Volume 9, Issue 1 (3-2021)
Jorjani Biomed J 2021, 9(1): 9-15 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tajari Z, Fozouni L. Comparison of Efficacy of Two Disinfectants Against Foodborne Staphylococcus aureus. Jorjani Biomed J. 2021; 9 (1) :9-15
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-773-en.html
URL: http://goums.ac.ir/jorjanijournal/article-1-773-en.html
1- Department of Biology, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran
2- Department of Biology, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran , L.fozouni@gorganiau.ac.ir
2- Department of Biology, Gorgan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Gorgan, Iran , L.fozouni@gorganiau.ac.ir
Abstract: (697 Views)
Background and Objectives: Foodborne illness is a common public health problem. Surfaces and equipment used in food production are involved in the spread of foodborne pathogens. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial effect of Vinoxide and Sanisept against Staphylococcus aureus strains isolated from food production lines.
Material and Methods: In this descriptive study, 110 samples were taken from various equipment and surfaces used in food workshops and local kitchens. After identification of S. aureus by microbiological tests, the antimicrobial effect of two disinfectants (Vinoxide and Sanisept) on the isolates was assessed using the dilution-neutralization test according to the protocols of Iranian National Standards No 2842 and 9899.
Results: Of 110 collected samples, 21 (19.1%) were contaminated with S. aureus. The results showed that 19% and 38% of S. aureus isolates were able to grow after treatment with Vinoxide and Sanisept, respectively. Although Vinoxide had better bactericidal effect than Sanisept, both disinfectants could significantly reduce the number of live S. aureus isolates (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Sanisept and Vinoxide have significant inhibitory effects on S. aureus isolates, but due to the unpleasant odor of Vinoxide, the use of Sanisept is recommended in food industry.
Material and Methods: In this descriptive study, 110 samples were taken from various equipment and surfaces used in food workshops and local kitchens. After identification of S. aureus by microbiological tests, the antimicrobial effect of two disinfectants (Vinoxide and Sanisept) on the isolates was assessed using the dilution-neutralization test according to the protocols of Iranian National Standards No 2842 and 9899.
Results: Of 110 collected samples, 21 (19.1%) were contaminated with S. aureus. The results showed that 19% and 38% of S. aureus isolates were able to grow after treatment with Vinoxide and Sanisept, respectively. Although Vinoxide had better bactericidal effect than Sanisept, both disinfectants could significantly reduce the number of live S. aureus isolates (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Sanisept and Vinoxide have significant inhibitory effects on S. aureus isolates, but due to the unpleasant odor of Vinoxide, the use of Sanisept is recommended in food industry.
Type of Article: Brief Report |
Subject:
Health
Received: 2020/12/14 | Accepted: 2021/01/26 | Published: 2021/02/9
Received: 2020/12/14 | Accepted: 2021/01/26 | Published: 2021/02/9
References
1. Pinchuk IV, Beswick EJ, Reyes VE. Staphylococcal enterotoxins. Toxins. 2010; 2(8):2177-2197. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
2. Suzuki Y, Omoe K, Hu DL, Sato'o Y, Ono HK, Monma C, et al. Molecular epidemiological characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolates originating from food poisoning outbreaks that occurred in Tokyo, Japan. Microbiol. Immunol.2014; 58(10):570-580. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
3. Colombari V, Mayer MD, Laicini ZM, Mamizuka E, Franco BD, Destro MT, et al. Foodborne outbreak caused by Staphylococcus aureus: phenotypic and genotypic characterization of strains of food and human sources. J. Food Prot.2007; 70(2):489-493. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
4. Trachoo N, Frank JF."Effectiveness of chemical sanitizers against Campylobacter jejuni containing biofilms". J. Food Prot.2002; 65 (7): 1117-1121. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
5. HACCP, A practical Approach. Third Edition. Sara Mortimore ana Carole Wallace.2015 [Google Scholar]
6. Kawakami H, Hayashi T, Nishikubo H, Morikawa A, Suzuki S, Sato Y, et al. Effects of surface contamination and cleaning with hypochlorite on the antibacterial activity of copper-alloyed antibacterial stainless steel. Biocontrol Sci. 2014;19(2):73-78. [ PMID: 24975410] [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7. Warnes SL, Keevil W. Lack of involvement of Fenton chemistry in death of methicillin-resistant and methicillin-sensitive strains of Staphylococcus aureus and destruction of their genomes on wet or dry copper alloy surfaces. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.2016; 82(7):2132-2136. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
8. Campanac C, Pineau L, Payard A, Baziard-Mouysset G, Roques C." Interaction between biocide cationic agents and bacterial biofilms". AAC.2002;46 (5): 1469-1474. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
9. Kim Js., Kuk E, Yu KN., Kim JH, Park SJ, Lee HJ, et al. Antimicrobial effects of silver nanoparticles. Nanomedicine.2007; 3(1):95-101. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
10. Percival SL, Bowler PG, Russell D. Bacterial resistance to silver in wound care. J. Hosp. Infect. 2005;60(1):1-7. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
11. Zhang T, Wang T, Mejia-Tickner BM, Kissel J, Xie X and Huang ChH. Inactivation of Bacteria by Peracetic Acid Combined with Ultraviolet Irradiation: Mechanism and Optimization. Environ.Sci. Technol.2020; 54(15): 9652-9661. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
12. Fuster-Valls N, Hernandez-Herrero M, Marin-de-Mateo M. Effect of different environmental conditions on the bacteria survival on stainless steel surfaces. Food Control. 2008; 19(3): 308-314. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
13. Cosby CM, Costello CA, Morris WC, Haughton B. Devereaux M.J., Harte F., et al. Microbiological Analysis of Food Contact Surfaces inChild care Centers. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.2008;7422: 6918-6922. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
14. Majlesi Nasr M, jabbari F, Alebouyeh M, Torabi P, Balvayeh M, Zali MR. Risk assessment of cooking utensils role of the bacterial contamination in the hospital kitchen. ISMJ. 2014;17 (3) :336-344. [Persian] [view at publisher] [Google Scholar]
15. Borges LJ, Campos MR, Cardoso JL, André MC, Serafini ÁB. Molecular Epidemiology of Microorganisms Isolated from Food Workers and Enteral Feeding of Pub-lic Hospitals. J. Food. Sci.2010; 75(7): M449-54. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
16. Jonbae H, seung-Yong L. Microbial Contamination in Kitchens and Refrigerators of Korea Households, Journal of Food Hygiene and Safety. J. Food Hyg. Saf. 2015;30 (4):303-308. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
17. Mustafa MS, Jain S, Agrawal VK. Food poisoning outbreak in a military establishment. MJAFI. 2009; 65(3): 240-243. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
18. Mazzola PG, Martins AMS, Penna TCV. Chemical resistance of the gram-negative bacteria todifferent sanitizers in a water purification system. BMC Infectious Disease.2006; 6:131. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
19. Sen BH, Akdeniz BG, Denizci AA. The effect of ethylenediamine-tetraacetic acid on Candida albicans. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol.2000; 90(5):651-655. [view at publisher] [DOI] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
