Comparative Analysis of Disinfection Solutions for Meat Processing

18 July 2024
Eben van Tonder

For a complete list of my work on the subject of ECA-generated solutions for micro control and sanitation, visit ECA-Water

Introduction

At the Lagos Meat plant, we implemented ECA Anolyte water as our carcass wash solution and are considering incorporating fogging anolyte to disinfect MAP containers, as well as adding a disinfecting step after the carcass has been cut into primals before the final cuts are done. I was recently introduced to flavonoids that are becoming available on the market as a disinfectant. Over the years, I have used a long list of preservatives such as sodium sulfite, sodium metabisulfite, acetic acid, lactic acid, and acetic acid both as carcass wash and primal wash solutions. We used LAE in a fogging solution. In light of all the options on the market, the question arose as to how these all stack up when one compares their functionality and the cost/benefit ratio.

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of different disinfection solutions, comparing their efficacy, costs, and potential negative effects. Through detailed analysis, it is found that anolyte water stands out as the most effective and cost-efficient solution for microbial control. No other disinfectant surpasses anolyte in terms of overall efficacy, cost, and minimal negative effects.

Disinfection Solutions and Their Efficacy

Ranking of Preservatives for Processed Products (Ham, Bacon, etc.)

-> Nitrites and Nitrates

  • Pros: Effective in curing, preserving colour, and inhibiting bacterial growth.
  • Cons: Potential health concerns in high concentrations, require careful management.
  • Usage: Essential in processed meats for curing and preservation.

-> Combination: Sodium Diacetate + Sodium Lactate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Enhances shelf life and flavour stability while inhibiting microbial growth. Synergistic effect increases overall efficacy.
  • Cons: Potential for slight taste alteration.
  • Usage: Ideal for extending the shelf life of cured meats, such as ham and bacon.

-> Sodium Acetate

  • Pros: Inhibits microbial growth and enhances flavour stability.
  • Cons: Moderate cost, potential taste alteration.
  • Usage: Effective in processed meats to control spoilage bacteria.

-> Lauric Arginate (LAE)

  • Pros: Highly effective across a broad range of microorganisms with minimal sensory impact.
  • Cons: Higher cost.
  • Usage: Used in premium processed products where high efficacy is required without affecting taste.

-> Combination: Potassium Sorbate + Sodium Benzoate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Effective against moulds, yeasts, and bacteria. Synergistic effect increases efficacy in preventing spoilage.
  • Cons: Potential taste issues at higher concentrations.
  • Usage: Used to maintain product stability and prevent spoilage in processed meats.

-> Lactic Acid

  • Pros: Effective against a broad spectrum of bacteria.
  • Cons: Can alter taste if not rinsed properly, moderate cost.
  • Usage: Often used in carcass washes and as an acidulant in processed meats.

-> Anolyte Water

  • Pros: High microbial kill rates, low cost, minimal negative effects.
  • Cons: Requires investment in ECA generation equipment.
  • Usage: Effective in cleaning and disinfecting surfaces and equipment in processing plants.

-> Sodium Metabisulfite

  • Pros: Effective against bacteria and fungi, low cost.
  • Cons: Potential for allergic reactions, off-flavours.
  • Usage: Requires careful management to avoid off-flavours in processed meats.

-> Acetic Acid

  • Pros: Effective and low-cost.
  • Cons: Potential for strong odour and taste residue.
  • Usage: Used as a preservative and flavour enhancer in processed meats.

-> Flavonoids

  • Pros: Natural/organic appeal.
  • Cons: High cost, moderate efficacy.
  • Usage: Used in niche markets where natural preservatives are preferred.

Ranking of Preservatives for Fresh Products (Minced Meat, Hamburger Patties, Meatballs, Fresh Sausages)

-> Combination: Sodium Lactate + Sodium Diacetate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Highly effective against bacteria, extends shelf life, maintains moisture, enhances flavour stability.
  • Cons: Moderate cost, potential taste alteration.
  • Usage: Widely used in fresh meat products to maintain quality and extend shelf life.

-> Lactic Acid

  • Pros: Effective against a broad range of bacteria, widely used.
  • Cons: Can alter taste, moderate cost.
  • Usage: Commonly used in fresh sausages and minced meat for microbial control.

-> Anolyte Water

  • Pros: High efficacy against pathogens, low cost, minimal residue.
  • Cons: Requires initial investment in equipment.
  • Usage: Excellent for surface disinfection in fresh meat processing.

-> Sodium Acetate

  • Pros: Inhibits microbial growth, enhances flavour.
  • Cons: Moderate cost, potential taste alteration.
  • Usage: Effective in extending the shelf life of fresh products like sausages.

-> Lauric Arginate (LAE)

  • Pros: Highly effective, minimal sensory impact.
  • Cons: Higher cost.
  • Usage: Used in premium fresh meat products where long shelf life and minimal taste impact are critical.

-> Acetic Acid

  • Pros: Effective, low-cost.
  • Cons: Strong odour and potential taste alteration.
  • Usage: Sometimes used in fresh products, particularly in vinegar forms.

-> Combination: Potassium Sorbate + Sodium Benzoate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Effective against mould and yeast, maintains product quality.
  • Cons: Limited antibacterial action, potential taste issues.
  • Usage: Used in fresh products like sausages where yeast and mould inhibition is crucial.

-> Sodium Metabisulfite

  • Pros: Effective against bacteria and fungi, low-cost.
  • Cons: Potential allergic reactions, off-flavours.
  • Usage: Less common in fresh products due to potential negative sensory impacts.

-> Sodium Sulfite

  • Pros: Low-cost antioxidant.
  • Cons: Limited antimicrobial efficacy.
  • Usage: Used in fresh meat products to prevent oxidation.

-> Flavonoids

  • Pros: Natural/organic appeal.
  • Cons: High cost, moderate efficacy.
  • Usage: Used in niche fresh products where natural preservatives are preferred.

Combined Ranking for Misting Spray Solutions and Carcass Wash

-> Combination: Anolyte Water + Lauric Arginate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Combines the high efficacy and cost-effectiveness of Anolyte with the broad-spectrum effectiveness and minimal sensory impact of Lauric Arginate.
  • Cons: Requires investment in ECA equipment, higher overall cost.
  • Usage: Ideal for both misting sprays and carcass washes, offering superior microbial control.

-> Anolyte Water

  • Pros: High efficacy, low cost, minimal residue.
  • Cons: Requires initial equipment investment.
  • Usage: Excellent for surface disinfection and carcass washing.

-> Lactic Acid

  • Pros: Broad-spectrum effectiveness, widely used.
  • Cons: Potential taste alteration if not properly managed.
  • Usage: Suitable for both misting and carcass washing, particularly in fresh meat products.

-> Combination: Sodium Diacetate + Sodium Lactate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Effective preservative, enhances flavour, and extends shelf life.
  • Cons: Potential slight taste alteration.
  • Usage: Ideal for misting fresh and processed products as well as for carcass washing.

-> Lauric Arginate (LAE)

  • Pros: Highly effective, minimal sensory impact.
  • Cons: Higher cost.
  • Usage: Best for premium products requiring both misting and carcass washing.

-> Acetic Acid

  • Pros: Effective, low-cost.
  • Cons: Strong odour, potential taste issues.
  • Usage: Can be used for both misting and carcass washing, though odour may limit application.

-> Sodium Acetate

  • Pros: Inhibits microbial growth, enhances flavour.
  • Cons: Moderate cost, potential taste alteration.
  • Usage: Effective for extending shelf life when used in misting or carcass washing.

-> Combination: Potassium Sorbate + Sodium Benzoate (1:1 Ratio)

  • Pros: Effective against mould, yeast, and bacteria.
  • Cons: Potential taste issues.
  • Usage: Best used in combination for misting sprays and carcass washing.

-> Sodium Metabisulfite

  • Pros: Effective against bacteria and fungi, low-cost.
  • Cons: Potential allergic reactions, off-flavours.
  • Usage: Less suitable for misting or carcass washing due to potential sensory impacts.

-> Flavonoids

  • Pros: Natural/organic appeal.
  • Cons: High cost, moderate efficacy.
  • Usage: Best suited for niche markets focused on natural preservation, less effective for misting and carcass washing.

Anolyte Water remains a top choice for both misting sprays on final products and carcass washing, especially when combined with Lauric Arginate for enhanced effectiveness. Other combinations like Sodium Diacetate + Sodium Lactate and Potassium Sorbate + Sodium Benzoate offer strong alternatives depending on specific needs.

Optimal Anolyte Concentration

For Carcass Wash, Primal Wash, and Fogging

Carcass Wash: 200-600 ppm available chlorine.
Primal Wash: Similar concentration, ensuring thorough microbial control without adverse effects.
Fogging/Misting: Lower concentrations (around 200-300 ppm) to avoid excessive residue.

Fogging Explained

Fogging is a disinfection technique that involves generating a fine mist of the disinfectant solution, which is then dispersed into the air and settles on surfaces. This method is particularly useful for sanitizing areas that are difficult to reach with traditional cleaning methods. In meat processing, fogging can be used to sanitize MAP (Modified Atmosphere Packaging) trays and other packaging materials in-line by:

  1. Generating a fine mist of the chosen disinfectant solution.
  2. Dispersing the mist over the packaging materials on the conveyor belt.
  3. Allowing the mist to settle and ensure complete coverage of the surfaces.
  4. Ensuring proper drying or rinsing, if necessary, to avoid residue.

Conclusion

In the quest for the most effective and efficient disinfection solutions in meat processing, Anolyte Water continues to lead the pack due to its exceptional microbial kill rates, cost-effectiveness, and minimal negative effects. It offers a versatile solution suitable for carcass washes, primal washes, and fogging applications in MAP (Modified Atmosphere Packaging) processes. When combined with Lauric Arginate (LAE), the efficacy of Anolyte Water is further enhanced, providing superior microbial control with minimal sensory impact.

Other combinations, such as Sodium Diacetate + Sodium Lactate and Potassium Sorbate + Sodium Benzoate, also present strong alternatives, especially in applications requiring extended shelf life and flavour stability. These combinations are effective across various applications, from misting sprays on final products to carcass washing, offering a balance between efficacy and cost.

Optimal Anolyte Concentration for different applications remains crucial for maximizing efficacy while minimizing residue:

  • Carcass Wash: 200-600 ppm available chlorine ensures thorough microbial control.
  • Primal Wash: Similar concentration, balancing effectiveness with safety.
  • Fogging/Misting: Lower concentrations (200-300 ppm) to avoid excessive residue while maintaining disinfectant action.

The use of fogging in meat processing, particularly for sanitizing MAP trays, further highlights the adaptability and efficacy of Anolyte Water and its combinations. This method ensures comprehensive disinfection, even in hard-to-reach areas, without compromising the quality or safety of the final product.

Overall, Anolyte Water combined with other effective preservatives like Lauric Arginate and Sodium Diacetate + Sodium Lactate provides a robust, reliable, and cost-effective approach to maintaining the highest standards of hygiene and product quality in meat processing. These solutions not only enhance microbial control but also contribute to extending the shelf life and preserving the sensory qualities of meat products, making them the top choices for modern meat processing facilities.

For my work on potassium sorbate and sodium benzoate, see Potassium Sorbate & Sodium Benzoate

References

Electrolyzed Water (Anolyte Water):

  • Rahman, S. M. E., et al. “Electrolyzed water as a novel sanitizer in the food industry: Current trends and future perspectives.” Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety, vol. 15, no. 3, 2016, pp. 471-490.
  • Len, S. V., et al. “Electrolyzed water and its application in the food industry.” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 65, no. 9, 2002, pp. 1565-1570.
  • Al-Haq, M. I., et al. “Application of electrolyzed water in the food industry.” Journal of Food Science, vol. 70, no. 1, 2005, pp. R7-R11.

Chlorine:

  • Young, S. B., and Setlow, P. “Mechanisms of killing of Bacillus subtilis spores by hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide.” Journal of Applied Microbiology, vol. 95, no. 1, 2003, pp. 54-67.
  • Block, S. S. Disinfection, Sterilization, and Preservation. 5th ed., Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2001.

Flavonoids:

  • Cushnie, T. P. T., and Lamb, A. J. “Antimicrobial activity of flavonoids.” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, vol. 26, no. 5, 2005, pp. 343-356.
  • Gutiérrez-Del-Río, I., et al. “New advances in flavonoids as natural antibacterial agents.” Science Progress, vol. 101, no. 4, 2018, pp. 275-307.

Sodium Sulfite:

  • Burt, S. “Essential oils: their antibacterial properties and potential applications in foods—a review.” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 94, no. 3, 2004, pp. 223-253.
  • Jay, J. M., et al. Modern Food Microbiology. 7th ed., Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, 2005.

Potassium Sorbate:

  • Sofos, J. N., and Busta, F. F. “Antimicrobial activity of sorbate.” Journal of Food Science, vol. 41, no. 3, 1976, pp. 411-419.
  • Davidson, P. M., and Taylor, T. M. “Chemical preservatives and natural antimicrobial compounds.” In: Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 4th ed., ASM Press, 2013, pp. 765-801.

Sodium Benzoate:

  • Brul, S., and Coote, P. “Preservative agents in foods: mode of action and microbial resistance mechanisms.” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 50, no. 1-2, 1999, pp. 1-17.
  • Sofos, J. N. Sorbate Food Preservatives. CRC Press, 1989.

Lactic Acid:

  • Niemira, B. A. “Cold Plasma Decontamination of Foods.” Annual Review of Food Science and Technology, vol. 3, 2012, pp. 125-142.
  • Cutter, C. N., and Siragusa, G. R. “Efficacy of organic acids against Escherichia coli O157:H7 attached to beef carcass tissue using a pilot scale model carcass washer.” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 59, no. 7, 1996, pp. 1287-1289.

Lauric Arginate (LAE):

  • Quintavalla, S., and Vicini, L. “Antimicrobial food packaging in meat industry.” Meat Science, vol. 62, no. 3, 2002, pp. 373-380.
  • López-Caballero, M. E., et al. “Antimicrobial activity of alginate coatings containing lauroyl arginate on fresh and cold-smoked salmon.” International Journal of Food Microbiology, vol. 223, 2016, pp. 1-8.

Acetic Acid:

  • Theron, M. M., and Lues, J. F. R. “Organic acids and meat preservation: A review.” Food Reviews International, vol. 23, no. 2, 2007, pp. 141-158.
  • Davidson, P. M., et al. “Chemical Preservatives and Naturally Antimicrobial Compounds.” In: Food Microbiology: Fundamentals and Frontiers, 3rd ed., ASM Press, 2005, pp. 593-627.

Sodium Metabisulfite:

  • Sofos, J. N., and Busta, F. F. “Antimicrobial activity of sorbate.” Journal of Food Science, vol. 41, no. 6, 1976, pp. 1356-1362.
  • Fennema, O. R. Food Chemistry. 4th ed., CRC Press, 2006.

Sodium Acetate and Sodium Diacetate:

  • Davidson, P. M., and Branen, A. L. “Antimicrobial Agents in Foods.” 3rd ed., Marcel Dekker, 2005.
  • Kim, J. W., et al. “Synergistic effects of sodium diacetate and other preservatives on Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meat products.” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 72, no. 3, 2009, pp. 648-652.

Nitrites:

  • Sindelar, J. J., and Milkowski, A. L. “Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and nitrite in the diet.” Nitric Oxide, vol. 22, no. 2, 2010, pp. 110-121.
  • Cassens, R. G. “Use of sodium nitrite in cured meats today.” Food Technology, vol. 51, no. 2, 1997, pp. 72-74.

Sulfur Dioxide:

  • Drusch, S., et al. “Sulfur dioxide in foods and beverages: Its use as a preservative and its effect on human health.” Molecular Nutrition & Food Research, vol. 47, no. 7, 2003, pp. 369-373.
  • Sofos, J. N., and Busta, F. F. “Antimicrobial activity of sulfur dioxide.” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 43, no. 12, 1980, pp. 930-936.

Ascorbate:

  • Lee, S. H., and Surh, J. “Effects of ascorbic acid on the nitrosation of sodium nitrite in food model systems.” Journal of Food Protection, vol. 70, no. 3, 2007, pp. 761-766.
  • Seydim, A. C., et al. “Effects of ascorbic acid, sodium erythorbate, and ascorbyl palmitate on the quality of ground beef.” Meat Science, vol. 53, no. 3, 1999, pp. 213-221.