Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

Challenges of Dry Sanitization to Control Salmonella Dry Surface Biofilms

Created on 07 Aug 2026

Authors

Vaz, V., Finger, J., Pereira, R. F., Santiago Silva, E., Pimentel Maia, R., Maillard, J.-Y., Nascimento, M.

Abstract

Salmonella is a pathogen linked to foodborne outbreaks, including low-moisture foods. Its ability to resist desiccation can contribute to the formation of dry surface biofilms (DSB). This study evaluated the impact of 3 DSB formation protocols (P1=48-h hydrated phase/48-h dry phase, P2=24-h/120-h and P3=8-h/48-h) on the resistance of Salmonella DSB to 70% alcohol, a commercial product (based on 0.015% quaternary ammonium and 25% isopropyl alcohol), gaseous ozone (45 ppm), hot air (90 {degrees}C) and UV-C light (254 nm). The type of DSB protocol impacted the efficacy of the sanitizers (p < 0.05). The biofilm with the shortest hydration phase showed the greatest susceptibility; three out of the five sanitizers evaluated (70% alcohol, commercial product, and UV-C) promoted significant reductions in P3, with counts below the detection limit (0.8 log CFU/cm^2) after 5 to 15 min exposure. Regarding protocols P1 and P2, in general, the best performance was from UV-C, especially against DSB on polypropylene, where it achieved reductions of 1.3 log CFU/cm^2 for P1 and 2.9 log CFU/cm^2 for P2 after 15 to 30 min of exposure. In contrast, hot air and ozone showed less effectiveness, with reductions [≤]1.2 log CFU/cm^2. In most scenarios, confocal microscopy images corroborated the plate count results (log CFU/cm^2). In summary, our data indicates limited action of dry sanitizers on Salmonella DSB, requiring validation and optimization of sanitization processes to ensure the microbiological safety of low-moisture products.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 07 Aug 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 24
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement