Review of the literature and guidance on food allergen cleaning: Appendix

TABLE:

Plain water; Dishwashing liquid; Formula 409 cleaner; Lysol sanitising wipes; Target cleaner with bleach

HANDS:

Antibacterial hand sanitiser; Tidy Tykes wipes; Wet Ones antibacterial wipes; Liquid soap; Bar soap

After hand washing with liquid soap, bar soap, or commercial wipes, Ara h 1 was undetectable. Plain water and antibacterial hand sanitiser left detectable Ara h 1 on 3 of 12 and 6 of 12 hands, respectively. Common household cleaning agents removed peanut allergen from tabletops, except dishwashing liquid, which left Ara h 1 on 4 of 12 tables. Of the 6 area preschools and schools evaluated, Ara h 1 was found on 1 of 13 water fountains, 0 of 22 desks, and 0 of 36 cafeteria tables.

Conclusion: The major peanut allergen, Ara h 1, is relatively easily cleaned from hands and tabletops with common cleaning agents and does not appear to be widely distributed in preschools and schools.

Washed with various types of cleaning agents or solutions (water; chlorinated alkali cleaner; acid detergent cleaner) at different temperatures (ambient temperature; 62.8ºC; 73.8ºC) for 30 minutes

The efficacy of the cleaning protocols differed depending on the type of soil, the food contact surface, the temperature of the cleaning solution, and the concentration of the detergent in the cleaning solution. For example, water without chlorinated alkali cleaner was not effective at removing hot milk soil from stainless steel plates. Chlorinated alkali cleaner was able to remove all hot milk residues even when the detergent solution was at ambient temperature. In contrast, water alone at 62.8ºC and 73.8ºC was effective at removing cold milk soils. Water alone at 62.8ºC, but not at ambient temperature, was effective at removing peanut butter soils from most of the food contact surfaces studied. Both chlorinated alkali cleaner and acid detergent cleaner at 62.8ºC, but neither at ambient temperature, were able to effectively remove all peanut butter residues from the food contact surfaces.

Hazelnut

Kneaders; rotary molder; wire cutting machine; steel band oven

Hazelnut protein specific ELISA

No cleaning – push-through with cookies without hazelnut; Manual scraping; Manual scraping plus cleaning with 52ºC hot water; Manual scraping plus cleaning with 52ºC hot water containing 0.2% dish detergent and final rinse with hot water.

Cross-contact from chopped kernels was distributed heterogeneously; sampling and analysis with the ELISA was therefore not reproducible. For the homogeneously distributed, finely ground hazelnut, apart from product changes without intermediate cleaning, the highest cross-contact was found after mechanical scraping: up to 100 mg/kg hazelnut protein was found in the follow-up product. After additional cleaning with hot water, the cross-contact decreased to levels at or below 1 mg/kg hazelnut protein. In the pilot plant study, an appropriate wet cleaning procedure in combination with quantitative monitoring of the cleaning efficiency reduced the hazelnut protein cross-contact to a level at which severe hazelnut-related allergic reactions are unlikely to occur.

Egg; Peanut; Milk

Abraded and unabraded stainless steel surfaces

Visual inspection; Veratox Allergen Test Kits, Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI.

Juice Products Association (JPA) Type 4 wash and food degreaser wash;

Chlorinated alkaline detergent (CAD) and food degreaser wash; Acid detergent (AD) and food degreaser wash; Water only treatment. All applied at 63°C

For all three allergens, JPA and CAD resulted in the highest percentage reductions (99.6% on average for all surfaces), while AD resulted in the least allergen percentage reduction (91.6% on average for all surfaces). The average reduction for water was 96.5% for all allergens and surfaces.

Gluten

Stainless steel wire mesh conveyors

ATP surface swabs (Biotrace Intl.); Protein (Coomassie dye method, Pierce); ELISA (gliadin) immunoassay (RIDASCREEN)

RINSING: remove solid material and wash with water 40-50⁰C;

FOAM and RINSE: 1% enforce foam comprising NaOH, NaOCl and surfactant, scrub, wait 20 minutes, water rinse;

SANITISE and RINSE: broad spectrum sanitiser, comprising of range of antimicrobials, wait 20 minutes, water rinse.

The ELISA assay results for gliadin show that the cleaning procedures at the facility were extremely effective at gliadin removal. The comment is made that even modest cleaning would be sufficient for gliadin removal in this facility.

A comparison of ATP results with the gliadin ELISA showed that the results of the 2 tests agree. It was, however, emphasised that these outcomes apply only to the chicken product range processed in the facility and are not necessarily able to be extrapolated to other foods and processing protocols.

Milk; Egg; Peanut; Soy

Stainless steel; Teflon; Urethane faced belting

Visual inspection; Neogen Alert qualitative ELISA kits for peanut, total milk, egg and soy; conventional ATP swabs (Pocketswab, Charm Sciences); sensitive ATP swabs (Allergiene, Charm Sciences); protein swabs (Aller-tect, 3-M)

Alcohol-moistened wipes; High efficiency vacuum

Wipes removed all cooked food residues from all surfaces, as determined using all the detection methods. However, conventional and sensitive ATP swabs detected the presence of residue when the surfaces were clean according to all tests. For all trials, the vacuum was unable to remove cooked food residues using all detection methods. For uncooked foods, the vacuum was able to remove all visible traces of the foods, with the exception of milk powder on the urethane surface. However, in some cases, ELISA, the protein swab and both ATP swabs detected the presence of food residues.

Milk (casein); Gluten (G12); Egg

Work surfaces (e.g. cutting board), utensils (e.g. knife) and hands/gloves

Allergen test strips by Romer Labs

Water; Water and detergent/soap

Cleaning work surfaces, utensils or hands and gloves with water only (without detergent and soap) is not sufficient to prevent cross-contact.

Cleaning work surfaces, tools or hands and gloves with detergent or soap is mostly sufficient to prevent cross-contact.

Peanut

Laminated plastic surface

Ara h 1 ELISA (INDOOR Biotechnologies)

Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes

Detectable Ara h 1 on every sample collected for 110 days. Immediately after cleaning the surface, Ara h 1 was not detected.

Egg

Food service tableware made from four different materials (polypropylene, strengthened porcelain, polyethylene naphthalate, and melamine)

LFDs and ELISA

Wash with water only; Wash with water and/or detergent

The tableware tested positive or weakly positive after washing with only water, and negative or weakly positive after washing with detergent, there being no differences among the tableware materials. The tableware was then rinsed twice or four times and tested again as positive or weakly positive. The quantitative ELISA results showed the allergen levels to be slightly higher than or close to 50 ng/mL after washing with only water, and below the lower limit of quantification (＜0.78 ng/mL) after washing with detergent for many of the tested allergens. There were no significant differences among the four kinds of tableware material for the residual characteristics of the egg allergens.

Peanut; Milk; Egg

LFDs for surfaces Quantitative; ELISAs for samples

1) push-through with control cereal bar dough or muffin batter; 2) scraping the equipment surfaces with rubber scrapers; 3) a rinse with hot (54-60°C) water until “visibly clean”; 4) a full cleaning cycle with alkaline detergent followed by use of a sanitiser

Results of LFD tests indicated that hot water rinse was effective for the cereal bar processing line but not for the muffin line. Only the full cleaning cycle was effective at removing allergenic food residues for both processing lines. During the cross-contact study, substantial levels of peanut, milk and egg were detected in samples obtained both before and after baking. Overall, these results illustrate the importance of validated cleaning protocols for preventing allergen cross-contact on shared processing lines.

Clorox® Disinfecting Wipes; Ultrawipes™ hospital wipes; Butcher’s PerCept RTU Wipes™ hospital wipes

After cleaning with any product, no Ara h 1 was detected on any item. Table surfaces, book covers and plastic toys can be cleaned to remove peanut allergen Ara h 1 using common household and hospital cleaning wipes. Regular cleaning of these products or cleaning prior to their use should be promoted to reduce the risk of accidental peanut exposure, especially in areas where they have been used by many children with common cleaning agents and does not appear to be widely distributed in preschools and schools.

316 grade stainless steel;  high density polyethylene (HDPE); Nylon 6/6; Delrin

Romer AgraStrip Casein (Romer Labs, Runcorn, Cheshire, UK); Neogen Reveal 3-D Total Milk (Neogen Corporation, Lansing, MI, US); 3M Clean-Trace Surface Protein Allergen (3M Health Care , St. Paul, MN, US)

Commercial caustic; Commodity caustic; Acid cleaner; Oxidizing sanitiser

The caustic solutions easily removed the milk soil while the acid and sanitising solutions left a soiled surface. When used separately, a commercial caustic solution was observed to outperform a commodity caustic solution. Stainless steel was most easily cleaned, followed by HDPE and Nylon 6/6.

Vacuum cleaning at about 3mm above the surface. After 10 seconds of vacuuming followed by a brushing, second vacuuming was applied for 10 seconds

Allergen tests showed 50% negative and 50% positive for soy (n=6), which indicates the uncertainty of the vacuum cleaning practice for allergen removal. The results of the vacuum cleaning test provided further evidence that visual cleanness poses the risk of allergen cross-contact.

Rinsed with 1 L running water for 5–10 seconds at 28ºC; Scrubbed 10 times with a urethane sponge scourer containing a household detergent, followed by rinsing with 1 L running water for 5–10 seconds at 28ºC

Rinsing with 1 L of water showed a >95% removal efficiency for stainless steel and glass cookware, whereas half the PP and wood cookware required scrubbing with a detergent-containing sponge for complete cleanliness. When the surfaces were cleaned with foam and rinsed, the orange extract was removed from all cookware; however, in the case of wood, levels below the LOQ were detected in two of the five experiments.

Egg; Gluten

Washing by hand; Washing by dishwasher; Brisk hand washing with dedicated brush

Egg was not detected following hand washing or dish washing (egg was not tested for following brisk hand washing). Gluten was detected after hand and dish washing, but not after brisk hand washing, even though the pan was visually clean.

PUSH-THROUGH (use of a silicone pig (7.6cm in length)), followed by dark chocolate;

PUSH-THROUGH (recirculating cocoa butter (~27kg, 40°C, 1 hour)

PUSH-THROUGH (silicone pig) – Following the pig, after 13 to 15 kg of milk-free dark chocolate was pumped through the pipe and valve, milk levels were below the ELISA limit of quantitation (LOQ=2.5 ppm). Use of the pig dramatically reduced levels of milk in initial dark chocolate samples.

PUSH-THROUGH (recirculating cocoa butter) - Recirculating cocoa butter decreased initial milk levels, but 11 (3% CV) ppm milk was detected after ~13 kg dark chocolate purge.

Egg; Milk; Gluten

On-site LFDs: Milk (beta-lactoglobulin), egg (ovalbumin) and gluten (Proteon Express, ZEULAB, Spain). Followed by ELISAs for laboratory confirmation: Proteon Milk and Egg (ZEULAB, Spain) and GlutenTox ELISA (Biomedal, Spain).

Most of the kitchens used automatic washer systems for small tools and containers of general use. Some kitchens washed by hand the biggest food-contact surfaces of general use and the tools and containers of exclusive use to prepare allergen-free menus. In all cases, cleaning was performed with conventional detergents and disinfectants to control microbial contamination.

The current cleaning procedures in kitchens of school canteens are not effective to remove allergens from food-contact surfaces and surfaces. Therefore, processes should be improved in order to reduce the risk of allergen cross-contact. Validation of cleaning processes and verification of its effectiveness after each cleaning should be demonstrated by using the suitable tools of analysis. The use of exclusive food-contact surfaces to avoid allergen cross-contact during the preparation or serving meals is not a guarantee of the absence of allergens.

Ball mill; horizontal shaft conch; three-roller refiner

PUSH-THROUGH (cocoa butter (40ºC, 5 min rinse);

WET CLEANING (detergent-rinse-air dry);

PUSH-THROUGH (dark chocolate)

PUSH-THROUGH (cocoa butter) - Levels of milk reduced from up to 40,300ppm milk (ball mill) and 18,100ppm milk (conch) detected in dark chocolate that had been passed through uncleaned equipment, to 1,960ppm milk (ball mill) and 2,440ppm milk (conch) in the first batch of dark chocolate following the cocoa butter push-through. Milk levels decreased in subsequent batches of dark chocolate processed on both pieces of equipment.

WET CLEANING - Milk levels were below the ELISA limit of quantitation (LOQ; 2.5 ppm) for all three dark chocolate batches produced.

PUSH-THROUGH (dark chocolate) - Initial dark chocolate samples contained up to 2,140ppm milk. After approximately 3kg of dark chocolate was processed on the refiner, measured milk levels were below the ELISA LOQ.

Egg; Milk; Gluten

On-site LFDs: Proteon Milk Express, Proteon Casein Express, Proteon Egg Express, Proteon Gluten Express (ZEULAB, Spain). Followed by ELISAs for laboratory confirmation:  Proteon Milk, Proteon Egg (ZEULAB, Spain), GlutenTox ELISA, Biomedal, Spain).

The usual cleaning was with conventional detergents in 5 out of the 10 schools - either by hand or in an automatic dishwasher. In the other 5 schools, an additional cleaning step was implemented using a detergent with proteases (DetzymSurfaces, Hypred) after the ordinary cleaning.

Detergent with proteases, rinsing the utensils before use and wash by hand, reduced significantly the occurrence of allergens on kitchen surfaces or utensils. Some storage conditions such as keeping utensils in a cupboard or covered somehow, also protect the utensils from allergen post-contamination, this was particularly true for egg and gluten (both of which are used in powdered from).

The higher level of contamination when using an automatic dishwasher could be explained by the partial recirculation of water.

None of the materials showed a significant impact on the number of utensils contaminated with allergen residues. Only the utensils made of Teflon shown a clear trend to be contaminated with gluten, but this requires confirmation.

When comparing LFD and ELISA results, more positive results were found by ELISA test, as the limits of detection of this method are lower.

Peanut; Milk; Egg

Stainless steel; Textured plastic; Maple wood

Dry paper wipes; Dry terry dish cloths; Wet terry cloth (soaked in tap water); Wet terry cloth (soaked in 50ppm of total chlorine sanitiser solution); Alcohol quaternary ammonium chloride wipes; Wash-rinse-sanitise-dry rinse procedure.

Although dry wipes and cloths were not effective for removing allergenic foods, terry cloth pre-soaked in water or sanitiser solution, use of multiple quat wipes, and the wash–rinse–sanitise–air dry procedure were effective in allergen removal from surfaces. Allergens present on dry wipes were transferred to wiped surfaces. In contrast, minimal or no allergen transfer to surfaces was found when allergen-contaminated terry cloth was submerged in sanitiser solution prior to wiping surfaces. The full cleaning method (wash–rinse–sanitise–air dry) and soaking the terry cloth in sanitiser solution prior to wiping were effective at allergen removal and minimizing allergen transfer.

A - Wipe with cold, then warm water, using the same wiping cloth (microfiber);

B - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, using the same wiping cloth (microfiber):

C - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water;

D - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water, the work uniform was changed after food preparation, before the cleaning activity

E - Wipe with warm water, then warm water with detergent, the cloth (microfiber) was changed to a fresh cloth after the first wipe with warm water, the work uniform was changed after food preparation, and hands were washed after food preparation

A - Contamination was detected on all surfaces. There was little difference in results after wiping with cold or warm water.

B - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces.

C - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces except for the worktop following the wipe with warm water and detergent.

D - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces following the initial wipe with warm water. After the wipe with warm water and detergent only the employee apron showed possible contamination, for all other surfaces contamination was not determined.

E - Results showed possible contamination or some contamination on all surfaces following the initial wipe with warm water. After the wipe with warm water and detergent no contamination was determined on any surface.

EQUIPMENT: Wok, Saucepan;

UTENSILS: Whisks, Tongs, Spatulas, Ladles, Spoons

EQUIPMENT: Brief scrub with a brush and warm water (no soap or detergent used);

UTENSILS: Brief rinse in a shared pot of warm water for a couple of seconds

EQUIPMENT: There was no measurable sauce residue found in most cases (32 of 35) after common cleaning practice (brief scrub with a brush and warm water).

UTENSILS: Rinsing with warm water significantly decreased the amount of peanut residue, but it did not completely remove all peanut protein. Sauce residue, containing calculated levels of peanut protein, remained on all the utensils following cleaning.

ATP Test swabs (UltraSnap™, Hygiena, Camarillo, CA)

General surface protein test swab (Clean-Trace™, 3M, St. Paul, MN) (quantitative)

Specific allergen lateral flow devices (LFD) (3M, St. Paul, MN) tests for gluten and milk proteins.

Brushing; Scraping

Number of brush passes needed to reach the “clean state” were numerically but not statistically less than the number of scraper passes needed in the removal of wheat flour under all water activity (aw) conditions. Scraping was significantly less effective than brushing in the removal of powder under all conditions. Two to four passes of scraper required to achieve the “clean state” under all conditions. Wheat flour residues were consistently detected with all biochemical swab tests under all conditions following scraping. Allergenic residues were consistently detected following scraping or brushing under most conditions, even as the surfaces appeared visibly clean and passed ATP testing. Overall, the findings highlight the potential for allergenic residue retention after conventional dry cleaning using hand tools.
 

Perry et al. (2004)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

123

184

Jackson et al. (2008)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

62

116

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Germany

Y

-

-

Y

-

22

34

Spektor (2009)

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

0

1

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

New Zealand

Y

-

-

Y

-

17

29

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

US

-

Y

-

-

-

0

0

Schreder et al. (2013)

Austria

Y

-

-

Y

-

0

0

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

Canada

Y

-

-

Y

-

7

12

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

Japan

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

3

Zhang (2014)

US

-

-

Y

-

Y

0

0

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

Canada

Y

-

-

Y

-

3

9

Courtney (2016)

US

-

-

Y

-

-

0

4

Wells and Jeong (2017)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

0

Kiyota et al. (2017)

Japan

Y

-

-

Y

-

1

1

Schembri (2017)

UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

0

0

Zhang et al. (2018)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

0

0

Ortiz et al. (2018)

Spain

Y

-

-

Y

-

11

26

Zhang et al. (2019)

US

Y

-

-

-

Y

1

0

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Spain

Y

-

-

Y

-

7

8

Bedford et al. (2020)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

4

7

Aleksić et al. (2020)

Croatia

Y

-

-

Y

-

0

3

Remington et al. (2020)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

4

4

Chen et al. (2022)

US

Y

-

-

Y

-

3

4

TOTAL NUMBER PER PUBLICATION TYPE

N/A

18

1

4

16

5

N/A

N/A

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

Y

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

Y

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

Zhang et al. (2018)

Y

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

Zhang et al. (2019)

Y

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

Y

Bedford et al. (2020)

-

Y

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

Y

Remington et al. (2020)

-

Y

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

11

12

Perry et al. (2004)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

H

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

O

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER ALLERGEN

12

7

3

9

9

2

Perry et al. (2004)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hot milk

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cookie dough

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Battered chicken

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Soy infant formula

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

-

See Note (1)

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang (2014)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

Cereal bars, muffins

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Courtney (2016)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Soy protein isolate

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Orange extract

Schembri (2017)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Milk chocolate

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Milk chocolate

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (2)

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

See Note (3)

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

See Note (4)

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Asian sauces

Chen et al. (2022)

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Y

TOTAL NUMBER PER MATRIX

6

3

5

4

2

3

1

1

N/A

Perry et al. (2004)

-

-

Y

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

-

Y

-

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

Y

-

Y

-

Spektor (2009)

-

Y

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

-

Y

-

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

-

Y

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

Y

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

-

Y

-

-

Courtney (2016)

-

-

-

-

Y

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

Y

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

Y

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

-

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

Y

-

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

Y

-

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CLEANING METHODOLOGY

6

14

6

4

1

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

-

-

Y

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

Rӧder et al. (2008)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

Y

-

-

-

Y

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang (2014)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Bedford et al. (2020)

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Chen et al. (2022)

Y

-

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER SURFACE TYPE

12

9

2

1

8

3

Perry et al. (2004)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Jackson et al. (2008)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Rӧder et al. (2008)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Spektor (2009)

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Wang, Young and Karl (2010)

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Jackson and Al-Taher (2010)

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Schreder et al. (2013)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2013)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Hashimoto, Yoshimitsu and Kiyota (2014)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Zhang (2014)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Watson, Woodrow and Stadnyk (2015)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Courtney (2016)

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

Wells and Jeong (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Kiyota et al. (2017)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Schembri (2017)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2018)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Ortiz et al. (2018)

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

Zhang et al. (2019)

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Galan-Malo et al. (2019)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Bedford et al. (2020)

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Aleksić et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Remington et al. (2020)

-

-

-

-

-

-

Chen et al. (2022)

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER DETECTION METHOD

2

12

8

3

4

0

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

Y

-

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

-

-

Y

Y

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

-

-

Y

-

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013

US

Y

-

-

-

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

CANADA

Y

Y

-

Y

ASSIFONTE, 2018

EU

Y

Y

-

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

Y

Y

Farmhouse and Artisan Cheese & Dairy Producers European Network, 2018

EU

Y

-

-

-

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2020

EU

Y

-

-

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

CANADA

Y

Y

-

-

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

US Food and Drug Administration, 2022

US

Y

Y

-

Y

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CLEANING METHODOLOGY

N/A

16

12

9

8

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Safe Quality Food Institute, 2012

Global

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

Canada

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

Y

Neogen, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Canadian Celiac Association, 2018

Canada

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Dairy Food Safety Victoria, 2018

AUS

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2021

AUS/NZ

Y

-

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021b

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

British Retail Consortium, 2022

Global

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

European Commission, 2022

EU

Y

-

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

Canada

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

International Life Sciences Institute Europe, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Japan Food Safety Management Association, 2022

Japan

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Y

-

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Food Standards Agency, 2006

UK

Y

Y

Y

-

Campden BRI, 2009

UK

Y

-

-

-

Catalan Food Safety Agency, 2009

Spain

Y

Y

Y

-

Safe Quality Food Institute, 2012

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Campden BRI, 2013

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Alberta Agriculture and Rural Development, 2014

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

Neogen, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency, 2018

Brazil

Y

-

-

-

Canadian Celiac Association, 2018

Canada

Y

Y

Y

-

Dairy Food Safety Victoria, 2018

AUS

Y

Y

Y

-

Codex Alimentarius, 2020a

Global

Y

Y

Y

-

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Association, 2020

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Australian Food and Grocery Council, 2021

AUS/NZ

Y

Y

Y

-

European Hygienic Engineering and Design Group, 2021b

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

British Retail Consortium, 2022

Global

Y

-

Y

Y

European Commission, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

-

Food Allergy Canada, 2022

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

FoodDrinkEurope, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

International Life Sciences Institute Europe, 2022

EU

Y

Y

Y

Y

Japan Food Safety Management Association, 2022

Japan

Y

Y

-

-

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service, 2022

US

Y

-

Y

Y

Food Allergy Research and Resource Program, no date

US

Y

Y

Y

-

Food Safety Magazine

Baumert and Taylor  

2013

University of Nebraska, US

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Quality

Teng

2013

University of Otago Wellington, New Zealand

-

-

-

Y

-

-

International Food Hygiene

Lopez and Morales

2015

AIB International, US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Quality Assurance Magazine

Zerva

2015

AIB International, US

Y

Y

-

Y

Y

-

International Food Hygiene

Easter

2015

Hygiena International Ltd, UK

Y

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Kochak

2016

Auburn University Food Systems Institute, US

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Haley and Brouilette

2018

Commercial Food Sanitation, US

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

-

International Food & Meat Topics

Brown

2019

Fortress Technology, UK

Y

-

Y

-

-

-

New Food

Smith

2019

Vikan, UK

Y

-

-

Y

-

-

Manufacturing Confectioner

Franzmeier

2019

Sollich KG, Germany

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Food Processing, UK

Gill

2020

Deeside Cereals, UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

-

Food Safety Magazine

Schaffner

2020

Rutgers Food Innovation Center, US

Y

Y

Y

-

-

-

Food Science and Technology

Littleton, Walker and Ward

2021

Christeyns Food Hygiene Ltd, UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Manufacture, UK

Ridler

2022

Food Manufacture, UK

-

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Processing, USA

Demetrakakes

2022

Food Processing, US

Y

-

Y

Y

-

Y

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

N/A

N/A

N/A

11

7

10

11

4

2

Emport LLC, 2015

US

-

-

Y

Y

Y

-

Smith, 2015

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

Gloves by web, 2016

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Howlett, 2016

Ireland

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Smith, 2016

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

The Acheson Group (TAG), 2016

US

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE), 2017

US

-

-

Y

-

-

-

Food Safety Experts, 2017

Canada

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Jackson, 2017

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food Safety Authority Ireland (FSAI), 2020

Ireland

-

-

-

-

-

-

Romer Labs, 2019a

UK

Y

-

-

-

-

-

Romer Labs, 2019b

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Campden BRI, 2020a

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2020

Canada

-

-

-

Y

-

Y

Christeyns, 2020

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

- 

Y

Romer Labs, 2020a

UK

-

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Diversey, 2021

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

Y

Hygiena, 2021

UK

-

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Rochester Midland Corporation, 2021

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

-

Singapore Food Agency, 2021

Singapore

-

Y

-

-

-

-

AIB International, 2022

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2022

Canada

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Reading Scientific Services Ltd (RSSL), 2022

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Biocel, 2022

Ireland

Y

-

Y

Y

Y

Y

Food & Allergy Consulting & Testing Service (FACTS), 2022

South Africa

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Food Standards Agency, 2022

UK

-

-

-

-

-

-

Hygiena, 2022

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

-

Uğurcan, 2022

Turkey

-

-

Y

-

-

Y

Allergen Bureau, 2023

AUS/NZ

Y

Y

Y

Y

-

Y

Food Allergy & Anaphylaxis Connection Team (FAACT), 2023

US

-

-

-

-

-

-

Food Safety Standard App, 2023

India

Y

-

-

-

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

18

15

16

14

5

11

Stone, Jantschke and Stevenson, 2009

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Burrows, 2010

US

-

-

Y

Y

-

Gowland, 2010

US

-

Y

Y

-

-

Stone and Yeung, 2010

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Cochrane and Skrypec, 2014

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

Nikoleiski, 2015

UK

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Moerman and Mager, 2016

UK

-

-

-

-

Y

Crevel, 2016

UK

Y

Y

-

-

-

Holah, 2016

UK

-

Y

-

-

-

Jackson, 2018

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Marriott, Schilling and Gravani, 2018

US

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Eisenberg and Delaney, 2018

US

-

Y

Y

-

-

TOTAL NUMBER PER CATEGORY

7

10

8

6

6

International Food Safety and Quality Network, 2017

Ireland

Validation of Cleaning & Sanitation programs

Romer Labs, 2020b

UK

Identify. Control. Eliminate. New developments in allergen management and cleaning

Anaphylaxis Campaign, 2020

UK

The Role of Cleaning in the Management of Allergens

Romer Labs, 2021a

UK

Effective food allergen management for businesses and consumers

Romer Labs, 2021b

UK

How do you manage allergens in gluten free production

Food & Allergy Consulting & Testing Services, 2021

South Africa

Validation vs Verification in a Food Factory