
ods, are more sophisticated than the macroscopic evaluations, and
require a nanoindenter, similar in many respects to those used
in the Vickers and Brinell hardness tests. The main difference
between nanoindentation and other common hardness tests is
that with nanoindentation, mechanical properties are extracted
by sampling from the surface to nanometer depths, whereas com-
mon indenters work deeper in the solid body (Brotzen, 1994).
Nanoindentation relies on the characterization of the plastic de-

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 15
formation of the coating due to a compressive force using a tip of
well-defined geometry (Le Bail, Benayoun, & Toury, 2015). The
tip moves down in the vertical direction and indents the coating
(see Figure 4). For the scratch test, a tip of known geometry is used
to apply an increasing normal force on the coating. The tip moves
in the direction parallel to the evaluated surface at a given veloc-
ity, creating a scratch. The measurement of the forces involved
in the process allows the calculation of the adhesion coefficients
(Aegerter, 2017). For a comprehensive and detailed description of
these techniques, refer to the ASM Handbook (Brotzen, 1994).
Please see Table 14 for a list of studies that report adhesion val-
ues in conjunction with the coating material, substrate material,
deposition method, and adhesion assessment method.
Abrasion. Abrasion is a process that consists of the movement
of a particulate or bulk solid tangentially to a solid surface under a
certain force. Abrasion is closely related to wear. Wear is the pro-
gressive damage of a surface that comes from the relative motion
between the surface being worn and another solid. The outcome
of these two processes, namely, abrasive wear, is the loss or dis-
placement of the material from the surface subjected to abrasion
(Tylczar, 1992). The abrasive may take the form of a cotton fabric,
sand grains, a spinning wheel’s surface, or a flow of a mixture of
air and solid powders. The effects of abrasion are then estimated
assessing a measurable change in any surface property, such as mass
loss and volume loss, and in instances where the volume or mass
of a coating is difficult to determine, the degree of wear is often
assessed by the reflection and transmission of light from surfaces
(Aegerter, 2017). The Taber test is the technique most frequently
used to evaluate the wear of coatings (Le Bail et al., 2015). This
test consists of the cyclic application of a fixed load on the coat-
ing using wheels whose external surfaces possess a well-defined
abrasive material. The abrasive material is then put in contact with
the coating by means of rotating the wheels a certain number of
times or cycles. Then, the coating’s surface is examined under a
microscope to quantify the wear.
The availability of studies on the mechanical wear of AMC is
very limited and even more limited for specific applications on
FCS, despite the importance of this parameter in the implemen-
tation of AMC in real food-processing environments. Hung and
Yemmireddy (2015) have reported the assessment of wear of AMC
intended for use on FCS. TiO2 nanoparticles were mixed with dif-
ferent polymeric binders and applied on stainless steel coupons.
Then, the coatings were repeatedly used for antimicrobial test-
ing. After 1, 3, 5, and 10 cycles of antimicrobial action and rinse,
the coatings’ mechanical and antimicrobial parameters were as-
sessed. The outcome of the investigation was that depending on
the binder used, the loss of antimicrobial activity can be as high
as 73% due to the diminution of the coatings’ thickness and pho-
tocatalyst exposed area. Hung and Yemmireddy (2015) concluded
that the decrease of antimicrobial activity was due to coating dam-
age. In the second experiment, Hung and Yemmireddy (2015)
quantified the wear of the AMC using an abrasive reciprocating
apparatus that exerted force with sponges and brushes on coatings
prepared with different types of binders. Later, Yemmireddy and
Hung (2017) explored the effect of multiple washes and use cycles
on HDPE cutting boards covered by TiO2 nanoparticles. The cut-
ting boards showed similar or decreased antimicrobial activity after
repeated use (Yemmireddy & Hung, 2017). These studies suggest
that the reduction in the efficacy of AMCs over several use cy-
cles is a challenge that still needs to be addressed. Unfortunately,
results reported by Yemmireddy and Hung (2017) are difficult to
compare, not only because of the lack of similar studies, but also
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 14–Selection of results from studies on adhesion of coatings to their substrates.

Macroscopic techniques
Coating Substrate Deposition method Adhesion technique Adhesion Reference
TiO2 Stainless steel Spin coating of sol gel Cross cut test 5B Anne Pauline et al. (2013)
TiO2 Stainless steel Dip coating with Cross cut test 4B Hung and Yemmireddy
polymeric binder (2015)
TiO2 Stainless steel Dip coating with Cross cut test 4B Yemmireddy, Farrell, and
polymeric binder Hung (2015)
AlO3 nanoparticles Stainless steel Dip and spin coating Adhesion tape 170 to 200 N Hesselbach et al. (2018)
with polymeric
binders
Microscopic techniques
Coating Substrate Deposition method Adhesion technique Adhesion Reference
AlO3 Stainless steel Sol–gel Peeling test 73 J/m2 Xie and Hawthorne (2003)
TiO2 Titanium Plasma spray Micro scratch 19.7 N Palanivelu and Kumar (2014)
TiO2 Stainless steel Sol–gel spraying Micro scratch Not Momeni, Saghafian,
determined. Golestani-Fard, Barati, and
No delami- Khanahmadi (2017)
nation
occurred.

because of the use of made-in-house assessment methods. With

this in mind, standard methods, such as ISO 11640:1993 (leather,
color fastness to cycles of to-and-fro rubbing) are available and
have been used to evaluate the abrasion resistance of an AMC on
leather against E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus.
The lack of information published on wear and abrasion of
AMC for FCS may be mitigated with results found in studies on
wear and abrasion of coatings and surfaces for medical applica-
tions. Lazzeri et al. (2006) have proposed methods to quantify the
mechanical degradation of polymer coatings for medical devices
using the tip of atomic force microscopes as a tool to induce wear
on the coatings. Wear of the surface can be subsequently quanti-
fied by measuring the size of the damaged areas with the use of
microscopic imaging techniques (Ilie, 2010; Wang, Peng, Wang,
& Jiang, 2013; Yuan, Jin, Tipper, & Yan, 2010). Wear not only
depends on the material used to fabricate the coating, but also
on the fabrication conditions, such as the sintering temperature
in the case of firing sol–gel coatings. As the temperature of cal-
cination of the coatings was increased up to 900 °C, the lowest
wear rate obtained was around 3 × 10−4 mm3 /Nm (Çomaklı,
Yetim, & Çelik, 2014). The addition of tungsten oxide (WO3 )
to TiO2 coatings, deposited by electrophoresis, increased the vol-
ume of wear compared to coatings of pure TiO2 , but the wear
volume, measured using scratch tests, decreased as the amount of
WO3 increased among TiO2 –WO3 composite coatings (Hafedh,
Kaouther, & Ahmed, 2017). Another study demonstrated that
pure titanium surfaces coated using plasma spray deposition, with
Al2 O3 (13 wt% TiO2 ), displayed a decrease in wear rate of 1.7
times (Palanivelu & Kumar, 2014). Similar results were obtained
by coating pure titanium with TiO2 using sol–gel and ionic post
treatment methods. Evaluation of the wear ratio using a Taber-
like test indicated that the wear ratio decreased by almost half with
respect to the uncoated titanium surface (Çomaklı et al., 2018).
Hardness, fracture toughness, and related properties. Fracture
toughness, hardness, plastic deformation, and other related prop-
erties are conveniently assessed by nanoindentation techniques
(Brotzen, 1994). Depending on the specific property that needs
to be evaluated, the tip is used to indent or to scratch the up-
per layer of the coating, usually no deeper than one-tenth of
the total thickness. The main requisite of the indentation test is
that the tip should not interact with the substrate during testing
. Figures 2 and 3 further elaborate on the nanoindentation tech-
Figure 2–Nano indentation analysis requires a precise knowledge of the
nanoindenter tip’s geometrical features. Once the tip touches the coating
at the contact point, the coating is indented until the highest load is
detected. In addition, the indentation depth parameters, hr , hc , A, As ,
roughly estimated using a load indentation curve, can be determined by
means of microscopic measurements of the indenter.s tip at max load and
max depth.
nique. Details on the nanoindentation technique can be found in
the ASM Handbook (Brotzen, 1994).
Plastic deformation is studied using stress relaxation and creep
tests. Stress relaxation tests consists of measuring the change in
load while the coating is pressed with the indenter at a con-
stant rate during a specified length of time. On the other hand,
during the creep test, the penetration rate is recorded while the
indenter load is kept constant. Graphs of plastic depth (usually
given in nm) as a function of time (usually given in seconds) at
different constant loads can be plotted. Beam-bending methods
are useful to determine elastic and yield properties of coatings,
such as the Young’s modulus, E. Though different from scratch
and indentation tests, a nanoindenter can also be used to bend a
micromachined-cantilever beam. The free end of the beam, fixed
from one of its ends, is forced downward by the indenter’s tip, and
the deflection, δ, is recorded. The Young’s modulus can be deter-
mined from the slope of the curve δ(P), where P is the applied
load. Then, the Young’s modulus of the coating can be determined
by comparing the Young’s modulus of the bare substrate and that
of the coated substrate.
The mechanical properties of coatings vary depending on the
coating material, the deposition method, and the resultant mi-

16 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 15–Hardness and elastic properties of selected coatings with potential application as antimicrobial coatings.a

Young’s
Hardness—H modulus—E Effective elastic
Coating Deposition method Structure description (GPa) (GPa) modulus—Er (Gpa) Reference
ZrO2 Dip coating sol–gel Nonporous 5.0 220 – Garcı́a-Heras et al.
(2003)
ZrO2 -SiO2 Dip coating sol–gel Nonporous 4.9 85 – Garcı́a-Heras et al.
(2003)
SiO2 Dip coating sol–gel Nonporous 4.8 70 – Garcı́a-Heras et al.
(2003)
SiO2 Spin coating sol–gel Mesoporous disordered – – 3.2 Williford et al.
structure (2005)
SiO2 Spin coating sol–gel Mesoporous hexagonal – – 3.5 Williford et al.
structure (2005)
TiO2 Electrophoretic 21 nm average particle 1.03 108 – Hafedh et al. (2017)
deposition size
TiO2 Dip coating sol–gel Anatase and rutile, dense 7.8 to 8.8 – – Çomaklı et al.
coating with grain size (2018)
approximately 20 to
40 nm
TiO2 doped with Fe Chemical vapor Dense rutile 8.9 to 12.3 Approximately – Sobczyk-Guzenda
or Cu/F deposition 150 to 180 et al. (2018)
PTFE/ Spray gun Polymer from free radical 0.06 – 10 Yeo and Polycarpou
Pyrrolidone-1 polymerization (2013)
PTFE/ Spray gun Polymer from free radical 0.05 – 3.6 Yeo and Polycarpou
Pyrrolidone-2 polymerization (2013)
PTFE/MoS2 Spray gun Polymer from free radical 0.05 – 3.5 Yeo and Polycarpou
polymerization (2013)
a When possible, TiO was chosen as the AMC’s material of construction to facilitate comparisons.
2

quently the methods of choice when depositing a sol–gel based

Figure 3–The information recorded during a nanoindentation test can be
summarized in a load versus indentation curve. The measurement starts
at the contact point with zero load. Load is continuously increased
through the indenter.s tip until “breaking” the coating. Then the indenter
tip is continuously unloaded until its complete separation from the
coating. The max load depth, the maximum load, and the effective elastic
modulus (calculated form the tangent S line) can be determined from
theplotted data.
crostructure. Furthermore, these parameters are not independent.
For instance, the desired microstructure is frequently the parameter
optimized, with the coating material fixed. As such, the deposi-
tion method is often chosen to achieve the desired microstructure.
Consider polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coatings produced by
spray gun application. The precursors are typically nonviscous,
and the resultant coatings have significant effective elastic modu-
lus, Er , but possess low values of hardness, H (Yeo & Polycarpou,
2013). On the other hand, dip coating and spin coating are fre-
coating, depending on the viscosity of the precursor. Dip coating
is typically employed for more viscous precursors, as it is more
difficult to achieve uniform coatings with highly viscous inks us-
ing spin coating. The hardness of spin-coated/dip-coated coatings
varies, with typical hardness values from 5 to 9 GPa (Çomaklı
et al., 2018; Garcı́a-Heras, Rincón, Romero, & Villegas, 2003;
Williford et al., 2005). Finally, less common deposition methods
include electrophoretic deposition and chemical vapor deposi-
tion, among others (Hafedh et al., 2017; Sobczyk-Guzenda et al.,
2018). Table 15 lists the results of various coating materials, depo-
sition methods, microstructures and their corresponding hardness,
Young’s modulus, and effective elastic modulus.
Hydrophobicity. Liquids have deformable boundaries. The
force that acts on a liquid body’s surface to minimize its exter-
nal surface area is called surface tension. When a liquid substance
contacts a solid surface, there are three forces that act on a molecule
at the point where the liquid, the solid, and the surrounding at-
mosphere meet: the surface tension at the liquid–gas (atmosphere)
interface, liquid–solid interface, and the solid–gas interface. The
mathematical expression describing the relationship between the
forces is, γ lg cos θ = γ sg – γ ls , where γ lg , γ ls , and γ sg are the
surface tensions at the liquid–gas (atmosphere) interface, liquid–
solid interface, and the solid–gas interface, respectively, and θ is the
contact angle (see Figure 4). From θ , the coating can be described
qualitatively as hydrophobic or hydrophilic, depending on whether
the coating shows repulsion or affinity for water, respectively.
In 1989, Kirtley and McGuire (1989) proposed the measure-
ment of contact angle as a descriptor of the liquid–solid interac-
tions on FCS. Subsequently, McGuire and Sproull (1990) exam-
ined the influence of temperature on the same parameter for food
contact applications. From there, many articles have been pub-
lished with a variety of different results. Analysis of these articles
indicates a pattern, namely, the contact angle and the surface free
energy cannot be correlated with the attachment of bacteria on
FCS. Experiments studying the attachment of L. monocytogenes and
Salmonella on stainless steel and polymers (Sinde & Carballo, 2000),


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 17
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Figure 4–Contact angle analysis involves the measurement of the angle
formed between the liquid surface and the solid surface. The amplitude of
the measured angle, θ , serves as a quantitative parameter to classify the
solid surface as hydrophobic (bad wetting) or hydrophilic (good wetting).
L. monocytogenes on stainless steel, different kinds of rocks, glass,
and polypropylene (Silva, Teixeira, Oliveira, & Azeredo, 2008),
and Salmonella Enteritidis and L. monocytogenes on two different
types of stainless steel (Casarin et al., 2016), all concluded that
there was no correlation between the substrates’ hydrophobic-
ity and bacterial attachment. Additionally, Perera-Costa, Bruque,
Gonzalez-Martin, Gomez-Garcia, and Vadillo-Rodriguez (2014)
claim that reductions in cell adhesion to textured surfaces occur
regardless of surface hydrophobicity. Spores of B. cereus and Bacillus
subtilis attach in similar amounts to surfaces, irrespective of the sur-
faces’ hydrophobicity (Faille et al., 2002). However, this tendency
cannot be taken as definitive because there are results that show
that E. coli (Faille et al., 2002) and Staphylococcus epidermidis (Cerca,
Pier, Vilanova, Oliveira, & Azeredo, 2005) adhere more readily
on hydrophobic surfaces as compared to hydrophilic surfaces. In
conclusion, the contact angle, though intuitively relevant, is not
a good parameter with which to assess whether a surface is easy
to clean or prevents the adhesion of bacteria. Therefore, surface
topography is the preferred characteristic to correlate with the
ease-of-decontamination of FCS.
Microstructure. The microscopic structure of a coating is de-
fined by several interrelated properties, including porosity, di-
mension and form of grain, phase composition, surface rough-
ness, thickness, and coatings defects. Coating properties, such as
hardness, surface energy, and wear resistance, are influenced by
the coating’s microscopic structure, chemical composition, and
the presence of impurities (Aegerter, 2017). Additionally, the
microstructure is highly influenced by the coating’s deposition
method, as will be shown in the following section.
The characterization of microstructure properties relies on the
observation of a coating’s surface under a microscope, the assess-
ment of the surface of a coating using a fine stylus, or by adsorption
of nitrogen or water into the coating’s voids for the specific case of
porosity and porous volume. Consider the following case studies
that list typical microstructure characterization techniques and the
associated data provided by the various techniques. In one experi-
ment, the incorporation of chelating agents allowed the deposition
of relatively thick (1.2 µm) barium titanate (BaTiO3 ) crack-free
coatings on glass using a sol–gel dip coating method (Kozuka,
Kajimura, Hirano, & Katayama, 2000). Thickness was measured
using contact profilometer, and crack formation was observed by
SEM and surface profilometry, whereas internal stress was mea-
sured using a bending-substrate technique. In another experiment,
pore size and shape, crystal phase, and the microstructure of TiO2
coatings, deposited on stainless steel substrates by plasma spray
18 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
deposition, were investigated by optical microscopy, transmission
electron microscopy (TEM), and X-ray diffraction (Ctibor et al.,
2012).
Ellipsometry is employed to estimate the thickness of antimi-
crobial TiO2 coatings (Cao et al., 2014) and has been proposed as
a method to determine cleanliness of FCS (McGuire, Al-Malah,
Bodyfelt, & Gamroth, 1990). In the study presented by Cao et al.
(2014), different FCS were covered with milk and washed after-
ward following different cleaning procedures, and the refractive
indices of the surfaces before and after the washing treatments
were compared and used as a quantitative indicator of cleanliness.
It was found that the substrate’s microstructure played a significant
role in the cleanliness achieved.
The porous volume of various semiconductor-based AMC has
been quantified by nitrogen sorption (Liu et al., 2008). Although
the use of rough and absorbent surfaces is restricted by FCS regula-
tions (Australia New Zealand Food Authority, 2016; Secretarı́a de
Salud, 2010; U.S. Congress, 2011a), a positive correlation has been
demonstrated between the active area of photocatalytic coatings
and their antibacterial action (Zhang, Tu, Zhang, Zheng, & Yang,
2014). Given this, efforts have been devoted to increase the specific
surface area by means of the formation of porous structures.
Migration. Migration refers to the mass transport of the antimi-
crobial substance from the AMC structure into the food and/or
to the head space inside a closed container by means of molecu-
lar, convective, or a combination of both types of transport under
storage conditions. The rate of migration is affected by the envi-
ronmental conditions at which the coating-food system is kept, the
nature of the food, the coating’s mechanical and chemical prop-
erties, and its antimicrobial characteristics (Nerin, Silva, Manso,
& Becerril, 2016). To measure rates of migration, food simulants
are placed in contact with the coating to be evaluated under con-
ditions of temperature and elapsed time that resemble or exceed
those to be expected during the actual use of the coating. The
concentration of the components of the coatings that migrate into
the food simulants is usually determined by chromatography.
A typical migration test consists of three steps:
(i) Preparation of the food sample and surface sample
(ii) Contacting the actual foodstuff or a simulant and the mate-
rial to be tested at specified test conditions and for specified
durations
(iii) Assessment of the amount of mass transferred from the FCS
to the food or the simulant food using approved analytical
techniques.
EU directives 82/572/EEC and 82/711/EEC mandate that ref-
erence samples are exclusively plastic, food simulants vary (typi-
cally, distilled water, dilute acetic acid, ethanol, and rectified olive
oil or some combination thereof), typical testing temperatures are
from 5 to 121 °C, testing times range from 30 min to 10 days,
and analytical methods to determine contaminant concentration
in the food product are not specified. In contrast, the guidelines
in the United States specify the test equipment as a migration cell
with the reference sample being a plaque with known proper-
ties (FDA, 2007b). Food samples vary (10% to 50% ethanol and
food oil) with the testing temperature being set at the most severe
conditions expected and the testing time being the longest time
period expected in real applications. The analytical method to be
used to determine contaminant concentration is also unspecified,
but the accuracy, precision, and selectivity must be provided.

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 16–Overview and comparison of migration tests within the European Union and the United States of America.

Migration test Extractant analytical

rules Test equipment Test sample Food sample Test temperature Testing time method
82/572/EEC and Not specified Exclusively made of Depending on the Depending on the Depending on the Not specified.
82/711/EEC plastic intended food intended intended
application. application: application:
Distilled water, 3% from 5 121 °C. from 30 min to
(w/v) acetic acid, 10 days.
15% ethanol, and
rectified olive oil.
Guidance for Migration cell A plaque of known Food simulants should The most severe The longest period Not specified, but
industry: formulation, be used depending condition of time should be described
preparation of thickness, surface of the intended expected, or expected or its accuracy,
premarket area, and food application. depending on 10 days. precision, and
submissions for polymeric 10% to 50% the intended selectivity.
food contact properties (if ethanol and food oil application:
surfaces. applicable) from 20 to
40 °C.

Table 17–Selection of results from migration tests of plastic additives regarded as food contamination.

Migration Detection method in

Contaminant Legal limit observed extracting medium Food Surface Reference
Di(2-ethylhexyl) 50 µg/kg of food Up to 1,500 Gas chromatography Rice, starch, barley, Cardboard boxes (Fiselier et al., 2009)
maleate µg/kg noodles, spaghetti, without functional
pizza, frozen fish, barrier
biscuits, among
others.
Mainly epoxidized The sum of all Up to 1,314 Liquid and gas 411 different food Gasket of lids (McCombie et al.,
soybean oil migrated mg/kg chromatography products 2012)
(ESBO) and plasticizers <60
other 19 mg/kg of food
different
plasticizers
Melamine and Melamine: 2.5 mg/kg; Melamine: not Liquid Food simulant: acetic Melamine plastic Garcı́a Ibarra et al.
formaldehyde formaldehyde: detected to chromatography acid 3% (w/v) kitchenware (2016)
15 mg/kg of food 13.5 mg/kg
Formaldehyde:
0.165 to
150 mg/kg

Table 18–Selection of results obtained from migration investigations of antimicrobial substances considered as food additives.

Detection method in
Additive Migration observed extracting medium Food Surface Reference
Cinnamon and clove 0.88 to 1.19 mg/g UV–Vis spectroscopy Distilled water Cassava starch Souza et al. (2013)
essential oils
Ethyl lauryl arginate 0.93 to 1.62 µg/g Liquid Simulants: ethanol Polyethylene Aznar et al. (2013)
chromatography 10% and 95% v/v,
and chicken
Silver 1.66 to 31.46 ng/cm2 Mass spectrometry Simulants: 1.66 to Food containers Echegoyen and Nerin
31.46 ng/cm2 (2013)
Silver <0.1 to 28 ng/cm2 Voltammetry Pure and acidified Poly (lactic acid) Martinez-Abad,
water (pH 2.5) Lagaron, and Ocio
(2014)

Several case studies show the application of these guidelines
to both general food contaminants and antimicrobial substances
considered as food contaminants. Fiselier, Rutschmann, McCom-
bie, and Grob (2009) studied the migration of di(2-ethylhexyl)
maleate from cardboard boxes into various food products, includ-
ing rice, frozen fish, and biscuits, among others (Fiselier et al.,
2009). The established legal limit of the contaminant is 50 µg/kg
of food; however, gas chromatography revealed that the contam-
inant concentration was as high as 50 µg/kg of food. Other ex-
amples of general contaminant migration into food are available,
including an extensive study of the migration of plasticizers from
lid gaskets into 411 different food products, characterized with liq-
uid and gas chromatography (McCombie et al., 2012), and a study
of melamine and formaldehyde from plastic kitchenware into a
dilute acetic acid solution, characterized with liquid chromatog-
raphy (Garcı́a Ibarra, Rodrı́guez Bernaldo de Quirós, & Sendón,
2016). These results are summarized in Table 17. Several studies of
the migration of antimicrobial substances into food exist, such as
studies of the migration of essential oils (Souza, Goto, Mainardi,
Coelho, & Tadini, 2013), ethyl lauryl arginate (Aznar, Gomez-
Estaca, Velez, Devesa, & Nerin, 2013), and silver (Echegoyen &
Nerin, 2013) from various substrate materials of construction,
including cassava starch, polyethylene, and polylactic acid, respec-
tively (see Table 18).
Regulatory agencies demand toxicology data from antimicrobial
agents used on FCS, depending on the substance and its classifica-
tion according to Table 1. Regardless of whether the antimicrobial
agent is considered as an additive or food contaminant, the reg-
ulatory agencies, tolerance levels, monitoring, enforcement, and
the characterization methods suggested and approved vary greatly
by region, as explained in section 3 (Legal Framework Pertain-
ing to Food Contact Surfaces). Regardless of those variations, all


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 19
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
legal frameworks require knowledge of a food component’s toxi-
city, which in general terms, can be classified as acute, subacute,
or chronic (Watson, 2004). Additionally, these three toxicity ap-
proaches can be performed in three modes: in vitro (microor-
ganisms, cells, and biological molecules), in vivo (whole, living
organisms), and in silico (computer simulation) (Watson, 2004).
From these, in vivo testing (that is, feeding studies in laboratory
animals) is generally required by regulatory agencies (Armstrong,
1992; FDA, 2007a; OECD, 2019). However, in vivo testing is time
consuming; therefore, in vitro tests, in general, and cytotoxicity
tests, in particular, are used as prerequisite tests before specific
toxicological studies and in vivo testing are carried out (Cetin &
Bullerman, 2005). Cytotoxicity is a measure of the ability of a
substance to cause damage to cells due to its toxic properties. Cy-
totoxicity bioassays can be subdivided into the following types,
with regard to the specific cellular damage resulting from the toxic
effect: exclusion/inclusion dye, extracellular release of intracellular
marker, cell proliferation, RNA synthesis inhibition, and inhibi-
tion of boar spermatozoan motility (Severin, Souton, Dahbi, &
Chagnon, 2017).
For the specific case of coatings, any of the cytotoxicity bioas-
says mentioned above are performed with the extracts obtained
from the migration tests (Migration). Because there are innu-
merable antimicrobial agents that can migrate from the AMCs
to the food matrices (see Table 11), it is impossible to list cyto-
toxicity bioassays for each antimicrobial agent. It should be men-
tioned that Mittag et al. (2006) specifically addressed the migration
of chemical components from FCS coatings and corresponding
cytotoxicity bioassays, although the coatings were not intended
for antimicrobial purposes. In their study, Mittag et al. (2006)
evaluated the migration of multiple agents from can coatings
with different bioassays, including those related to cytotoxic-
ity, mutagenicity, and aquatic toxicity. Strong variations in the
cytotoxicity effects were detected depending on the cell type
tested.
In summary, the guidelines provided in Table 16 are useful, al-
beit vague. A survey of migration tests suggests that experiments
should be modeled as closely to real applications as possible, with
food simulants and surfaces giving an adequate representation of
mass transfer of contaminants into real food products. Similarly,
the testing temperature and time should be representative of the
temperatures and time that the actual food product will be ex-
posed to the contaminant. Popular analytical methods to quantify
contaminant concentration include liquid and gas chromatogra-
phy; however, other suitable methods are UV–Vis spectroscopy,
mass spectrometry, and voltammetry, as demonstrated by the case
studies listed in Table 17 and 18.
Surface roughness. Stainless steel is the most commonly used
material of construction for food processing equipment (Sarava-
cos & Kostaropoulos, 2016). The arithmetic roughness of stainless
steel surfaces varies widely based on the method employed to finish
the surface (Brotzen, 1994). To assess roughness, the mechanical
stylus (profilometer) is the instrument most widely used for indus-
trial purposes, whereas microscopic techniques, such as SEM and
scanning tunneling microscopy (STM), are much more common
in research laboratories. Light scattering is another technique that
is frequently used in both production and research environments.
Figure 5 shows a more detailed graphical list of the equipment
that are used to perform surface topography, commonly known as
profilometry, measurements.
Intuitively, the AMC average roughness is, in part, dependent
on the average roughness of the surface upon which it is de-
20 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
posited. However, it is expected that the coating would smooth
the FCS after its application because that is one of the require-
ments stated by FCS regulations. Smooth and rough are relative
concepts, but 0.1 to 100 µm are frequently used in practice. Am-
plitude in the z-direction (height variation) and spatial frequency
in x- and y-directions are the main features to consider when
measuring surface roughness. Hence, to compare roughness val-
ues measured with different equipment, the ranges of spatial fre-
quencies in x and y must be the same, because roughness is a
relative measurement. When that is not the case, roughness data
are presented in terms of a power spectral density function (PSD)
and their values can be compared even if the data come from
different methods, equipment, or if different spatial frequencies
were used. The cutoff, namely, the low-frequency limit of the
measurement, must be clearly stated as well. The spatial frequency
that is used as a reference to assign roughness values is called the
special frequency footprint. The roughness is expressed in propor-
tion to the footprint or by means of the PSD. When the spatial
frequency footprint is fixed by means of the scan area or cut-
off length, the surface topography can be expressed as an average
roughness Ra . The reader should refer to ISO 4287:1997 for de-
tailed descriptions of terms and definitions of texture descriptors
(ISO, 1997).
Cunault et al. (2018) argue that roughness (Ra ) alone is
not enough to establish coherent relations between bacterial
detachment and surface topography. Instead, Cunault et al. (2018)
suggest the use of reduced valley depths and reduced peak heights
as better descriptors. Previously, Crawford, Webb, Truong, Hasan,
and Ivanova (2012) suggested that the minimum topographical
parameters that must be reported for microbiological adhesion
to surfaces are the root mean square (RMS) roughness, the
summit density, and the developed area ratio. The discussion of
the importance of choosing sufficient roughness parameters to
describe a coating may come from attempts to explain intuitively
contradictory results. Truong et al. (2010) found that both S.
aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa ATCC 9025 were retained
in higher amounts on extremely polished commercial purity
titanium surfaces than on less smooth surfaces made of the same
material. In 2005, a study found that the size of pits intention-
ally placed on titanium coatings and the cells’ size influence
bacteria retention on titanium coatings (Whitehead, Colligon,
& Verran, 2005). Subsequent papers on purposely textured
coatings report inhibition of biofilm formation on textured
films (Xu & Siedlecki, 2012), that bacteria adhere selectively
depending on the topographical pattern encountered on the
coatings (Perera-Costa et al., 2014), that microbial retention
is affected by the surface chemistry and features of different
metal surfaces (Whitehead et al., 2015), and that the initial cell
adhesion process starts at the surface’s peaks (Ludecke et al., 2016).
These investigations suggest that patterned textures can alter
bacterial adhesion on coatings by reducing the area of contact
between surfaces and cell walls, but those treatments alone are not
enough to completely prevent bacterial deposition. The results
of various investigations on the effect of surface topography on
the adhesion of bacteria to surfaces (some of which are also
mentioned above) are shown in Table 19. It can be observed that
the surface roughness and the bacterial genus exert influence on
the cells’ attachment. However, cell attachment also seems to be
dependent on more than surface roughness and bacterial genus
alone.
To supplement the results reported in Table 19, a com-
parison of the materials and methods reported is shown in

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Figure 5–Graphical representation of the characterization techniques used to assess mechanical parameters comprised under the general term
“profilometry”. Contact and pseudo contact techniques are widespread for characterizing coatings that are not transparent.
Table 20. The detachment procedure is the most important pa-
rameter listed in Table 20, because detachment/attachment values
are the final outcomes reported in the listed investigations. A closer
look at the methods of determination of adherent bacterial cells
on the studied surfaces reveals that the values reported are not
comparable, as every research group uses profoundly different
methods to evaluate detachment values even if the reported val-
ues have the same units. For instance, results obtained by directly
observing the attached bacteria on sample surfaces, after rinsing
them with water for 30 min following the bacterial inoculation
(Whitehead et al., 2005; Whitehead et al., 2015), are not compa-
rable to those results from direct observation of adhered bacteria
after rinsing with water for 11 hr following the initial inocula-
tion (Ludecke et al., 2016; Truong et al., 2010), nor those results
for which the inoculation time is not reported (Schlisselberg &
Yaron, 2013), as bacterial population is a time-dependent quan-
tity. Therefore, comparisons among numerical values reported for
attachment results from roughness studies should be done with
caution and with special attention given to the details of specific
experiments.

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Influence of deposition method and coating material
on mechanical properties of AMCs
Deposition methods strongly influence the coating’s microstruc-
ture because each procedure yields differences in grain size, phase
composition, crystalline structures, crosslinked structures, amount
and size of pores, size of cracks, and other defects. Additionally,
each deposition method has several operational parameters that
allow nuances in the final coating obtained. In addition to mi-
crostructure, the surface topography and hardness of coatings also
depend on the deposition method. As such, the technology used
to deposit the AMC on substrates also plays an important role in
the resulting rates of migration of the AMC into food. The avail-
ability of multiple techniques to deposit coatings, the numerous
materials of construction exhibiting antimicrobial activity, and the
many units that express coatings’ mechanical properties leads to
the conclusion that reported values of hardness for AMCs are the
only values suitable for comparison when analyzing the influence
of the deposition method on the mechanical properties of AMCs.
Overview of deposition methods. The deposition methods listed
in Table 21 are different, primarily in the way that the coating
Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 21
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 19–Comparison of results obtained in different studies relating surface roughness and bacterial attachment.

Gudmundsdóttir et al. (2006)

Ra (µm) Rz (µm) Rpk (µm) Microorganism Attachment (log/sample)
0.7 to 8 5.4 to 6.5 – L. monocytogenes and Serratia liquefaciens Approximately 1.8
0.16 to 0.22 1.3 to 1.9 – L. monocytogenes and S. liquefaciens Approximately 2.2
0.16 to 0.22 1.3 to 1.9 – L. monocytogenes and S. liquefaciens Approximately 2.2
Truong et al. (2010)
Ra (nm) Rq (nm) Rpk (nm) Microorganism Attachment (×104
cells/mm2 )
222 223 – P. aeruginosa 0.37
83 84 – P. aeruginosa 0.06
222 223 – S. aureus 31
83 84 – S. aureus 15
Schlisselberg and Yaron (2013)
Ra (nm) Rz (nm) Rpk (nm) Microorganism Initial attachment (cells/cm2 )
106 1,907 115 S. Typhimurium Approximately 110
30 301 41 S. Typhimurium Approximately 110
13 145 21 S. Typhimurium Approximately 35
4 67 8 S. Typhimurium Approximately 35
Ludecke et al. (2016)
Ra (nm) Rq (nm) Rpk (nm) Microorganism Surface coverage (%)
1.6 2.0 – E. coli Approximately 40
1.8 2.3 – E. coli Approximately 35
2.4 3.0 – E. coli Approximately 30
4.8 6.1 – E. coli Approximately 18
1.6 2.0 – S. aureus Approximately 55
1.8 2.3 – S. aureus Approximately 18
2.4 3.0 – S. aureus Approximately 29
4.8 6.1 – S. aureus Approximately 32
Ra : average roughness.
Rz : peak-to-peak height.
Rpk : reduced summit height.
Rq : square mean roughness.

material is transformed into a fluid, a solution, or a suspension to
make it suitable for coating substrate surfaces. For instance, elec-
trodeposition requires the coating’s material of construction to be
dissolved in the form of ions to allow their migration to the surface
where they form the actual coating through a reduction–oxidation
reaction initiated by an applied voltage (Myung, 2006). Because
the coating is formed from dissolved ions and controlled with an
applied voltage, the coatings can be fine-tuned to a high extent.
However, the deposition of the ions cannot be directed, and the
particles randomly deposit on the surface, which can lead to the
formation of aggregates (Bull, 2011). A more recent technique,
vapor deposition, in general, and atomic layer deposition, in par-
ticular, relies on the displacement of gaseous molecules of highly
reactive precursors (Londergan, 2006). A stoichiometric quantity
of another reactive component, such as water, is deposited on
the uncoated substrate. The gaseous precursor is then allowed to
reach the substrate where the precursor readily reacts with the pre-
viously deposited reactants. The reaction leads to the formation of
a one-molecule thick coating on the substrate. When the process
is repeated, uniform and fine coatings can be obtained, although
the coating process can take several hours when relatively thick
coatings are needed (Collins, 2012). Another method that uses a
chemical reaction of precursors, the sol–gel method, can be in-
terpreted as a liquid-state analog of the vapor deposition process
(Collins, 2012). However, the sol–gel technique does not allow
control of the coating thickness at the molecular level, because the
liquid components must first react until the desired microstructure
in the gelled mixture has been achieved. The gel is then applied
on the substrate by dipping or spin coating. The final coating is
produced by subjecting the coated substrate to a high tempera-
ture heating process (around 500 to 1,000 °C; Brinker & Sherer,
1990). Another method, thermal spraying, uses melted particles
of the coating material of construction to form coatings by collid-
ing the particles with a target substrate (Tucker, 2015). When the
drops of melted material reach the substrate’s surface, they adhere
and solidify, forming the coating. Therefore, the coatings obtained
in this manner tend to be lamellar (Bull, 2011). Finally, the spray-
ing, dipping, and brushing methods are the simplest. Spraying and
dipping are especially useful for the industrial application of poly-
meric coatings and are also feasible options when the coating’s
material of construction is heat sensitive (Zeno & Frank, 2013).
Figure 6 is a schematic representation of the various coating de-
position methods.
Overview of coating materials. The material of construction
of the coating also affects its mechanical properties. Therefore,
to obtain some useful insight on the influence of the deposition
method on the mechanical properties of coatings, the material of
construction should be considered. Because TiO2 has been exten-
sively studied as the main constituent of AMCs deposited using
different methods, it was chosen as the main constituent of the
AMCs that are compared in Table 22. The direct comparison of
values shown in Table 22 is not straightforward due to the vari-
ety of units employed to measure the same mechanical property
(this comes from the diversity of characterization equipment and
techniques available, shown in Table 13) and also because very
few studies have been conducted to comprehensively assess the
mechanical properties of AMCs. However, it can be observed that
sol–gel coatings are much more resistant to wear when annealed

22 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 20–Overview of the investigations where the surface topography has been modified to observe the effect on the adherence of microorganisms.

Topography
Surface Treatment characterization Detachment
Coating/surface treatment method method Microorganism determination Result Reference
Titanium on silicon Regularly Magnetron Atomic force S. aureus, P. Directly Cells were Whitehead et al.
spaced pits sputtering microscopy aeruginosa, observing the retained (2005)
and features and surface after according to
Candida rinsing with their size and
albicans water after the pits’ size.
30 min of
inoculation.
Stainless steel Untreated, – Stylus Mixed culture Swabbing and The three different Guobjornsdottir
polished, and profilometer of L. mono- plating after surface et al. (2005)
glass beaded cytogenes 120 hr of treatments
and Gram- contact time. showed the
negative same level of
bacteria cell attachment
Pure titanium Polished and Equal channel X-ray S. aureus CIP Counted directly Around two times Truong et al.
unpolished angular photoelectron 65.8 and P. from the more cells were (2010)
pressing spectroscopy, aeruginosa surface after attached to the
atomic force ATCC 9025 rinsing with polished surface
microscopy, and water after than the rough
optical 11 hr surface.
profilometry
Stainless steel Polished and Bright-Alum, Atomic force S. Ty- Counted directly Four times less Schlisselberg
unpolished electro microscopy phimurium on the coupon initial and Yaron
polishing, after sensing attachment on (2013)
and sand with saline Bright-Alum
polishing solution and electro
polishing
surfaces than
the other
treatments.
Polydimethylsiloxane Geometrical Soft Atomic force S. epidermidis, Directly Cell adhesion Perera-Costa
on silicon patterns lithography microscopy E. coli, and observing the reduction of et al. (2014)
B. subtilis surface after 30% to 45%
dipping the with respect to
coatings twice the smooth
in phosphate control surface
buffered
saline solution
after 30 min
of inoculation.
Gold, titanium, Different Magnetron Light scattering L. monocyto- Directly The topography Whitehead et al.
molybdenum, silver, coatings sputtering and atomic genes, E. observing the did not (2015)
and iron on silicon material force coli, and S. surfaces after influence
yielded microscopy aureus rinsing with microbial
different water after 30 adhesion.
topography. min of
inoculation
Titanium on glass Variation of Physical vapor Atomic force E. coli and S. Microscopy Adhesion Ludecke et al.
deposition deposition microscopy aureus observations reduction of (2016)
rate and after 1, 3, 5, 7, 56% for E. coli
coating 9, and 11 hr and 41% for S.
thickness aureus.

at higher temperatures. Çomaklı et al. (2014) reported increasing
values from 7.9 to 11.5 GPa and from 176 to 206 GPa for hardness
and elastic modulus, respectively, when the annealing temperature
of TiO2 was increased from 500 to 900 °C. Çomaklı et al. (2014)
observed this same trend for abrasion and wear. This behavior is
explained by the fact that TiO2 crystal structure shifts from the
anatase phase to the rutile phase as temperature increases. It can
also be observed that sol–gel and dipping methods (specifically,
successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction) gave close values of
wear and roughness, although the same is not true for grain size.
Larger grain size resulted in harder and more wear-resistant AMC.
It should be noted that for this specific study, the dipping method
was repeated 80 times to produce a coating of the same thickness
as that produced by the sol–gel method. Then, both coatings were
annealed at 700 °C (Çomaklı et al., 2018). γ Al2 O3 /rutile TiO2
coatings show comparable hardness values (Palanivelu & Kumar,
2014) to those found by Çomakli et al. (2018), but completely dif-
ferent values for wear and abrasion. It is not possible to determine
whether the wear and abrasion values come from the deposition
method, the composition of the coating, or a combination of those
two variables. Finally, a large difference between the hardness of
coatings based on polymeric binders (Hung & Yemmireddy, 2015)
and sol–gel coatings can be observed. Sol–gel coatings are much
harder than polymeric coatings.
Studies and Potential Applications of AMCs for Food
Contact Applications
The potential applications of AMCs can be classified based on
five working principles that cover the entire range of interactions
with microorganisms that lead to the prevention of bacterial pro-
liferation on FCS: anti-adhesion, antimicrobial-loaded, contact
inactivation, photocatalytic, and multifunctional (Zhang, 2017;
see Table 23). Although several representative publications are re-
viewed in this section and more have been mentioned in the pre-
vious sections, only one study was identified where AMCs were


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 23
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 21–Classification and overview of the methods used to deposit antimicrobial coatings on food contact surfaces.

Parameters
Deposition General working influencing Coatings’ Advantages of the Disadvantages of the
methods principle microstructure microstructure method method Reference
Electrodeposition Reduction of metallic Composition of the Fine-grained coating Extremely fine coatings Limited to metallic Bull (2011)
ions at the surface electrolyte, or three- can be obtained. Fine electrolytes. Inhibitors
of the substrate current intensity, dimensional particles can be can be added to control
(cathode) of an bath crystalline incorporated into the coating’s structure to a
electrolytic cell. temperature, and structures. coating. certain extent. Larger
presence of cracks on coatings are
growth inhibitors frequent.
on the substrate’s
surface.
Spraying, dipping, Usually, a liquid Composition of the Amorphous or Versatility to adhere to Limited to organic Zeno and Frank
brushing, and mixture of resins, liquid mixture, crystalline plastics and metal coatings. Limited (2013)
hand rolling. volatile carrier, and viscosity of the structures. surfaces. Relatively control over
additives are placed mixture, and Crosslinked or simple to apply. High microstructure. Some
on the substrate’s molecular weight branched coating speeds. coatings use flammable
surface where of the resins. structures. Possibility to solvents.
evaporation of the incorporate different
carrier enhances solid materials into
the completion of the matrix of the
polymeric reactions. coating.
Sol-gel: dipping Coating’s chemical Type and Porous, dense, and Coatings with high Precursors are limited to Brinker and
and spinning. precursors are concentration of geometrically surface areas certain metal oxides Sherer (1990)
mixed with polar precursors, ordered structures obtainable. Obtained components. Relatively
solvents, forming a solvents, and can be obtained. by liquid phase long process comprising
suspension (sol) catalysts, aging reactions at room of several steps. Some
that gelates (gel). time of gel, temperature or close precursors are
The gel is suitable dipping and to room temperature. hazardous materials.
for coating the spinning rates, Precise composition
substrate. and annealing of coating can be
temperature of obtained.
the gel.
Thermal spraying: The powder coating Degree of particle’s Flat, lenticular Extremely fine Coatings may contain Bull (2011)
flame, particles are heated melting, viscosity particles. microstructures can voids and oxidized
high-velocity up to their melting of the liquid, and Anisotropic be achieved. The particles. Not suitable
combustion, point and ejected wetting of the lamellar structure. crystal phase can be for flammable coatings.
and plasma. against the surface. controlled to a certain
substrate’s surface. extent. The coating’s
thickness can be
controlled precisely.
Vapor deposition: The coating’s Nucleation of the Anisotropic array of Very even, highly dense, Substrate’s surface Bull (2011)
atomic layer, components are components, closely packed uniformly distributed extremely clean before
physical, evaporated at surface structure, columns coatings can be deposition. Hazardous
chemical, and vacuum pressure and evaporation perpendicular to obtained. process due to
sputtering. and then rate. the surface. flammable vapors.
condensed on the Vacuum chambers are
substrate’ surface. needed.

tested under actual degradation conditions arising from the de-
contamination methods (namely, rinsing, washing with chemical
agents, and brushing) that are routinely used on FCS at a brewing
facility. However, the researchers concluded that the presence of
the AMC did not affect microbial populations occurring in situ
(Priha et al., 2015).
Anti-adhesion
The anti-adhesion working principle consists of modifying the
FCS in such a way that the microorganisms are repelled from
the surface. The surface modification may consist of the appli-
cation of polymers, such as polyethylene glycol (Desai, Hossainy,
& Hubbell, 1992), carboxybetaine polymer (Cheng et al., 2009),
or the modification of the surface topography (Whitehead et al.,
2005). Although it remains uncertain whether the hydrophobicity
of surfaces made of uncoated FCS (namely, PVC, stainless steel,
natural rock, and so on) prevent bacterial adhesion, the applica-
tions shown in Table 23 claim favorable results for S. epidermidis,
S. aureus, and Pseudomonas when an active element (namely, the
polymers) is applied to the FCS. This is in contrast to those cases
mentioned previously (see section “Hydrophobicity”), where the
surfaces investigated were bare. Because the antimicrobial agent
on the FCS is not intended to migrate into the food but remain
as a coating, its legal status corresponds to those AMCs with on-
going effects from the surface, namely, its migration into the food
must be considered as contamination (see Table 1). This classi-
fication can be avoided when repellent properties are induced
by specific surface topography, although legal requirements man-
date that surfaces must be both smooth and nonabsorbent (see
Table 10).
Antimicrobial-loaded
When the coating’s matrix is loaded with an antimicrobial agent,
the antimicrobial substance must diffuse into the food and/or the
environment to be effective. The diffusive process may occur in-
discriminately, as in the case of the simple release, or controlled
by a stimulus, as in the controlled release mechanism of action
(Figure 7). In the simple release case, the AMC agent depletes
faster than the stimulation-sensitive AMC agent, where the ac-
tive agent is mobile only when certain circumstances are met.
Atefyekta et al. (2016) developed a highly porous TiO2 coating
on stainless steel in which gentamicin, vancomycin, and dapto-
mycin were embedded to prevent postsurgery infections after the
implantation of medical devices. The antimicrobial efficacy was
demonstrated against S. aureus and P. aeruginosa. The depletion
time was not considered as part of their investigation. On the

24 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Figure 6–Schematic representation of the different coating deposition methods. (A) Electrodeposition: the substrate serves as a working electrode,
meaning that it is the electrode to be coated, while the counter electrode closes the electric circuit. The reference electrode is used to measure the
electrical potential (V) with the aid of an ammeter; the electric current (I) is generated by means of an electrical source. (B) Spraying, brushing, and
roller deposition methods all involve laying down a coating on the substrate through different mechanical means. (C) Thermal spraying uses a spray
gun to mix the coating material with the media supply, which increases the mixture temperature to the melting point of the coating material and
ejecting it to the substrate or target, where the coating material solidifies. (D) Sol–gel method: In the dip-coating technique, the substrate is
submerged into the gelled sol and pulled upward to form the coating due to the force of gravity and the force induced by the shear stress present, and
by the continued polymeric reactions occurring. In the spin-coating method, the force of gravity is replaced by centrifugal force that spreads the
coating material, originally dispensed at the center of the substrate, to its edges. Shear stress and polymeric reactions are responsible for the coating
formation.

other hand, a polypeptide coating was deposited on titanium to Photocatalytic

be released in response to the concentration of blood components
(Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al., 2013). Both AMCs were intended for
medical implant applications. Consider the case where these two
coatings are applied to FCS: the migration of the active and in-
ert components of the AMC, namely, the TiO2 , the antibiotics,
and the peptide, into the food must be evaluated and compared
to the legal limits appearing in the corresponding regulations (see
Table 11).
Contact inactivation
The working principle of contact inactivation relies on the dam-
age that certain long-chain molecules can exert on microorganisms
when the active molecules attached contact the microorganisms.
Under this principle, the coating’s active agent must remain at-
tached to the surface to exert its antimicrobial action. Murata,
Koepsel, Matyjaszewski, and Russell (2007) describe their coating
as a polymeric brush that disrupts E. coli cell walls due to surface
charges rather than the length of the polymer chains used to fab-
ricate the molecular brush. Glinel et al. (2009) also refer to their
coatings as polymeric brushes that prevent biofouling and exhibit
antimicrobial activity due to the incorporation of magainin I into
the brushes. These coatings were successfully tested against Listeria
ivanovii and Bacillus cereus. Peptide and magainin I are listed in the
references given in Table 11, under the classification of substance
with ongoing effects from the surface.
AMCs based on the photocatalytic working principle aim to re-
solve the issue of the depletion of the active substance. TiO2 is the
flagship component of photocatalytic AMCs due to its high rate
of reactive oxygen species production (Li, Zhang, Niu, & Chen,
2012). TiO2 and the other photoactive semiconductors, such as
zinc oxide (ZnO), magnesium oxide (MgO), and copper oxide
(CuO), require the simultaneous presence of a source of water
and UV light to generate hydrogen peroxide (H2 O2 ), which is
responsible for the antimicrobial effect. Priha et al. (2015) placed
stainless steel coupons coated with TiO2 on equipment in a brew-
ing facility to observe the effects of the cleaning procedures of
the equipment on the wear of the AMCs. Although the coatings
resisted the rinsing, washing, and brushing cleaning procedures,
the antimicrobial efficacy of the TiO2 could not be demonstrated
for the naturally occurring bacterial populations at the brewing
facility. In this application, TiO2 must be approved by legislation
as an antimicrobial substance exerting its effects from the surface
(see Table 11).
Multifunctional
The working principles described above can be combined into
a single AMC to synergize the effects of individual working prin-
ciples. For instance, Whitehead et al. (2015) modified the sur-
face topography of silver coatings to reduce cell attachment while


C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 25
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

Table 22–Selection of mechanical properties measurements from different research groups’ investigations.a

Mechanical property
Deposition Surface Contact Abrasion and
method Coating topographyb angle wear Adhesion Hardness (GPa) Microstructure Migration Reference
Dipping TiO2 and – – 1.53 to 14.0 mg 2B to 4B 0.14 to 1.08 Compact structures, – Yemmireddy et al.
binders with or without (2015)
aggregates; 61% to
79% of TiO2
coverage area;
thickness: 50 to
107 µm
TiO2 Ra : 0.21 µm – Approximately – 7.8 Grain size: 21 nm; – Çomaklı et al.
anatase 1.75 × 10−3 thickness: 1.8 µm (2018)
and mm3 /Nm
rutile
Sol–gel TiO2 Ra : 0.19 µm – Approximately – 8.8 Grain size: 42 nm; – Çomaklı et al.
anatase 1.2 × 10−3 thickness: 1.8 µm (2018)
and mm3 /Nm
rutile
TiO2 Ra : 0.16 to – 2.5 to 8.5 × – 7.9 to 11.5 Thickness: 1.2 to 2.1 – Çomaklı et al.
anatase 0.23 µm 10−4 µm (2014)
and mm3 /Nm
rutile
TiO2 Ra : 10.17 to <5° – – – Thickness: – Atefyekta et al.
anatase 19.74 nm approximately 200 (2016)
and (0.5 × 0.5 to 700 nm; pore
antibi- µm) size: 4.0 to 7.08 nm;
otics pore surface
coverage: 18% to
42%
Thermal γ Al2 O3 - Ra : 8.94 µm – 6.9 × 10−9 17.34 N 5.45 Spherical particles – Palanivelu and
spraying 13wt% mm3 /Nm with Kumar (2014)
rutile agglomerations.
TiO2 TiO2 completely
melted, Al2 O3
partially melted.
TiO2 Rq : 10 to 39 10 to – – – Thickness: 0.9 to 1.6 – De Falco et al.
anatase nm 33° µm; grain size: 30 (2018)
nm
Vapor TiO2 – – – – – Grain size: 50 to 100 – Zhang, Cooke,
deposition anatase nm; thickness: Carmichael, and
and approximately 800 Parkin (2013)
rutile nm
TiO2 – – 0.5 to 1.5 wear 21.2 N 3.43 to 6.67 Thickness: 2.50 to – Chung et al.
anatase index 7.50 µm; columnar (2009)
grain
a Titanium dioxide was the only material of construction listed to allow for more direct comparison among the results obtained when the deposition method was changed.
b Values of R are not directly comparable.
a

inactivating L. monocytogenes, E. coli, and S. aureus by the release of
silver ions. In another case, chitosan released from a photocatalytic
ZnO coating was tested against Salmonella enterica, E. coli, and
S. aureus with positive results (Al-Naamani, Dobretsov, & Dutta,
2016). Although a good approach in theory, multifunctional coat-
ings are more complex to fabricate. In practice, it is simpler to
obtain synergistic effects from different decontamination methods
(UV irradiation, washing with detergents, and so on) rather than
trying to unite more than one working principle in a single AMC.
Conclusions
As this review discusses, the assessment of the antimicrobial
properties of AMCs for FSC is a necessary step to demonstrate
the coatings’ effectiveness. However, this alone is not enough,
particularly when researchers are interested in translating a novel
AMC to commercial applications. In these cases, the assessment
must be made in conjunction with appropriate mechanical stability
tests under conditions similar to those of the expected application
conditions, including those conditions that arise from the use of
complementary decontamination methods. Doing so ensures that
the AMCs under investigation not only meet the performance
metrics required in terms of antimicrobial activity, but also comply
with the legal framework surrounding the use of AMCs for FCS.
Given this need, it is imperative that researchers have a good
understanding of the legal framework of AMCs used in FCS. A
deeper understanding will allow researchers to set performance
objectives during the initial design of the AMC, allowing the
coating to be prepared in such a way that it meets as many of
the performance metrics as possible for real-world application.
Unfortunately, many studies overlook this opportunity, resulting
in a lack of detailed studies examining the mechanical stability
and mechanical properties of AMCs in favor of demonstrating the
coatings’ antimicrobial effects. Although the antimicrobial activity
is important, the AMC must be developed to maintain microbial
levels under regulatory specifications, as a component working in
tandem with processing conditions and other FCS decontamina-
tion methods.
Therefore, the AMC must be regarded not as an isolated el-
ement that entirely solves the issue of microbial contamination,
but rather, as an interacting element of a group of physical
and chemical hygienic actions, of which the AMC must syn-
ergize with and withstand. The mechanical stability of AMCs
is explicitly constrained by national and regional legal require-
ments. AMC researchers/designers must remain aware of the
composition and features allowed for the coatings in the re-
gions where it is expected to be applied to facilitate the

26 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
 
Table 23–Selection of publications on antimicrobial coatings with potential applications for food contact surfaces.a

Working principle
Anti-adhesion
Substrate/Type of
Mechanism of action Limitations Working agent application Microorganism tested Reference
Passive repellence by changing Stability of the surface property Polyethylene glycol PET/Ongoing effect from S. epidermidis, S. aureus, Desai et al. (1992)
surface energy the surface and P. aeruginosa
Carboxybetaine polymer Glass/Ongoing effect P. aeruginosa and P. Cheng et al. (2009)
from the surface putida

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®

Surface topography Silicon/Ongoing effect S. aureus, P. aeruginosa, Whitehead et al. (2005)
modification from the surface and C. albicans
Antimicrobial-loaded Simple release. The antimicrobial Indiscriminate leaching of the Low molecular weight Stainless steel/Ongoing S. aureus and P. Atefyekta et al. (2016)
agent charged into coating’s antimicrobial substance. Depletion antibiotics effect from the surface aeruginosa
matrix transfers continuously until of the antimicrobial agent.
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

depletion Emergence of new resistant

Contact inactivation
Photocatalytic
Multifunctional
a Some of the coatings have been developed with medical applications in mind. Application types correspond to classifications given in Table 1.
Controlled release. The antimicrobial The optimal amount of release
agent charged into the coating’s
matrix transfers in response to
stimuli until depletion.
Cell disruption by contact with active The coating’s action is mass-transfer
agent
Continuous generation of reactive
oxygen species to damage the
cell’s wall
A combination of two or more
mechanisms of action
microorganisms
Silver metal Glass/Ongoing effect E. coli, L. monocytogenes, Roldan et al. (2014)
from the surface C. perfringens, and B.
anthracis
Nisin, allyl isothiocyanate, Glass/Packaging Salmonella enterica Jin and Gurtler (2011)
and zinc oxide
HHC-36 Titanium/Ongoing effect S. aureus and P. Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al.
depends on multiple factors. (KRWWKWWRR-NH2 ) from surface aeruginosa (2013)
Depletion of the antimicrobial peptide
agent. Emergence of new resistant
microorganisms
Ponericin G1 peptide Silicon/Ongoing effect S. aureus Shukla et al. (2010)
from the surface
Olygo (ethylene glycol) Silicon/Ongoing effect L. ivanovii and E. coli Laloyaux et al. (2010)
methacrylate from the surface
Quaternary ammonium Glass/Ongoing effect E. coli Murata et al. (2007)
limited, to the layer which the polymers from the surface
antimicrobial agent reaches.
Magainin I peptide Silicon/Ongoing effect L. ivanovii and B. cereus Glinel et al. (2009)
from the surface
Poor action under natural light. UV Titanium dioxide Stainless steel/Ongoing Acinetobacter sp., lactic Priha et al. (2015)
light is required to enhance the effect from the surface acid bacteria, and
photocatalytic effect. enterobacteria
Zinc dioxide Glass/Ongoing effect S. aureus and E. coli ATCC Evstropiev et al. (2017)
from the surface 25922
Optimization is not straightforward Silver metal and Silicon/Ongoing effect L. monocytogenes, E. Whitehead et al. (2015)
topography from the surface coli, and S. aureus
modification
Chitosan and ZnO PE/Packaging S. enterica, E. coli, and S. Al-Naamani et al. (2016)
aureus

Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 27

Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

F load
FCS food contact surface(s)
FDA Food and Drug Administration
GRAS generally recognized as safe
h indentation depth or displacement
H hardness
HDPE high density polyethylene
PE polyethylene
PET polyethylene terephthalate
PP polypropylene
PSD power spectral density
PTFE polytetrafluoroethylene
PVC polyvinyl chloride
R wear resistance
Ra average roughness
Rpk reduced summit height
Rq square mean roughness
Rz peak to peak height
S tangent line to nanoindentation up-loading curve
SEM scanning electron microscopy
STM scanning tunneling microscopy
TEM transmission electron microscopy
UV ultraviolet
Figure 7–Schematic illustration of the two different diffusion mechanisms
of loaded antimicrobial agent coatings. In the simple release mechanism, References
(A), the diffusion of the antimicrobial agent is time dependent, whereas in
the stimulation sensitive mechanism, (B), the diffusion is stimuli Aegerter, M. A. (2017). Characterization of the mechanical properties of
sol-gel coatings. In L. Klein, M. Aparicio, & A. Jitianu (Eds.), Handbook of
dependent. For the sake of simplicity, the illustration shows that the
sol-gel science and technology (pp. 1527–1545). Berlin, Germany: Springer
entire coating diffuses. However, cases in which the antimicrobial agent International Publishing.
alone diffuses and the coating matrix remains on the substrate have also
been reported (Atefyekta et al., 2016; Kazemzadeh-Narbat et al., 2013). Al-Naamani, L., Dobretsov, S., & Dutta, J. (2016). Chitosan-zinc oxide
nanoparticle composite coating for active food packaging applications.
Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, 38, 231–237.
implementation of their coatings into real-world processes. In https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2016.10.010
general, all legal frameworks seek the same objective: innocu- Alzubeidi, Y. S., Udompijitkul, P., Talukdar, P. K., & Sarker, M. R. (2018).
Inactivation of Clostridium perfringens spores adhered onto stainless steel
ous food processes and products. However, knowing the specific surface by agents used in a clean-in-place procedure. International Journal of
differences is imperative to advancing the field and delivering out- Food Microbiology, 277, 26–33.
standing AMC performance as a new route to reducing foodborne https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.04.016
illnesses worldwide. Anne Pauline, S., Kamachi Mudali, U., & Rajendran, N. (2013). Fabrication
of nanoporous Sr incorporated TiO2 coating on 316L SS: Evaluation of
bioactivity and corrosion protection. Materials Chemistry and Physics, 142(1),
Acknowledgments 27–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matchemphys.2013.06.026
The authors gratefully acknowledge Comexus (Comisión Armstrong, D. J. (1992). Food ingredient safety evaluation. Guidelines from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. ACS Symposium Series, American
México Estados Unidos para el Intercambio Académico y Cul- Chemical Society, Washington, DC.
tural) and the Fulbright Program for financial support through its Assent. (2016). Introduction to food contact materials regulations. Retrieved from
graduate fellowship program. www.assentcompliance.com
Atefyekta, S., Ercan, B., Karlsson, J., Taylor, E., Chung, S., Webster, T. J., &
Andersson, M. (2016). Antimicrobial performance of mesoporous titania
Author Contributions thin films: Role of pore size, hydrophobicity, and antibiotic release.
E. Torres Domı́nguez and P. Nguyen wrote the manuscript and International Journal of Nanomedicine, 11, 977–990.
drew the figures. H. Hunt and A. Mustapha provided compre- https://doi.org/10.2147/IJN.S95375
hensive reviews. All the authors were involved in the analyses, Australian Government. (2003). Legislation Act 2003, title 139. Federal
discussions, and manuscript revisions. Register of Legislation.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2018C00338
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority. (2018). ANZFS
Conflict of Interest Code, Schedule 20. Maximum residue limits.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01641
Aznar, M., Gomez-Estaca, J., Velez, D., Devesa, V., & Nerin, C. (2013).
Migrants determination and bioaccessibility study of ethyl lauroyl arginate
Nomenclature (LAE) from a LAE based antimicrobial food packaging material. Food and
AMC antimicrobial coating Chemical Toxicology, 56, 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.
CFR Code of Federal Regulations 02.018
CFU colony forming unit Barros-Velazquez, J. (Ed.) (2016). Antimicrobial food packaging (1st ed.).
Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
CIP clean in place
Bastarrachea, L., Dhawan, S., & Sablani, S. S. (2011). Engineering properties
Er effective elastic modulus of polymeric-based antimicrobial films for food packaging: A review. Food
E Young’s modulus

28 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019 

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Engineering Reviews, 3(2), 79–93.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-011-9034-8
Beltrame, C. A., Martelo, E. B., Mesquita, R. A., Barbosa, J., Steffens, C.,
Toniazzo, G., . . . Cansian, R. L. (2014). Adhesion of Listeria monocytogenes
to cutting board surfaces and removal by different sanitizers. Journal für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 10(1), 41–47.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-014-0923-7
Bera, S., Rout, T. K., Udayabhanu, G., & Narayan, R. (2016). Water-based
& eco-friendly epoxy-silane hybrid coating for enhanced corrosion
protection & adhesion on galvanized steel. Progress in Organic Coatings, 101,
24–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.porgcoat.2016.07.010
Boulding, K. E. (1945). The concept of economic surplus. American Economic
Association, 35(5), 851–869.
Brasil, C. C., Barin, J. S., Jacob-Lopes, E., Menezes, C. R., Zepka, L. Q.,
Wagner, R., . . . Cichoski, A. J. (2017). Single step non-thermal
cleaning/sanitation of knives used in meat industry with ultrasound. Food
Research International, 91, 133–139.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.11.030
Brinker, C. J., & Sherer, G. W. (1990). Sol-gel science. The physics and chemistry
of sol-gel processing. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Brotzen, F. R. (1994). Evaluation of mechanical properties of thin films,
surface engineering. In P. J. Blau (Ed.), ASM Handbook (Vol. 5, pp.
642–646). Cleveland, OH: ASM International.
Bull, S. J. (2011). Microstructural characterization of coatings and thin films,
surface engineering. In P. J. Balu (Ed.), ASM Handbook (Vol. 5, pp.
660–668). Cleveland, OH: ASM International.
Cao, S., Liu, B., Fan, L., Yue, Z., Liu, B., & Cao, B. (2014). Highly
antibacterial activity of N-doped TiO2 thin films coated on stainless steel
brackets under visible light irradiation. Applied Surface Science, 309(309),
119–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.04.198
Casarin, L. S., Casarin, F. d. O., Brandelli, A., Novello, J., Ferreira, S. O., &
Tondo, E. C. (2016). Influence of free energy on the attachment of
Salmonella Enteritidis and Listeria monocytogenes on stainless steels AISI 304
and AISI 316. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 69, 131–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.01.035
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. (2019). Outbreak of
Salmonella infections linked to pre-cut melons. Current Outbreaks. May 24,
2019. Retrieved from
https://www.cdc.gov/salmonella/carrau-04-19/index.html
Cerca, N., Pier, G. B., Vilanova, M., Oliveira, R., & Azeredo, J. (2005).
Quantitative analysis of adhesion and biofilm formation on hydrophilic and
hydrophobic surfaces of clinical isolates of Staphylococcus epidermidis.
Research in Microbiology, 156(4), 506–514.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resmic.2005.01.007
Cetin, Y., & Bullerman, L. B. (2005). Cytotoxicity of Fusarium mycotoxins
to mammalian cell cultures as determined by the MTT bioassay. Food and
Chemical Toxicology, 43(5), 755–764.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2005.01.016
Chen, Y., Freier, T., Kuehm, J., Moorman, M., Scott, J., Meyer, J., . . .
Banks, J. (2009). Control of Salmonella in low-moisture foods. Washington, DC:
Groceries Manufacturers Association.
Cheng, G., Li, G., Xue, H., Chen, S., Bryers, J. D., & Jiang, S. (2009).
Zwitterionic carboxybetaine polymer surfaces and their resistance to
long-term biofilm formation. Biomaterials, 30(28), 5234–5240.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.05.058
Chung, C.-J., Hsieh, P.-Y., Hsiao, C.-H., Lin, H.-I., Leyland, A., Matthews,
A., & He, J.-L. (2009). Mutifunctional arc ion plated TiO2 photocatalytic
coatings with improved wear and corrosion protection. Surface and Coatings
Technology, 203(12), 1689–1693.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2009.01.005
Codex Alimentarius. (1995a). General standard for contaminants and toxins in
food and feed (Vol. CXS 193–1995). Rome, Italy: FAO; Geneva,
Switzerland: WHO.
Codex Alimentarius. (1995b). General standard for food additives (Vol. CODEX
STAN 192–1995). Rome, Italy: FAO; Geneva, Switzerland: WHO.
Collins, A. M. (2012). Nanotechnology cookbook: Practical, reliable and jargon-free
experimental procedures (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Elsevier.
Çomakli, O., Yazici, M., Kovaci, H., Yetim, T., Yetim, A. F., & Çelik, A.
(2018). Tribological and electrochemical properties of TiO2 films produced
on Cp-Ti by sol-gel and SILAR in bio-simulated environment. Surface and
Coatings Technology, 352, 513–521.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.08.056
Çomaklı, O., Yetim, T., & Çelik, A. (2014). The effect of calcination
temperatures on wear properties of TiO2 coated CP-Ti. Surface and Coatings

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Technology, 246, 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2014.
02.059
Cooper, I., & Tice, P. (2001). Food contact coatings—European legislation
and future predictions. Surface Coatings International Part B: Coatings
Transactions, 84(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02699771
Crawford, R. J., Webb, H. K., Truong, V. K., Hasan, J., & Ivanova, E. P.
(2012). Surface topographical factors influencing bacterial attachment.
Advances in Colloid and Interface Science, 179–182, 142—149.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cis.2012.06.015
Ctibor, P., Pala, Z., Sedláček, J., Štengl, V., Pı́š, I., Zahoranová, T., &
Nehasil, V. (2012). Titanium dioxide coatings sprayed by a water-stabilized
plasma gun (WSP) with argon and nitrogen as the powder feeding gas:
Differences in structural, mechanical and photocatalytic behavior. Journal of
Thermal Spray Technology, 21(3-4), 425–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11666-012-9747-0
Cunault, C., Faille, C., Dubois, T., & Bénézech, T. (2018). Hygienic design
of food processing lines to mitigate the risk of bacterial food contamination
with respect to environmental concerns. Innovative Food Science & Emerging
Technologies, 46, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2017.
10.002
da Silva Fernandes, M., Kabuki, D. Y., & Kuaye, A. Y. (2015). Biofilms of
Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium isolated from the processing of
ricotta and the control of these pathogens through cleaning and sanitization
procedures. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 200, 97–103.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.02.004
da Silva Meira, Q. G., de Medeiros Barbosa, I., Alves Aguiar Athayde, A. J.,
de Siqueira-Júnior, J. P., & de Souza, E. L. (2012). Influence of temperature
and surface kind on biofilm formation by Staphylococcus aureus from
food-contact surfaces and sensitivity to sanitizers. Food Control, 25(2),
469–475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2011.11.030
Dasan, B. G., Onal-Ulusoy, B., Pawlat, J., Diatczyk, J., Sen, Y., & Mutlu, M.
(2016). A new and simple approach for decontamination of food contact
surfaces with gliding arc discharge atmospheric non-thermal plasma. Food
and Bioprocess Technology, 10(4), 650–661.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-016-1847-2
De Falco, G., Ciardiello, R., Commodo, M., Del Gaudio, P., Minutolo, P.,
Porta, A., & D’Anna, A. (2018). TiO2 nanoparticle coatings with advanced
antibacterial and hydrophilic properties prepared by flame aerosol
synthesis and thermophoretic deposition. Surface and Coatings Technology,
349, 830–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.06.083
Deilmann, M., Halfmann, H., Bibinov, N., Wunderlich, J., & Awakowicz, P.
(2008). Low-pressure microwave plasma sterilization of polyethylene
terephthalate bottles. Journal of Food Protection, 71(10),
2119–2123. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-71.10.2119
Desai, N. P., Hossainy, S. F., & Hubbell, J. A. (1992). Surface-immobilized
polyethylene oxide for bacterial repellence. Biomaterials, 13(7), 417–420.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0142-9612(92)90160-P
Dhowlaghar, N., Abeysundara, P. A., Nannapaneni, R., Schilling, M. W.,
Chang, S., Cheng, W. H., & Sharma, C. S. (2018). Growth and biofilm
formation by Listeria monocytogenes in catfish mucus extract on four food
contact surfaces at 22 and 10 °C and their reduction by commercial
disinfectants. Journal of Food Protection, 81(1), 59–67.
https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-17-103
Dinu, C. Z., Zhu, G., Bale, S. S., Anand, G., Reeder, P. J., Sanford, K., . . .
Dordick, J. S. (2010). Enzyme-based nanoscale composites for use as active
decontamination surfaces. Advanced Functional Materials, 20(3), 392–398.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.200901388
Dunsmore, D. G., Twomey, A., Whittleston, W. G., & Morgan, H. W.
(1981). Design and performance of systems for cleaning product-contact
surfaces of food equipment: A review. Journal of Food Protection, 44(3),
220–240.
Echegoyen, Y., & Nerin, C. (2013). Nanoparticle release from nano-silver
antimicrobial food containers. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 62, 16–22.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2013.08.014
El Arrassi, A., Bellova, P., Javid, S. M., Motemani, Y., Khare, C., Sengstock,
C., . . . Tschulik, K. (2017). A unified interdisciplinary approach to design
antibacterial coatings for fast silver release. Chemelectrochem, 4(8),
1975–1983. https://doi.org/10.1002/celc.201700247
European Parliament. (2004). Regulation (EC) No. 1935/2004 on materials
and articles intended to come into contact with food and repealing. Official
Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32004R1935&from=EN
European Parliament. (2009). Regulation (EC) No. 450/2009 on active and
intelligent materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.
Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 29
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:135:0003:0011:EN:PDF
European Commission. (2011a). Commission Regulation (EU) No 10/2011
on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.
Official Journal of the European Union.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
32011R0010&from=EN
European Commission. (2011b). Commission Regulation (EU) No
1130/2011 amending Annex III. Official Journal of the European Union.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:
32011R1130&from=EN
Evstropiev, S. K., Dukelskii, K. V., Karavaeva, A. V., Vasilyev, V. N.,
Kolobkova, E. V., Nikonorov, N. V., & Evstropyev, K. S. (2017).
Transparent bactericidal ZnO nanocoatings. Journal of Materials Science:
Materials in Medicine, 28(7), 102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-017-
5909-4
Faille, C., Jullien, C., Fontaine, F., Bellon-Fontaine, M. N., Slomianny, C., &
Benezech, T. (2002). Adhesion of Bacillus spores and Escherichia coli cells to
inert surfaces: Role of surface hydrophobicity. Canadian Journal of
Microbiology, 48(8), 728–738. https://doi.org/10.1139/W02-063
Falcó, I., Verdeguer, M., Aznar, R., Sánchez, G., & Randazzo, W. (2018).
Sanitizing food contact surfaces by the use of essential oils. Innovative Food
Science & Emerging Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifset.2018.
02.013
FAO. (2018). Codex Alimentarius. Retrieved from
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/about-codex/en/
#c453333
FDA. (2007a). Guidance for industry and other stakeholders toxicological principles
for the safety assessment of food ingredients. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food and
Drug Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/guidance.html
FDA. (2007b). Guidance for industry: Preparation of premarket submissions for food
contact substances (chemistry recommendations). Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocuments
RegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/
ucm081818.htm
FDA. (2010). Overview of food ingredients, additives & colors. Silver Spring, MD:
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Food/IngredientsPackagingLabeling/FoodAdditives
Ingredients/ucm094211.htm
FDA. (2007a). FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA). Silver Spring,
MD: U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/FSMA/default.htm
FDA. (2018b). Foodborne illness & contaminants. Silver Spring, MD: U.S. Food
and Drug Administration. Retrieved from
https://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/default.htm
Fink, R., Oder, M., Stražar, E., & Filip, S. (2017). Efficacy of cleaning
methods for the removal of Bacillus cereus biofilm from polyurethane
conveyor belts in bakeries. Food Control, 80, 267–272.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.05.009
Fiselier, K., Rutschmann, E., McCombie, G., & Grob, K. (2009). Migration
of di(2-ethylhexyl) maleate from cardboard boxes into foods. European Food
Research and Technology, 230(4), 619–626.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-009-1200-3
Food Standards Australia New Zealand. (2016). A Guide to the Food Safety
Standards (3rd ed.). Food Standards Australia New Zealand Legislation Act 2003,
(2003). Canberra, Australia: Author.
Friedrich, L. M., Goodrich-Schneider, R., Parish, M. E., & Danyluk, M. D.
(2009). Mitigation of Alicyclobacillus spp. spores on food contact surfaces
with aqueous chlorine dioxide and hypochlorite. Food Microbiology, 26(8),
936–941. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2009.06.011
FSANZ. (2016). 24th Australian Total Diet Study. Canberra, Australia: Food
Standards Australia New Zealand.
FSANZ. (2018). Food standard codes. Canberra, Australia: Food Standards
Australia New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/default.aspx
Furukawa, S., Akiyoshi, Y., Komoriya, M., Ogihara, H., & Morinaga, Y.
(2010). Removing Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli biofilms on
stainless steel by cleaning-in-place (CIP) cleaning agents. Food Control,
21(5), 669–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2009.
10.005
Garcı́a Ibarra, V., Rodrı́guez Bernaldo de Quirós, A., & Sendón, R. (2016).
Study of melamine and formaldehyde migration from melamine tableware.
30 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
European Food Research and Technology, 242(8), 1187–1199.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-015-2623-7
Garcı́a-Heras, M., Rincón, J. M., Romero, M., & Villegas, M. A. (2003).
Indentation properties of ZrO2 –SiO2 coatings on glass substrates. Materials
Research Bulletin, 38(11-12), 1635–1644.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0025-5408(03)00187-9
Glinel, K., Jonas, A. M., Jouenne, T., Leprince, J., Galas, L., & Huck, W. T.
(2009). Antibacterial and antifouling polymer brushes incorporating
antimicrobial peptide. Bioconjugate Chemistry, 20(1), 71–77.
https://doi.org/10.1021/bc800280u
Gomes, L. C., Piard, J. C., Briandet, R., & Mergulhão, F. J. (2017).
Pseudomonas grimontii biofilm protects food contact surfaces from
Escherichia coli colonization. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 85,
309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.03.005
Grasso, E. M., Grove, S. F., Halik, L. A., Arritt, F., & Keller, S. E. (2015).
Cleaning and sanitation of Salmonella-contaminated peanut butter
processing equipment. Food Microbiology, 46, 100–106.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2014.03.003
Gudmundsdóttir, S., Gudbjörnsdóttir, B., Einarsson, H., Kristinsson, K. G.,
& Kristjansson, M. (2006). Contamination of cooked peeled shrimp
(Pandalus borealis) by Listeria monocytogenes during processing at two
processing plants. Journal of Food Protection, 69(6), 1304–1311.
Guentzel, J. L., Liang Lam, K., Callan, M. A., Emmons, S. A., & Dunham,
V. L. (2008). Reduction of bacteria on spinach, lettuce, and surfaces in food
service areas using neutral electrolyzed oxidizing water. Food Microbiology,
25(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2007.08.003
Guobjornsdottir, B., Einarsson, H., & Thorkelsson, G. (2005). Microbial
adhesion to processing lines for fish fillets and cooked shrimp: Influence of
stainless steel surface finish and presence of gram-negative bacteria on the
attachment of Listeria monocytogenes. Food Technology and Biotechnology,
43(1), 55–61.
Hafedh, D., Kaouther, K., & Ahmed, B. C. L. (2017). Multi-property
improvement of TiO2-WO3 mixed oxide films deposited on 316L stainless
steel by electrophoretic method. Surface and Coatings Technology, 326, 45–52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2017.07.041
Haughton, P. N., Grau, E. G., Lyng, J., Cronin, D., Fanning, S., & Whyte, P.
(2012). Susceptibility of Campylobacter to high intensity near
ultraviolet/visible 395 ± 5 nm light and its effectiveness for the
decontamination of raw chicken and contact surfaces. International Journal of
Food Microbiology, 159(3), 267–273.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.09.006
Hesselbach, J., Böttcher, A.-C., Kampen, I., Garnweitner, G., Schilde, C., &
Kwade, A. (2018). Process and formulation strategies to improve adhesion
of nanoparticulate coatings on stainless steel. Coatings, 8(5).
https://doi.org/10.3390/coatings8050156
Ho, C. P., Huang, N. Y., & Chen, B. J. (2004). A survey of microbial
contamination of food contact surfaces at broiler slaughter plants in Taiwan.
Journal of Food Protection, 67(12), 2809–2811.
https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-67.12.2809
Hochberg, S. (1979). Coatings, industrial. In M. Grayson (Ed.), Encyclopedia
of chemical technology (3rd ed., Vol. 6, pp. 427–444). New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Hung, Y. C., & Yemmireddy, V. K. (2015). Effect of binder on the physical
stability and bactericidal property of titanium dioxide (TiO2 ) nanocoatings
on food contact surfaces. Food Control, 57, 82–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.04.009
Hussain, M. A., & Dawson, C. O. (2013). Economic impact of food safety
outbreaks on food businesses. Foods, 2(4), 585–589.
https://doi.org/10.3390/foods2040585
Ilie, F. (2010). Atomic force microscopy friction and wear characterization for
composite materials coatings. Materiale Plastice, 47(2),
249–253.
Imhof, R., Schwendimann, L., & Riva Scettrini, P. (2017). Sanitising
wooden boards used for cheese maturation by means of a steam-mediated
heating process. Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 12(3),
255–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-017-1114-0
ISO. (1997). Geometrical product specifications (GPS). Surface texture: Profile
method. Terms, definitions and surface texture parameters. Geneva, Switzerland:
International Organization for Standardization.
Jay, J. M., Loessner, M. J., & Golden, D. A. (2005). Modern food microbiology
(7th ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Jean, J., Morales-Rayas, R., Anoman, M. N., & Lamhoujeb, S. (2011).
Inactivation of hepatitis A virus and norovirus surrogate in suspension and
on food-contact surfaces using pulsed UV light (pulsed light inactivation of

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
food-borne viruses). Food Microbiology, 28(3), 568–572.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.11.012
Jiménez-Pichardo, R., Regalado, C., Castaño-Tostado, E., Meas-Vong, Y.,
Santos-Cruz, J., & Garcı́a-Almendárez, B. E. (2016). Evaluation of
electrolyzed water as cleaning and disinfection agent on stainless steel as a
model surface in the dairy industry. Food Control, 60, 320–328.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.08.011
Jin, T., & Gurtler, J. B. (2011). Inactivation of Salmonella in liquid egg
albumen by antimicrobial bottle coatings infused with allyl isothiocyanate,
nisin and zinc oxide nanoparticles. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 110(3),
704–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2011.
04938.x
Karbay, I. H. C., Budakoglu, R., & Zayim, E. O. (2015). Improvement of
mechanical properties of glass substrates. Applied Surface Science, 357,
1890–1894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2015.09.096
Kazemzadeh-Narbat, M., Lai, B. F., Ding, C., Kizhakkedathu, J. N.,
Hancock, R. E., & Wang, R. (2013). Multilayered coating on titanium for
controlled release of antimicrobial peptides for the prevention of
implant-associated infections. Biomaterials, 34(24), 5969–5977.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2013.04.
036
Khamisse, E., Firmesse, O., Christieans, S., Chassaing, D., & Carpentier, B.
(2012). Impact of cleaning and disinfection on the non-culturable and
culturable bacterial loads of food-contact surfaces at a beef processing plant.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 158(2), 163–168.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2012.07.014
Kilonzo-Nthenge, A., Chen, F. C., & Godwin, S. L. (2008). Occurrence of
Listeria and Enterobacteriaceae in domestic refrigerators. Journal of Food
Protection, 71(3), 608–612. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-71.3.608
Kim, J. H., & Yim, D. G. (2017). Microbial levels for food contact and
environmental surfaces in meat processing plants and retail shops. Food
Science and Biotechnology, 26(1), 299–302.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-017-0040-3
Kirtley, S. A., & McGuire, J. A. (1989). On surface characterization of
materials targeted for food contact. Journal of Food Science, 54(1), 224-226.
Kovacevic, J., McIntyre, L. F., Henderson, S. B., & Kosatsky, T. (2012).
Occurrence and distribution of Listeria species in facilities producing
ready-to-eat foods in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Food Protection,
75(2), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-300
Kozuka, H., Kajimura, M., Hirano, T., & Katayama, K. (2000). Crack-free,
thick ceramic coating films via non-repetitive dip-coating using
polyvinylpyrrolidone as stress-relaxing agent. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and
Technology, 19(1/3), 205–209. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008780120351
Kuda, T., Iwase, T., Yuphakhun, C., Takahashi, H., Koyanagi, T., & Kimura,
B. (2011). Surfactant-disinfectant resistance of Salmonella and
Staphylococcus adhered and dried on surfaces with egg compounds. Food
Microbiology, 28(5), 920–925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2010.
12.006
Kuda, T., Yano, T., & Kuda, M. T. (2008). Resistances to benzalkonium
chloride of bacteria dried with food elements on stainless steel surface.
LWT—Food Science and Technology, 41(6), 988–993.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2007.06.016
Kuorwel, K. K., Cran, M. J., Orbell, J. D., Buddhadasa, S., & Bigger, S. W.
(2015). Review of mechanical properties, migration, and potential
applications in active food packaging systems containing nanoclays and
nanosilver. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 14(4),
411–430. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12139
Laloyaux, X., Fautre, E., Blin, T., Purohit, V., Leprince, J., Jouenne, T., . . .
Glinel, K. (2010). Temperature-responsive polymer brushes switching from
bactericidal to cell-repellent. Advanced Materials, 22(44), 5024–5028.
https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201002538
Lazzeri, L., Cascone, M. G., Narducci, P., Vitiello, N., D’Acunto, M., &
Giusti, P. (2006). Atomic force microscopy wear characterization of
biomedical polymer coatings. Tribotest, 12(3), 257–265.
https://doi.org/10.1002/tt.24
Le Bail, N., Benayoun, S., & Toury, B. (2015). Mechanical properties of
sol–gel coatings on polycarbonate: A review. Journal of Sol-Gel Science and
Technology, 75(3), 710–719. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10971-015-3781-6
Lequette, Y., Boels, G., Clarisse, M., & Faille, C. (2010). Using enzymes to
remove biofilms of bacterial isolates sampled in the food-industry. Biofouling,
26(4), 421–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927011003699535
Li, M., Liu, W., Short, T., Qing, X., Dong, Y., He, Y., & Zhang, H.-C.
(2014). Pre-treatment of remanufacturing cleaning by use of supercritical
CO2 in comparison with thermal cleaning. Clean Technologies and

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists® Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 31
Environmental Policy, 17(6), 1563–1572.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-014-0888-3
Li, R., Kuda, T., & Yano, T. (2014). Effect of food residues on efficiency of
surfactant disinfectants against food related pathogens adhered on
polystyrene and ceramic surfaces. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 57(1),
200–206. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.11.018
Li, Y., Zhang, W., Niu, J., & Chen, Y. (2012). Mechanism of photogenerated
reactive oxygen species and correlation with the antibacterial properties of
engineered metal-oxide nanoparticles. ACS Nano, 6(6), 5164–5173.
https://doi.org/10.1021/nn300934k
Lim, W., & Harrison, M. A. (2016). Effectiveness of UV light as a means to
reduce Salmonella contamination on tomatoes and food contact surfaces.
Food Control, 66, 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2016.
01.043
Liu, P., Kim, M., Schlesinger, D., Kranz, C., Ha, S., Ha, J., . . . Moe, C.
(2015). Immunomagnetic separation combined with RT-qPCR for
determining the efficacy of disinfectants against human noroviruses. Journal
of Infection and Public Health, 8(2), 145–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jiph.2014.08.007
Liu, Y., Wang, X., Yang, F., & Yang, X. (2008). Excellent antimicrobial
properties of mesoporous anatase TiO2 and Ag/TiO2 composite films.
Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 114(1-3), 431–439.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2008.01.032
Londergan, A. (2006). Atomic layer deposition ECS transactions, vo1ume no. 10.
Retrieved from
http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu/login?url=http://www.ecsdl.org/dbt/dbt.jsp
?KEY=ECSTF8&Volume=1&Issue=10
Lopes, F. A., Morin, P., Oliveira, R., & Melo, L. F. (2005). The influence of
nickel on the adhesion ability of Desulfovibrio desulfuricans. Colloids Surf B
Biointerfaces, 46(2), 127–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2005.07.020
Losito, P., Visciano, P., Genualdo, M., Satalino, R., Migailo, M., Ostuni, A.,
. . . Cardone, G. (2017). Evaluation of hygienic conditions of food contact
surfaces in retail outlets: Six years of monitoring. LWT—Food Science and
Technology, 77, 67–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.11.029
Lück, E., & Martin, J. (1997). Antimicrobial food additives: Characteristics, uses,
effects (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer.
Ludecke, C., Roth, M., Yu, W., Horn, U., Bossert, J., & Jandt, K. D. (2016).
Nanorough titanium surfaces reduce adhesion of Escherichia coli and
Staphylococcus aureus via nano adhesion points. Colloids and Surfaces B:
Biointerfaces, 145, 617–625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2016.
05.049
Lv, C., Wang, H., Liu, Z., Zhang, W., Wang, C., Tao, R., . . . Zhu, Y.
(2018). A sturdy self-cleaning and anti-corrosion superhydrophobic coating
assembled by amino silicon oil modifying potassium titanate whisker-silica
particles. Applied Surface Science, 435, 903–913.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2017.11.205
Makwana, M., Ram Grover, C., & Kumar, N. (2018). Biocides resistance
profiles of biofilm forming bacteria of dairy niche and their control.
International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 7(2),
1194–1205. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.702.147
Martinez-Abad, A., Lagaron, J. M., & Ocio, M. J. (2014). Antimicrobial
beeswax coated polylactide films with silver control release capacity.
International Journal of Food Microbiology, 174, 39–46.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2013.12.028
McCann, M. S., Sheridan, J. J., McDowell, D. A., & Blair, I. S. (2006). Effects
of steam pasteurisation on Salmonella Typhimurium DT104 and Escherichia
coli O157:H7 surface inoculated onto beef, pork and chicken. Journal of Food
Engineering, 76(1), 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2005.05.024
McCombie, G., Harling-Vollmer, A., Morandini, M., Schmäschke, G.,
Pechstein, S., Altkofer, W., . . . Grob, K. (2012). Migration of plasticizers
from the gaskets of lids into oily food in glass jars: A European enforcement
campaign. European Food Research and Technology, 235(1), 129–137.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-012-1739-2
McGuire, J., Al-Malah, K., Bodyfelt, F. W., & Gamroth, M. J. (1990).
Application of ellipsometry to evaluate surface cleaning effectiveness. Journal
of Food Science, 55(6), 1749–1750.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb03617.x
McGuire, J., & Sproull, R. D. (1990). Temperature effects on food contact
surface properties. Journal of Food Science, 55(4), 1199–1200.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb01641.x
Miller, J. (2009). Effective sanitation practices. Fairfax, VA: USDA & HACCP
Consulting Group.
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
Mittag, N., Förster, S., Hoppe, S., Simat, T. J., Sehr, A., Renz, S., Vobach,
M., Kammann, U. (2006). Bioassay guided analysis of migrants from can
coatings. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit, 1(4), 345–353.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00003-006-0057-7
Momeni, M., Saghafian, H., Golestani-Fard, F., Barati, N., & Khanahmadi,
A. (2017). Effect of SiO2 addition on photocatalytic activity, water contact
angle and mechanical stability of visible light activated TiO2 thin films
applied on stainless steel by a sol gel method. Applied Surface Science, 392,
80–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2016.08.165
Murata, H., Koepsel, R. R., Matyjaszewski, K., & Russell, A. J. (2007).
Permanent, non-leaching antibacterial surface–2: How high density cationic
surfaces kill bacterial cells. Biomaterials, 28(32), 4870–4879.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.06.012
Myung, N. S. (2006). Electrodeposition of nanoengineered materials ECS
transactions, vo1ume no. 12. Retrieved from
http://proxy.mul.missouri.edu/login?url=http://www.ecsdl.org/dbt/dbt.
jsp?KEY=CSTF8&Volume=1&Issue=12
NAMI. (2015). Sanitary equipment design fact sheet. Washington, DC: North
American Meat Institute.
Nerin, C., Silva, F., Manso, S., & Becerril, R. (2016). The downside of
antimicrobial packaging: Migration of packaging elements into food. In J.
Barros-Velázquez (Ed.), Antimicrobial food packaging (pp. 81–93). Cambridge,
MA: Academic Press.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-800723-5.00006-1
Niemira, B. A., Boyd, G., & Sites, J. (2014). Cold plasma rapid
decontamination of food contact surfaces contaminated with Salmonella
biofilms. Journal of Food Science, 79(5), M917–922.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12379
Norma Oficial Mexicana. (1994). Salud ambiental. Agua para uso y consumo
humano. Lı́mites permisibles de calidad y tratamientos a que debe someterse el agua
para su potabilización., NOM-127-SSA1-1994 C.F.R.
Norma Oficial Mexicana. (2010). NOM-251-SSA1-2009, Prácticas de Higiene
para el Proceso de Alimentos, Bebidas o Suplementos Alimenticios,
NOM251-SSA1-2009 C.F.R.
Norma Oficial Mexicana. (2017). Lı́mites máximos de residuos. Lineamientos
técnicos y procedimiento de autorización y revisión.,
NOM-082-SAG-FITO/SSA1-2017 C.F.R.
OECD. (2019). OECD test guidance for the chemicals. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/oecdguidelinesforthetestingof
chemicals.htm
Oh, S.-W., Koo, M., & Kim, H. J. (2012). Contamination patterns and
molecular typing of Bacillus cereus in red pepper powder processing. Journal of
the Korean Society for Applied Biological Chemistry, 55(1), 127–131.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13765-012-0022-3
Otto, C., Zahn, S., Rost, F., Zahn, P., Jaros, D., & Rohm, H. (2011). Physical
methods for cleaning and disinfection of surfaces. Food Engineering Reviews,
3(3-4), 171–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12393-011-9038-4
Palanivelu, R., & Kumar, R. (2014). Scratch and wear behaviour of plasma
sprayed nano ceramics bilayer Al 2 O 3 -13 wt%TiO2 /hydroxyapatite
coated on medical grade titanium substrates in SBF environment. Applied
Surface Science, 315, 372–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apsusc.2014.
07.167
Park, S.-H., & Kang, D.-H. (2013). Inactivation of biofilm cells of foodborne
pathogens by steam pasteurization. European Food Research and Technology,
238(3), 471–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-013-2121-8
Park, S.-H., & Kang, D.-H. (2017). Influence of surface properties of
produce and food contact surfaces on the efficacy of chlorine dioxide gas for
the inactivation of foodborne pathogens. Food Control, 81, 88–95.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.05.015
Perera-Costa, D., Bruque, J. M., Gonzalez-Martin, M. L., Gomez-Garcia, A.
C., & Vadillo-Rodriguez, V. (2014). Studying the influence of surface
topography on bacterial adhesion using spatially organized
microtopographic surface patterns. Langmuir, 30(16), 4633–4641.
https://doi.org/10.1021/la5001057
Pradhan, S. R., Patra, G., Nanda, P. K., Dandapat, P., Bandyopadhyay, S., &
Das, K. (2018). Comparative microbial load assessment of meat, contact
surfaces and water samples in retail chevon meat Shops and abattoirs of
Kolkata, W.B, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied
Sciences, 7(05), 158–164. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2018.705.020
Presidencia de la República. (1999). Reglamento de Control Sanitario de
Productos y Servicios. Diario Oficial de la Federación.
http://www.salud.gob.mx/unidades/cdi/nom/compi/rcsps.html
Priha, O., Raulio, M., Cooke, K., Fisher, L., Hill, C., Hylkinen, S., . . .
Storgårds, E. (2015). Microbial populations on brewery filling hall
32 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
surfaces—Progress towards functional coatings. Food Control, 55, 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2015.02.022
Provder, T., & Baghdachi, J. (2007). Smart coatings (Vol. 957). Washington,
DC: American Chemical Society.
Rajkovic, A., Tomasevic, I., Smigic, N., Uyttendaele, M., Radovanovic, R.,
& Devlieghere, F. (2010). Pulsed UV light as an intervention strategy against
Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli O157:H7 on the surface of a meat
slicing knife. Journal of Food Engineering, 100(3), 446–451.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2010.04.029
Remya, K. V., Sunil, B., Latha, C., K., V. M., & Kumar, A. (2014).
Prevalence of Listeria species in meat processing environments. International
Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences, 3(2), 542–546.
Reynisson, E., Guobjornsdottir, B., Marteinsson, V. P., & Hreggviosson, G.
O. (2009). Decontamination efficiency of fish bacterial flora from processing
surfaces. Food Technology and Biotechnology, 47(1), 75–82.
Rodrigues, J. B. d. S., Souza, N. T. d., Scarano, J. O. A., Sousa, J. M. d., Lira,
M. C., Figueiredo, R. C. B. Q. d., . . . Magnani, M. (2018). Efficacy of
using oregano essential oil and carvacrol to remove young and mature
Staphylococcus aureus biofilms on food-contact surfaces of stainless steel.
LWT—Food Science and Technology, 93, 293–299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.03.052
Roldan, M. V., de Ona, P., Castro, Y., Duran, A., Faccendini, P., Lagier, C.,
. . . Pellegri, N. S. (2014). Photocatalytic and biocidal activities of novel
coating systems of mesoporous and dense TiO(2 )-anatase containing silver
nanoparticles. Materials Science and Engineering C: Materials for Biological
Applications, 43, 630–640. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msec.2014.07.053
Sadekuzzaman, M., Mizan, M. F. R., Kim, H. S., Yang, S., & Ha, S. D.
(2018). Activity of thyme and tea tree essential oils against selected
foodborne pathogens in biofilms on abiotic surfaces. LWT—Food Science and
Technology, 89, 134–139. https://doi.org/10.10164/j.1wt.2017.10.042
Sala, C., Morar, A., Tirziu, E., Nichita, I., Imre, M., & Imre, K. (2016).
Environmental occurrence and antibiotic susceptibility profile of listeria
monocytogenes at a slaughterhouse raw processing plant in Romania.
Journal of Food Protection, 79(10), 1794–1797.
https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-16-052
SAGARPA. (2017). Norma Oficial Mexicana: Lı́mites máximos de residuos.
Lineamientos técnicos y procedimiento de autorización y revisión,
NOM-082-SAG-FITO/SSA1-2017.
Santos, A. L., Pires, A. C. S., Behaine, J. J. S., Araújo, E. A., de Andrade, N.
J., & de Carvalho, A. F. (2011). Effect of cleaning treatment on adhesion of
streptococcus agalactiae to milking machine surfaces. Food and Bioprocess
Technology, 6(7), 1868–1872. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-011-0665-9
Saravacos, G., & Kostaropoulos, A. E. (2016). Handbook of food processing
equipment (2nd ed.). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25020-5
Scallan, E., Griffin, P. M., Angulo, F. J., Tauxe, R. V., & Hoekstra, R. M.
(2011). Foodborne illness acquired in the United States—Unspecified
agents. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 17(1), 16–22.
https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1701.P21101
Schlisselberg, D. B., & Yaron, S. (2013). The effects of stainless steel finish on
Salmonella Typhimurium attachment, biofilm formation and sensitivity to
chlorine. Food Microbiology, 35(1), 65–72.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2013.02.005
Secretarı́a de Salud. (1994). Norma Oficial Mexicana: Agua para uso y consumo
humano. Lı́mites permisibles de calidad y tratamientos a que debe someterse el agua
para su potabilización, NOM-127-SSA1-1994.
Secretarı́a de Salud. (2010). Prácticas de higiene para el proceso de alimentos,
bebidas o suplementos alimenticios, NOM251-SSA1-2009.
Sen, Y., & Mutlu, M. (2012). Sterilization of food contacting surfaces via
non-thermal plasma treatment: A model study with Escherichia
coli-contaminated stainless steel and polyethylene surfaces. Food and
Bioprocess Technology, 6(12), 3295–3304.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-012-1007-2
Severin, I., Souton, E., Dahbi, L., & Chagnon, M. C. (2017). Use of
bioassays to assess hazard of food contact material extracts: State of the art.
Food and Chemical Toxicology, 105, 429–447.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2017.04.046
Shikano, A., Kuda, T., Takahashi, H., & Kimura, B. (2017). Effect of
quantity of food residues on resistance to desiccation, disinfectants, and
UV-C irradiation of spoilage yeasts adhered to a stainless steel surface.
LWT—Food Science and Technology, 80, 169–177.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2017.02.020
Shukla, A., Fleming, K. E., Chuang, H. F., Chau, T. M., Loose, C. R.,
Stephanopoulos, G. N., & Hammond, P. T. (2010). Controlling the release

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
of peptide antimicrobial agents from surfaces. Biomaterials, 31(8),
2348–2357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.11.082
Silva, S., Teixeira, P., Oliveira, R., & Azeredo, J. (2008). Adhesion to and
viability of Listeria monocytogenes on food contact surfaces. Journal of Food
Protection, 71(7), 1379–1385.
https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028x-71.7.1379
Sinde, E., & Carballo, J. (2000). Attachment of Salmonella spp. and Listeria
monocytogenes to stainless steel, rubber and polytetrafluorethylene: The
influence of free energy and the effect of commercial sanitizers. Food
Microbiology, 17(4), 439–447. https://doi.org/10.1006/fmic.2000.0339
Skåra, T. R., & Rosnes, J. T. (2016). Emerging methods and principles in
food contact surface decontamination/prevention. In C. E. Leadley (Ed.),
Innovation and future trends in food manufacturing and supply chain technologies
(pp. 151–172). Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Soares, V. M., Pereira, J. G., Viana, C., Izidoro, T. B., Ldos, Bersot, & S., &
Pinto, J. P. (2012). Transfer of Salmonella Enteritidis to four types of
surfaces after cleaning procedures and cross-contamination to tomatoes.
Food Microbiology, 30(2), 453–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2011.
12.028
Sobczyk-Guzenda, A., Szymanski, W., Jedrzejczak, A., Batory, D.,
Jakubowski, W., & Owczarek, S. (2018). Bactericidal and photowetting
effects of titanium dioxide coatings doped with iron and copper/fluorine
deposited on stainless steel substrates. Surface and Coatings Technology, 347,
66–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2018.04.067
Sommers, C. H., & Sheen, S. (2015). Inactivation of avirulent Yersinia pestis
on food and food contact surfaces by ultraviolet light and freezing. Food
Microbiology, 50, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2015.02.008
Song, K.-Y., Chon, J.-W., Kim, H., Park, C., & Seo, K.-H. (2014). Sodium
hypochlorite-mediated inactivation of Cronobacter spp. biofilms on
conveyor belt chips. Food Science and Biotechnology, 23(6), 1893–1896.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-014-0258-2
Souza, A. C., Goto, G. E. O., Mainardi, J. A., Coelho, A. C. V., & Tadini, C.
C. (2013). Cassava starch composite films incorporated with cinnamon
essential oil: Antimicrobial activity, microstructure, mechanical and barrier
properties. LWT—Food Science and Technology, 54(2), 346–352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2013.06.017
Storgards, E., Simola, H., Sjöberg, A. M., & Wirtanen, G. (1999). Hygiene
of gasket materials used in food processing equipment part 1. Food and
Bioproducts Processing, 77(2), 137–145.
https://doi.org/10.1205/096030899532286
Tomat, D., Quiberoni, A., Mercanti, D., & Balagué, C. (2014). Hard surfaces
decontamination of enteropathogenic and Shiga toxin-producing
Escherichia coli using bacteriophages. Food Research International, 57,
123–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2014.01.013
Trachman, H. M. P., Sutter, H., & Maton, P. N. (2014). Foodborne illnesses.
Retrieved from
https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/digestive-diseases/
foodborne-illnesses
Truong, V. K., Lapovok, R., Estrin, Y. S., Rundell, S., Wang, J. Y., Fluke, C.
J., . . . Ivanova, E. P. (2010). The influence of nano-scale surface roughness
on bacterial adhesion to ultrafine-grained titanium. Biomaterials, 31(13),
3674–3683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2010.01.071
Tucker, R. C. J. (2015). ASM handbook: Thermal spray technology (Vol. 5a).
Cleveland, OH: ASM International.
Tylczar, J. H. (1992). Abrasive wear. In P. J. Blau (Ed.), ASM handbook:
Friction, lubrication, and wear technology (Vol. 18, pp. 187–189). Cleveland,
OH: ASM International.
U.S. Congress. (1999). 21 CFR 182—Substances Generally Recognized as
Safe. Federal Register. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-
1999-title21-vol3/CFR-1999-title21-vol3-part182
U.S. Congress. (2000). 21 CFR 186—Indirect Food Substances Affirmed as
Generally Recognized as Safe. Federal Register.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2000-title21-vol3/CFR-
2000-title21-vol3-part186
U.S. Congress. (2011a). 21 CFR 110—Current Good Manufacturing
Practice in Manufacturing, Packaging, or Holding Human Food. Federal
Register. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-
2011-title21-vol2/CFR-2011-title21-vol2-part110/content-detail.html
U.S. Congress. (2011b). 21 CFR 184—Direct Food Substances Affirmed as
Generally Recognized as Safe. Federal Register.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-
title21-vol3/CFR-2011-title21-vol3-part184
U.S. Congress. (2014). 40 CFR 180—Tolerances and Exemptions for
Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food. Federal Register.

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2014-title40-vol24/CFR-2014-
title40-vol24-part180
U.S. Congress. (2015). 21 U.S.C. 346A—Tolerances and Exemptions for
Pesticide Chemical Residues. Federal Register.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2015-title21/USCODE-
2015-title21-chap9-subchapIV-sec346a
U.S. Congress. (2016). 21 CFR 170—Food Additives. Federal Register.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2016-
title21-vol3/CFR-2016-title21-vol3-part170
U.S. Congress. (2017). 7 U.S.C. 6—Insecticides and Environmental Pesticide
Control. Federal Register. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.
action?collectionCode=USCODE&searchPath=Title+7%2FCHAPTER
+6&granuleId=USCODE-2017-title7-chap6&packageId=USCODE-
2017-title7&oldPath=Title+7%2FCHAPTER+6&fromPageDetails=
true&collapse=true&ycord=485&browsePath=Title+7%2FCHAPTER+
6&fromBrowse=true
Udompijitkul, P., Alnoman, M., Paredes-Sabja, D., & Sarker, M. R. (2013).
Inactivation strategy for Clostridium perfringens spores adhered to food
contact surfaces. Food Microbiology, 34(2), 328–336.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2013.01.003
Vital, A. C. P., Guerrero, A., Kempinski, E. M. B. C., Monteschio, J. D.,
Sary, C., Ramos, T. R., . . . do Prado, I. N. (2018). Consumer profile
and acceptability of cooked beef steaks with edible and active coating
containing oregano and rosemary essential oils. Meat Science, 143,
153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.035
Wafula, W. N., Matofari, W. J., Nduko, M. J., & Lamuka, P. (2016).
Effectiveness of the sanitation regimes used by dairy actors to control
microbial contamination of plastic jerry cans’ surfaces. International
Journal of Food Contamination, 3(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40550-016-0032-8
Wang, H., Shu, R., Zhao, Y., Zhang, Q., Xu, X., & Zhou, G. (2014).
Analysis of ERIC-PCR genomic polymorphism of Salmonella isolates from
chicken slaughter line. European Food Research and Technology, 239(3),
543–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00217-014-2277-x
Wang, M., Peng, Z., Wang, J., & Jiang, X. (2013). Wear characterisation of
articular cartilage surfaces at a nano-scale using atomic force microscopy.
Tribology International, 63, 235–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2012.11.001
Watson, D. H. (2004). Pesticide, veterinary and other residues in food. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC Press; Cambridge, UK: Woodhead Publishing.
Whitehead, K. A., Colligon, J., & Verran, J. (2005). Retention of microbial
cells in substratum surface features of micrometer and sub-micrometer
dimensions. Colloids Surf B Biointerfaces, 41(2-3), 129–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2004.11.010
Whitehead, K. A., Olivier, S., Benson, P. S., Arneborg, N., Verran, J., &
Kelly, P. (2015). The effect of surface properties of polycrystalline, single
phase metal coatings on bacterial retention. International Journal of Food
Microbiology, 197, 92–97.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2014.12.030
Williford, R. E., Li, X. S., Addleman, R. S., Fryxell, G. E., Baskaran, S.,
Birnbaum, J. C., . . . Courtney, A. R. (2005). Mechanical stability of
templated mesoporous silica thin films. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials,
85(3), 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micromeso.2005.06.024
Witte, A. K., Bobal, M., David, R., Blättler, B., Schoder, D., & Rossmanith,
P. (2017). Investigation of the potential of dry ice blasting for cleaning and
disinfection in the food production environment. LWT—Food Science and
Technology, 75, 735–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2016.10.024
World Health Organization. (2019). Food safety. Key Facts. Retrieved from
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/food-safety
Xie, Y., & Hawthorne, H. M. (2003). Measuring the adhesion of sol–gel
derived coatings to a ductile substrate by an indentation-based method.
Surface and Coatings Technology, 172(1), 42–50.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0257-8972(03)00319-0
Xu, L. C., & Siedlecki, C. A. (2012). Submicron-textured biomaterial
surface reduces staphylococcal bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation.
Acta Biomaterialia, 8(1), 72–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2011.
08.009
Yemmireddy, V. K., Farrell, G. D., & Hung, Y. C. (2015). Development of
titanium dioxide (TiO2 ) nanocoatings on food contact surfaces and method
to evaluate their durability and photocatalytic bactericidal property. Journal
of Food Science, 80(8), N1903–1911.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.12962
Yemmireddy, V. K., & Hung, Y.-C. (2017). Using photocatalyst metal oxides
as antimicrobial surface coatings to ensure food safety-opportunities and
Vol. 0, 2019 r Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 33
Antimicrobial coatings for food contact . . .
challenges. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, 16(4),
617–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12267
Yeo, S. M., & Polycarpou, A. A. (2013). Micromechanical properties of
polymeric coatings. Tribology International, 60, 198–208.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.triboint.2012.11.009
Yuan, C., Jin, Z., Tipper, J. L., & Yan, X. (2010). Numerical surface
characterization of wear debris from artificial joints using atomic force
microscopy. Science Bulletin, 54(24), 4583–4588.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11434-009-0588-2
Zeno, W. W. J., & Frank, N. J. (2013). Coatings. In Kirk-Othmer (Ed.),
Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology (Fifth ed., Vol. 7). New
York: John Wiley & Sons
34 Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety r Vol. 0, 2019
Zhang, W., Tu, G., Zhang, H., Zheng, Y., & Yang, L. (2014). Synthesis and
antibacterial activity of mesoporous zinc oxide particle with high specific
surface area. Materials Letters, 114, 119–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matlet.2013.09.028
Zhang, X., Cooke, K., Carmichael, P., & Parkin, I. P. (2013). The deposition
of crystallized TiO2 coatings by closed field unbalanced magnetron sputter
ion plating. Surface and Coatings Technology, 236, 290–295.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surfcoat.2013.10.002
Zhang, Z. (2017). Antimicrobial coatings and modifications on medical devices.
New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

C 2019 Institute of Food Technologists®