Next Article in Journal
Recent Advances in Conventional Methods and Electrochemical Aptasensors for Mycotoxin Detection
Next Article in Special Issue
Heterocyclic Aromatic Amines in Meat: Formation, Isolation, Risk Assessment, and Inhibitory Effect of Plant Extracts
Previous Article in Journal
Suitability Analysis of 17 Probiotic Type Strains of Lactic Acid Bacteria as Starter for Kimchi Fermentation
 
 
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 6
10.3390/foods10061436
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

Investigation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants Used in Meat-Processing Facilities to Control Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile Spores

by
Siobhán McSharry
1,2,
Leonard Koolman
1,
Paul Whyte
2 and
Declan Bolton
1,*
1
Teagasc Food Research Centre, Ashtown, 15 Dublin, Ireland
2
School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Belfield, 4 Dublin, Ireland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2021, 10(6), 1436; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061436
Submission received: 16 April 2021 / Revised: 28 May 2021 / Accepted: 17 June 2021 / Published: 21 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quality and Safety of Meat and Meat Products)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Spore-forming bacteria are a major concern for the food industry as they cause both spoilage and food safety issues. Moreover, as they are more resistant than vegetative cells, their removal from the food processing environment may be difficult to achieve. This study investigated the efficacy of the ten most commonly used disinfectant agents (assigned 1–10), used at the recommended concentrations in the meat industry, for their ability to eliminate Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile spores. Test-tube based suspension assays suggested that disinfectants 2 (10% v/v preparation of a mixture of hydrogen peroxide (10–30%), acetic acid (1–10%) and peracetic acid (1–10%)), 7 (4% w/v preparation of a mixture of peroxymonosulphate (30–50%), sulphamic acid (1–10%) and troclosene sodium (1–10%)) and 10 (2% v/v preparation of a mixture of glutaraldehyde (10–30%), benzalkonium chloride (1–10%)) were the most effective formulations. D-values for these ranged from 2.1 to 8.4 min at 20 °C for the target spores. Based on these findings, it is recommended that these disinfectants are used to control Clostridium spores in the meat plant environment.

1. Introduction

Cleaning and disinfection are essential to prevent the food processing environment, including equipment, from acting as a source of bacterial pathogens and spoilage agents [1]. Effective disinfection (the process of cleaning to destroy bacteria) may be achieved using chemical or physical treatments [2,3,4]. While all disinfectants kill vegetative cells, those based on alcohols, phenols or quaternary ammonium compounds may not destroy bacterial spores even at high concentrations [5]. Bacterial spores are ubiquitous in meat slaughter and processing plants as they are continually introduced on contaminated hides [6,7]. Moreover, cross-contamination from contaminated equipment, such as the hide/fleece puller, knives and cutting boards is unavoidable [8].
Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile are spore-forming anaerobic bacteria [9,10]. C. sporogenes are a good representative for Clostridium spp. in studies that evaluate disinfectants [11], including acting as a surrogate for Clostridium botulinum [12,13,14,15]. Clostridioides difficile (formerly Clostridium difficile; [16,17]) are Gram-positive, toxin-producing bacteria that can cause diarrhoea in humans, potentially leading to severe illness and death [18]. Although previously considered to be exclusively associated with healthcare facilities, molecular methods, such as whole genome sequencing (WGS), suggest that a significant proportion of C. difficile infections may be community acquired [19]. These bacteria readily colonise the intestinal tract of food animals, are shed in the faeces, and contaminate hides and fleece before transfer to carcasses and, ultimately, meat products [20,21,22]. Bouttier et al. [23] reported C. difficile in vacuum-packaged ground meat and recent studies in our laboratory suggest that these bacteria are common in beef, pork and lamb abattoirs.
Glutaraldehyde, formaldehyde, hydrogen peroxide, peroxy acids, as well as iodine and chlorine-based compounds, have sporicidal activity and are used individually or in combination with disinfectants [24]. Their efficacy mainly depends on the concentration of the compound and contact time, assuming the main organic debris/waste (bone dust, blood, etc.) has been removed prior to disinfection [24,25]. There are currently several different formulations that are commercially available, but no information on their relative effectiveness on which meat plant managers can make an informed decision about purchase and use.
The objective of this study was to test the sporicidal efficacy of the ten most commonly used disinfectants (at the recommended concentrations for use) marketed as sporicidal agents for use in food processing plants, including abattoirs. Further investigation would then establish the D-values for the three most effective disinfectants to establish the minimum contact times required to ensure the complete destruction of a target concentration of spores.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation and Harvesting of Spores

2.1.1. Clostridium Sporogenes

Clostridium sporogenes (DSM 767) was purchased as live cultures in broth from the Deutsche Sammlung von Mikroorganismen und Zellkulturen GmbH (DSMZ, Braunschweig, Germany). Exactly 100 µL of the C. sporogenes suspension was pipetted into deoxygenated cooked-meat medium (CMM; Oxoid Ltd., Hampshire, United Kingdom (CM0081)) and incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for 12–18 h in an anaerobic cabinet (Don Whitley, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom). Exactly 300 µL of the CMM suspension was then plated onto Campden Sporulation Agar (CSA; [26]) and anaerobically incubated at 37 °C for 12 days. In a laminar flow cabinet, 5 mL of chilled sterile distilled water (SDW) was added to the surface of the CSA plates and a sterile spreader was used to gently agitate the surface of the agar to form a spore suspension. This suspension was transferred to another CSA plate and the agitating process was repeated. The spore suspensions were then pooled to fill a 50 mL tube, vortexed and centrifuged 8–13 times at 7500× g at 4 °C for 15 min and resuspended with 25 mL SDW after each spin to remove cell debris and achieve the high purification of spores. The resuspension volume of SDW was diluted to achieve the required final spore concentration and the presence of spores was confirmed using the Schaeffer and Fulton’s Method [27]. The spore concentration was estimated by plating 1 mL of a heat-treated (80 °C for 10 min) suspension on deoxygenated reinforced clostridial agar (RCA; Oxoid, CM0151). Spore suspensions were placed in 1 mL aliquots and frozen at −80 °C until required for inoculum preparation.

2.1.2. Clostridioides Difficile

Clostridioides difficile, strain D17MD99, is ribotype 126, which has been frequently recovered from carcasses, meat products and other foods and has been associated with human disease [28]. Spores were prepared and harvested as previously described [29,30]. Briefly, C. difficile was grown in brain heart infusion broth, supplemented with 0.1% L-cysteine and 5 mg/mL yeast extract (BHI; Oxoid, (CM1135)) agar overnight at 37 °C in an anaerobic workstation (Don Whitley). A starter culture was prepared by inoculating 1% of the overnight cultures in 2 mL BHI broth and incubated for 16 h until an optical density at 600 nm (OD600) of between 0.2 and 0.5 was obtained. BHI broth was inoculated with 1% of this starter culture and incubated for 5 days at 37 °C to allow for sporulation. Following sporulation, tubes containing the spore suspensions were pooled, vortexed and centrifuged 4 times at 7500× g at 4 °C for 10 min and the pellet was resuspended with SDW after each spin. From this culture, 1 mL was extracted, heated at 60 °C for 25 min to kill any vegetative cells present and the spores enumerated on BHI agar to estimate the final concentration (log10 CFU/mL). The spore suspension was also viewed under the microscope to assess purity. The inoculum was dispensed in 1 mL aliquots and frozen at −80 °C until required.

2.2. Preparation of Disinfectant Agents

The ten commercial disinfectants tested in these studies, chemical formulation and the concentrations used are provided in Table 1. Solutions of each agent were prepared as recommended by the manufacturer to double the required concentration. Additionally, separate tubes containing 9 mL sterile distilled water (SDW) were also prepared. All tubes were vortexed and placed in a 25 °C incubator to equilibrate overnight to eliminate any temperature variability.

2.3. Suspension Tests

The previously prepared 1 mL aliquots, containing C. sporogenes or C. difficile spores (108–109 CFU/mL), were removed from the freezer and allowed to thaw under chilled conditions. A 1 mL aliquot containing the spore suspension was transferred to 9 mL SDW and vortexed before being added to a test-tube containing 10 mL of the double strength disinfectant agent. SDW was used as the control and 4 test-tubes were prepared for each disinfectant. Each tube was thoroughly vortexed and left on the laboratory bench at a temperature of approximately 18 °C. After 20 and 60 min, 2 test-tubes for each disinfectant and the control were removed, centrifuged (at 7500× g at 4 °C for 10 min), the pellet resuspended in 1.5 mL of SDW and vortexed.
The spores were then resuspended in sterile Eppendorf tubes and put on a heating block (Techne Dri-Block DB-3) for 10 min at 80 °C for C. sporogenes or for 25 min at 60 °C for C. difficile to remove any vegetative cells. The ability of a given disinfectant to reduce the target spore concentration was evaluated in suspension tests in SDW and in broth RCM (reinforced clostridial medium (RCM; Oxoid, (CM0149))) or BHI broth, respectively, for C. sporogenes and C. difficile to study the efficacy of these agents in the presence of low concentrations of organic matter.

2.4. Calculating Decimal Reduction Times (D-Values) for Most Effective Disinfectants

D-values were obtained in broths (RCM/BHI) by removing a sample from the broth-disinfectant-spore mixture periodically (disinfectant 2 sampled at t = 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12 min, disinfectant 7 at t = 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24 min and disinfectant 10 were analysed at t = 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 min) and enumerating the surviving spores as described below. As it was essential to immediately stop the sporicidal action, the samples removed were immediately added to 10 mL Dey–Engley’s neutralising broth (D3435, Merck Life Science, Dorset, United Kingdom) and allowed stand at room temperature (approximately 18 °C), centrifuged, (7500× g at 4 °C for 10 min) and the pellet resuspended in 1.5 mL of SDW and vortexed. These were heat treated, as above, to ensure that the vegetative cells were destroyed.

2.5. Microbial Analysis

Serial dilutions of the spore suspensions were prepared in maximum recovery diluent (MRD; Oxoid, CM0733), and plated on various agars for each organism. Deoxygenated RCA was used for the enumeration of C. sporogenes and incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for 72 h using AnaeroGen sachets (Oxoid, AN0035) and an Anerojar (Biomerieux, 96128). C. difficile was enumerated on pre-reduced C. difficile moxalactum–norfloxacin (CDMN) agar (Oxoid, CM0601), containing CDMN supplement (Oxoid, SR0096E), together with 7% (v/v) defibrinated horse blood (Cruinn Diagnostics Ltd., Dublin, Ireland, HB034), and was incubated anaerobically at 37 °C for 48 h.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The assessment for efficacy was performed in triplicate and the D-values in duplicate and repeated 3 times. Data from the experiment were analysed using a two-way ANOVA with disinfectant and treatment time as different variables. Tukey’s multiple comparisons post hoc test were performed with significance defined at p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed using GraphPad Prism 7.02 (Graphpad Software Incorporated, San Diego, CA, USA). The D-values were obtained by plotting surviving spores against time and obtaining the inverse of the slope.

3. Results

The sporicidal efficacy of ten different branded disinfecting agents against C. sporogenes and C. difficile spores was tested in SDW and RCM (C. sporogenes) or BHI (C. difficile) for 20 and 60 min (Table 2).
As for SDW tests, after 20 min the C. sporogenes spores were reduced from 7.0 log10 CFU/mL to between 0.5 and 4.9 log10 CFU/mL with similar counts achieved after 60 min. Although all disinfecting agents achieved lower counts compared to the control, disinfectants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 were effective, achieving significantly (p < 0.05) lower counts after both 20 and 60 min. The C. sporogenes spore counts in RCM broth ranged from 0.1 to 6.1 log10 CFU/mL after 20 min and from 0.1 to 5.9 log10 CFU/mL after 60 min. After 20 min disinfectants 2, 6 and 7 displayed the highest sporicidal activity followed by 1, 4, 9 and 10, while 3, 5 and 8 were statistically similar to the control. After 60 min exposure, disinfectant 10 joined 2, 6 and 7 as the most effective at reducing the spore concentrations. Disinfectants 1, 3, 4 and 9 also achieved significantly (p < 0.05) lower counts, while 5 and 8 counts were still statistically similar to the control. Thus, based on these results, disinfectants 2, 6 and 7 were the most effective sporicidal agents, while 3, 5 and 8 were the least effective.
Similar results were obtained with C. difficile spores in SDW, where disinfectants 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9 achieved significantly lower counts, as compared to the controls and the other disinfectants after both 20 and 60 min with counts of 0.5 log10 CFU/mL or less. C. difficile counts in solutions with 3, 6, 8 and 10 were also significantly lower than the control and 1 (which were statistically similar) but were significantly higher than 2, 4, 5, 7 and 9. When tested in BHI broth, disinfectants 2 (1.1 log10 CFU/mL) and 7 (2.4 log10 CFU/mL) achieved the lowest C. difficile counts after 20 min. These were joined by 10 (0.3 log10 CFU/mL) after 60 min with counts that were significantly lower than 6, 8 and 9 which were, in turn, significantly lower than 1, 3, 4 and 5, all of which were statistically similar to the control. Thus, disinfectants 2, 7 and 10 were considered to be the top three sporicidal agents against C. difficile while 1, 3, 4 and 5 were the least effective at killing these spores.
The D-values for disinfectants 2, 7 and 10 were 2.1, 5.0 and 6.6 min for C. sporogenes in RCM broth and 5.3, 5.5 and 8.4 min for C. difficile in BHI broth, respectively, with R2 values ranging from 0.90 to 0.99 (Figure 1 and Figure 2, Table 3).

4. Discussion

In this study, ten commercially available disinfectants that are commonly used to disinfect meat plants, including sporicidal agents, were evaluated for their efficacy at killing C. sporogenes and C. difficile spores. The most effective disinfectants contained hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, acetic acid, peroxymonosulphate, sulphamic acid, troclosene sodium, glutaraldehyde and/or benzalkonium chloride as these ingredients were all part of the formulations displaying the greatest sporicidal activity.
Hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid are two of the most important peroxygens in disinfectants as they are effective against bacteria, virus, fungi and spores [4,24,31,32,33]. Both are used for industrial processes, including food plant and equipment decontamination and medical device disinfection/sterilization [34], using high concentrations (30% or greater) to ensure sporicidal properties [35]. Sattar et al. [36] reported that a 7% solution of hydrogen peroxide took up to 6 h to inactivate spores, whereas Wardle et al. [37] exposed Bacillus spores to 10% hydrogen peroxide and achieved complete elimination after 1 h. This agent works by removing protein from the spores’ coats [38] and producing destructive hydroxyl free radicals that can attack membrane lipids, DNA, and other essential cell components [33]. Similarly, peracetic acid denatures proteins, disrupting cell-wall permeability, and oxidizes sulfhydryl and sulphur bonds in proteins, enzymes, and other metabolites [32]. This agent is considered a more potent sporicide, compared to hydrogen peroxide, whilst being only slightly affected by the presence of organic matter [39,40], but is more corrosive than hydrogen peroxide [41]. Several studies have reported that 0.05%–1% peracetic acid inactivates bacterial spores in 15 s to 30 min using spore suspension tests [32,42,43] including inactivation of mesophilic Clostridium spores [44,45,46,47]. Both agents are stable in the presence of an acid [24,33] and acetic acid is often added to increase the efficacy of hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. Indeed, acetic acid is especially useful for this function as it is relatively nontoxic, inexpensive, and widely available [48]. Interestingly, disinfectants 2 and 3 contained the same compounds (hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid and acetic acid) at approximately the same concentrations, but the former was the most effective sporicidal agent tested, while the latter was ineffective. This was attributed to disinfectant 2 being applied at 10% (v/v) and 3 at 2% (v/v), as recommended by the manufacturers. This highlights the importance of using an effective concentration for deactivation.
Peroxymonosulphate is an oxidizing agent, which is widely used for controlling spore-forming organisms [34] and is active in the presence of moderate organic debris. Its oxidising mechanism includes the destruction of proteins, especially disrupting the structural proteins of bacteria [49] and is ideal for use within food-processing industries and hospital environments [50,51]. Sulphamic acids are effective against bacteria, viruses and some fungi. Typically, they are coloured to facilitate an estimate of the concentration during preparation and indicate when they need to be replaced [52]. This acid is used for disinfecting surfaces, rinsing equipment and for the removal of mineral deposits, such as hard water. However, despite their efficacy, these acids are corrosive for a range of materials and must be used with care [53]. Troclosene sodium (sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC)) is a chlorine-releasing agent, primarily used for the disinfection of water [54] and commonly used as a disinfectant in health care facilities [55]. This agent gradually releases hypochlorous acid overtime, which is responsible for antimicrobial action [24,56,57].
Glutaraldehydes is an aldehyde, one of the most potent sporicidal agents and widely used for high-level disinfection of critical medical facilities [5]. This chemical inactivates spores by cross-linking outer proteins and blocking normal germination events [58]. Aqueous glutaraldehydes solutions are acidic and, generally, in this state are not sporicidal, they are only activated by the addition of alkalinizing agents [59], such as benzalkonium chloride [33]. Benzalkonium chlorides (BACs) are chemicals with widespread applications due to their broad spectrum of antimicrobial properties against bacteria, fungi, and viruses [60] and remain stable for both short- and long-term usage [61]. These chemicals are among the most common active ingredients in disinfectants [62] used in residential, industrial [63], agricultural, and clinical settings to inactive spores. March et al. [59] tested a commercially available 2.4% alkaline glutaraldehyde solution (similar concentration to disinfectant 10) as a disinfectant against C. sporogenes spores, and achieved a 6 log10 CFU/mL reduction in approximately 23 min. Rutala et al. [31] achieved complete elimination of C. difficile using a 2% alkaline glutaraldehyde after 10 min and concluded that C. difficile spores are more susceptible to inactivation by glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants than C. sporogenes, as was also observed in our study.
Other compounds were less effective, including alcohols C9-11, propan-2-OL, sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite, iodine, didecyldimethylammonium chloride, N-(3-Aminopropyl)-N-Dodecylpropane-1,3-Diamine, alkylethersulphates, alkylamine oxide, octanoic acid, peroxyoctanoic acid, tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetraacetate, orthophosphoric acid and sulphuric acid.
Alcohols, such as alcohols C9–11, ethoxylated and propan-2-OL, are considered fast-acting disinfectants that are capable of killing most bacteria within five minutes of exposure but are ineffective against spores [35,64]. While sodium hydroxide (alkali), sodium hypochlorite and iodine (halogen) are also effective against bacteria, fungi, viruses, and mycobacterium [35,65,66] they may also have sporicidal activity, if the concentrations are sufficiently high. However, these compounds tend to be included at low concentrations as they are highly corrosive [35,66,67]. Thus disinfectants 5 and 9, containing low concentrations of these ingredients (ranging between 1–10%), were ineffective sporicidal agents.
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) is a typical quaternary ammonium biocide and has antimicrobial properties [68,69]. Yuan et al. [70] achieved a synergistic sporicidal effect when DDAC was combined with aldehyde and alcohol. Indeed, disinfectant 8 had this formulation but was most likely ineffective as the concentrations for use recommended by the manufacturer (1%, v/v) were too low.
Some ingredients added to disinfectants enhance the displacement of physical particles, rather than destroy microorganisms. N-(3-Aminopropyl)-N-Dodecylpropane-1, 3-Diamine, alkylethersulphates, alkylamine oxide, octanoic acid and peroxyoctanoic acid act as surfactants [71,72,73,74], whereby they loosen particles (such as dirt, clay, and oil) from surfaces [75,76]. Similarly, acidic disinfectants, including tetrasodium ethylene diamine tetra-acetate, orthophosphoric and sulphuric acid are added to remove calcium salts and metal oxides [76], which leads to sedimentation and incrustation in containers, pipes and nozzles [77]. Furthermore, acids can change the pH of disinfectants thereby increasing their antimicrobial activity [78].
Overall, there are many different available ingredients that may be included in disinfectant formulations. Thus, it is essential to understand the mechanism of action of each agent and potential synergy to allow for an informed decision on the most effective formulations. When evaluating the effectiveness of cleaning products, it is recognized that for many disinfectants organic matter reduces activity by reacting with the disinfectant or completely preventing the disinfectant from accessing its microbial target [79,80,81,82]. Moreover, not all chemicals can destroy spores, while other may be highly corrosive or present health and safety issues which prevent their application. Although not an objective of our research, this study also observed that C. sporogenes are less resistant to disinfectants as compared to C. difficile spores. C. sporogenes achieved D-values of between 2.06 and 6.56 min for the three most effective sporicidal agents (2, 7 and 10), while the corresponding values for C. difficile spores ranged from 5.28 to 8.38 min. Differences in spore susceptibility to a given chemical agent may be due to differences in the composition and structure of the spore coat, which is usually composed of small acid-soluble spore proteins and an inner membrane, which is usually immobile and impermeable [83,84]. Regardless, based on our findings, the recommended disinfecting time of 20 min for application in the meat industry would be insufficient to eliminate any spores, even if present in high concentrations. A potential limitation of this study is the variance in concentrations of the active compounds in each of the formulations tested in this study (Table 1). This batch-to-batch variation occurs during manufacturing [85] and, thus, the experimental design reflects what happens in the real world under commercial conditions of application. Moreover, as the neat product is diluted to at least 1 in 10 (10%), but may be as high as 1 in 100 (1%), differences in the final concentrations of the active ingredients are usually negligible. There are exceptions to this; for example, for disinfectant 2, which has the highest potential range of any active ingredient (hydrogen peroxide, 1% to 3%) in the final solution. Further research would be required to determine if this significantly affects the efficacy of this treatment.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the effectiveness of ten commercially available disinfectants, commonly used as sporicidal agents in the meat and other food processing industries. Disinfectants containing sporicidal agents, such as hydrogen peroxide, peracetic acid, peroxymonosulphate and glutaraldehyde were the most effective at inactivating spores when these chemicals were at sufficiently high concentrations in the product formulation. These disinfectants should, therefore, be used at the manufacturer-recommended concentrations to ensure the effective destruction of Clostridium spp. from the production environment. However, further studies are undoubtedly necessary to examine these sporicidal agents within environments containing natural organic matter (blood, fat, trimmings) within meat processing plants to get a more accurate conclusion for these agents.

Author Contributions

S.M.: Experimental design, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Writing—original draft, Writing—review and editing. L.K.: Experimental design, Methodology, Writing—review and editing. P.W.: Methodology, Supervision, Writing—review and editing. D.B.: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Teagasc Walsh Scholarship Programme (reference number: 2017030).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Salvat, G.; Colin, P. Cleaning and disinfection practice in the meat industries of Europe. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1995, 14, 313–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Wirtanen, G.; Salo, S. Disinfection in Food Processing—Efficacy Testing of Disinfectants. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2003, 2, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Van Asselt, A.; Giffel, M.T. Pathogen resistance and adaptation to disinfectants and sanitisers. In Understanding Pathogen Behaviour; Elsevier Ltd.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 484–506. [Google Scholar]
  4. Sansebastiano, G.; Zoni, R.; Bigliardi, L. Cleaning and Disinfection Procedures in the Food Industry General Aspects and Practical Applications. In Food Safety; McElhatton, A., Marshall, R.J., Eds.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2007; pp. 253–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Penna, T.C.V.; Mazzola, P.G.; Martins, A.M.S. The efficacy of chemical agents in cleaning and disinfection programs. BMC Infect. Dis. 2001, 1, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Rodriguez, C.; Avesani, V.; Van Broeck, J.; Taminiau, B.; Delmée, M.; Daube, G. Presence of Clostridium difficile in pigs and cattle intestinal contents and carcass contamination at the slaughterhouse in Belgium. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 166, 256–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rasetti-Escargueil, C.; Lemichez, E.; Popoff, M.R. Public Health Risk Associated with Botulism as Foodborne Zoonoses. Toxins 2020, 12, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Bolton, D.J.; Doherty, A.M.; Sheridan, J.J. Beef HACCP: Intervention and non-intervention systems. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2001, 66, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, S.; Brunt, J.; Peck, M.; Setlow, P.; Li, Y.-Q. Analysis of the Germination of Individual Clostridium sporogenes Spores with and without Germinant Receptors and Cortex-Lytic Enzymes. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Zhu, D.; Sorg, J.A.; Sun, X. Clostridioides difficile Biology: Sporulation, Germination, and Corresponding Therapies for C. difficile Infection. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2018, 8, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Schill, K.M.; Wang, Y.; Butler, R.R.; Pombert, J.-F.; Reddy, N.R.; Skinner, G.E.; Larkin, J.W. Genetic Diversity of Clostridium sporogenes PA 3679 Isolates Obtained from Different Sources as Resolved by Pulsed-Field Gel Electrophoresis and High-Throughput Sequencing. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Peck, M.W. Biology and Genomic Analysis of Clostridium botulinum. Adv. Microb. Physiol. 2009, 55, 183–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Brown, J.L.; Tran-Dinh, N.; Chapman, B. Clostridium sporogenes PA 3679 and Its Uses in the Derivation of Thermal Processing Schedules for Low-Acid Shelf-Stable Foods and as a Research Model for Proteolytic Clostridium botulinum. J. Food Prot. 2012, 75, 779–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Taylor, R.; Dunn, M.; Ogden, L.; Jefferies, L.; Eggett, D.; Steele, F. Conditions associated with Clostridium sporogenes growth as a surrogate for Clostridium botulinum in nonthermally processed canned butter. J. Dairy Sci. 2013, 96, 2754–2764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Weigand, M.R.; Pena-Gonzalez, A.; Shirey, T.B.; Broeker, R.G.; Ishaq, M.K.; Konstantinidis, K.T.; Raphael, B.H. Implications of genome-based discrimination between Clostridium botulinum group I and Clostridium sporogenes strains for bacterial tax-onomy. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2015, 81, 5420–5429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lawson, P.A.; Citron, D.M.; Tyrrell, K.L.; Finegold, S.M. Reclassification of Clostridium difficile as Clostridioides difficile (Hall and O’Toole 1935) Prévot 1938. Anaerobe 2016, 40, 95–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Oren, A.; Garrity, G.M. Notification of changes in taxonomic opinion previously published outside the IJSEM. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2016, 66, 2469–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Lessa, F.C.; Gould, C.V.; McDonald, L.C. Current Status of Clostridium difficile Infection Epidemiology. Clin. Infect. Dis. 2012, 55, S65–S70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Warriner, K.; Xu, C.; Habash, M.; Sultan, S.; Weese, S. Dissemination of Clostridium difficilein food and the environment: Significant sources ofC. difficilecommunity-acquired infection? J. Appl. Microbiol. 2016, 122, 542–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Weese, J.S.; Avery, B.P.; Rousseau, J.; Reid-Smith, R.J. Detection and Enumeration of Clostridium difficile Spores in Retail Beef and Pork. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 5009–5011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. de Boer, E.; Zwartkruis-Nahuis, A.; Heuvelink, A.E.; Harmanus, C.; Kuijper, E. Prevalence of Clostridium difficile in retailed meat in The Netherlands. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2011, 144, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Esfandiari, Z.; Weese, S.; Ezzatpanah, H.; Jalali, M.; Chamani, M. Occurrence of Clostridium difficile in seasoned hamburgers and seven processing plants in Iran. BMC Microbiol. 2014, 14, 283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Bouttier, S.; Barc, M.-C.; Félix, B.; Lambert, S.; Collignon, A.; Barbut, F. Clostridium difficilein Ground Meat, France. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2010, 16, 733–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Russell, A.D. Bacterial Spores and Chemical Sporicidal Agents. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1990, 3, 99–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Omidbakhsh, N. Evaluation of sporicidal activities of selected environmental surface disinfectants: Carrier tests with the spores of Clostridium difficile and its surrogates. Am. J. Infect. Control. 2010, 38, 718–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Casadei, M.; Ingram, R.; Skinner, R.; Gaze, J. Heat resistance of Paenibacillus polymyxa in relation to pH and acidulants. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 801–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Schaeffer, A.B.; Fulton, M.D. A simplified method of staining endospores. Science 1933, 77, 194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Álvarez-Pérez, S.; Blanco, J.L.; Astorga, R.J.; Gómez-Laguna, J.; Barrero-Domínguez, B.; Galán-Relaño, A.; Harmanus, C.; Kuijper, E.; García, M.E. Distribution and tracking of Clostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens in a free-range pig abattoir and processing plant. Food Res. Int. 2018, 113, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Burns, D.A.; Heap, J.T.; Minton, N.P. The diverse sporulation characteristics of Clostridium difficile clinical isolates are not associated with type. Anaerobe 2010, 16, 618–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. McSharry, S.; Koolman, L.; Whyte, P.; Bolton, D. An investigation of the survival and/or growth of Clostridioides (Clostridium) difficile in beef stored under aerobic, anaerobic and commercial vacuum packaging conditions at 2 °C and 20 °C. Food Control. 2021, 119, 107475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Rutala, W.A.; Gergen, M.F.; Weber, D.J. Sporicidal Activity of Chemical Sterilants Used in Hospitals. Infect. Control. Hosp. Epidemiol. 1993, 14, 713–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Block, S.S. Peroxygen compounds. In Disinfection, Sterilisation and Preservation; Block, S.S., Ed.; Lippincott Williams & Wil-kins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2001; pp. 185–204. [Google Scholar]
  33. Rutala, W.A.; Weber, D.J.; Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). Guideline for Disinfection and Sterilization in Healthcare Facilities; Centers for Disease Control: Atlanta, GA, USA, 2008; pp. 1–163. [Google Scholar]
  34. Leggett, M.J.; Schwarz, J.S.; Burke, P.A.; McDonnell, G.; Denyer, S.P.; Maillard, J.-Y. Mechanism of Sporicidal Activity for the Synergistic Combination of Peracetic Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2016, 82, 1035–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Dvorak, G. Disinfection; Center for Food Security and Public Health, Iowa State University: Ames, IA, USA, 2005; pp. 1–22. Available online: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.361.3783&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 8 April 2021).
  36. Sattar, S.A.; Springthorpe, V.S.; Rochon, M. A product based on accelerated & stabilized hydrogen peroxide: Evidence for broad-spectrum germicidal activity. Can. J. Infect. Control 1998, 13, 123–130. [Google Scholar]
  37. Wardle, M.D.; Renninger, G.M. Bactericidal effect of hydrogen peroxide on spacecraft isolates. Appl. Microbiol. 1975, 30, 710–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bayliss, C.E.; Waites, W.M. The Effect of Hydrogen Peroxide on Spores of Clostridium bifermentans. J. Gen. Microbiol. 1976, 96, 401–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Baldry, M. The bactericidal, fungicidal and sporicidal properties of hydrogen peroxide and peracetic acid. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1983, 54, 417–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Baldry, M.G.C.; Fraser, J.A.L. Disinfection with peroxygens. In Industrial Biocides: Critical Reports on Applied Chemistry; Payne, K.R., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1988; Volume 23, pp. 91–116. [Google Scholar]
  41. Schoeb, T.R.; Rahija, R.J. Gnotobiotics. In American College of Laboratory Animal Medicine, Laboratory Animal Medicine; Fox, J.G., Anderson, L.C., Otto, G.M., Pritchett-Corning, K.R., Whary, M.T., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015; Chapter 26; pp. 1263–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sagripanti, J.-L.; Bonifacino, A. Comparative sporicidal effect of liquid chemical germicides on three medical devices contaminated with spores of Bacillus subtilis. Am. J. Infect. Control 1996, 24, 364–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vizcaino-Alcaide, M.J.; Herruzo-Cabrera, R.; Fernandez-Aceñero, M.J. Comparison of the disinfectant efficacy of Perasafe® and 2% glutaraldehyde in in vitro tests. J. Hosp. Infect. 2003, 53, 124–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Blakistone, B.; Chuyate, R.; Kautter, D.; Charbonneau, J.; Suit, K. Efficacy of Oxonia Active Against Selected Spore Formers†. J. Food Prot. 1999, 62, 262–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Shetty, N.; Srinivasan, S.; Holton, J.; Ridgway, G. Evaluation of microbicidal activity of a new disinfectant: Sterilox® 2500 against Clostridium difficile spores, Helicobacter pylori, vancomycin resistant Enterococcus species, Candida albicans and several Mycobacterium species. J. Hosp. Infect. 1999, 41, 101–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Dawson, L.F.; Valiente, E.; Donahue, E.H.; Birchenough, G.; Wren, B.W. Hypervirulent Clostridium difficile PCR-Ribotypes Exhibit Resistance to Widely Used Disinfectants. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Cho, W.-I.; Chung, M.-S. Sporicidal activities and mechanism of surfactant components against Clostridium sporogenes spores. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 55, 4675–4680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Cortesia, C.; Vilchèze, C.; Bernut, A.; Contreras, W.; Gómez, K.; de Waard, J.; Jacobs, W.R.; Kremer, L.; Takiff, H. Acetic Acid, the Active Component of Vinegar, Is an Effective Tuberculocidal Disinfectant. mBio 2014, 5, e00013-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Kunanusont, N.; Punyadarsaniya, D.; Jantafong, T.; Pojprasath, T.; Takehara, K.; Ruenphet, S. Bactericidal efficacy of potassium peroxymonosulfate under various concentrations, organic material conditions, exposure timing and its application on various surface carriers. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2020, 82, 320–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Bolder, N.M. The Efficacy of Virkon S against 5 Salmonella Serovars, Campylobacter Jejuni and Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA); Report 09/CV10353/NBO/sn; Central Veterinary Institute of Wagenningen UR: Lelystad, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 1–10. Available online: https://virkons.dk/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2009-Virkon-S-Wageningen-EN-1656-salmonella-campylobacter-MRSA-NO.227.pdf (accessed on 16 February 2021).
  51. Rashid, T.; Haghighi, F.; Hasan, I.; Bassères, E.; Alam, M.J.; Sharma, S.V.; Lai, D.; DuPont, H.L.; Garey, K.W. Activity of Hospital Disinfectants against Vegetative Cells and Spores of Clostridioides difficile Embedded in Biofilms. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2019, 64, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Kopper, G.; Mirecki, S.; Kljujev, I.S.; Raičević, V.B.; Lalevic, B.T.; Jovičić-Petrović, J.; Stojanovski, S.; Blazekovic-Dimovska, D. Hygiene in Primary Production. In Food Safety Management; Motarjemi, Y., Lelieveld, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2014; Chapter 23; pp. 559–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van Eijk, H.; Majoor, F. Cleaning Procedures in the Factory: Types of Detergents. In Encyclopedia of Food Sciences and Nutrition, 2nd ed.; Caballero, B., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 1379–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. World Health Organization (WHO). Sodium Dichloroisocyanurate in Drinking-Water. Available online: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/sodium_dichloroisocyanurate_2add_feb2008.pdf (accessed on 10 April 2021).
  55. Massicotte, R.; Mbeh, D.A.; Mafu, A.A.; Toulouse, M.; Jacobs, D.; Yahia, L.; Pichette, G. Disinfection effect of sodium di-chloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) on various surfaces in medical facilities using different techniques. Interdiscip. J. Chem. 2019, 3, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Heling, I.; Rotstein, I.; Dinur, T.; Szwec-Levine, Y.; Steinberg, D. Bactericidal and Cytotoxic Effects of Sodium Hypochlorite and Sodium Dichloroisocyanurate Solutions In Vitro. J. Endod. 2001, 27, 278–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  57. Mazzola, P.G.; Penna, T.C.V.; Martins, A.M.D.S. Determination of decimal reduction time (D value) of chemical agents used in hospitals for disinfection purposes. BMC Infect. Dis. 2003, 3, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Tennen, R.; Setlow, B.; Davis, K.; Loshon, C.; Setlow, P. Mechanisms of killing of spores of Bacillus subtilis by iodine, glutaraldehyde and nitrous acid. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2000, 89, 330–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. March, J.K.; Pratt, M.D.; Lowe, C.; Cohen, M.N.; Satterfield, B.A.; Schaalje, B.; O’Neill, K.L.; Robison, R.A. The differential effects of heat-shocking on the viability of spores from Bacillus anthracis, Bacillus subtilis, and Clostridium sporogenes after treatment with peracetic acid- and glutaraldehyde-based disinfectants. Microbiologyopen 2015, 4, 764–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Pereira, B.M.P.; Tagkopoulos, I. Benzalkonium Chlorides: Uses, Regulatory Status, and Microbial Resistance. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2019, 85, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Marple, B.; Roland, P.; Benninger, M. Safety Review of Benzalkonium Chloride Used as a Preservative in Intranasal Solutions: An Overview of Conflicting Data and Opinions. Otolaryngol. Neck Surg. 2004, 130, 131–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tezel, U.; Pavlostathis, S. The role of quaternary ammonium compounds on antimicrobial resistance in the environment. In Antimicrobial Resistance in the Environment; Keen, P.L., Montforts, M.H.M.M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 349–386. [Google Scholar]
  63. Condell, O.; Iversen, C.; Cooney, S.; Power, K.A.; Walsh, C.; Burgess, C.; Fanning, S. Efficacy of Biocides Used in the Modern Food Industry to Control Salmonella enterica, and Links between Biocide Tolerance and Resistance to Clinically Relevant Antimicrobial Compounds. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2012, 78, 3087–3097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. McDonnell, G.; Russell, A.D. Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 1999, 12, 147–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  65. Girotti, N. Guidelines for Using Sodium Hypochlorite as a disinfectant for Biological Waste; City-Wide Oc-cupational Health & Safety and Workplace Health; Western University: London, ON, Canada, 2015; Available online: https://www.uwo.ca/hr/form_doc/health_safety/doc/procedures/bleach_sop.pdf (accessed on 12 April 2021).
  66. Vargová, M.; Laktičová, K.; Hromada, R.; Cimboláková, I.; Uher, I.; Papajová, I.; Peter, K. Sanitation and the Environment. Environmental Factors Affecting Human Health. Intechopen 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Operational Guidelines Cleaning and Disinfection. Available online: http://www.dem.ri.gov/topics/erp/nahems_cleaning_and_disinfection.pdf (accessed on 7 April 2021).
  68. Ioannou, C.J.; Hanlon, G.W.; Denyer, S.P. Action of Disinfectant Quaternary Ammonium Compounds against Staphylococcus aureus. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2007, 51, 296–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  69. Lim, C.-H.; Chung, Y.-H. Effects of Didecyldimethylammonium Chloride on Sprague-Dawley Rats after Two Weeks of Inhalation Exposure. Toxicol. Res. 2014, 30, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  70. Yuan, G.; Wei, Q.; Tie, J.; Wang, C.; Rao, L.; Zhang, W. Synergistic sporicidal effect of ethanol on a combination of orthophthalaldehyde and Didecyldimethylammonium chloride. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2014, 59, 272–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Azanza, P.V. Hydrogen peroxide, Peroxyacetic acid, Octanoic acid, Peroxyoctanoic acid, and 1- hydroxyethyli-dene-1,1-Diphosphonic acid (HEDP) as components of antimicrobial washing solution. Chemical Technical Assessment. FAO (63rd JECFA). 2004, pp. 1–7. Available online: https://fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agns/pdf/jecfa/cta/63/antimicrobials.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2021).
  72. HERA. Human & Environmental Risk Assessment on ingredients of European Household Cleaning Products Alcohol Ethox-ysulphates (AES) Environmental Risk Assessment. 2004, pp. 1–36. Available online: https://www.heraproject.com/files/1-E-04-HERA%20AES%20ENV%20%20web%20wd.pdf (accessed on 31 March 2021).
  73. Man, V.F.; Magnuson, J.P.; Lentsch, S.E. Medium Chain Perosycarboxylic Acid Compositions. U.S. Patent 9,888,684, 13 February 2017. Available online: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/50/22/94/3263e9ce6cecd8/US10568322.pdf (accessed on 13 March 2021).
  74. Friman, M.J.; Eklund, M.H.; Pitkälä, A.H.; Rajala-Schultz, P.J.; Rantala, M.H.J. Description of two Serratia marcescens associated mastitis outbreaks in Finnish dairy farms and a review of literature. Acta Vet. Scand. 2019, 61, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Williams, J.J. Formulation of Carpet Cleaners. In Handbook for Cleaning/Decontamination of Surfaces; Elsevier Science: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; Volume 1, pp. 103–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Charcosset, C. Principles on membrane and membrane processes. In Membrane Processes in Biotechnology and Pharmaceutics; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; Chapter 1; pp. 1–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. European Communities. EUR 21315 EN, European Union Risk Assessment Report: Tetrasodium Ethylenediaminetetraace-Tate (Na4EDTA). Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/415c121b-12cd-40a2-bd56-812c57c303ce (accessed on 18 March 2021).
  78. Maris, P. Modes of action of disinfectants. Rev. Sci. Tech. 1995, 14, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Barker, J.; Vipond, I.; Bloomfield, S. Effects of cleaning and disinfection in reducing the spread of Norovirus contamination via environmental surfaces. J. Hosp. Infect. 2004, 58, 42–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Wheeldon, L.; Worthington, T.; Hilton, A.; Lambert, P.; Elliott, T. Sporicidal activity of two disinfectants against Clostridium difficile spores. Br. J. Nurs. 2008, 17, 316–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Pottage, T.; Richardson, C.; Parks, S.; Walker, J.; Bennett, A. Evaluation of hydrogen peroxide gaseous disinfection systems to decontaminate viruses. J. Hosp. Infect. 2010, 74, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Speight, S.; Moy, A.; Macken, S.; Chitnis, R.; Hoffman, P.; Davies, A.; Bennett, A.; Walker, J. Evaluation of the sporicidal activity of different chemical disinfectants used in hospitals against Clostridium difficile. J. Hosp. Infect. 2011, 79, 18–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Leggett, M.J.; McDonnell, G.; Denyer, S.; Setlow, S.; Maillard, J.-Y. Bacterial spore structures and their protective role in biocide resistance. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 485–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Barra-Carrasco, J.; Paredes-Sabja, D. Clostridium difficile spores: A major threat to the hospital environment. Futur. Microbiol. 2014, 9, 475–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. European Chemicals Agency. Guidance on the Biocidal Products Regulation Volume I: Identity of the Active Sub-Stance/Physioco-Chemical Properties/Analytical Methodology—Information Requirements, Evaluation and Assessment. Parts A+B+C, Ver 2.0; European Chemicals Agency: Helsinki, Finland, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Foods 10 01436 g001 550
Figure 1. Inactivation of Clostridium sporogenes by disinfecting agents (Disinfectants 2 (A), 7 (B) and 10 (C)). Solid line represents the observed values over different time points. The straight line represents the linear regression to determine the slope, to calculate D-values.
Figure 1. Inactivation of Clostridium sporogenes by disinfecting agents (Disinfectants 2 (A), 7 (B) and 10 (C)). Solid line represents the observed values over different time points. The straight line represents the linear regression to determine the slope, to calculate D-values.
Foods 10 01436 g001
Foods 10 01436 g002a 550Foods 10 01436 g002b 550
Figure 2. Inactivation of Clostridioides difficile by disinfecting agents (disinfectants 2 (A), 7 (B) and 10 (C)). Solid line represents the observed values over different time points. The straight line represents the linear regression to determine the slope and to calculate D values.
Figure 2. Inactivation of Clostridioides difficile by disinfecting agents (disinfectants 2 (A), 7 (B) and 10 (C)). Solid line represents the observed values over different time points. The straight line represents the linear regression to determine the slope and to calculate D values.
Foods 10 01436 g002aFoods 10 01436 g002b
Table
Table 1. Disinfectants used in the study.
Table 1. Disinfectants used in the study.
DisinfectantChemical Composition 1Recommended Concentration
1N-(3-Aminopropyl)-N-Dodecylpropane-1,3-Diamine (1–10%), Alcohols, C9-11, Ethoxylated (1–10%), Tetrasodium Ethylene Diamine Tetraacetate (1–10%), Propan-2-OL (1–10%)1%
2Hydrogen Peroxide (10–30%), Acetic acid (1–10%), peracetic acid (1–10%)10%
3Hydrogen peroxide (≥ 25 ≤ 30%), Acetic acid (≥ 5 ≤ 10%), peracetic acid (≥ 2.5 ≤ 5%)2%
4Acetic acid (10 ≤ 25%), Hydrogen Peroxide (5 ≤ 8%), Alkylethersulphates (<10%), Peracetic acid (1 ≤ 5%), Octanoic acid (1 ≤ 5%), Peroxyoctanoic acid (<1%)1.10%
5Sodium hypochlorite (≥ 5.2 ≤ 10%), Sodium hydroxide (≥ 5 ≤ 10%), Alkylamine oxide (≥ 3 ≤ 5 %)5%
6Ethylenediamine tetraacetate (≥ 10 ≤ 20%), Benzalkonium chloride (≥ 5 ≤ 10%), Isotridecanol, ethoxylated (≥ 1 ≤ 2.5%), Didecyl Dimethyl Ammonium Chloride (≥ 1 ≤ 2.5%), sodium hydroxide (≥ 0.25 ≤ 0.5%), propan-2-ol (≥ 0.1 ≤ 0.25%)1%
7Peroxymonosulphate (30–50%), Sulphamic Acid (1–10%), Troclosene Sodium (1–10%)4%
8Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (15–30%), Didecyldimethylammonium chloride (5–15%), Glutaraldehyde (5–15%), Propan-2-ol (5–15%)1%
9Alcohols, C9-11, Ethoxylated (10–30%), Orthophosphoric acid (10–30%), Sulphuric acid (1–10%), Iodine (1–10%)2%
10Glutaraldehyde (10–30%), Benzalkonium Chloride (1–10%)2%
1 Composition taken from the material safety data sheet (MSDS).
Table
Table 2. The spore counts (log10 CFU/mL) after treatment with the different disinfectants for 20 and 60 min.
Table 2. The spore counts (log10 CFU/mL) after treatment with the different disinfectants for 20 and 60 min.
C. sporogenes SporesC. difficile Spores
SDWRCM BrothSDWBHI Broth
20 Min60 Min20 Min60 Min20 Min60 Min20 Min60 Min
C 1SE 2CSECSECSECSECSECSECSE
Control 37.0 a0.107.0 a0.106.2 a0.256.2 a0.256.4 a0.076.4 a0.076.0 a0.056.0 a0.05
12.3 ce0.132.4 cd0.302.5 cd0.102.2 cd0.085.3 ab0.085.3 ab0.124.7 ab0.344.6 bc0.40
20.5 e0.430.1 d0.000.6 f0.280.2 e0.100.1 e0.000.1 e0.001.1 e0.140.1 d0.00
30.7 e0.680.5 d0.414.8 ab0.323.3 bc0.144.1 bc0.273.6 c0.455.9 a0.165.8 ab0.23
40.6 e0.550.3 d0.243.9 bc0.233.1 c0.810.5 e0.280.3 e0.165.8 a0.225.9 ab0.18
50.5 e0.340.6 cd0.336.1 a0.415.9 a0.370.1 e0.000.1 e0.006.0 a0.175.9 ab0.24
62.5 ce0.692.0 cd0.451.4 df0.330.6 de0.393.2 cd0.643.9 c0.154.4 bc0.224.1 c0.43
71.2 e0.810.4 d0.381.7 dfe0.210.1 e0.000.2 e0.100.1 e0.002.4 de0.210.2 d0.10
84.9 ab0.405.0 ab0.374.8 ab0.154.9 ab0.194.5 b0.064.6 bc0.194.2 bf0.424.2 c0.51
91.5 de0.730.5 d0.273.0 bce0.612.7 c0.810.3 e0.270.2 e0.103.5 bd0.263.8 c0.56
103.8 bcd0.862.8 bc0.692.8 ce0.230.8 de0.492.4 d0.402.2 d0.493.1 cdf0.110.3 d0.27
1 C = spore count; 2 SE = standard error; 3 Different treatments. Numbers that have different letters in the same column (a,b,c,d,e,f) indicate significance at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Calculated D values for Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile spores treated with most effective disinfectants (2, 7 and 10).
Table 3. Calculated D values for Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile spores treated with most effective disinfectants (2, 7 and 10).
DisinfectantSporesD Value (Minutes)SE 1
2C. sporogenes2.1±0.03
C. difficile5.3±0.02
7C. sporogenes5.0±0.02
C. difficile5.5±0.01
10C. sporogenes6.6±0.01
C. difficile8.4±0.01
1 SE = standard error of the slope.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

McSharry, S.; Koolman, L.; Whyte, P.; Bolton, D. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants Used in Meat-Processing Facilities to Control Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile Spores. Foods 2021, 10, 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061436

AMA Style

McSharry S, Koolman L, Whyte P, Bolton D. Investigation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants Used in Meat-Processing Facilities to Control Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile Spores. Foods. 2021; 10(6):1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061436

Chicago/Turabian Style

McSharry, Siobhán, Leonard Koolman, Paul Whyte, and Declan Bolton. 2021. "Investigation of the Effectiveness of Disinfectants Used in Meat-Processing Facilities to Control Clostridium sporogenes and Clostridioides difficile Spores" Foods 10, no. 6: 1436. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10061436

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