Anderson M E, Marshall R T, Stringer W C, Nauman H D
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, 113 Eckles Hall, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211 and Food Science and Nutrition Department, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211.
J Food Prot. 1981 Jan;44(1):35-38. doi: 10.4315/0362-028X-44.1.35.
Eighty half carcasses were either: (a) hand-washed with tap water (15 C) or (b) washed (15 C) with an experimental beef carcass cleaning unit. Overall logarithmic mean reduction in aerobic plate counts were 0.99 for hand-washed carcasses and 1.07 for those machine-washed. No significant difference (P ⩽ 0.05) was noted in percentage dirt and smear reductions due to type of wash (hand or machine). However, 12.5% of the hand-washed carcasses and 22.5% of the machine-washed carcasses contained defects caused by hair. The authors concluded that the machine was at least as effective as the careful hand washing in this experiment.
八十个半片牛肉 carcasses 被分为以下两种情况：(a) 用自来水（15摄氏度）手工清洗，或 (b) 用一个实验性的牛肉 carcass 清洗装置进行清洗（15摄氏度）。手工清洗的 carcasses 需氧平板计数的总体对数平均减少量为0.99，而机器清洗的为1.07。由于清洗类型（手工或机器）导致的污垢和涂片减少百分比没有显著差异（P⩽0.05）。然而，12.5%的手工清洗 carcasses 和22.5%的机器清洗 carcasses 含有毛发引起的缺陷。作者得出结论，在本实验中，该机器至少与仔细的手工清洗一样有效。
