Back

Variable fluid mechanics explain why static efficacy tests overestimate sanitizer performance against Listeria

Jiao, Y.; Baker, J.; Slaughter, C.; Daeschel, D.; Snyder, A. B.

2026-05-13 microbiology
10.64898/2026.05.13.724842 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Pathogen cross-contamination during food production is primarily controlled through environmental sanitation. However, sanitizer efficacy is often studied in bench-scale experiments that poorly approximate the fluid dynamics of sanitization and limits our understanding of commercial sanitization efficacy. This study paired computational fluid dynamics (CFD) estimates of shear stress with experimental measurements of Listeria innocua reduction on stainless steel following treatment with 100 ppm hypochlorite sanitizer. At the pilot-scale, sanitizer spray manually applied by researchers achieved a 2.6 {+/-} 0.4 log CFU/surface reduction; however, microbial reduction from manual operation of sanitizer spray equipment differed significantly between researchers (p < 0.05). Microbial reduction varied by location following stationary, bench-scale spray application of sanitizer for 3 s. The greatest reduction was at the point of sanitizer spray impingement (7.5 {+/-} 0.5 log CFU/surface) and directly adjacent to the impingement point (6.4 {+/-} 0.7 log CFU/surface) where shear stress was the highest. Significantly less microbial reduction (0.4 {+/-} 0.1 log CFU/surface) occurred where shear stress was lowest in the fluid-film of sanitizer running down from the impingement point (p < 0.05). Static submersion of inoculated coupons in sanitizer for 3 s resulted in a log reduction of 2.3 {+/-} 0.1 log CFU/surface. Discrepancies between bench-scale spraying, pilot-scale spraying, and submerged coupons demonstrate the need for sanitizer efficacy testing under realistic conditions to better estimate the risk reduction achieved through sanitation programs. IMPORTANCESanitation is critical for controlling pathogen cross-contamination during food production. These findings highlight the limitations of traditional approaches to sanitizer efficacy testing, not because they are invalid, but because they do not reflect the level of microbial reduction typically achieved in application. We demonstrate that these differences in outcomes are attributable to fluid dynamics and exposure, which are not well approximated in submerged coupon experiments. Accurate estimation of microbial reduction from sanitizer application is needed to guide food safety policy decisions. For example, overestimation of the risk reduction conferred by sanitizer treatment may result in food safety policies that neglect other sources of microbial reduction within sanitation programs.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Applied and Environmental Microbiology
301 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
23.2%
2
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.8%
3
International Journal of Food Microbiology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.8%
4
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 30%
5.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
ACS ES&T Water
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.0%
6
mSystems
361 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.8%
7
Environmental Pollution
35 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.7%
8
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
9
mSphere
281 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
10
Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology
13 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.9%
11
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
12
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
13
FEMS Microbes
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.7%
14
mBio
750 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.4%
15
Indoor Air
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
16
Journal of Applied Microbiology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
18
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.8%
19
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 42%
0.8%
20
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.8%
21
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
22
Journal of Visualized Experiments
30 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
23
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
88 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
24
npj Biofilms and Microbiomes
56 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
25
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
26
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 64%
0.7%
27
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
28
PLOS Water
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
29
Journal of Microbiological Methods
11 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
30
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%