Self-Reported Sanitation, Moisture Management, and Microbial Testing Practices Among Low-Moisture Food Safety Survey Respondents
- 1Department of Food Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States
- 2Corresponding author at: Stocking Hall, 411 Tower Rd, Ithaca, NY 14853, United States.
Abstract
In low-moisture food (LMF) processing environments, sanitation and uncontrolled water events can introduce moisture that supports pathogen growth. However, commercial practices for sanitation, lot segregation, moisture management, and microbial monitoring remain poorly characterized. This study surveyed food safety and quality professionals with LMF production experience to describe these practices. A 56-question online survey distributed from October 2025 to January 2026 yielded 40 eligible responses. Sanitation break definitions varied, with 47% of respondents defining breaks by sanitation method. Respondents generally reported practices to limit water introduction. Wiping, brushing, or scraping and vacuuming were performed at least weekly by 95% and 84%, respectively; 68% reported never using flood cleaning. Equipment buildup reduction was the most common factor influencing dry-cleaning frequency (74%), while pathogen control was the most common factor influencing wet-cleaning frequency (82%). Among respondents using wet sanitation, 81.1% used at least one active drying measure afterward. However, uncertainty about relative humidity (RH) was common: 32.5% of eligible respondents were unsure of their dry-zone target RH, and 47.5% were unsure of the highest RH during normal operations. More than 20% reported condensation, equipment leaks, or water puddling at least monthly. Environmental monitoring for pathogens and hygiene indicators was most commonly performed weekly, while finished-product testing varied by analyte and facility size. These exploratory findings indicate that LMF manufacturers are monitoring microbial populations and limiting moisture introduction during sanitation, but opportunities remain to strengthen moisture management and improve consistency in sanitation break classification.
Related
- Household environmental management practices, community engagement, and self-reported malaria incidence in urban and rural communities of Malawi
- Self-Reported Red Eye Among Saudi Adults: Symptom Profile, Self-Management Practices, and Associated Factors.
- Reported practice patterns in the use of local antibiotics for fracture-related infection among SICOT respondents: an international survey.
- Physician-reported practices regarding obesity management in patients aged under 60 years with osteoarthritis in Jordan: a cross-sectional survey
- Sanitation barriers, lack of awareness and unaffordability affecting menstrual health management among urban low-income group, informal sector women workers: A study from Mumbai suburbs
BibTeX
@article{buechner2026selfreported,
title = {{Self-Reported Sanitation, Moisture Management, and Microbial Testing Practices Among Low-Moisture Food Safety Survey Respondents}},
author = {Grace Buechner and Calvin Slaughter and Abigail B. Snyder},
journal = {Journal of Food Protection},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Self-Reported Sanitation, Moisture Management, and Microbial Testing Practices Among Low-Moisture Food Safety Survey Respondents
AU - Grace Buechner
AU - Calvin Slaughter
AU - Abigail B. Snyder
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/30
JO - Journal of Food Protection
DO - 10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938
UR - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2026.100938
AB - In low-moisture food (LMF) processing environments, sanitation and uncontrolled water events can introduce moisture that supports pathogen growth. However, commercial practices for sanitation, lot segregation, moisture management, and microbial monitoring remain poorly characterized. This study surveyed food safety and quality professionals with LMF production experience to describe these practices. A 56-question online survey distributed from October 2025 to January 2026 yielded 40 eligible responses. Sanitation break definitions varied, with 47% of respondents defining breaks by sanitation method. Respondents generally reported practices to limit water introduction. Wiping, brushing, or scraping and vacuuming were performed at least weekly by 95% and 84%, respectively; 68% reported never using flood cleaning. Equipment buildup reduction was the most common factor influencing dry-cleaning frequency (74%), while pathogen control was the most common factor influencing wet-cleaning frequency (82%). Among respondents using wet sanitation, 81.1% used at least one active drying measure afterward. However, uncertainty about relative humidity (RH) was common: 32.5% of eligible respondents were unsure of their dry-zone target RH, and 47.5% were unsure of the highest RH during normal operations. More than 20% reported condensation, equipment leaks, or water puddling at least monthly. Environmental monitoring for pathogens and hygiene indicators was most commonly performed weekly, while finished-product testing varied by analyte and facility size. These exploratory findings indicate that LMF manufacturers are monitoring microbial populations and limiting moisture introduction during sanitation, but opportunities remain to strengthen moisture management and improve consistency in sanitation break classification.
SN - 0362-028X
SN - 1944-9097
ER -