Next Article in Journal
The Combined and Single Effect of Marjoram Essential Oil, Ascorbic Acid, and Chitosan on Fresh-Cut Lettuce Preservation
Next Article in Special Issue
Biofilm-Forming Ability of Microbacterium lacticum and Staphylococcus capitis Considering Physicochemical and Topographical Surface Properties
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus on Physicochemical Properties of Fermented Plant-Based Raw Materials
Previous Article in Special Issue
Growth Inhibitory and Selective Pressure Effects of Sodium Diacetate on the Spoilage Microbiota of Frankfurters Stored at 4 °C and 12 °C in Vacuum
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/foods10030574
foods-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Treatment on Human Pathogens on Iceberg Lettuce

by
Karin Hassenberg
*,
Ulrike Praeger
and
Werner B. Herppich
Department of Horticultural Engineering, Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Engineering and Bioeconomy (ATB), Max-Eyth-Allee 100, 14469 Potsdam, Germany
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(3), 574; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10030574
Submission received: 15 February 2021 / Revised: 4 March 2021 / Accepted: 8 March 2021 / Published: 10 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Research in Foodborne Microorganisms: Detection, Control, Risk Assessment and Prevention)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In the vegetable processing industry, the application of chlorine dioxide (ClO2) as a disinfectant solved in washing water to eliminate undesirable microorganisms harmful to consumers’ health and the shelf life of produce has been discussed for years. The disinfection efficacy depends on various factors, e.g., the location of microorganisms and the organic load of the washing water. The present study analyzed the sanitation efficacy of various concentrations of water-solved ClO2 (cClO2: 20 and 30 mg L−1) on Escherichia coli (1.1 × 104 cfu mL−1), Salmonella enterica (2.0 × 104 cfu mL−1) and Listeria monocytogenes (1.7 × 105 cfu mL−1) loads, located on the leaf surface of iceberg lettuce assigned for fresh-cut salads. In addition, it examined the potential of ClO2 to prevent the cross-contamination of these microbes in lettuce washing water containing a chemical oxygen demand (COD) content of 350 mg L−1 after practice-relevant washing times of 1 and 2 min. On iceberg leaves, washing with 30 mg L−1 ClO2 pronouncedly (1 log) reduced loads of E. coli and S. enterica, while it only insignificantly (<0.5 × log) diminished the loads of L. monocytogenes, irrespective of the ClO2 concentration used. Although the sanitation efficacy of ClO2 washing was only limited, the addition of ClO2 to the washing water avoided cross-contamination even at high organic loads. Thus, the application of ClO2 to the lettuce washing water can improve product quality and consumer safety.

1. Introduction

During recent years, the consumption of minimally processed fresh-cut salads has rapidly increased, with growth rates of 10 to 20% per year [1,2]. With the enhanced popularity of “ready-to-eat” produce, the number of reports on outbreaks of food-borne diseases has multiplied. Many of them are caused by human pathogens on fresh vegetables and salads [3]. The causes can be traced back to cultivation conditions and processing. During cultivation, vegetables can be contaminated by the excrement of wild animals or by wastewater irrigation. During processing, produce can be contaminated by deficient personnel and industrial hygiene and the cross-contamination of produce [4,5].
Production processes of ready-to-eat fresh-cut salads are very simply designed. The vegetables are sorted, cut, washed, dried and packed in plastic bags. However, it is known that washing with tap water results in a 10- to 100-fold reduction of microorganisms on the produce surface [6]. On romaine or iceberg lettuce, washing with plain water without sanitizing treatments reduces the microorganisms by ≤1 × log cfu g−1 [7,8].
To guarantee a high quality of produce until the end of the minimum shelf life, the Committee of Food Microbiology and Sanitation of the German Association for Sanitation and Microbiology released guidance and warning limits for the relevant microbial contaminations of packed fresh-cut salads [9]. Producers of ready-to-eat salads must warrant these limits until the end of the minimum guaranteed shelf life, but they cannot any longer control the produce or its storage conditions once it has left the production site. Interruptions in the cooling chains of these highly perishable products easily result in the substantial growth of spoilage and human pathogens. Visual detection of human pathogens by the consumer is not possible during purchasing, and their decision is normally guided by sensory criteria such as the freshness and crisp appearance of the salad [10,11].
Therefore, in recent years, several chemical and physical treatments have been investigated and applied with the aim to reduce the initial microbiological load of human pathogens on produce. For instance, the application of chlorine is a usual practice worldwide, but the reducing effect on microorganisms is not as effective as hoped [12] and causes the formation of hazardous byproducts, such as carcinogenic trihalomethane (THM) in food [13]. As a consequence, the application of chlorine is forbidden by German law [14]. Ozone has been used as an antimicrobial agent since the 19th century in drinking water purification and for a long time for vegetable and fruit disinfection [15]. It can be applied in an aqueous or gaseous form and is effective over a much wider spectrum of microorganisms than chlorine and other disinfectants [16]. However, exposure to high ozone concentrations can cause some detrimental health effects. Therefore, many countries specified thresholds for continuous exposure in the workplace environment, and effective and reliable ozone monitoring and alarm systems must be installed for workers’ safety [17,18]. Ozone application may also cause undesirable effects on treated produce such as oxidative stress or physiological injuries such as mass loss, browning or discoloration [19,20]. The use of various different organic acids was, furthermore, tested. Acetic acid is a strong oxidant, but its application should be harmless, based on the fact that acetic acid is a universal metabolic intermediary and occurs in plants and animals. Several studies, however, observed undesirable effects on produce quality; so, acetic acid fumigation is not a suitable technique for fresh produce treatment [21,22,23]. Other studies indicated that peroxyacetic acid can negatively affect the quality of produce [24]. Moreover, the application of high doses of UV-C radiation may also negatively affect produce quality, e.g., resulting in discoloration, browning or a decrease in vitamin C content [25].
The development of alternative sanitation techniques is, therefore, of great interest. In this context, chlorine dioxide (ClO2) is of increasing interest for fresh produce. It is a strong bactericide and virucide with a high oxidative capacity [26,27] and produces much fewer harmful byproducts such as trihalomethanes or chloramines than, e.g., chlorine [6,28]. The antibacterial effect of ClO2 is almost independent of the pH value (between 3 and 8) in contrast to chlorine [29].
Only a few studies indicated some negative impacts of aqueous ClO2 treatment on the visual and/or sensory quality and shelf life of produce such as lettuce [8], while many others proved the better maintenance of the sensory quality of lettuce and some berry fruits by this treatment, e.g., compared to tap water washing [30,31,32,33].
Chlorine dioxide can be applied dissolved in water or as gas. Gaseous application is more effective against microbial loads because of the higher penetrability of the gas [34], which, however, is rather explosive. Therefore, the aqueous application is certainly preferable. Hence, the present study compares the efficacy of washing with chlorine dioxide solution relative to that of conventional tap water on human pathogens as an alternative sanitizer on iceberg lettuce. For this, artificially inoculated lettuce leaves were washed with both methods, and their respective effects on relevant human pathogens were evaluated. In addition, the ability of water-solved ClO2 to prevent cross-contamination under practical conditions was analyzed in lettuce washing water prepared with a chemical oxygen demand (COD) of 350 mg L−1.

2. Materials and Methods

For the study, cryo bead-stored (Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) samples (at −80 °C) of Escherichia coli (DSMZ 19206), Listeria monocytogenes (DSMZ 20600) and Salmonella enterica (DSMZ 17058) were incubated in nutrient broth (5 mL; NB; Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Deutschland; E. coli and S. enterica) and brain heart infusion broth (BHIB; Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany; L. monocytogenes) at 37 °C for 24 h, and the optical density of bacterial suspensions was determined using a BioPhotometer plus (Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany) at 600 nm. According to the optical density, the main culture was inoculated in NB or BHIB, respectively, and shaken at 170 rpm and 38 °C for 18 h, resulting in bacterial suspensions of approx. 109 cfu mL−1, cell counted (Multisizer™ 3 Coulter Counter®, Beckman Coulter, Krefeld, Germany) and further diluted to yield initial bacterial counts of approx. 107 cfu mL−1.
For the experiment, fresh PVC bags packed with iceberg lettuce heads were obtained from a local retailer and brought to the laboratory. There, the outer leaves were removed and discarded, and 10 g of the inner leaves were used for experiments. For this, the leaves were inoculated with 1 mL of bacteria suspension by spraying and then stored for 2 h in a clean bench for the establishment of microorganisms on the leaf surfaces with an average concentration of E. coli of 1.1 × 104 cfu mL−1, S. enterica of 2.0 × 104 cfu mL−1 and L. monocytogenes of 1.7 × 105 cfu mL−1.
The Dr. Küke two-component product (Dr. Küke GmbH, Hannover, Germany) was used to produce chlorine dioxide. Following the manufacturer’s instructions, 250 mL of Component 1 (“DK-DOX aktiv”) was mixed with 3.85 g of Component 2 (DK-DOX) for activation. After a reaction time of 24 h (30 °C), the fully activated product was ready for use. ClO2 concentrations were determined photometrically (spectral photometer: DR 2800; cuvette test: LCK 310, both Hach Lange, Berlin, Germany), and the stock solution was diluted with tap water to adjust the required concentration.
For cross-contamination experiments, synthetic salad washing water was prepared by halving an iceberg salad head, discarding the core, cutting the remaining head into small pieces, puréeing it with a handheld blender and finally squeezing it through a tea strainer. Filtration through a PE filter (pore size: 330 µm) removed the remaining solid matter from the juice. The COD of the filtrate was measured photometrically (spectral photometer: CADAS 200, Dr. Lange, Berlin, Germany; thermostat LT 200, cuvette test LCK 014, both Hach Lange, Berlin, Germany) following the manufacturer’s instructions, and the requested COD was adjusted by adding tap water.
Inactivation tests were always performed in beakers. ClO2 solutions (200 mL; cClO2 = 0, 20 and 30 mg L−1) were filled in the cups, and two inoculated lettuce leaves were added. The cup’s contents were carefully blended, and after 1 or 2 min, respectively, equivalent amounts of sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate (AppliChem, Darmstadt, Germany) were added to stop inactivation. Subsequently, all samples were washed with tap water and carefully blotted dry with paper towels. The effect of the treatments was evaluated by counting bacteria with the spread plate method, for which serial dilutions were created. Therefore, lettuce samples (20 g) were mixed with 220 mL of Ringer’s solution (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) in a stomacher bag and homogenized for 2 min in a stomacher. Afterwards, samples (100 µL) were plated on nutrient agar (Carl Roth GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany) and incubated at 37 °C for 24 h.
To analyze the effect of preventing cross-contamination by chlorine dioxide treatment, the following procedure was carried out. For analyses, water samples (1 L) were prepared from lettuce sap and bacteria and final average concentrations of 350 mg L−1 (COD), 2.0 104 cfu mL−1 (E. coli), 3.3 105 cfu mL−1 (S. enterica) and 8.7 104 cfu mL−1 (L. monocytogenes). Then, six lettuce leaves (10 g) and, immediately afterwards, ClO2 solutions (final concentration: 20 or 30 mg L−1), were added. After 1 or 2 min, the lettuce leaves were removed, washed with tap water and carefully blotted dry with paper towels. Subsequently, the microbiological counts of the lettuce samples were analyzed by counting bacteria with the spread plate method as described above. For each experiment, untreated lettuce leaves were analyzed as controls, as well as by counting bacteria with the spread plate method as described above. All experiments were repeated thrice, and all samples were analyzed twice.
Data were statistically analyzed with WinSTAT (R. Fitch Software, Bad Krozingen, Germany). Treatment means were statistically compared using Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05).

3. Results

3.1. Effect of ClO2 Treatment on E. coli, S. enterica and L. monocytogenes on Iceberg Lettuce

Compared to controls, all treatments significantly reduced E. coli loads, with higher ClO2 concentrations tending to improve reduction (Table 1). In this context, a ClO2 concentration of 30 mg L−1 at a 1 min contact time most effectively inactivated E. coli (reduction: 88%). Enhancement of the contact time to 2 min did not further improve germ reduction.
Given are means (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Different letters indicate the significant difference between means (p < 0.05).
All ClO2 treatments significantly inactivated S. enterica, irrespective of ClO2 concentration and treatment time. Nevertheless, chlorine dioxide treatment at a high concentration (30 mg L−1) and a long treatment time (2 min) yielded the best (90%) reduction of S. enterica, although the results of the various treatments were not significantly different.
L. monocytogenes proved the most resistant microorganism to ClO2 treatment, which only insignificantly reduced L. monocytogenes loads by 58 to 72% compared to the controls.

3.2. Effect of ClO2 Treatment to Prevent Cross-Contamination

Before the experiment, iceberg lettuce leaves were analyzed to obtain the starting concentrations of the respective bacteria on the surfaces (Table 2). After 1 or 2 min of washing in ClO2 water, which was contaminated with E. coli, S. enterica or L. monocytogenes at known concentrations, the lettuce leaves were analyzed again. The final concentrations of microorganisms were still in the same range found on the unwashed controls. Adding chlorine dioxide to the contaminated washing water successfully prevented any cross-contamination. In fact, it marginally (and insignificantly) reduced the loads of all microorganisms on the lettuce leaf surface compared to the starting concentrations, except for S. enterica at a cClO2 of 20 mg L–1 and a treatment duration of 2 min (Table 2).

4. Discussion

The sanitizing effect of ClO2 for human pathogenic bacteria in water has been described in several studies [29,35,36,37,38]. It was shown that sanitation success closely depends on multiple factors, including ClO2 concentrations, temperature and duration of treatments or the concentration of organic matter in the water [39,40,41].
Particularly relevant for the sanitation of lettuce for fresh-cut salads is the direct effect of ClO2 solved in the washing water on the microorganisms adherent to the leaf surfaces. Some protective sites (biofilms, injuries, etc.) or water-suspended solids and aggregates, and other effects of leaf surfaces may pronouncedly reduce the potential antimicrobial effect of chlorine dioxide compared to bacteria separately floating in the washing water [41,42,43,44]. In addition, the processing status of the produce is relevant for the efficacy of the ClO2 treatment. On minimally processed produce such as fresh-cut lettuce or apples, ClO2 is less effective in inactivating E. coli and L. monocytogenes than on intact leaves or fruit [45]. This is mostly due to the increased surface contact area and the wounded tissue. The log reductions of L. monocytogenes by aqueous ClO2 treatment were significantly higher on uninjured than on surface-injured green pepper fruit [34]. Even on intact produce, however, cracks and other surface injuries may partially protect bacteria against decontamination [40]. Furthermore, due to the physicochemical properties of cuticle and waxy layers, pockets in the leaf epidermis are hydrophobic and, thus, may serve as protective pockets for microbes. Here, the aqueous chlorine dioxide cannot penetrate, and the bacteria remain unaffected [46].
Therefore, the above clearly stresses the great practical importance of the effects of ClO2 treatment on relevant microorganisms located on the product surface for the sanitation of fresh-cut produce. In the present study, the experimentally chosen ClO2 concentrations and treatment durations only yielded slight (0.5 × log) and insignificant maximum inactivation efficacies for L. monocytogenes. Although the maximum reduction of E. coli and S. enterica was more successful (approx. 1 × log), the application of water-solved ClO2 reduction of relevant microorganisms on the product was indeed much lower than that of isolated microorganisms solved in water. Even in washing water with a high COD load (350 mg L−1), reductions of microbial loads of up to 5 log were reported for ClO2 treatments [39]. The germ-reducing effects of ClO2 washing are severely limited on the produce surface, and, thus, the economic benefit must be critically challenged. Obviously, the use of chlorine dioxide seems to be only economically justified if there are additional benefits. Therefore, the present study evaluated the potential ClO2 application to prevent cross-contamination during washing, which is an important issue in the practice of industrial food washing. During processing, especially in recirculated water systems, the probability of produce cross-contamination increases with cycle durations. In recirculated water systems, organic matter accumulates more frequently and to a larger amount than when potable or diluted recirculated water is applied [4,38].
Attempts to assess the efficacy of ClO2 in preventing cross-contamination are only meaningful under at least semipractical conditions of industrial lettuce washing processes. Thus, presented experiments were performed with synthetic washing water with a realistic COD of 350 mg L−1 [40] and relevant ClO2 concentrations and treatment durations [39]. The presented results clearly demonstrated the capability of ClO2 to diminish the number of microorganisms (by 0.5–1 × log) on the product surface by reducing the microbial load of the washing water. ClO2 treatments, thus, obviously contribute to the safety of fresh-cut salads.
Similarly, the immersion of intact tomatoes in ClO2-containing (5 ppm) water prevented cross-contamination by S. enterica and Erwinia carotovora [5]. In addition, 10 s of spray washing with ClO2 solution (5 ppm) pronouncedly (4.7 log) reduced the transfer of Salmonella from contaminated brushes to the fruit surfaces [47]. The application of ClO2 (3 or 5 mg) to highly turbid tomato processing water (NTU turbidity: 0–40) also largely (7 × log) reduced the loads of S. enterica in a broad temperature range (25–40 °C) [47]. At a pilot-scale level, the addition of ClO2 (5 and 3 mg L−1) to “Lollo Rossa” lettuce washing water successfully minimized E. coli cross-contamination [48]; the organic contamination of the washing water, however, typically consumes ClO2 to effective concentrations of ≥ 2.5 mg L−1. In contrast, the ClO2 (3 mg L−1) washing of fresh-cut red chard prevents the processing of water cross-contamination from inoculated leaves only by E. coli but not S. enterica [49]. Additionally, the application of ClO2 effectively removes pesticide residues on lettuce leaves and in the washing water [50].
In summary, the efficacy of ClO2 to reduce human pathogens on the surface of lettuce leaves is limited; cross-contamination via processing water, however, can be successfully prevented. The overall positive effects recommend the application of ClO2 in fresh and fresh-cut lettuce washing systems. Suspended solids and organic matter in the water, however, enhance the protection of microorganisms against sanitation agents. Thus, the removal of dirt particles and pollution by coagulation, sedimentation and filtration is urgently necessary [51], and the application of ClO2 for the disinfection of lettuce washing water can be particularly advised for a second washing cycle after the thorough elimination of the pollution.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.H., W.B.H. and U.P.; data curation and analysis, K.H. and W.B.H.; funding acquisition, K.H.; investigation, K.H.; methodology, K.H., W.B.H. and U.P.; project administration, K.H.; validation, K.H., W.B.H. and U.P.; writing—original draft, K.H. and W.B.H.; writing—review and editing, W.B.H., K.H. and U.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The current research was funded by the German Federation of Industrial Research Associations—“Otto von Guericke” e.V. (AiF)/German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi) (NO: KF2050820MD2), within the research program Zentrales Innovationsprogramm Mittelstand (ZIM). The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access Fund of the Leibniz Association.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Janett Schiffmann for perfect technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Rico, D.; Martin-Diana, A.B.; Barat, J.; Barry-Ryan, C. Extending and measuring the quality of fresh-cut fruit and vegetables: A review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2007, 18, 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Siddiqui, M.W.; Chakraborty, I.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F.; Dhua, R.S. Advances in minimal processing of fruits and vegetables: A review. J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2011, 70, 823–834. [Google Scholar]
  3. Olaimat, A.N.; Holley, R.A. Factors influencing the microbial safety of fresh produce: A review. Food Microbiol. 2012, 32, 1–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Allende, A.; Selma, M.V.; Lopez-Galvez, F.; Villaescusa, R.; Gil, M.I. Impact of wash water quality on sensory and microbial quality, including Escherichia coli cross-contamination, of fresh-cut escarole. J. Food Protect. 2008, 71, 2514–2518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Pao, S.; Kelsey, D.F.; Khalid, M.F.; Ettinger, M.R. Using aqueous chlorine dioxide to prevent contamination of tomatoes with Salmonella enterica and Erwinia carotovora during fruit washing. J. Food Protect. 2007, 70, 629–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Beuchat, L.R. Surface Decontamination of Fruits and Vegetables Eaten Raw: A Review; Report WHO/FSF/ FOS/98.2; Food Safety Unit, WHO: Geneva, Switzerland, 1998; pp. 1–49. Available online: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/food-decontamination/en/ (accessed on 5 February 2021).
  7. Singh, N.; Singh, R.K.; Bhunia, A.K.; Stroshine, R.L. Efficacy of chlorine dioxide, ozone, and thyme essential oil or a sequential washing in killing Escherichia coli O157: H7 on lettuce and baby carrots. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2002, 35, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gomez-Lopez, V.M.; Devlieghere, F.; Ragaert, P.; Chen, L.; Ryckeboer, J.; Debevere, J. Reduction of microbial load and sensory evaluation of minimally processed vegetables treated with chlorine dioxide and electrolyzed water. Ital. J. Food Sci. 2008, 20, 321–331. [Google Scholar]
  9. DGHM Veröffentlichte mikrobiologische Richt- und Warnwerte von Lebensmitteln. Eine Empfehlung der Fachgruppe Lebensmittelmikrobiologie und –Hygiene der DGHM, Arbeitsgruppe Mikrobiologische Richt- und Warnwerte; DGHM: Hamburg, Germany, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  10. De Corato, U. Improving the shelf-life and quality of fresh and minimally-processed fruits and vegetables for a modern food industry: A comprehensive critical review from the traditional technologies into the most promising advancements. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 940–975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Feliziani, E.; Lichter, A.; Smilanick, J.L.; Ippolito, A. Disinfecting agents for controlling fruit and vegetable diseases after harvest. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2016, 122, 53–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Beuchat, L.R.; Sofos, J.N. Scientific editor’s report. J. Food Protect. 1999, 62, 1371. [Google Scholar]
  13. Wei, C.I.; Cook, D.L.; Kirk, J.R. Use of chlorine compounds in the food industry. Food Technol. 1985, 39, 107–115. [Google Scholar]
  14. LFBG Lebensmittel-, Bedarfsgegenstände- und Futtermittelgesetzbuch 19. Juni 2020. Available online: https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/lfgb/LFGB.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2021).
  15. Horvitz, S.; Cantalejo, M.J. Application of ozone for the postharvest treatment of fruits and vegetables. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2014, 54, 312–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Xu, L. Use of ozone to improve the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables. Food Technol. 1999, 53, 63. [Google Scholar]
  17. HSE. Ozone: Health Hazards and Precautionary Measures; Guidance Note EH38 from the Health and Safety Executive; Environmental Hygiene Guidance Notes Series; HSE: Sudbury, UK, 1996; p. 6. Available online: http://www.coronasupplies.co.uk/downloads/Ozone%20Health%20and%20Precautionary%20Measures.pdf (accessed on 9 March 2021).
  18. Karaca, H.; Velioglu, Y.S. Ozone application in fruit and vegetable processing. Food Rev. Int. 2007, 23, 91–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Forney, C.F. Postharvest response of horticultural products to ozone. In Postharvest Oxidative Stress in Horticultural Crops; Hodges, D.M., Ed.; Food Products Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2003; pp. 13–54. [Google Scholar]
  20. Karaca, H. Use of ozone in the citrus industry. Ozone Sci. Eng. 2010, 32, 122–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hassenberg, K.; Geyer, M.; Ammon, C.; Herppich, W.B. Physico-chemical and sensory evaluation of strawberries after acetic acid vapour treatment. Eur. J. Hort. Sci. 2011, 76, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  22. Sholberg, P.L.; Gaunce, A.P. Fumigation of stonefruit with acetic acid to control postharvest decay. Crop Protect. 1996, 15, 681–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chu, C.L.; Liu, W.T.; Zhou, T.; Tsao, R. Control of postharvest gray mold rot of modified atmosphere packaged sweet cherries by fumigation with thymol and acetic acid. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1999, 79, 685–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. González-Aguilar, G.; Ayala-Zavala, J.F.; Chaidez-Quiroz, C.; Heredia, J.B.; Castro-del Campo, N. Peroxyacetic acid. In Decontamination of Fresh and Minimally Processed Produce; Gómez-López, V.M., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 215–223. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gómez-López, V.M. Continuous UV-C light. In Decontamination of Fresh and Minimally Processed Produce; Gómez-López, V.M., Ed.; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 365–378. [Google Scholar]
  26. Benarde, M.A.; Israel, B.M.; Olivieri, V.P.; Granstrom, M.L. Efficiency of chlorine dioxide as bactericide. Appl. Microbiol. 1965, 13, 776–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants, Guidance Manual; US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water: Washington, DC, USA, 1999; Chapter 4. Available online: https://bit.ly/3brr7QC (accessed on 9 March 2021).
  28. Richardson, S.D.; Thruston, A.D.; Caughran, T.; Collette, T.W.; Patterson, K.S.; Lykins, B.W. Chemical by-products of chlorine and alternative disinfectants. Food Technol. 1998, 52, 58–61. [Google Scholar]
  29. Junli, H.; Li, W.; Nanqi, R.; Fang, M. Juli Disinfection effect of chlorine dioxide on bacteria in water. Water Res. 1997, 31, 607–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Kim, Y.-J.; Lee, S.-H.; Song, K.B. Effect of aqueous chlorine dioxide treatment on the microbial growth and qualities of iceberg lettuce during storage. J. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2007, 50, 239–243. [Google Scholar]
  31. Chen, Z.; Zhu, C.H.; Zhang, Y.; Niu, D.; Du, J. Effects of aqueous chlorine dioxide treatment on enzymatic browning and shelf-life of fresh-cut asparagus lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.). Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2010, 58, 232–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Jin, Y.-Y.; Kim, Y.J.; Chung, K.S.; Won, M.; Song, K.B. Effect of aqueous chlorine dioxide treatment on the microbial growth and qualities of strawberries during storage. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 16, 1018–1022. [Google Scholar]
  33. Chun, H.H.; Kang, J.H.; Song, K.B. Effects of aqueous chlorine dioxide treatment and cold storage on microbial growth and quality of blueberries. J. Korean Soc. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2013, 56, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Han, Y.; Linton, R.H.; Nielsen, S.S.; Nelson, P.E. Reduction of Listeria monocytogenes on green peppers (Capsicum annuum L.) by gaseous and aqueous chlorine dioxide and water washing and its growth at 7 °C. J. Food Protect. 2001, 64, 1730–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Ridenour, G.M.; Armbruster, E.H. Bactericidal effect of chlorine dioxide. J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 1949, 41, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Foschino, R.; Nervegna, I.; Motta, A.; Galli, A. Bactericidal activity of chlorine dioxide against Escherichia coli in water and on hard surfaces. J. Food Protect. 1998, 61, 668–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Veschetti, E.; Citti, G.; Belluati, M.; Borelli, E.; Colombino, M.; Ottaviani, M. Water disinfection with ClO2 and NaClO: A comparative study in pilot-plant scale. Electron. J. Environ. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 2, 274–279. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lopez-Velasco, G.; Tomas-Callejas, A.; Sbodio, A.; Artes-Hernandez, F.; Suslow, T.V. Chlorine dioxide dose, water quality and temperature affect the oxidative status of tomato processing water and its ability to inactivate Salmonella. Food Control 2012, 26, 28–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hassenberg, K.; Herppich, W.B.; Praeger, U. Chlorine dioxide for the reduction of human pathogens in lettuce washing process. Landtechnik 2014, 69, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hassenberg, K.; Geyer, M.; Mauerer, M.; Praeger, U.; Herppich, W.B. Influence of temperature and organic matter load on chlorine dioxide efficacy on Escherichia coli inactivation. LWT Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 79, 349–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Praeger, U.; Herppich, W.B.; Hassenberg, K. Aqueous chlorine dioxide treatment for sanitation of horticultural produces; Effects of ClO2 treatment on microorganisms and produce quality. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2018, 58, 318–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Costilow, R.N.; Uebersax, M.A.; Ward, P.J. Use of chlorine dioxide for controlling microorganisms during the handling and storage of fresh cucumbers. J. Food Sci. 1984, 49, 396–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Reina, L.D.; Fleming, H.P.; Humphries, E.G. Microbiological control of cucumber hydrocooling water with chlorine dioxide. J. Food Protect. 1995, 58, 541–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Lee, S.Y.; Gray, P.M.; Dougherty, R.H.; Kang, D.H. The use of chlorine dioxide to control Alicyclobacillus acidoterrestris spores in aqueous suspension and on apples. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 92, 121–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rodgers, S.L.; Cash, J.N.; Siddiq, M.; Ryser, E.T. A comparison of different chemical sanitizers for inactivating Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in solution and on apples, lettuce, strawberries, and cantaloupe. J. Food Protect. 2004, 67, 721–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Adams, M.R.; Hartley, A.D.; Cox, L.J. Factors affecting the efficacy of washing procedures used in the production of prepared salads. Food Microbiol. 1989, 6, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pao, S.; Kelsey, D.F.; Long, W. Spray washing of tomatoes with chlorine dioxide to minimize Salmonella on inoculated fruit surfaces and cross-contamination from revolving brushes. J. Food Protect. 2009, 72, 2448–2452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Banach, J.L.; van Overbeek, L.S.; Nierop Groot, M.N.; van der Zouwen, P.S.; van der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Efficacy of chlorine dioxide on Escherichia coli inactivation during pilot-scale fresh-cut lettuce processing. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 269, 128–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tomas-Callejas, A.; Lopez-Galvez, F.; Sbodio, A.; Artes, F.; Artes-Hernandez, F.; Suslow, T.V. Chlorine dioxide and chlorine effectiveness to prevent Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella cross-contamination on fresh-cut Red Chard. Food Control 2012, 23, 325–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, Q.; Wang, Y.; Chen, F.; Zhang, Y.; Liao, X. Chlorine dioxide treatment for the removal of pesticide residues on fresh lettuce and in aqueous solution. Food Control 2014, 40, 106–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Narkis, N.; Armon, R.; Offer, R.; Orshansky, F.; Friedland, E. Effect of suspended solids on waste-water disinfection efficiency by chlorine dioxide. Water Res. 1995, 29, 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Effects of ClO2 treatments, varying in concentrations (cClO2) and duration, on the inactivation of E. coli, S. enterica and L. monocytogenes on iceberg lettuce leaves in washing water.
Table 1. Effects of ClO2 treatments, varying in concentrations (cClO2) and duration, on the inactivation of E. coli, S. enterica and L. monocytogenes on iceberg lettuce leaves in washing water.
Duration (min)
0 (Control)12
cClO2 (mg L−1)E. coli (cfu mL−1)
0 (control)a 1.1 × 104 ± 5.1 × 103
20 b 1.6 × 103 ± 9.5 × 102b 2.8 × 103 ± 1.7 × 103
30 b 1.3 × 103 ± 1.1 × 103b 1.5 × 103 ± 1.0 × 103
S. enterica (cfu mL−1)
0 (control)a 2.0 × 104 ± 6.5 × 103
20 b 2.2 × 103 ± 1.1 × 103b 3.4 × 103 ± 2.4 × 103
30 b 2.3 × 103 ± 4.0 × 102b 2.0 × 103 ± 9.7 × 102
L. monocytogenes (cfu mL−1)
0 (control)a 1.7 × 105 ± 6.5 × 103
20 a 5.5 × 104 ± 2.9 × 104a 4.8 × 104 ± 2.4 × 104
30 a 5.0 × 104 ± 2.0 × 104a 7.2 × 104 ± 5.0 × 104
Given are means (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Different letters indicate the significant difference between means (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Efficacy of adding various concentrations of ClO2 to contaminated (E. coli, S. enterica, L. monocytogenes) washing water (COD 350 mg L−1) to prevent the cross-contamination of iceberg lettuce leaves.
Table 2. Efficacy of adding various concentrations of ClO2 to contaminated (E. coli, S. enterica, L. monocytogenes) washing water (COD 350 mg L−1) to prevent the cross-contamination of iceberg lettuce leaves.
SpeciesInitial Surface Loads (cfu g−1)Loads in Wash Water (cfu mL−1)Surface Loads after Treatment (cfu g−1)
cClO2 (mg L−1; Duration (min))
20; 120; 230; 130; 2
E. colia 3.5 × 101 ± 7.0 × 1002.0 × 105 ± 8.0 × 104a 1.9 × 101 ± 8.0 × 100a 1.1 × 101 ± 2.0 × 100a 1.8 × 101 ± 5.0 × 100a 2.3 × 101 ± 1.2 × 101
S. entericaa 2.4 × 102 ± 2.9 × 1023.3 × 105 ± 4.3 × 105a 1.2 × 102 ± 1.0 × 102a 7.3 × 102 ± 8.4 × 102a 5.0 × 101 ± 1.8 × 101a 4.4 × 101 ± 3.0 × 101
L. monocytogenesa 2.3 × 103 ± 3.2 × 1038.7 × 104 ± 6.4 × 104a 9.3 × 102 ± 1.4 × 103a 3.8 × 102 ± 1.9 × 102a 4.7 × 102 ± 4.6 × 102a 2.4 × 102 ± 2.8 × 102
Given are means (n = 3) ± standard deviation. Different letters indicate the significant difference between means (p < 0.05).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hassenberg, K.; Praeger, U.; Herppich, W.B. Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Treatment on Human Pathogens on Iceberg Lettuce. Foods 2021, 10, 574. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10030574

AMA Style

Hassenberg K, Praeger U, Herppich WB. Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Treatment on Human Pathogens on Iceberg Lettuce. Foods. 2021; 10(3):574. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10030574

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hassenberg, Karin, Ulrike Praeger, and Werner B. Herppich. 2021. "Effect of Chlorine Dioxide Treatment on Human Pathogens on Iceberg Lettuce" Foods 10, no. 3: 574. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/foods10030574

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop