Dempster J F
J Hyg (Lond). 1971 Mar;69(1):133-40. doi: 10.1017/s0022172400021343.
The germicidal efficiencies of hot water (140-150 degrees F.) under pressure (method 1), hot water + 2% (w/v) detergent solution (method 2) and hot water + detergent + 200 p.p.m. solution of available chlorine (method 3) were compared at six sites in a bacon factory. Results indicated that sites 1 and 2 (tiled walls) were satisfactorily cleaned by each method. It was therefore considered more economical to clean such surfaces routinely by method 1. However, this method was much less efficient (31% survival of micro-organisms) on site 3 (wooden surface) than methods 2 (7% survival) and 3 (1% survival). Likewise the remaining sites (dehairing machine, black scraper and table) were least efficiently cleaned by method 1. The most satisfactory results were obtained when these surfaces were treated by method 3.Pig carcasses were shown to be contaminated by an improperly cleaned black scraper. Repeated cleaning and sterilizing (method 3) of this equipment reduced the contamination on carcasses from about 70% to less than 10%.
在一家培根工厂的六个地点,对压力下的热水(140 - 150华氏度)(方法1)、热水 + 2%(w/v)洗涤剂溶液(方法2)以及热水 + 洗涤剂 + 200 ppm有效氯溶液(方法3)的杀菌效率进行了比较。结果表明,方法1、2、3对地点1和2(瓷砖墙面)的清洁效果均令人满意。因此,认为对这类表面常规采用方法1进行清洁更经济。然而,在地点3(木质表面),方法1的效率远低于方法2(微生物存活率7%)和方法3(微生物存活率1%)(微生物存活率为31%)。同样,其余地点(脱毛机、黑色刮板和工作台)采用方法1清洁的效率最低。用方法3处理这些表面时,得到了最令人满意的结果。结果表明,生猪胴体被清洁不当的黑色刮板污染。对该设备反复进行清洁和消毒(方法3),使胴体上的污染率从约70%降至10%以下。