Effects of Sanitation Practices on Microbial Dynamics in Meat Processing Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of a multistage sanitation process on the microbial populations associated with conveyor belts, drains, and air within a large commercial beef processing facility. Total aerobic counts in samples from conveyor belts, drain, and air increased after a pressurized warm water wash (P < 0.05), decreased after foaming and degreasing (P < 0.05), and were not affected (P > 0.05) by application of peracetic acid (500 ppm) or quat-based (200 ppm) no-rinse sanitizers at recommended in-use concentrations with a 5-min contact time. Enterobacteriaceae and coliforms counts on conveyor belts and drains largely followed the same pattern as those of total aerobic counts. However, the Enterobacteriaceae counts in air samples were below the detection limit (1 CFU/100 L). Escherichia coli were not recovered from belts before cleaning or after sanitation, but were detected only sporadically during sanitation. In drain samples where E. coli were recovered, counts were not affected by cleaning or sanitation steps. Sequencing results revealed that the microbial composition varied by different sampling trips. Overall, Acinetobacter was predominant throughout the sanitation process in conveyor belt, drain, and air samples, with overall relative abundance of 46.06%, 51.18%, and 55.83%, respectively. Prediction models based on sequencing data indicated that the drain surface was a significant contributor to the initial microbiota on conveyor belts, but was replaced by air at the step of pressurized water washing.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".