336

A LIMITED STUDY ON THE SANITATION OF FISHING TRAWLER HOLDS ROBERT E. LEVIN AND F. MILES SAWYER Department of Food Science and Technology University of Massachusetts, Amherst 01002 and

PAUL G. SCHEURER

Bursau of CommercU!Jl Fisheries Technological LraboratoTIJ, Gloucester, Massl!tChusetts 01930 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/29/11/336/2396085/0022-2747-29_11_336.pdf by guest on 23 September 2021 (Received for publication September 1966)

SUMMAJilY solution. Serial 1:10 dilutions of dissolved swabs were pre­ The bacterial load on £urfaces of wo<9d~n fish pens was pared in broth €!r;)mpm:ed of yeast extract ( Difco), 0.20%; uniformly in excess of 10" per square inch prior to cleaning. tryptone ( Difco), 0.2006; dextrose, 0.20%; sodil!l.In cllloride, Conventional hand scrubbing and rinsing with harbor water 0.25%; and distilled water at pH 7.0. Dilutions were plated failed to reduce the count, whereas the application IDf a hsea is necessary to maintain high quility of visually clean and free of slime. The data in Table product and to prevent the development of bilgy 1 indicate, however, that hand scrubbing with har­ fish. Castell {1) and MacCallum (2) have shown that bor water failed to remove the heavy load of micro­ this type of spoilage results from the contact of fish organisms even though the surfaces were visually with slime-soaked wooden penboards. clean. The heavy load of microorganisms on the This limited study was undertaken to compare two hand-scrubbed compartments was undoubtedly due methods for removing slime and reducing the bac­ to slime entrapped in the grossly pitted surfaces of terial flora on hold surfaces of a commercial New the wood. The use of untreated harbor water might England trawling vessel. also be expected to contribute to the bacterial load. The application of hot detergent with a force of ExPERIMENTAL MEDians 280 psi reduced the bacterial load over most of the The first cleaning method studied was that usually em­ hold surfaces by 100 times. The greatest reduction ployed by local fishermen and consisted of conventional hand achieved was 99.89% with only two samples failing scrubbing follfishing vessel and in the same hold. The second in contact with a previously hand-scrubbed pen­ cl~g method was applied 25 days after the first and after the ve..'"Sel had completed several fishing trip~. board developed bilgy odors in 2 dlilys under ice. Swab samples were taken at 13 locati0ns on fish pen sur­ In contrast, he found fish in contact with steam­ faces in the hold immediately after the cargo of fish was sterilized boards, fresh wood, and aluminum sheet­ unloaded, and again from 13 surfaces adjacent to the for­ ing showed no bilgy odors under similar storage mer, immediately after cleaning. Swab samples of l-inch square periods and recommended the use of aluminum sheet­ areas of wooden h0ld surfaces were taken using stainless steel ing in fish pen holds. Spencer (2) observed that templates and sterile calcium alginate W0IDl swabs. They were transferred aseptically to 10 ml 0f 1% Calggm f0r dis- wooden fish boxes coated with a urea-formaldehyde resin were less contaminated and more efficiently 'The use of trade names is to simplify descriptions; no en­ cleaned than uncoated boxes. These results and dorsement is implied. those reported herein clearly indicate that conven- SANITATION OF FISHING TRAWLER HoLDS 337

TABLE 1. EFFECT oF CLEANING MEmo» ON ToTAL CouNT PER SQUARE INcH oF How SURFACE

Rand-scrubbed rinsed Rot jet detergent applloo.tion with untrea.ted sea water followed by rinsing with potable water B&cterlal count Bacterial count Percent Bacterial count Bacterial count Percent Sample no. before cleaning after cleaning change before .cleanlng after cleanlng change

7 7 1 23 X 10 63 X 107 +173.91 125 X 10 14 X lOS -99.89

7 7 7 2 26 X 10 32 X 10 +23.07 29 X 10 13 X lOS -99.55

7 7 3 22 X 10 31 X 107 +36.36 88 X 10 52 X lOS -99.41

7 7 4 42 X 10 28 X 10 -33.33 67 X 1()" 29 X lOS -99.57

7 7 7 5 27 X 10 12 X 10 -55.56 32 X 10 71 X 10" -77.81

7 7 7 6 34 X 10 39 X 10 +14.70 35 X 10 23 X 10" -93.43 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/29/11/336/2396085/0022-2747-29_11_336.pdf by guest on 23 September 2021 7 7 7 7 42 X 10 35 X 10 ~16.69 25 X 10 26 X lOS -98.96

7 7 8 21 X 107 39 X 107 +85.71 192 X 10 8 X 10 -95.84

7 7 7 5 9 J0 X 10 34 X 10 +13.33 40 X 10 16 X 10 -99.60

7 7 10 9 X 10 22 X 107 +144.49 48 X 10 11 X 10" -99.77

7 7 7 11 45 X 10 38 X 10 -15.56 61 X 10 18 X lOS -99.70

7 7 7 12 13 X 10 7 X 107 -53.86 22 X 10 29 X 10 +3.18

7 7 7 13 26 X 10 8 X 10 ~9.24 85 X 10 17 X lOS -99.80

7 7 8 Mean 28 X 10 30 X 107 65 X 10 37 X 10

tional hand scrubbing of porous wooden surfaces of Commercial Fisheries Laboratory, Gloucester, Mass., for with untreated harbor water fails to remove the bac­ mechanical assistance. Our sincere appreciation is extended terial population satisfactorily. The application of to Captain Dominic Novello and the crew of the fishing vessel, the "J.B.N.," used in this study, without whose gratu­ hot pressurized detergent was found far more ef­ itous help and cooperation this study would not have been ficient in reducing bacterial numbers on porous wood­ possible, and for the. cooperation of Messrs, Ralph Marsh en pen surfaces. The use of aluminum sheeting or and Arthur Muldoon who provided equipment and detergent. the application of presently availahle plastics such as polyphenols, polyurethane, and urea-formaldehyde resins to wooden fish pen surfaces to render them REFEfiENCES impervious to bacteria and to facilitate efficient re­ 1. Castell, C. H. 1954. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. Atlantic duction of the bacterial load would appear to offer Prog. Rpt. No. 58, 27-31. considerable advantage in the sanitation of fish pen 2. MacCallmn, W. A. 1955. Pen surfaces and odor de­ holds. velopment in trawler fish holds. J. Food Techno!. 9 ( 5): 251-253. 3. Spencer, R. 1961. the sanitation of fish boxes. Ill. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A comparison of plastic coated and uncoated wooden boxes. The authors wish to thank Mr. Joseph Lee of the Bureau J. Appl. Bacterial. 24 ( 1) : 110-115.