Next Article in Journal
Effect of High Altitude on Serum Biochemical Parameters, Immunoglobulins, and Rumen Metabolism of Sanhe Heifers
Next Article in Special Issue
Biocontrol and Enzymatic Activity of Non-Saccharomyces Wine Yeasts: Improvements in Winemaking
Previous Article in Journal
Lactic Acid Fermentation in the Food Industry and Bio-Preservation of Food
Previous Article in Special Issue
Research Progress on Bioaugmentation Technology for Improving Traditional Chinese Fermented Seasonings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Fermentation
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/fermentation10030169
fermentation-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:
Review

Sanitizers Used for Fungal Spoilage Control in Dry-Fermented Cured Meat Production

by
Sarah Silva
,
Angélica Olivier Bernardi
,
Marcelo Valle Garcia
,
Thais Nunes Bisello
,
Larissa Borstmann
and
Marina Venturini Copetti
*
Postgraduate Program in Food Science and Technology, Center of Rural Sciences, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria 97105-900, Brazil
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Fermentation 2024, 10(3), 169; https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10030169
Submission received: 19 January 2024 / Revised: 11 March 2024 / Accepted: 13 March 2024 / Published: 15 March 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Feature Review Papers in Fermentation for Food and Beverages 2023)
Browse Figure
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Contamination caused by fungi stands out as a significant microbiological issue in the food industry, particularly leading to premature spoilage across various food segments, including the dry-fermented meat industry. The emergence of undesired fungi on product surfaces results in substantial economic losses. Once microorganisms infiltrate the food, contamination ensues, and their subsequent proliferation can adversely impact the product’s appearance, odor, flavor, and texture. This, in turn, leads to consumer rejection and negatively affects the commercial brand. Additionally, concerns persist regarding the potential presence of mycotoxins in these products. Given the detrimental effects of spoilage fungi in the food industry, practices such as thorough cleaning and sanitization become crucial to prevent contamination and subsequent premature deterioration. These measures play a pivotal role in ensuring the quality and safety of food, while also extending the shelf life of products. This review delves into the advantages, disadvantages, and factors that may influence the efficacy of commonly used sanitizers in the dry-fermented cured meat industry, including substances like sodium hypochlorite, peracetic acid, and benzalkonium chloride.

1. Introduction

Dry-fermented meat products are widely consumed worldwide, and the occurrence of common molds on their surfaces is generally deemed normal. This can even be considered a quality indicator, as long as these molds do not synthesize mycotoxins or antibiotics [1]. Fungi play a pivotal role in the technological process by releasing enzymes that elevate the sensory characteristics of dry-fermented products, resulting in distinctive flavors [2]. However, a potential drawback exists, as undesirable species capable of producing mycotoxins may also develop on the product surface, posing a threat to consumer exposure to harmful compounds [1,3,4,5,6].
The capacity of fungi to thrive in acidic pH, along with their resilience to the low pH and high salt concentration found in dry-fermented meat products, promotes the growth of filamentous fungi over other microbial groups [4,7]. The richness and diversity of species existing in raw materials and the production environment of dry-fermented meat products play a significant role in shaping the mycobiota of the end product [8,9,10].
Species that produce ochratoxin A are especially undesirable in dry-fermented meat products. In temperate climates, the most relevant are Penicillium nordicum and Penicillium verrucosum [4,5,7,8,9], while in warmer climates, Aspergillus from Section Circumdati (mainly A. westerdijkiae and A. ochraceus) stands out, both in South America and Mediterranean countries [4,7,8,10]. The occurrence of both fungi and mycotoxins in these products is linked to contamination from raw materials, particularly spices, and the air in the maturation chamber, where products of different ages often mature together [2,8,10,11,12]. A study conducted by Almeida [11] demonstrated a two-log increase in the fungal population when comparing cured sheep ham with spices to ham produced without this raw material.
Contamination by fungi, encompassing molds and yeasts, is a critical factor contributing to losses and waste resulting from premature fungal spoilage in food. Fungi, predominantly molds, pervade the entire food production chain and can originate from various stages, including seed contamination, cultivation, harvesting, post-harvest activities, food processing, transportation, and storage [3]. This pervasive presence poses a significant risk, leading to substantial economic losses and potential health hazards for consumers. Certain fungi have the capacity to produce toxic secondary metabolites, such as mycotoxins, with adverse effects on both human and animal health [1,4]. Furthermore, the proliferation of fungi in food is associated with adverse effects on the sensory attributes of products, such as appearance, texture, and flavor properties [3,5]. These consequences not only prompt consumer rejection but also contribute to economic losses for producers.
Then, the presence of undesirable fungi in the meat facility environment can lead to significant economic losses when potential spoilage (especially mycotoxin-producing species) present in production and processing environments contaminates the fresh processed meat product. This contamination can result in the subsequent multiplication of these agents, leading to undesirable changes and final product deterioration [13]. To counteract early fungal spoilage, one strategy employed by the food industry involves the implementation of a good hygiene process that encompasses cleaning methods plus adequate sanitization [14,15,16,17]. The cleaning step is essential for decreasing the amount of organic load (soil) in the meat processing facility because these compounds can strongly reduce the sanitizers’ efficacy against fungal species involved in the spoilage of dry-cured meats [17]. Therefore, the hygiene process applied in a meat processing facility is crucial to reducing the fungi contaminating the work surfaces and environment to a safe level. This, in turn, will impact the fungal load in the food, which ultimately can extend the shelf life of the product [15].
Achieving effective fungi control in a dry-fermented meat products facility relies heavily on maintaining hygiene in the production and maturation environment, encompassing air quality and work surfaces [13,15,17]. Additionally, the use of sanitizing agents with proven and suitable antifungal properties for work surfaces, air, and processing and maturation environments is crucial [13,16]. Beyond selecting the optimal active ingredient through laboratory tests, it is essential to take into account external factors such as exposure time, temperature, concentration, type of disinfectant, and the presence of organic loads, as these can influence the antifungal activity of sanitizers [17,18]. The mode of application (fumigation, liquid application) and the specific fungi targeted also play a role [3].
Emphasizing a study conducted by Bernardi et al. [15], which brought to light the significant tolerance demonstrated by fungal strains (A. westerdijkiae, Penicillium polonicum, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus) isolated from dry-fermented meat products toward widely used sanitizers in the food industry, even when applied at recommended maximum dosages. The research indicated that the lowest concentration specified on the product label, closely aligned with industry hygiene practices, consistently proved ineffective against the tested spoilage species.
In an effort to elucidate the factors affecting the antifungal efficacy of sanitizers, Stefanello et al. [18] underscored the importance of an efficient cleaning step preceding the sanitization process to enhance its effectiveness. The presence of an organic load was identified as a factor that diminishes the efficacy of most sanitizers. Additionally, the duration of sanitizer contact is crucial, with a minimum of 15 min of product action recommended. Temperature variations also play a role, as peracetic acid demonstrates greater effectiveness at higher temperatures (40 °C), while benzalkonium chloride tends to exhibit optimal action at lower temperatures (10 °C).
These findings find support in the work of Silva et al. [17], who evaluated the impact on P. verrucosum, P. nordicum, and A. westerdijkiae—species identified as significant contributors to the spoilage of dry-fermented meat products due to their ochratoxin A production. The study noted a higher sensitivity of the studied Penicillium species compared to the Aspergillus species. Each sanitizer presents its own set of advantages and disadvantages concerning microorganism reduction, cost, and accessibility. Furthermore, each sanitizer differs in its permitted limits. Table 1 provides a compilation of the most commonly used sanitizers with approved use in food production environments.
Hence, the primary goal of this review is to comprehensively discuss the key aspects and features pertaining to commonly used sanitizers in the food industry: peracetic acid, sodium hypochlorite, and benzalkonium chloride. The focus is on their efficacy in controlling spoilage in dry-fermented meat, coupled with insights into the utilization of these sanitizers for managing fungal spoilage in general. This review aims to provide information on the advantages and disadvantages of each sanitizer, as well as factors influencing their effectiveness. By addressing these decisive factors, this review aims to assist the food industry in effectively managing early fungal spoilage and mitigating associated challenges.

2. Fungal Control through the Hygiene Process

To guarantee the production of high-quality products, predominantly free from microbiological pathogens and spoilage agents, the food industry needs to establish measurable and monitorable limits. These limits should ensure the effectiveness of procedures and the attainment of predefined objectives [19]. Both the sanitizer and the hygiene process should facilitate the production of food with an extended shelf life while ensuring the safety of consumers’ health [20,21].
For the process to be effective, it is crucial to choose sanitizers that contain active ingredients proven to be effective against the target microorganisms. The concentrations applied should be adequate for fungal inactivation without unnecessary waste, adhering to microbiological recommendations set with technical criteria for sanitized surfaces, processing environments, food handlers, and equipment [13,22].
A critical aspect of the sanitization phase within an effective hygiene process is the careful selection of the sanitizer. Several factors must be taken into account, including the spectrum of action, antimicrobial or antifungal activity [23], formation of toxic by-products [24] and whether the sanitizer complies with safety and legal requirements stipulated by relevant regulatory bodies [14].
A sanitizer can only be registered and authorized for use after demonstrating its antimicrobial efficacy for the intended purposes. This verification is typically conducted through efficacy testing on the finished product and in the dilutions specified for use by the manufacturer on the label. These analyses may follow the methodology of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) or methods endorsed by the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) for liquid sanitizers (European Standard n 13697) [25]. For smoke sanitizers, compliance with the French Standard (NF-T-72281) [26] is essential, as it outlines the methodology for evaluating the effectiveness of smoke-generating agents. Figure 1 provides an overview of the sanitizing efficacy analysis scheme based on the modeling of efficacy tests as described by Bernardi et al. [15,23].
The selection of a sanitizer should take into consideration various factors, including the type of equipment surface and the specific location to be disinfected, the presence of residual organic load (soil), temperature, water quantity, contact time, the spectrum of action of the agent, and the residual efficacy of the product, among other considerations [14]. Unfortunately, it is a common occurrence for sanitizers to be employed in inappropriate concentrations or combined with multiple products, resulting in formulations that may compromise the antimicrobial activity of the product [22].
In the following section, some common sanitizers used for fungal control in the food industry for the disinfection of work surfaces, air, and production and processing environments will be discussed, summarizing their advantages and disadvantages in Table 2.

2.1. Sodium Hypochlorite

Sodium hypochlorite stands out as the most commonly used sanitizer, often serving as a reference in comparative analyses of sanitizers [24,25]. The mechanisms of action of sodium hypochlorite are grounded in its physicochemical properties [26]. Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) reacts with water to produce hypochlorous acid (HOCl) [27], also known as free chlorine, through hydrolysis (NaOCl + H2O → HOCl + NaOH−). Subsequently, hypochlorous acid dissociates into the hypochlorite ion (ClO−) and H+ (proton) [28,29]. In solution, the hypochlorite ion (ClO−), one of the active oxidizing forms, directly acts on microorganisms, rendering them inactive by inhibiting enzymatic reactions, denaturing proteins, and inactivating nucleic acids within the cells [30]. This agent serves as a chlorine source and is recognized as a potent oxidizing agent. It is extensively used for cleaning and sanitization in the food industry. Notable features of this compound include its broad spectrum of activities, highlighted by its whitening action [31] and cost-effectiveness [32,33,34], along with its minimal impact on the nutritional qualities of food [35].
The permissible maximum concentration of sodium hypochlorite for use on food contact surfaces typically ranges from 0.005 to 0.02% (50 to 200 parts per million) and 0.05 to 0.08% (500 to 800 parts per million) in non-food contact areas. However, efficacy tests on non-food contact surfaces have indicated that while sodium hypochlorite effectively combats bacteria and yeasts, it is unable to achieve a 4-log inactivation of fungal spores for most tested species [16,18,36,37], including dry-meat spoilage fungal species [17]. This specified concentration is outlined in legislation for assessing the efficacy of sanitizers permitted for use in the food industry. Considering these results, sodium hypochlorite may not be an adequate choice in industries aiming for fungal inactivation, as it exhibits limited effectiveness in controlling fungal contamination [36,37,38].

2.1.1. Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Sodium Hypochlorite

Several factors influence the efficacy of a sanitizer, and one of the primary elements leading to a reduction in the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite is the presence of organic loads. The presence of organic loads can generate by-products and diminish the antimicrobial action of sodium hypochlorite [39,40,41,42,43]. In vitro results obtained from assessing the interference of various factors on the antifungal action of sodium hypochlorite against fungi of the ochratoxin-producing species P. nordicum, P. verrucosum, and A. westerdijkiae, which are among the most relevant spoilage fungi in dry-fermented meat products, indicated that organic load was a key factor responsible for diminishing the antifungal action of sodium hypochlorite [17,18]. The organic load used in these in vitro assessments aimed to simulate the presence of dirt in industrial environments, and the results demonstrated an increase in the survival of all fungal species. This underscores the importance of the cleaning stage, involving the removal of organic loads in food facilities, as a crucial procedure when the objective is to reduce the fungal load [17,18,44,45].
Another crucial factor for effective antimicrobial action is the concentration of the sanitizer in use. Bernardi et al. [23] emphasize the significant importance of choosing the right concentration to achieve satisfactory results, suggesting that the highest concentration recommended by the manufacturer should be preferably used, as it often demonstrates effectiveness against fungi. In studies by Ribeiro et al. [46], sodium hypochlorite was considered more effective than peracetic acid against Aspergillus nomius inoculated in Brazil nuts, even though it achieved a reduction of less than 2 log CFUs when exposed for 8.5 min at a concentration of 250 ppm. Similarly, in in vitro efficacy tests, Gonçalves et al. [38] observed that concentrations between 500 and 750 ppm of sodium hypochlorite, applied for 15 min, inactivated between 2 and 2.9 log CFUs of this species. Consistent with the findings of Salomão et al. [47], who applied this sanitizer to apples inoculated with Penicillium spp., a higher reduction was achieved by increasing the concentration from 50 to 200 mg/L. In a study conducted by Bernardi et al. [36], higher concentrations of sodium hypochlorite were applied than typically recommended, demonstrating that this agent was effective only at concentrations of at least 5000 ppm against Hyphopichia burtonii and 10,000 ppm for P. roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus, with exposures of 15 min.
The effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite is significantly influenced by the pH of the environment [42,48,49,50]. The antimicrobial action of these compounds is typically associated with the generation of hypochlorous acid following hydrolysis in water. The formation of hypochlorous acid tends to be higher when the pH is slightly acidic because this form predominates as the antimicrobial agent, as opposed to the hypochlorite ion, which becomes dominant at pH values above 7.0. In such alkaline conditions, sodium hypochlorite-based compounds are less effective [51]. In studies conducted by Salomão et al. [47], chlorine solutions at a pH of 6.5 resulted in reductions of more than 5 logs in Penicillium expansum spores in Macintosh, Empire, and Golden Supreme apples at a concentration of 200 ppm.
Table 2. Interference factors, advantages, and disadvantages of common sanitizers in the food industry [14,44,45,51].
Table 2. Interference factors, advantages, and disadvantages of common sanitizers in the food industry [14,44,45,51].
SanitizerInterference FactorAdvantagesDisadvantages
Belzalkonium chloridepH.
 
Temperature.
 
Concentration.
 
Anionic detergents.		Low toxicity.
 
Ability to be formulated for specific objectives.
 
Food preservative.
 
Residual action.		Gram− bacteria tolerance
 
Unrestricted use
 
Emerging pollutant.
 
Toxic to many species of aquatic and terrestrial organisms.
Sodium hyphocloriteOrganic load
 
Concentration
 
Exposition time
 
pH.		Chloride source.
 
Low cost.
 
Low effect on nutritional qualities.
 
Bleach action.		Toxic to the environment.
 
Corrosion.
 
Residual toxicity.
 
Generation of disinfection by-products.
Peracetic acidTemperature
 
Organic load		Sustainable.
 
Low environmental impact.
 
Prevent biofilms.		Slow inactivation kinetics.
 
Organic content in the effluent.
 
Microbial regeneration potential.
 
Formation of acetic acid in high concentration.
 
Higher cost.
 
Damage to skin, eyes and respiratory tract.

2.1.2. Disadvantages of Sodium Hypochlorite

While higher concentrations of sodium hypochlorite can enhance its antimicrobial efficacy, such concentrations are not recommended due to the potential generation of toxic compounds for the environment, corrosion in materials and equipment, the risk of explosions, and adverse effects on workers’ health [41,43,52,53].
Sodium hypochlorite exhibits residual toxicity, necessitating specific precautions during its application, handling, and storage. The use of personal protective equipment is advised, along with thorough hand washing procedures [44,45]. A primary concern associated with the use of sodium hypochlorite is the reactivity of chlorine with organic loads, resulting in the generation of disinfection by-products [24,54,55]. These by-products, along with the potential negative consequences on the environment and human health [24,41,42,43,52,53,56,57,58], may lead to negative sensory effects, such as unpleasant odors and taste in fresh produce [43,59].
Additionally, stability and the potential for damage to equipment surfaces are relevant factors in the application of chemical products. Sodium hypochlorite, being a major corrosive agent on metal surfaces, including stainless steel [44], can lead to damage and, after corrosion, may result in the accumulation of organic load. This accumulation can make sanitation challenging and contribute to the development of microbial biofilm [36,45].

2.2. Peracetic Acid

Considered an environmentally friendly oxidant and disinfectant with low environmental impact [60,61], peracetic acid stands out as a key alternative to chlorinated compounds [62,63,64,65]. One of its notable advantages is its minimal reactivity with proteins, effectively preventing the formation of biofilms [66].
Commercially, peracetic acid is available as a mixture containing hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) (10–40%), acetic acid (3–40%) [24,32,67,68], and water [69]. This agent, known for its environmental compatibility, decomposes into harmless derivatives (acetic acid, water, and oxygen) [44], which are swiftly metabolized by microorganisms [70]. Possessing lipid solubility properties, as highlighted by Lazado et al. [71], peracetic acid acts directly and robustly on cell membranes through hydroxyl radicals [72]. Reactive oxygen species cause damage to DNA and lipids, disrupting membranes, and blocking enzymatic and transport systems [73].
Owing to its demonstrated fungicidal and sporicidal efficacy in various applications, the use of peracetic acid as a disinfectant in the food industry has gained increased attention in recent years [74]. It is considered highly effective and is applied in different environments, including food processing, beverages, water from cooling towers, and wastewater [62]. In the minimally processed industry, which seeks sustainable alternatives to chlorine [54], peracetic acid is also applied to food contact surfaces [75]. Furthermore, it finds use in cheese and meat facilities [15], bakeries [36], and is also effective for controlling mycotoxin-producing species [38]; usually reaching high fungal inactivation when used in intermediate to high concentrations.

2.2.1. Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Peracetic Acid

Peracetic acid demonstrates lower susceptibility to the presence of organic loads compared to chlorine [24,76]. It is less affected by water from the process and does not lead to the formation of disinfection by-products or does so to a limited extent [24,52,69,77,78]. Additionally, it exhibits good stability, a high redox potential (1.8 eV) [79], operates efficiently across a wide pH range (1 to 8) [24,52,80], and functions effectively within a temperature range of 0 to 40 °C [17,52]. However, it comes with a higher cost compared to chlorine, and its kinetics of slower inactivation have been noted [81,82].
Over the years, research on the antifungal efficacy of peracetic acid has expanded. Studies against Penicillium digitatum found effectiveness at concentrations of 72 ppm for 8 min at 25 °C and 216 ppm for 30 s at 35 °C [83]. At concentrations up to 3.0%, it demonstrated reductions between 2 and 4 logs for bakery spoilage fungi [36], and for industrial purposes in thermo-sensitive strains (Cladosporium cladosporioides, Penicillium commune, Penicillium polonicum, and Penicillium roqueforti) [23]. In the case of Aspergillus brasiliensis (ATCC 16404), peracetic acid exhibited satisfactory action, completely inactivating the species under various tested conditions, such as 30 and 40 °C at 1% for 10 and 15 min and a 5 min exposure time at 40 °C in both conditions (with/without organic load) [18].
Observations aligned with studies by Silva et al. [17], which evaluated fungal species isolated from spoiled meat products, and Stefanello et al. [18], which, dealing with standard strains, suggested that at higher temperatures, the antifungal action of peracetic acid is enhanced. For instance, when applied at 40 °C for 40 s at a concentration of 100 mg/L, its action was significantly more pronounced than the same treatment at room temperature (20 °C), completely inhibiting Monilinia fructicola conidia in water [80].

2.2.2. Disadvantages of Peracetic Acid

Research indicates that peracetic acid reacts with amino acids, phenols, and other aromatic substances in wastewater, leading to the formation of approximately 10–30 μg/L of aldehydes [83]. In a study by Lee et al. [24], comparing minimally processed lettuce washing water with sodium hypochlorite and peracetic acid at different concentrations, it was found that peracetic acid washing generated disinfection by-products, albeit in smaller quantities compared to sodium hypochlorite. These findings contrast with studies by Cavallini et al. [84] and Araújo et al. [85], who reported limited or undetectable amounts of halogenated disinfection by-products during wastewater application. Further research is necessary to elucidate the formation of disinfection by-products resulting from peracetic acid treatment.
The use of peracetic acid may also present other disadvantages [86], including a higher organic content in the effluent, microbial regeneration potential, reduced efficiency against viruses and parasites, unpleasant odors generated by the formation of acetic acid in high concentrations, and potential irritation to the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract [87,88]. The acetic acid released after decomposition and hydrolysis in water [89] can contribute to regeneration, resulting in an increase in organic load in wastewater or water treated with peracetic acid [80,90].

2.3. Benzalkonium Chloride

Benzalkonium chloride belongs to the group of quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs) [91], specifically from the first generation [36]. Quaternary ammonium compounds typically have at least one long hydrophobic alkyl chain substituent at one end and a short alkyl chain (methyl, benzyl, or ethyl benzyl) at the other end of the quaternary ammonium cation [92]. The antimicrobial activity of these compounds depends on the length of the alkyl chain, with homologous C12 being effective against yeasts and molds, C14 acting well on Gram-positive bacteria, and C16 on Gram-negative bacteria [93]. These compounds can be formulated for specific target microorganisms [94,95,96] and are known for their low toxicity [97,98,99,100]. In lower concentrations (0.5 to 5 mg/liter), quaternary ammonium compounds, including benzalkonium chloride, also exhibit fungistatic properties [101].
The performance of benzalkonium chloride against food spoilage fungi has shown promising results. Evaluations of its efficacy at different concentrations (0.3%, 2.5%, and 5%) against spoilage fungal species from bakery products (such as Penicillium roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, Hyphopichia burtonii, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus) revealed its effectiveness in inactivating strains of P. roqueforti [36]. When exposed to different concentrations of benzalkonium chloride, fungi associated with the spoilage of dairy and meat products, including A. westerdijkiae, A. pseudoglaucus, Penicillium commune, P. roqueforti, and P. polonicum, exhibited varying degrees of resistance, with meat product spoilers generally showing higher resistance to this sanitizer [16]. Studies have also reported its effectiveness against aflatoxigenic fungi, with benzalkonium chloride proving effective against multiple strains of Aspergillus spp. [38]. Additionally, it has demonstrated good antifungal action against heat-resistant strains of Paecilomyces variotii, Paecilomyces niveus, and Aspergillus neoglaber [37].

2.3.1. Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Benzalkonium Chloride

Quaternary ammonium compounds, including benzalkonium chloride, are known for their stability over a wide temperature range. They also exhibit some detergency, resulting in higher stability in the presence of organic loads and greater activity in alkaline pH conditions [102]. The antifungal action of benzalkonium chloride against ochratoxigenic fungi, such as P. nordicum, P. verrucosum, and A. westerdijkiae, has shown positive results, even under different conditions of exposure time, concentration, and temperature. Studies have reported that benzalkonium chloride exhibits effective antifungal action, particularly at lower temperatures (10 and 25 °C). However, its efficacy can be negatively affected in the presence of organic loads, simulating a dirty environment [17]. Stefanello et al. [18] also noted greater efficacy of benzalkonium chloride at low temperatures (10 °C) against A. brasiliensis (ATCC 16404). The favorable action at low temperatures is advantageous for the food industry, allowing for cost savings as there would be no need to heat washing water. This enables the use of wells and reservoirs, especially when increasing the temperature throughout the process is neither desired nor required by legislation.

2.3.2. Disadvantages of Benzalkonium Chloride

Insufficient rinsing and sanitizer residue on the surface of equipment can select more tolerant populations and lead to the development of resistance in microorganisms. Compost waste of quaternary ammonium has been found in various types of foods, such as meat, dairy products, fruits, and nuts [103,104]. Due to their wide application, quaternary ammonium compounds have unrestricted use as active ingredients in many commercial sanitizers. As a result, it has been considered a type of emerging pollutant [105]. The presence of quaternary ammonium compounds in soil and water prevents the biodegradation of natural environments due to their toxicity to many species of aquatic and terrestrial organisms [100]. Furthermore, there is the exposure of microorganisms to sub-lethal concentrations of sanitizer [106], facilitating tolerance acquisition by different species and leading to co-resistance and cross-resistance to other antimicrobial agents such as antibiotics [107].

3. Conclusions

The search for effective sanitizers against food spoilage fungi remains a challenge for the food industry. Recent studies have evaluated the in vitro antifungal efficacy of various active ingredients in sanitizers permitted for use in the food industry to control fungi that are relevant as spoilage agents. However, a common finding is that most sanitizers achieve the required fungal inactivation only when tested at the highest concentration specified on the product label. In practice, the food industry tends to use lower concentrations, which are often ineffective.
Despite ongoing research, there is still a need for more information on the mechanisms of action of sanitizing agents on fungal cells, the impact of combining different agents, efficacy against fungal biofilms, and on-site testing. It’s crucial to recognize that there is no ideal antifungal sanitizer. Each compound has advantages and disadvantages, and its action is influenced by various factors. There is a consensus that variability exists in the sensitivity of fungi to sanitizing agents, emphasizing the importance of using the highest concentrations recommended on the product label for a satisfactory spectrum of action, typically for at least 10 to 15 min.
Fungal control in the food industry demands careful attention and commitment from personnel involved in quality control. Developing hygiene plans that consider the correct and most common factors influencing the antifungal action of each sanitizer is essential for achieving the desired results. This involves a comprehensive approach to sanitation to ensure the production of high-quality, contamination-free food products.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.S., A.O.B. and M.V.C.; formal analysis, S.S., T.N.B. and L.B.; resources, M.V.C.; data curation, S.S. and M.V.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.S.; writing—review and editing, A.O.B., M.V.G. and M.V.C.; supervision, M.V.C.; project administration, M.V.C.; funding acquisition, M.V.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

“Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES)”, Finance Code 001 (student grants) and “Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico” (CNPq) (research grant 306902/2023-0).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Perrone, G.; Rodriguez, A.; Magista, D.; Magan, N. Insights into existing and future fungal and mycotoxin contamination of cured meats. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019, 29, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Asefa, D.T.; Kure, C.F.; Gjerde, R.O.; Omer, M.K.; Langsrud, S.; Nesbakken, T.; Skaar, I. Fungal growth patern, sources and factors of mould contamination in a dry-cured meat production facility. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2010, 140, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Davies, C.R.; Wohlgemuth, F.; Young, T.; Violet, J.; Dickinson, M.; Sanders, J.W.; Vallieres, C.; Avery, S.V. Challenges and evolving strategies for mold control in the food supply chain. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2021, 36, 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Krisch, J.; Tserennadmid, R.; VagvOlgyi, C. Essential oils against yeasts and molds that cause food spoilage. In Science against Microbial Pathogens: Communicating Current Research and Technological Advances; Mendez-Vilas, A., Ed.; FORMATEX: Badajoz, Spain, 2011; pp. 1135–1142. [Google Scholar]
  5. Visconti, V.; Coton, E.; Rigalma, K.; Dantigny, P. Effects of disinfectants on inactivation of mold spores relevant to the food industry: A review. Fungal Biol. Rev. 2021, 38, 44–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Parussolo, G.; Oliveira, M.S.; Garcia, M.V.; Bernardi, A.O.; Lemos, J.G.; Stefanello, A.; Mallmann, C.A.; Copetti, M.V. Ochratoxin A production by Aspergillus westerdijkiae in Italian-type salami. Food Microbiol. 2019, 83, 134–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Pitt, J.I.; Hocking, A.D. Fungi and Food Spoilage; Blackie Academic and Professional: London, UK, 2009; 593p. [Google Scholar]
  8. Battilani, P.; Pietri, A.; Giorni, P.; Formenti, S.; Bertuzzi, T.; Toscani, T.; Virgili, R.; Kozakiewicz, Z. Penicillium populations in dry-cured ham manufacturing plants. J. Food Prot. 2007, 70, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sørensen, L.M.; Jacobsen, T.; Nielsen, P.V.; Frisvad, J.C.; Koch, A.G. Mycobiota in the processing areas of two different meat products. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2008, 124, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Parussolo, G.; Bernardi, A.O.; Garcia, M.V.; Stefanello, A.; Silva, T.S.; Copetti, M.V. Fungi in air, raw materials and surface of dry fermented sausage produced in Brazil. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 108, 190–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. de Almeida, T.S.; dos Santos, B.A.; Stefanello, A.; dos Santos, I.D.; Fracari, J.C.; Silva, M.; Giongo, C.; Wagner, R.; Nalério, E.S.; Copetti, M.V. Spontaneously growing fungi on the surface and processing areas of matured sheep ham and volatile compounds produced. Food Res. Int. 2023, 173, 113287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Scaramuzza, N.; Diaferia, C.; Berni, E. Monitoring the mycobiota of three plants manufacturing Culatello (a typical Italian meat product). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 203, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Copetti, M.V. Sanitizers for controlling fungal spoilage in some food industries. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2023, 52, 101072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kuaye, A.Y. Limpeza e Sanitização na Indústria de Alimentos, 1st ed.; Atheneu: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  15. Bernardi, A.O.; Stefanello, A.; Garcia, M.V.; Copetti, M.V. The control of cheese and meat product spoilage fungi by sanitizers: In vitro testing and food industry usage. Lebensm.-Wiss. Technol. 2021, 144, 111204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bernardi, A.O.; da Silva, T.S.; Stefanello, A.; Garcia, M.V.; Parussolo, G.; Dornelles, R.C.P.; Copetti, M.V. Sensitivity of food spoilage fungi to a smoke generator sanitizer. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2019, 289, 72–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Silva, S.; Stefanello, A.; Santos, B.; Fracari, J.; Leães, G.; Copetti, M. Factors that interfere in the action of sanitizers against ochratoxigenic fungi deteriorating dry-cured meat products. Fermentation 2023, 9, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Stefanello, A.; Fracari, J.C.; Silva, M.; Lemos, J.G.; Garcia, M.V.; dos Santos, B.A.; Copetti, M.V. Influence of type, concentration, exposure time, temperature, and presence of organic load on the antifungal efficacy of industrial sanitizers against Aspergillus brasiliensis (ATCC 16404). Food Microbiol. 2021, 97, 103740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Andrade, M.J.; Peromingo, B.; Rodríguez, M.; Rodríguez, A. Effect of cured meat product ingredients on the Penicillium verrucosum growth and ochratoxin A production. Food Control 2018, 96, 310–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hayes, P.R. Microbiologia e Higiene de los Alimentos; Acribia: Zaragoza, Spain, 1993; 369p. [Google Scholar]
  21. Morelli, A.M.F. Escherichia coli 0157:H7: Occurrence in a Milk Production Environment in the Viçosa Microregion, Adhesion to Different Surfaces and Resistance to Sanitizers. Ph.D. Thesis, Postgraduate in Food Science and Technology, Federal University of Viçosa, UFV, Viçosa, Brazil, 2008; p. 173. [Google Scholar]
  22. Bernardi, A.O.; Garcia, M.V.; Copetti, M.V. Food industry spoilage fungi control through facility sanitization. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2019, 29, 28–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bernardi, A.O.; Stefanello, A.; Garcia, M.V.; Parussolo, G.; Stefanello, R.F.; Moro, C.B.; Copetti, M.V. Efficacy of commercial sanitizers against fungi of concern in the food industry. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 97, 25–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lee, W.-N.; Huang, C.-H. Formation of disinfection byproducts in wash water and lettuce by washing with sodium hypochlorite and peracetic acid sanitizers. Food Chem. X 2019, 1, 100003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. European Standard No. 13697 (2001); Chemical Disinfectants and Antiseptics—Quantitative Non-Porous Surface Test for the Evaluation of Bactericidal and/or Fungicidal Activity of Chemical Disinfectants Used in Food, Industrial, Domestic, and Institutional Areas-Test Method and Requirements without Mechanical Action (Phase 2, Step 2). iTeh Standards: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2001.
  26. Park, K.; Mok, J.S.; Kwon, J.Y.; Ryu, A.R.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, H.J. Food-borne outbreaks, distributions, virulence, and antibiotic resistance profiles of Vibrio parahaemolyticus in Korea from 2003 to 2016: A review. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2018, 21, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Fukuzaki, S. Mechanisms of actions of sodium hypochlorite in cleaning and disinfection processes. Biocontrol Sci. 2006, 11, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Duarte, A.L.A.; Rosário, D.K.A.D.; Oliveira, S.B.S.; de Souza, H.L.S.; de Carvalho, R.V.; Carneiro, J.C.S.; Silva, P.I.; Bernardes, P.C. Ultrasound improves antimicrobial effect of sodium dichloroisocyanurate to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium on purple cabbage. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 269, 12–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Resende, A.; Souza, P.I.M.D.; Souza, J.R.D.; Blum, L.E.B. Ação do hipoclorito de sódio no controle do Erysiphe diffusana soja. Rev. Caatinga 2009, 22, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  30. Wang, D.; Fletcher, G.C.; On, S.L.; Palmer, J.S.; Gagic, D.; Flint, S.H. Biofilm formation, sodium hypochlorite susceptibility and genetic diversity of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2023, 385, 110011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Petri, E.; Virto, R.; Mottura, M.; Parra, J. Comparison of peracetic acid and chlorine effectiveness during fresh-cut vegetable processing at industrial scale. J. Food Prot. 2021, 84, 1592–1602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Teng, Z.; Luo, Y.; Alborzi, S.; Zhou, B.; Chen, L.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, B.; Millner, P.; Wang, Q. Investigation on chlorine-based sanitization under stabilized conditions in the presence of organic load. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 150–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pereira, S.S.P.; Oliveira, H.M.; Turrini, R.N.T.; Lacerda, R.A. Disinfection with sodium hypochlorite in hospital environmental surfaces in the reduction of contamination and infection prevention: A systematic review. Rev. Esc. Enferm. USP 2015, 49, 681–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Su, Y.; Shen, X.; Chiu, T.; Green, T.; Zhu, M.-J. Efficacy of chlorine and peroxyacetic acid to control Listeria monocytogenes on apples in simulated dump tank water system. Food Microbiol. 2022, 106, 104033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bernardi, A.O.; Stefanello, A.; Lemos, J.G.; Garcia, M.V.; Copetti, M.V. Antifungal activity of commercial sanitizers against strains of Penicillium roqueforti, Penicillium paneum, Hyphopichia burtonii, and Aspergillus pseudoglaucus: Bakery spoilage fungi. Food Microbiol. 2019, 83, 59–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Stefanello, A.; Magrini, L.N.; Lemos, J.G.; Garcia, M.V.; Bernardi, A.O.; Cichoski, A.J.; Copetti, M.V. Comparison of electrolized water and multiple chemical sanitizer action against heat-resistant molds (HRM). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 335, 108856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lemos, J.G.; Stefanello, A.; Bernardi, A.O.; Garcia, M.V.; Magrini, L.N.; Cichoski, A.J.; Wagner, R.; Copetti, M.V. Antifungal efficacy of sanitizers and electrolyzed waters against toxigenic Aspergillus. Food Res. Int. 2020, 137, 109451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Parish, M.; Beuchat, L.; Suslow, T.; Harris, L.; Garrett, E.; Farber, J.; Busta, F. Methods to reduce/eliminate pathogens from fresh and fresh-cut produce. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf. 2003, 2, 161–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tomás-Callejas, A.; López-Gálvez, F.; Sbodio, A.; Artés, F.; Artés-Hernández, 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]
  40. Gómez, L.V.M. Generation of trihalomethanes with chlorine-based sanitizers and impact on microbial, nutritional, and sensory quality of baby spinach. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2013, 85, 210–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ramos, B.; Miller, F.A.; Brandão, T.R.S.; Teixeira, P.; Silva, C.L.M. Fresh fruits and vegetables—An overview on applied methodologies to improve its quality and safety. Innov. Food Sci. Emerg. Technol. 2013, 20, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gómez-López, V.M.; Lannoo, A.S.; Gil, M.I.; Allende, A. Minimum free chlorine residual level required for the inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and tri-halomethane generation during dynamic washing of fresh-cut spinach. Food Control 2014, 42, 132–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bari, M.L.; Kawamoto, S. Process hygiene: Types of sterilant. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; pp. 216–225. [Google Scholar]
  44. Izumi, H. Process Hygiene: Overall Approach to Hygienic Processing; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  45. Ribeiro, M.; Freitas-Silva, O.; Castro, I.; Teixeira, A.; Marques-Da-Silva, S.; Sales-Moraes, A.; Abreu, L.; Sousa, C. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and peracetic acid against Aspergillus nomius in Brazil nuts. Food Microbiol. 2020, 90, 103449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Salomão, B.C.M.; Aragão, G.M.F.; Churey, J.J.; Worobo, R.W. Efficacy of sanitizing treatments against Penicillium expan-sum inoculated on six varieties of apples. J. Food Prot. 2008, 71, 643–647. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Chen, X.; Hung, Y.-C. Effects of organic load, sanitizer pH and initial chlorine concentration of chlorine-based sanitizers on chlorine demand of fresh produce wash waters. Food Control 2017, 77, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cuggino, S.G.; Bascón-Villegas, I.; Rincón, F.; Pérez, M.A.; Posada-Izquierdo, G.; Marugán, J.; Carro, C.P.; Pérez-Rodríguez, F. Modelling the combined effect of chlorine, benzyl isothiocyanate, exposure time and cut size on the reduction of Salmonella in fresh-cut lettuce during washing process. Food Microbiol. 2020, 86, 103346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Weng, S.; Luo, Y.; Li, J.; Zhou, B.; Jacangelo, J.G.; Schwab, K.J. Assessment and speciation of chlorine demand in fresh-cut produce wash water. Food Control 2016, 60, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Marriott, N.G.; Schilling, M.W.; Gravani, R.B. Sanitizers. In Principles of Food Sanitation; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 175–198. [Google Scholar]
  51. Zoellner, C.; Aguayo-Acosta, A.; Siddiqui, M.W.; Dávila-Aviña, J.E. Peracetic Acid in Disinfection of Fruits and Vegetables. In Postharvest Disinfection of Fruits and Vegetables; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; pp. 53–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cardador, M.J.; Gallego, M. Effect of the chlorinated washing of minimally processed vegetables on the generation of haloacetic acids. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7326–7332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Banach, J.L.; Van Bokhorst-Van De Veen, H.; Van Overbeek, L.S.; Van Der Zouwen, P.S.; Zwietering, M.H.; van Der Fels-Klerx, H.J. Effectiveness of a peracetic acid solution on Escherichia coli reduction during fresh-cut lettuce processing at the laboratory and industrial scales. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 321, 108537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hrudey, S.E. Chlorination disinfection by-products, public health risk tradeoffs and me. Water Res. 2009, 43, 2057–2092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Simpson, A.M.-A.; Mitch, W.A. Chlorine and ozone disinfection and disinfection byproducts in postharvest food processing facilities: A review. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 52, 1825–1867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fan, X.; Sokorai, K.J. Formation of trichloromethane in chlorinated water and fresh-cut produce and as a result of reaction with citric acid. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015, 109, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Shen, C.; Norris, P.; Williams, O.; Hagan, S.; Li, K. Generation of chlorine by-products in simulated wash water. Food Chem. 2016, 190, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Van Haute, S.; Sampers, I.; Holvoet, K.; Uyttendaele, M. Physicochemical Quality and Chemical Safety of Chlorine as a Reconditioning Agent and Wash Water Disinfectant for Fresh-Cut Lettuce Washing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 79, 2850–2861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Dunkin, N.; Weng, S.; Schwab, K.J.; McQuarrie, J.; Bell, K.Y.; Jacangelo, J.G. Comparative inactivation of murine norovirus and MS2 bacteriophage by peracetic acid and monochloramine in municipal secondary wastewater effluent. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 2972–2981. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Elhalwagy, M.; Biabani, R.; Bertanza, G.; Wisdom, B.; Goldman-Torres, J.; McQuarrie, J.; Straatman, A.; Santoro, D. Mechanistic modeling of peracetic acid wastewater disinfection using computational fluid dynamics: Integrating solids settling with microbial inactivation kinetics. Water Res. 2021, 201, 117355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ao, X.-W.; Eloranta, J.; Huang, C.-H.; Santoro, D.; Sun, W.-J.; Lu, Z.-D.; Li, C. Peracetic acid-based advanced oxidation processes for decontamination and disinfection of water: A review. Water Res. 2021, 188, 116479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Fallik, E. Microbial quality and safety of fresh produce. In Postharvest Handling; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 313–339. [Google Scholar]
  63. Osaili, T.M.; Alaboudi, A.R.; Al-Quran, H.N.; Al-Nabulsi, A.A. Decontamination and survival of Enterobacteriaceae on shredded iceberg lettuce during storage. Food Microbiol. 2018, 73, 129–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Singh, P.; Hung, Y.; Qi, H. Efficacy of Peracetic Acid in Inactivating Foodborne Pathogens on Fresh Produce Surface: Use of PAA to ensure produce safety. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 432–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Srey, S.; Jahid, I.K.; Ha, S.-D. Biofilm formation in food industries: A food safety concern. Food Control 2013, 31, 572–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kim, J.; Huang, C.-H. Reactivity of peracetic acid with organic compounds: A critical review. ACS ES&T Water 2021, 1, 15–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Lazado, C.C.; Sveen, L.R.; Soleng, M.; Pedersen, L.-F.; Timmerhaus, G. Crowding reshapes the mucosal but not the sys-temic response repertoires of Atlantic salmon to peracetic acid. Aquaculture 2021, 531, 735830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Du, P.; Liu, W.; Cao, H.; Zhao, H.; Huang, C.-H. Oxidation of amino acids by peracetic acid: Reaction kinetics, pathways and theoretical calculations. Water Res. X 2018, 1, 100002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Lieke, T.; Meinelt, T.; Hoseinifar, S.H.; Pan, B.; Straus, D.L.; Steinberg, C.E.W. Sustainable aquaculture requires environmental-friendly treatment strategies for fish diseases. Rev. Aquac. 2019, 12, 943–965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lazado, C.C.; Voldvik, V. Temporal control of responses to chemically induced oxidative stress in the gill mucosa of Atlantic salmon (Salmosalar). J. Photochem. Photobiol. B Biol. 2020, 205, 111851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Acosta, F.; Montero, D.; Izquierdo, M.; Galindo-Villegas, J. High-level biocidal products effectively eradicate pathogenic γ-proteobacteria biofilms from aquaculture facilities. Aquaculture 2021, 532, 736004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Banach, J.L.; Sampers, I.; Van Haute, S.; Van Der Fels-Klerx, H. Effect of disinfectants on preventing the cross-contamination of pathogens in fresh produce washing water. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2015, 12, 8658–8677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Kim, J.-M.; Zhang, B.-Z.; Park, J.-M. Comparison of sanitization efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and peroxyacetic acid used as disinfectants in poultry food processing plants. Food Control 2023, 152, 109865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. da Silva Fernandes, M.; Kabuki, D.Y.; Kuaye, A.Y. Behavior of Listeria monocytogenes in a multi-species biofilm with Enterococcus faecalis and Enterococcus faecium and control through sanitation procedures. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 200, 5–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wang, R.Y.; Shen, X.; Su, Y.; Critzer, F.; Zhu, M.-J. Chlorine and peroxyacetic acid inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes in simulated apple dump tank water. Food Control 2023, 144, 109314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Lippman, B.; Yao, S.; Huang, R.; Chen, H. Evaluation of the combined treatment of ultraviolet light and peracetic acid as an alternative to chlorine washing for lettuce decontamination. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 323, 108590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Bai, Y.; Shi, C.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, H.; Chang, R.; Hu, X.; Hu, J.; Yang, C.; Peng, K.; et al. Enhanced inactivation of Escherichia coli by ultrasound combined with peracetic acid during water disinfection. Chemosphere 2023, 322, 138095. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Crathorne, B. Sewage Disinfection: By-Product Formation, Ecotoxicology and Microbiological Efficacy, 43rd ed.; National Rivers Authority: Medmenham, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  79. Kitis, M. Disinfection of wastewater with peracetic acid: A review. Environ. Int. 2004, 30, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Van Haute, S.; Tryland, I.; Escudero, C.; Vanneste, M.; Sampers, I. Chlorine dioxide as water disinfectant during fresh-cut iceberg lettuce washing: Disinfectant demand, disinfection efficiency, and chlorite formation. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 75, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Taverner, P.; Leo, A.; Cunningham, N. Efficacy of peracetic acid in ambient and warm water to control conidia of Penicillium digitatum. N. Z. J. Crop. Hortic. Sci. 2017, 46, 264–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Zhang, K.; Zhou, X.; Du, P.; Zhang, T.; Cai, M.; Sun, P.; Huang, C.-H. Oxidation of β-lactam antibiotics by peracetic acid: Reaction kinetics, product and pathway evaluation. Water Res. 2017, 123, 153–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cavallini, G.S.; de Campos, S.X.; de Souza, J.B.; de Sousa, V.C.M. Evaluation of the physical–chemical characteristics of wastewater after disinfection with peracetic acid. Water Air Soil Pollut. 2013, 224, 1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Araújo, P.A.; Lemos, M.; Mergulhão, F.; Melo, L.; Simões, M. The Influence of interfering substances on the antimicrobial activity of selected quaternary ammonium compounds. Int. J. Food Sci. 2013, 2013, 237581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Rossi, S.; Antonelli, M.; Mezzanotte, V.; Nurizzo, C. Peracetic acid disinfection: A feasible alternative to wastewater chlorination. Water Environ. Res. 2007, 79, 341–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Chenjiao, W.; Hongyan, Z.; Qing, G.; Xiaoqi, Z.; Liying, G.; Ying, F. In-use evaluation of peracetic acid for high-level disinfection of endoscopes. Gastroenterol. Nurs. 2016, 39, 116–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Luongo, G.; Previtera, L.; Ladhari, A.; Di Fabio, G.; Zarrelli, A. Peracetic acid vs. sodium hypochlorite: Degradation and transformation of drugs in wastewater. Molecules 2020, 25, 2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Zhang, C.; Brown, P.J.; Hu, Z. Thermodynamic properties of an emerging chemical disinfectant, peracetic acid. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 621, 948–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Sanchez, R.C.; Martínez, R.S.; Tejero, M. An evaluation of the efficiency and impact of raw wastewater disinfection with peracetic acid prior to ocean discharge. Water Sci. Technol. 1995, 32, 159–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Merchel Piovesan Pereira, B.; Tagkopoulos, I. Benzalkonium chlorides: Uses, regulatory status, and microbial resistance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, e00377-19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Ahmad, R.; Cho, E.; Rakhmat, S.; Hyun, M.; Park, C.-B.; Kim, S. Characterization of structure isomers of ethylbenzalkyl dimethyl ammonium chlorides and quantification in commercial household disinfectant products. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2023, 29, 102979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kuca, K.; Marek, J.; Stodulka, P.; Musilek, K.; Hanusova, P.; Hrabinova, M.; Jun, D. Preparation of benzalkonium salts differing in the length of a side alkyl chain. Molecules 2007, 12, 2341–2347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Gerba, C.P. Quaternary ammonium biocides: Efficacy in application. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 464–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Prieto-Blanco, M.C.; Planas-Franco, A.; Muniategui-Lorenzo, S.; González-Castro, M.J. Mixed-mode chromatography of mixed functionalized analytes as the homologues of benzalkonium chloride. Application to pharmaceutical formulations. Talanta 2023, 255, 124228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Núñez, O.; Moyano, E.; Galceran, M.T. Determination of quaternary ammonium biocides by liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr. A 2004, 1058, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Barber, O.W.; Hartmann, E.M. Benzalkonium chloride: A systematic review of its environmental entry through wastewater treatment, potential impact, and mitigation strategies. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 52, 2691–2719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Makvandi, P.; Jamaledin, R.; Jabbari, M.; Nikfarjam, N.; Borzacchiello, A. Antibacterial quaternary ammonium compounds in dental materials: A systematic review. Dent. Mater. 2018, 34, 851–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Zhang, C.; Cui, F.; Zeng, G.-M.; Jiang, M.; Yang, Z.-Z.; Yu, Z.-G.; Zhu, M.-Y.; Shen, L.-Q. Quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs): A review on occurrence, fate and toxicity in the environment. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 518–519, 352–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Lavorgna, M.; Russo, C.; D’Abrosca, B.; Parrella, A.; Isidori, M. Toxicity and genotoxicity of the quaternary ammonium compound benzalkonium chloride (BAC) using Daphnia magna and Ceriodaphnia dubia as model systems. Environ. Pollut. 2016, 210, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Wessels, S.; Ingmer, H. Modes of action of three disinfectant active substances: A review. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 2013, 67, 456–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  101. Schmidt, R.H. Basic Elements of Equipment Cleaning and Sanitizing in Food Processing and Handling Operations; University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences EDIS, 1997; Available online: http://purl.fcla.edu/UF/lib/FS077 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
  102. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Evaluation of Monitoring Data on Residues of Didecyldimethylammonium Chloride (DDAC) and Benzalkonium Chloride (BAC); European Food Safety Authority: Parma, Italy, 2013; Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/en-483 (accessed on 19 January 2024).
  103. Bertuzzi, T.; Pietri, A. Determination of benzalkonium homologues and didecyldimethylammonium in powdered and liquid milk for infants by hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry. Food Anal. Methods 2013, 7, 1278–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ertekin, E.; Hatt, J.K.; Konstantinidis, K.T.; Tezel, U. Similar microbial consortia and genes are involved in the biodegradation of benzalkonium chlorides in different environments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 4304–4313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Tezel, U.; Pavlostathis, S.G. Quaternary ammonium disinfectants: Microbial Adaptation, degradation and ecology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 296–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Mc Cay, P.H.; Ocampo-Sosa, A.A.; Fleming, G.T.A. Effect of subinhibitory concentrations of benzalkonium chloride on the competitiveness of Pseudomonas aeruginosa grown in continuous culture. Microbiology 2010, 156 Pt 1, 30–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Oh, S.; Tandukar, M.; Pavlostathis, S.G.; Chain, P.S.G.; Konstantinidis, K.T. Microbial community adaptation to quaternary ammonium biocides as revealed by metagenomics. Environ. Microbiol. 2013, 15, 2850–2864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Fermentation 10 00169 g001
Figure 1. Schematic of in vitro efficacy testing for liquid (a) and smoke (b) sanitizers.
Figure 1. Schematic of in vitro efficacy testing for liquid (a) and smoke (b) sanitizers.
Fermentation 10 00169 g001
Table 1. Sanitizers, active ingredients, and concentrations indicated by the manufacturer.
Table 1. Sanitizers, active ingredients, and concentrations indicated by the manufacturer.
SanitizerActive PrincipleSuggested Use Concentration
Benzalkonium chlorideBenzalkonium chloride0.3–5%
Sodium hypochloriteSodium hypochlorite, 10–12% of active chlorine0.1–1%
Peracetic acidPeracetic acid, hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid0.15–3%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Silva, S.; Bernardi, A.O.; Garcia, M.V.; Bisello, T.N.; Borstmann, L.; Copetti, M.V. Sanitizers Used for Fungal Spoilage Control in Dry-Fermented Cured Meat Production. Fermentation 2024, 10, 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10030169

AMA Style

Silva S, Bernardi AO, Garcia MV, Bisello TN, Borstmann L, Copetti MV. Sanitizers Used for Fungal Spoilage Control in Dry-Fermented Cured Meat Production. Fermentation. 2024; 10(3):169. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10030169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Silva, Sarah, Angélica Olivier Bernardi, Marcelo Valle Garcia, Thais Nunes Bisello, Larissa Borstmann, and Marina Venturini Copetti. 2024. "Sanitizers Used for Fungal Spoilage Control in Dry-Fermented Cured Meat Production" Fermentation 10, no. 3: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10030169

APA Style

Silva, S., Bernardi, A. O., Garcia, M. V., Bisello, T. N., Borstmann, L., & Copetti, M. V. (2024). Sanitizers Used for Fungal Spoilage Control in Dry-Fermented Cured Meat Production. Fermentation, 10(3), 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/fermentation10030169

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