The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effectiveness of cleaning techniques used in the food industry in terms of the removal of bacterial biofilms
Abstract
The effectiveness of cleaning was investigated through food factory trials and laboratory experiments using a naturally occurring biofilm from a food factory environment and generated biofilms. The efficacy of factory cleaning and disinfection programmes was assessed by swabbing and total viable count (TVC) analysis of surfaces before cleaning, after cleaning and after disinfection. Cleaning produced a 0.91 log reduction in the attached population. Investigation of the effectiveness of a variety of cleaning methods in the removal of a naturally occurring food factory biofilm showed that the high pressure spray and the mechanical floor scrubber, which use a high degree of mechanical action, were most effective. Cleaning trials with biofilms of Pseudomonas aeruginosa or Staphylococcus aureus showed that spraying with water at pressures of 34.5, 51.7 and 68.9 bar did not significantly increase the removal, as assessed by direct epifluorescent microscopy (DEM) and swabbing and TVC analysis, beyond the three log reduction observed at 17.2 bar. The effect of spray time at 17.2 bar showed that increasing spray time from 1 to 10 s did not significantly increase removal of Ps. aeruginosa biofilm. Investigation of the optimum distance of the spray lance from the surface at 17.2 bar was found to be between 125 and 250 mm. The use of an alkaline, acidic or neutral detergent prior to spraying with water at 17.2 bar did not significantly increase the removal of Ps. aeruginosa or Staph. aureus. However, the acidic and alkaline products significantly (P = 0.05) affected the viability of Staph. aureus and Ps. aeruginosa, respectively, thereby minimizing the potential for the spread of contamination.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Bacterial adhesion: seen any good biofilms lately
Dunne, W. M. (2002) · Clinical Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1128/cmr.15.2.155-166.2002 · Cited by 1,516
A review of current and emergent biofilm control strategies
Simões, M., Simões, L. C., & Vieira, M. J. (2010) · LWT - Food Science and Technology · doi:10.1016/j.lwt.2009.12.008 · Cited by 1,231
Van Houdt, R., & Michiels, C. W. (2010) · Journal of Applied Microbiology · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2010.04756.x · Cited by 684
Biofilm formation and food safety in food industries
Shi, X., & Zhu, X. (2009) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2009.01.054 · Cited by 598
Hydrodynamics and surface properties influence biofilm proliferation
Krsmanovic, M., Biswas, D., Ali, H., Kumar, A., Ghosh, R., & Dickerson, A. K. (2021) · Advances in Colloid and Interface Science · doi:10.1016/j.cis.2020.102336 · Cited by 285
Metadata
- Authors
- Gibson, H., Taylor, J. H., Hall, K. E., & Holah, J. T.
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Microbiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1999-07
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 41-48
- ISSN
- 1364-5072 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2672
- OpenAlex
- W2148551763
- Cited by
- 360
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 1.74
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of cleaning techniques used in the food industry in terms of the removal of bacterial biofilms. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00790.x
- The paper
- Gibson, H., Taylor, J. H., Hall, K. E., & Holah, J. T. (1999). Effectiveness of cleaning techniques used in the food industry in terms of the removal of bacterial biofilms. Journal of Applied Microbiology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00790.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.