1. Introduction
Biofilms are complex microbial communities that attach to surfaces and are embedded in a self-produced extracellular matrix. They present significant challenges in the food industry by contributing to contamination, food spoilage, equipment damage, and economic losses [1].
In food-processing environments, biofilms frequently develop on stainless steel, plastic, rubber, and other contact surfaces due to constant exposure to nutrients, moisture, and suboptimal cleaning [2]. These microbial communities not only serve as reservoirs for spoilage organisms but are also implicated in serious foodborne outbreaks involving pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Escherichia coli O157:H7 and sometimes Campylobacter spp. The formation of biofilms enables these pathogens to persist despite regular cleaning, posing persistent threats to food safety and shelf life [3,4,5].
The ability of bacteria to form biofilms is also closely linked to their survival under environmental stresses, including sanitizers, desiccation, and temperature fluctuations. Potentially pathogenic bacteria originating from wild game meat have also been identified as emerging contributors to contamination routes in food chains with the capacity to participate in biofilm formation and persistence within processing environments [6]. Within the biofilm, microbial cells exhibit altered phenotypes, including increased resistance to antimicrobial agents up to 1000-fold compared to their planktonic (free-floating) counterparts [7]. This resistance complicates decontamination efforts and facilitates repeated contamination cycles, leading to recurring product recalls and compromised consumer safety [8].
Importantly, biofilm formation is not limited to single-species populations; multi-species communities are more commonly found in real-world food settings. These diverse biofilms benefit from synergistic interactions, such as metabolic cooperation and shared resistance mechanisms, which enhance their structural resilience and adaptability [9]. Moreover, biofilms facilitate horizontal gene transfer, accelerating the spread of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) within and across species, further complicating infection control and contributing to the global antimicrobial resistance (AMR) crisis [10,11].
From a regulatory standpoint, biofilm-associated risks are increasingly acknowledged in frameworks such as ISO 22000 and Codex Alimentarius, which emphasize proactive monitoring and stringent hygiene protocols. Despite these guidelines, the implementation of biofilm-specific detection and prevention strategies remains limited in many sectors due to cost, lack of awareness, or technological gaps [12].
Given the ubiquity and persistence of biofilms in food environments, it is critical to understand their formation dynamics, resistance mechanisms, and ecological implications. This knowledge supports the development of targeted interventions, ranging from enzymatic disruptors and bacteriophages to surface modifications and real-time monitoring systems, to reduce contamination risks and enhance food safety.
This review provides an extensive analysis of biofilm formation mechanisms, impacts on food safety and public health, detection methods, control strategies, and the economic implications across various food sectors including dairy, meat, and seafood. A special focus is placed on the global perspective of economic losses, emphasizing the urgency for advanced biofilm control strategies.
2. Mechanisms of Biofilm Formation in the Food Industry
The formation of a biofilm begins with the reversible attachment of free-floating microorganisms to a surface. This initial adhesion is mediated by weak physicochemical interactions, such as van der Waals forces and hydrophobic effects. If conditions are favorable, the attachment becomes irreversible, involving the production of adhesins and the beginning of extracellular polymeric substances matrix synthesis (EPS), anchoring the cells firmly to the surface [13].
Following irreversible attachment, the microorganisms begin to proliferate and form microcolonies. During this phase, the production of EPS increases, facilitating cell-to-cell adhesion and communication. The microcolonies serve as the foundation for the developing biofilm, allowing for the establishment of complex microbial communities [14]. As the microcolonies grow, the biofilm enters the maturation phase. In this stage, the biofilm develops a complex, three-dimensional structure characterized by the formation of channels and pores that allow for nutrient and waste exchange. The EPS matrix becomes more robust, providing mechanical stability and protection against environmental stresses, including antimicrobial agents [15].
The final stage of the biofilm life cycle is dispersion, where cells are released from the mature biofilm to colonize new environments. This process can be triggered by various factors, such as nutrient depletion or changes in environmental conditions. Dispersed cells can revert to the planktonic state or initiate the formation of new biofilms elsewhere [16]. EPS is a critical component of biofilms, constituting up to 90% of the biofilm’s dry mass. They are composed of a complex mixture of biopolymers, including polysaccharides, proteins, lipids, and extracellular DNA [17]. The EPS provide the structural framework of the biofilm, facilitating the adhesion of cells to surfaces and to each other. This matrix maintains the biofilm’s architecture and protects the embedded microorganisms from mechanical forces and shear stress [18].
The matrix acts as a protective barrier, shielding the microbial community from environmental threats, including desiccation, ultraviolet radiation, and antimicrobial agents. It impedes the penetration of antibiotics and disinfectants, contributing to the increased resistance of biofilm-associated microorganisms [19].
EPS facilitates the retention of nutrients within the biofilm and enables the establishment of nutrient gradients. The matrix’s porous nature allows for the diffusion of nutrients and metabolic waste, supporting the survival and growth of the microbial community [20].
2.1. Genetic Regulation of Biofilm Formation
Biofilm formation is a complex, multicellular behavior regulated by quorum sensing (QS), which is a mechanism that enables bacteria to coordinate gene expression based on population density. This process involves the production, release, and detection of signaling molecules known as autoinducers. Upon reaching a threshold concentration, these autoinducers bind to specific receptors, triggering transcriptional changes that facilitate biofilm development [21].
In Gram-negative bacteria, these receptors are typically LuxR-type proteins located in the cytoplasm, which bind freely diffusible acyl-homoserine lactones (AHLs) before directly regulating gene transcription. The LuxI/LuxR QS system is well characterized. For instance, Pseudomonas aeruginosa utilizes the Las and Rhl systems, where LasI synthesizes N-(3-oxododecanoyl)-homoserine lactone (3OC12-HSL), which binds to the LasR receptor to regulate genes involved in biofilm maturation and virulence. Similarly, the RhlI/RhlR system controls the production of rhamnolipids, contributing to biofilm architecture and dispersal [21,22].
In Gram-positive bacteria, QS signals are usually oligopeptides detected by membrane-bound histidine kinase receptors, which then activate a cytoplasmic response regulator via a two-component phosphorylation cascade. The accessory gene regulator (Agr) QS system is prominent in Staphylococcus aureus, and it regulates the expression of surface proteins and exoproteins, influencing biofilm development and detachment. Mutations in the agr locus can lead to enhanced biofilm formation due to the sustained expression of surface adhesins [23]. The LuxS/AI-2 system represents a universal QS mechanism present in both Gram-negative and Gram-positive bacteria. AI-2, synthesized by the LuxS enzyme, mediates interspecies communication and has been implicated in biofilm formation across diverse bacterial species. For example, in Escherichia coli, AI-2 influences the expression of genes involved in motility and adhesion, affecting biofilm dynamics. Targeting QS pathways offers a promising strategy for controlling biofilm-related issues in food-processing environments. By disrupting QS signaling, it is possible to prevent biofilm formation and reduce the risk of contamination, thereby enhancing food safety and quality [24,25]. There are several known mechanisms to disrupt the QS signaling. One approach employs the enzymatic degradation of signaling molecules: enzymes like AiiA lactonase hydrolyze the homoserine-lactone ring of N-acyl homoserine lactones (AHLs), effectively inactivating these autoinducers and preventing QS activation. AiiA, produced by Bacillus species, has been shown to disrupt QS in Pseudomonas aeruginosa, leading to reduced biofilm formation and virulence [26]. A related mechanism involves signal molecule modification, where oxidoreductases from species like Rhodococcus chemically alter AHL structures to prevent receptor binding [27]. A second tactic is the inhibition of signal synthesis, in which compounds such as plant-derived curcumin block the production of autoinducers by interfering with key synthase enzymes [28]. Another line of defense is signal receptor antagonism, where structural analogues of AHL molecules competitively bind to QS receptors (e.g., LuxR or LasR), thereby blocking native autoinducer signals and disrupting gene regulation [29]. Finally, downstream signaling interference targets the regulatory cascade directly, such as the RNAIII-inhibiting peptide (RIP), which blocks the Agr QS system in Staphylococcus aureus. RIP prevents phosphorylation of the TRAP protein, interrupting QS-dependent virulence gene expression and biofilm development [30].
2.2. Horizontal Gene Transfer and AMR
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a pivotal mechanism by which bacteria acquire and disseminate antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), significantly contributing to the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Within biofilms, the close proximity of bacterial cells and the protective extracellular matrix create an ideal environment for HGT, facilitating the exchange of genetic material through various mechanisms [31]. The primary modes of HGT include conjugation, transformation, and transduction.
Conjugation is the direct cell-to-cell transfer of plasmid DNA via sex pili, and it occurs with notable efficiency within biofilms due to the close physical proximity and stabilized contacts among bacterial cells. The biofilm’s extracellular polymeric substance matrix, along with mild fluid shear forces, helps maintain these cell-to-cell connections, enabling prolonged conjugative interactions. Natural conjugative plasmids not only enhance plasmid transfer in Escherichia coli but also promote biofilm formation, particularly in mixed-species communities. The study demonstrated that E. coli strains carrying conjugative plasmids developed thick, surface-associated biofilms on glass, which is likely because plasmid-encoded pili facilitated adherence and stable microcolony formation. Furthermore, these conditions foster repeated rounds of plasmid transfer, effectively making biofilms hot spots for horizontal gene transfer [32].
Transformation refers to the uptake of free, extracellular DNA (eDNA) from the environment by competent bacterial cells. In biofilms, this process is significantly enhanced due to the elevated concentration of eDNA derived from cell lysis, active secretion, and membrane vesicle release within the extracellular matrix [33]. Many bacteria, under conditions of nutrient limitation or high density, enter a temporarily “competent” state permitting DNA uptake. In biofilms, quorum-sensing-regulated competence pathways are activated by eDNA accumulation. Surface proteins involved in DNA binding and transport then facilitate DNA entry through pili-like structures into the periplasm or cytoplasm [34]. Once within the cell, DNA is processed, and single-stranded fragments are bound by recombination proteins (e.g., RecA) and integrated into the genome via homologous recombination. This incorporation of novel genetic elements, including antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs), often occurs at higher frequency in biofilms due to increased eDNA and longer exposure times [35]. Field studies involving Neisseria gonorrhoeae biofilms have visualized the dynamic movement and uptake of eDNA within colony structures, confirming that biofilm contexts facilitate high-efficiency DNA transfer and intercellular exchange [36].
Transduction represents the bacteriophage-mediated transfer of DNA and is increasingly recognized within biofilm communities as a key mechanism for horizontal gene spread, including antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) [32]. In biofilms, temperate (lysogenic) and virulent (lytic) phages can infect resident bacteria more efficiently due to the high cell density and stability provided by the EPS matrix, which enables repeated infection cycles and prolonged phage–bacterium interaction [37]. Generalized transduction occurs during the phage lytic cycle when random fragments of degraded bacterial DNA are mistakenly packaged into phage capsids. In biofilms, the rich environment and frequent bacterial cell lysis increase the availability of DNA, boosting the chances of ARG encapsulation and transfer to new host cells during subsequent phage infection [38]. Specialized transduction involves temperate phages, where the incorrect excision of prophage DNA may incorporate adjacent bacterial genes into the phage genome. These “hybrid” phages then transfer these genes, sometimes encoding virulence factors or antibiotic resistance upon reinfection. Biofilms enhance this process due to elevated rates of prophage induction and localized propagation [39]. A recently identified mechanism, lateral transduction, occurs when phage replication initiates while still integrated into the host genome. This results in large stretches of adjacent bacterial DNA (up to 100 kb) being packaged during excision and subsequently transferred at higher frequencies in biofilm environments [40].
2.3. Multi-Species Biofilms
In real-world food-processing environments, biofilms are rarely composed of a single microbial species. Instead, they often consist of multiple species interacting synergistically. The phenomenon of synergy in biofilms refers to situations where the combined biofilm production of multiple microbial species exceeds the sum of biomass of what each species would produce independently. Increased biomass creates thicker, more protective barriers against cleaning agents and environmental stresses [41]. Multi-species biofilms form through complex interactions among different microbial species. These interactions can be cooperative, where species support each other’s growth and survival, or competitive, where they inhibit each other. The spatial organization within these biofilms plays a crucial role in their development and resilience. For instance, certain bacteria may occupy specific niches within the biofilm, providing structural stability and protection to others [42]. Mutualism and commensalism frequently occur within these communities. Certain lactic acid bacteria, for example, can consume oxygen and create localized anaerobic niches, thereby supporting the survival of facultative anaerobes. Meanwhile, commensal species may benefit indirectly from metabolic by-products or the shared EPS matrix without providing any reciprocal advantage [41].
Syntropy, a form of direct metabolic cooperation, is especially relevant under nutrient-limited conditions common in food-processing settings. One species may ferment complex carbohydrates into short-chain fatty acids, which are then used by another organism. Such cooperation promotes the formation of nutrient channels and fosters stable internal architectures capable of resisting shear forces and during flow stress [41].
In contrast, competitive exclusion also shapes biofilm communities. Some bacterial strains produce bacteriocins or engage in quorum-sensing interference to inhibit competitor species. These antagonistic interactions can lead to spatial segregation, result in micro-niches of heightened resistance, and contribute to uneven vulnerability against cleaning interventions [42].
The persistence of biofilms in food-processing environments enables a wide range of pathogenic microorganisms to evade routine sanitation efforts, thereby increasing the risk of foodborne illnesses. These pathogens, many of which are capable of forming resilient biofilms, pose significant health threats to consumers, particularly vulnerable populations such as the elderly, children, and immunocompromised individuals [1]. Table 1 provides an overview of key biofilm-associated pathogens.
Foodborne outbreaks linked to biofilm-forming bacteria across Europe reveal a troubling pattern of contamination events associated with a range of food products and processing settings. Table 2 compiles notable outbreaks in Europe. These documented incidents highlight the real-world consequences of biofilm persistence and the urgent need for enhanced surveillance, sanitation innovations, and regulatory enforcement.
2.4. Role of Environmental Factors
2.4.1. Temperature
Temperature is a critical environmental factor that significantly influences biofilm formation, structure, and resistance in food-processing environments. Psychrotrophic bacteria such as Pseudomonas putida, P. fluorescens, and P. aeruginosa tend to form enhanced biofilms at refrigeration temperatures (6–10 °C), which is a phenomenon linked to increased adhesion, EPS production, and the upregulation of cold stress and energy metabolism genes. For instance, Pseudomonas fluorescens isolated from dairy environments displayed strong adhesion and metabolic activity at temperatures between 6 and 10 °C, particularly in protein-rich media, which promotes biofilm maturation. Similarly, P. putida forms enhanced biofilm structures at 10 °C, which is linked to the upregulation of genes associated with cold stress response and energy metabolism [54]. Conversely, P. aeruginosa biofilm biomass was observed to decrease at higher temperatures, with structural disruptions noted around 25 °C, suggesting that optimal biofilm formation occurs under cooler conditions. Despite this, established biofilms demonstrate considerable thermal resilience, often requiring short-term heat shock treatments ranging from 50 to 80 °C to achieve significant biomass reduction [55]. However, the efficacy of heat treatment can be variable, as regrowth may occur if parameters are suboptimal, partly due to the action of heat shock proteins such as DnaJ, which modulate extracellular DNA release and enhance initial adhesion [56].
2.4.2. Humidity
High relative humidity plays a critical role in promoting biofilm formation by creating a moist environment that facilitates bacterial adhesion, initial colonization, and EPS matrix production. Elevated humidity prevents surface desiccation, enabling bacteria to maintain metabolic activity and adhere more effectively to stainless steel, plastic, or rubber surfaces commonly found in food-processing environments. Studies have shown that under conditions of 90–100% relative humidity, adhesion rates of bacteria such as Listeria monocytogenes and Escherichia coli increase significantly, enhancing the likelihood of biofilm establishment on food contact surfaces [57]. Moreover, high humidity levels enhance the resistance of established biofilms to disinfectants. For example, Escherichia coli O157:H7 biofilms grown under saturated humidity (100% RH) exhibit increased resistance to chlorine-based sanitizers compared to biofilms formed under drier conditions, which is likely due to denser EPS formation that impedes disinfectant penetration [58].
Additionally, in humid environments, biofilm-forming bacteria such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Salmonella spp. show delayed desiccation-induced stress responses, allowing prolonged survival on abiotic surfaces. This extended survival time increases the risk of persistent contamination in high-humidity zones, such as cold storage rooms or processing areas with high water activity [59]
These findings emphasize that controlling ambient humidity in processing environments is a key preventive strategy against biofilm formation. However, maintaining suboptimal humidity levels for biofilm development (<70%) is often challenging in industrial settings due to operational and product storage requirements, highlighting the need for integrated approaches combining environmental control with targeted sanitation [1].
2.4.3. Nutrient Availability
Nutrient composition and availability play a decisive role in biofilm formation, architecture, and resilience. In Salmonella enterica, high-nutrient environments promote the formation of pellicle biofilms at the air–liquid interface, which is likely due to enhanced metabolic activity and EPS production. Conversely, under nutrient-limited conditions, Salmonella tends to form denser biofilms attached to the solid–liquid interface, adapting its structure for maximum surface adherence and nutrient capture [60].
Specific carbon sources also modulate biofilm development. In Bacillus licheniformis, glucose and maltose supplementation has been shown to significantly increase biofilm biomass and cell adhesion, which is a process linked to the carbon catabolite regulation of biofilm-associated genes [61].
Nutrient and oxygen gradients within biofilms create zones of slow-growing or dormant cells. These cells are less susceptible to antibiotics, which often target actively dividing bacteria [62]. Moreover, nutrient stress can trigger a survival response in various bacterial species, promoting biofilm formation as a protective strategy against unfavorable conditions, often leading to increased antimicrobial resistance within the biofilm [14]. Nutrient stress induces stress response pathways (e.g., rpoS-mediated responses), the upregulation of efflux pumps, and the expression of biofilm-specific resistance genes, all of which enhance antimicrobial tolerance [62].
2.5. Detection and Monitoring Techniques
Detecting biofilms in food-processing environments is crucial for ensuring food safety and quality. Various techniques have been developed to identify and monitor biofilm formation. Table 3 summarizes commonly used methods for the detection and characterization of biofilms in food industry settings, outlining their principles, key advantages, limitations, and representative application examples.
The early detection of biofilms is challenging due to their microscopic size and the complex environments in food-processing facilities. Traditional detection methods may not be sensitive enough to identify initial biofilm formation, leading to persistent contamination issues [63].
Fluorescence microscopy, often combined with specific staining methods like SYTO9 or propidium iodide, allows for the visualization of biofilms on surfaces. These techniques provide detailed images of biofilm structure and viability, aiding in the assessment of cleaning protocols [57].
Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and quantitative PCR (qPCR) are employed to detect and quantify biofilm-associated genes. These methods offer high sensitivity and specificity, enabling the identification of biofilm-forming microorganisms even at low concentrations [64].
Advanced biosensors, such as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS) sensors, have been developed for the real-time monitoring of biofilm growth. These sensors detect changes in electrical properties caused by biofilm formation, providing rapid and continuous assessment [65].
Table 3Comparative analysis of biofilm detection techniques.
| Method | Principle | Advantages | Limitations | Application | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Microscopy (e.g., CLSM, SEM) | Direct visualization of cells and matrix structure | High spatial resolution, biofilm morphology analysis | Expensive equipment, sample prep required, time consuming | Biofilm structure on stainless steel in dairy tanks | [66]. |
| PCR (conventional or qPCR) | Detects biofilm-forming genes or microbial DNA | High sensitivity and specificity, fast | Requires DNA extraction, cannot differentiate live/dead cells | Detection of L. monocytogenes in food contact surfaces | [63]. |
| Fluorescence staining | Uses dyes (e.g., SYTO9, PI) to label viable/dead cells | Differentiates between live and dead cells, visual feedback | Requires fluorescence microscopy, limited field applicability | Biofilm viability in meat slicers | [64] |
| ATP Bioluminescence | Measures microbial ATP as indicator of contamination | Rapid, user-friendly, widely used in industry | Cannot distinguish between planktonic and biofilm-associated cells | Hygiene audits in food production lines | [57] |
| Biosensors | Detects metabolites or signaling molecules (e.g., AI-2) | Real-time monitoring potential, can be integrated into production systems | Still under development, specificity and robustness vary | Online biofilm detection in water pipelines | [65] |
| Culture-based methods | Plate counting after surface swabbing | Simple, inexpensive, allows strain isolation | Time-consuming, misses viable but non-culturable (VBNC) cells | Routine swabbing in meat or produce facilities | [7] |
| Spectroscopy (e.g., FT-IR, Raman) | Analyzes chemical composition of biofilms | Non-destructive, biochemical fingerprinting | Requires specialized instruments, data interpretation complexity | Material characterization in beverage equipment | [67] |
Legend: CLSM (confocal laser scanning microscopy), SEM (scanning electron microscopy), PCR (polymerase chain reaction), qPCR (quantitative polymerase chain reaction), SYTO9 (SYTO 9 fluorescent dye), PI (propidium iodide), ATP (adenosine triphosphate), AI-2 (autoinducer-2), VBNC (viable but non-culturable), FTIR (Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy), and Raman (Raman spectroscopy).
The development of real-time monitoring systems is essential for proactive biofilm management. Such systems can provide immediate feedback on biofilm presence, allowing for timely intervention and reducing the risk of product contamination. Implementing these technologies can enhance food safety protocols and minimize economic losses associated with biofilm-related issues [16].
Despite a strong theoretical foundation, there is a lack of comparative studies evaluating biofilm detection methods, such as PCR, biosensors, and microscopy, in real food-processing environments. One notable field study assessed Listeria monocytogenes biofilms on stainless steel and polypropylene surfaces, finding that droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) correlated closely with traditional culture counts (Pearson r = 0.864 for steel; r = 0.725 for polypropylene), demonstrating ddPCR’s practical utility in situ [68]. Conversely, conventional microscopy techniques like crystal violet assays remain predominant in many facilities despite their lower sensitivity. Emerging biosensor technologies, such as electrochemical impedance spectroscopy (EIS), have shown promise in pilot-scale trials by detecting biofilm initiation within hours and enabling timely cleaning interventions. However, their industrial deployment is still limited [69]. Another comparative analysis involving coagulase-negative staphylococci evaluated four detection methods: PCR targeting the ica locus, tube adherence, tissue culture plate (TCP) assay, and Congo red agar (CRA) method. Results revealed sensitivities of 82%, 82%, and 81% for PCR, tube, and TCP methods, respectively (with PCR as the reference), whereas CRA lagged behind; importantly, this study occurred under controlled lab conditions rather than industrial settings [70]. Advanced imaging techniques such as confocal laser scanning microscopy, atomic force microscopy (AFM), and optical nanosensors can provide detailed structural insights in laboratory models, but their high cost, technical complexity, and lack of scalability restrict widespread use [71].
3. Control and Prevention Strategies
Traditional cleaning and sanitation methods in the food industry primarily involve mechanical cleaning, chemical sanitizers, and thermal treatments. Mechanical cleaning includes manual scrubbing and the use of high-pressure water jets to remove visible debris and biofilms from surfaces. Chemical sanitizers, such as chlorine-based compounds, quaternary ammonium compounds (QACs), and peracetic acid, are commonly used to disinfect surfaces. Thermal treatments involve the application of hot water or steam to kill microorganisms [72].
Enzymatic cleaners have emerged as an innovative approach to biofilm control. These cleaners contain enzymes such as proteases, amylases, and DNases that specifically target and degrade components of the EPS matrix. By breaking down proteins, polysaccharides, and extracellular DNA, enzymatic cleaners facilitate the removal of biofilms from surfaces [73]. The application of dispersin B, an enzyme that hydrolyzes poly-N-acetylglucosamine, has shown significant biofilm removal on various surfaces [74].
Recent studies indicate that electrolyzed water, both alkaline and neutral, can offer a more sustainable and effective alternative to conventional cleaning-in-place (CIP) systems for biofilm removal on stainless steel surfaces. Unlike traditional CIP protocols, which often rely on aggressive chemicals and elevated temperatures, electrolyzed water exhibits antimicrobial activity due to its reactive oxygen species content while being less corrosive and environmentally damaging. Alkaline electrolyzed water facilitates the breakdown of organic residues and biofilm matrices, while neutral electrolyzed water contributes to microbial inactivation. These properties make electrolyzed water a promising candidate for routine sanitation protocols [75].
Bacteriophages, viruses that infect and lyse specific bacteria, offer a targeted approach to biofilm control. Phage therapy involves the application of bacteriophages to surfaces or products to reduce bacterial populations. Bacteriophages can penetrate biofilms and infect the bacteria within, leading to biofilm disruption and bacterial cell death. Recent advances have explored the use of bacteriophage-derived enzymes, such as endolysins, which can degrade bacterial cell walls and biofilm matrices. These enzymes have shown promise in controlling biofilms formed by pathogens like Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica [32,76].
Bacteriophage applications offer targeted biofilm control by infecting and lysing specific bacterial species within biofilms, reducing the risk of contamination and subsequent recalls. Surface modifications, such as the application of antimicrobial coatings, can prevent bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation, prolonging equipment lifespan and maintaining product quality [77]. Modifying the surfaces of food-processing equipment to prevent bacterial adhesion represents another innovative strategy for biofilm control. Such surface modifications include the application of antimicrobial coatings such as silver nanoparticles, copper alloys, or chitosan composites that exert bactericidal effects by disrupting cell membranes or generating reactive oxygen species. Additionally, engineering superhydrophobic surfaces can minimize microbial adhesion by creating water-repellent, low-surface-energy interfaces that inhibit bacterial contact and retention. These modifications primarily aim to reduce the initial stages of microbial attachment, thereby preventing biofilm establishment. Notably, the development of nanoscale surface textures and engineered surface roughness has been shown to significantly impair bacterial adhesion and biofilm formation on stainless steel and polymeric materials used in the food industry [3,18].
3.1. Disinfection Limitations in Mixed Biofilms
Conventional cleaning and sanitation methods face significant limitations in effectively removing biofilms from food-processing environments. The extracellular polymeric substances matrix of biofilms acts as a physical barrier, impeding the penetration of sanitizers and shielding embedded microorganisms from chemical and thermal treatments. Furthermore, mechanical cleaning may fail to reach critical zones in complex equipment, allowing biofilms to persist and recontaminate surfaces [78].
In meat and dairy-processing facilities, biofilms composed of Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., and Pseudomonas spp. have been found to be particularly resistant to standard cleaning procedures. These biofilms can persist on various surfaces, including stainless steel and plastic, even after routine sanitation efforts [79]. The persistence of such biofilms poses a major food safety risk, as they can serve as continuous sources of contamination and potential vectors for the horizontal gene transfer of resistance traits [80].
Recent studies have demonstrated that specific combinations of pathogens within multi-species biofilms can lead to synergistic resistance to cleaning agents and disinfectants. For example, co-cultures of Listeria monocytogenes with either Pseudomonas spp. or Salmonella spp. have been shown to produce biofilms with increased biomass, greater structural complexity, and significantly reduced susceptibility to enzymatic disruption. Pseudomonas spp., often acting as a pioneer colonizer, contributes heavily to EPS production, which acts as a physical shield for other pathogens, enhancing their survival under stress. Experimental studies have reported that such dual-species biofilms may exhibit two to three times higher resistance to standard sanitizers compared to their mono-species counterparts [81,82,83]. Similarly, Staphylococcus aureus and Bacillus cereus co-biofilms display increased sporulation and strong surface adhesion, making them particularly difficult to eliminate from stainless steel surfaces in dairy environments [84].
In a study involving 92 bacterial strains from dairy, meat, and egg-processing industries, researchers found that certain combinations of four species exhibited a biofilm mass more than 1.5 times greater than the sum of individual species’ biofilms. This synergy was particularly notable among dairy strains [41].
To address these challenges, emerging biocontrol strategies, including enzymatic formulations and bacteriophage (phage) cocktails, are being explored for their effectiveness against mixed-species biofilms. While mono-species Listeria monocytogenes biofilms respond well to single-enzyme cleaners or specific phage treatments, mixed-species biofilms show only partial disruption unless combined enzymatic and phage approaches are used.
Enzymatic cleaners targeting β-glucans are more effective against Bacillus-rich biofilms, while protease-based agents are more effective against Staphylococcus-dominated communities. Phage cocktails must be designed to target multiple species or combined with EPS-degrading enzymes and surfactants to penetrate protective matrices. Furthermore, surface engineering, such as the use of silver nanoparticle coatings or quorum sensing inhibitors, has shown selective efficacy, depending on whether the dominant organisms are Gram-positive or Gram-negative [85,86].
3.2. Regulatory and Compliance Considerations
Biofilm control in the food industry is governed by a combination of international standards and national regulations aimed at ensuring food safety and hygiene. One of the primary international standards is the ISO 22000 Food Safety Management System, which provides a framework for managing food safety risks, including those posed by biofilms. ISO 22000 integrates the principles of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) and emphasizes the importance of prerequisite programs (PRPs) to maintain hygienic conditions in food-processing environments [12].
The Codex Alimentarius, established by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO), offers guidelines and codes of practice for food hygiene, including measures to control biofilm formation. These guidelines serve as a reference for national regulations and are recognized by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as international food safety standards [87].
In the United States, the Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA) enacted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandates preventive controls for food facilities. Under the FSMA, facilities are required to implement risk-based preventive controls, which include sanitation procedures to address hazards such as biofilms. The act emphasizes proactive measures to prevent contamination rather than reactive responses [88].
Adherence to established hygiene standards is crucial for preventing biofilm formation and ensuring food safety. Implementing Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs) and maintaining sanitary conditions in food-processing environments help minimize the risk of biofilm development. Regular cleaning and sanitation protocols, equipment maintenance, and employee training are essential components of these practices [89].
Failure to comply with hygiene standards can lead to persistent biofilm-related contamination, resulting in foodborne illnesses, product recalls, and economic losses. Therefore, food industry stakeholders must prioritize compliance with regulatory requirements and continuously monitor and improve their hygiene practices to mitigate the risks associated with biofilms [90].
4. Biofilms in Specific Food-Processing Environments
4.1. Dairy-Processing Facilities
Dairy-processing environments are particularly susceptible to biofilm formation due to the presence of nutrient-rich residues and favorable conditions for microbial growth. Moreover, proteinaceous deposits from milk (e.g., whey or casein layers) create conditioning films that facilitate microbial attachment and matrix formation. Frequently isolated biofilm-forming genera include Bacillus (e.g., B. cereus, B. licheniformis), Staphylococcus (notably S. aureus), Pseudomonas, Enterococcus, Lactococcus, and Acinetobacter. [91,92,93,94,95].
Pseudomonas spp. isolated from milk and dairy products frequently demonstrate a strong ability to form biofilms, which enhances their persistence in dairy environments and contributes to product spoilage. Studies show that 65–90% of Pseudomonas isolates from milk and dairy products are capable of biofilm formation, with some strains producing higher biofilm biomass at refrigeration temperatures (6–7 °C), which is relevant for dairy storage conditions. High biofilm producers are commonly found among P. fluorescens, P. gessardii, P. koreensis, and related subgroups. The presence of the adnA gene, associated with biofilm formation, was detected in a significant proportion of biofilm-producing strains though not universally across all species [94,96]. A mixed-species biofilm including Pseudomonas fragi and Brochothrix established on stainless steel allowed L. monocytogenes to integrate within 2 h and persist at ~2.4% of the community after 7 days, demonstrating its opportunistic and persistent behavior [95].
Pseudomonas spp. from dairy sources exhibit notable resistance to multiple antibiotics. Resistance rates are particularly high for aztreonam (60–73%), imipenem (28–95%), meropenem (13–37%), and ceftazidime (19%). Some studies report that 30–46% of isolates are multidrug-resistant (MDR) with multiple antibiotic resistance index (MARI) values exceeding 0.2 in a substantial fraction of strains. Whole-genome sequencing has revealed the presence of various resistance genes, including those encoding β-lactamases and efflux pumps, which contribute to intrinsic and acquired resistance [94,97,98,99].
Concurrently, spore-forming Bacillus spp. thrive in dairy facilities: isolates of B. cereus, B. subtilis, B. licheniformis, and B. paralicheniformis produce biofilms containing heat-resistant spores that withstand standard automated cleaning systems. These spores can survive pasteurization processes and lead to recurring contamination issues [100]. Notably, in the presence of skim milk, thermophilic Bacillus spores adhere to stainless steel surfaces 10–100× more efficiently; biofilm-derived spores display up to 2.3 log higher resistance to mechanical and chemical cleaning agents compared to non-dairy strains [101].
S. aureus forms biofilms on stainless steel, various rubbers (Buna-N, EPDM, silicone), glass, polycarbonate, and PVC materials commonly found in milking equipment. Biofilm formation is especially strong on Buna-N rubber, but it occurs on most surfaces tested with some strain and material-specific differences [102,103]. Many S. aureus isolates from dairy environments carry genes (icaADBC, bap, fnbA/B, clfA/B, sar, sigB) that promote biofilm formation and adhesion, contributing to their persistence and virulence [103].
4.2. Meat-Processing Facilities
Meat-processing environments offer ideal conditions for biofilm formation due to constant exposure to organic matter, moisture, and temperature variations. These factors favor bacterial adhesion and growth on surfaces such as stainless steel, rubber, and plastic. Biofilms in meat facilities often harbor mixed-species communities, prominently including Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli, and Pseudomonas spp., which are frequently implicated in cross-contamination and persistent hygiene failures [104,105,106].
The role of Pseudomonas spp. in biofilm resilience is particularly noteworthy. Psychrotrophic Pseudomonas species dominant in meat environments enhance the survival and disinfectant tolerance of cohabiting pathogens within mixed-species biofilms [105].
Pseudomonas species, especially P. fragi and P. aeruginosa, can create biofilms that support the survival and colonization of Campylobacter, including C. jejuni, in food-processing environments. The presence of Pseudomonas biofilms enhances Campylobacter’s ability to persist under otherwise hostile conditions, such as high oxygen levels and low temperatures. Pseudomonas spp. help Campylobacter survive in atmospheric oxygen, which is a condition that is normally lethal to this microaerophilic pathogen. This is likely due to metabolic interactions and the creation of microenvironments within the biofilm that reduce oxygen stress [106,107,108].
Environmental studies further reveal that microbial communities in drains and floor surfaces contribute significantly to biofilm resilience. Long-term resident microbiota, such as Pseudomonas spp. and Acinetobacter, stabilize environmental niches, enhancing Listeria persistence [109]. Wang et al. (2024) reported that sanitation cycles in beef plants may paradoxically select for denser, more resistant biofilms in drainage systems, especially protecting Salmonella against quaternary ammonium compounds [110]. Environmental isolates from meat plant drains can modulate E. coli O157:H7 biofilm formation, altering its resistance profile depending on the species composition [111].
Listeria monocytogenes remain a key concern due to their ability to persist in meat-processing environments despite routine sanitation. Strains isolated from meat plants have shown strong biofilm-forming capacities linked to genetic markers associated with persistence and stress resistance. Floor drains, conveyor systems, and cutting surfaces are particularly implicated as reservoirs for Listeria with microbial communities stabilizing in these niches over time [112].
The architecture of meat-processing facilities with joints, seals, porous materials, and drainage systems creates ideal harborage sites for biofilms. Water hoses and drains are particularly problematic, as biofilms here can detach and contaminate cleaned surfaces or products [113].
Similarly to the dairy industry, bacteria embedded in biofilms within meat-processing environments can develop and maintain antimicrobial resistance, which is a phenomenon amplified by environmental stressors and repeated exposure to sublethal concentrations of disinfectants [110].
A study by Rossi et al. (2019) investigated C. jejuni isolates from poultry slaughterhouses and found that biofilm-growing cells exhibited significantly higher resistance to key antibiotics, ciprofloxacin, erythromycin, colistin, and meropenem compared to their free-floating counterparts. Planktonic cells showed varied resistance, but once incorporated into biofilms (often in the presence of chicken juice), all tested strains required antibiotic concentrations ≥ 32 mg/L to inhibit, underlining the protective role of biofilms in clinical and food-processing contexts [114].
Manafi et al. (2020) investigated the antibiotic resistance profiles and biofilm-forming abilities of Salmonella serotypes isolated from beef, mutton, and meat contact surfaces in retail settings. The study revealed that a significant proportion of isolates exhibited multidrug resistance (MDR), particularly to tetracycline, streptomycin, and ampicillin. Furthermore, over 70% of the Salmonella isolates demonstrated moderate to strong biofilm formation on polystyrene surfaces [115].
Romeo et al. (2025) reported that Listeria monocytogenes isolates from meat-processing plants often carried resistance to tetracycline and erythromycin among diverse genetic lineages. The study highlighted that resistant strains were often associated with strong biofilm-forming ability [116].
Emerging control strategies in meat facilities focus on the application of tailored biocontrol methods, such as enzymatic cleaners, bacteriophage cocktails, and advanced surface coatings. These interventions aim to disrupt multi-species biofilms and prevent cross-contamination, supplementing traditional cleaning-in-place systems that may be insufficient on their own.
4.3. Seafood-Processing Facilities
Seafood-processing environments offer highly favorable conditions for biofilm formation, which is driven by persistent humidity, high salinity, and nutrient-rich residues that promote bacterial adhesion and matrix production on processing surfaces. Unlike meat and dairy sectors, where protein and fat residues dominate, seafood environments uniquely select for halotolerant species like Vibrio spp. and Listeria monocytogenes, which are both notorious for their persistence and resistance within processing lines [117]. The adaptation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus to sublethal disinfectant exposure, especially benzalkonium chloride (BAC), has been shown to induce biofilm formation and the emergence of viable but non-culturable cells, complicating their detection and eradication in seafood facilities [118]. Similarly, L. monocytogenes biofilms grown under high-humidity, saline conditions display enhanced resistance to sanitizers, which is a phenomenon that has been partly mitigated through the application of fucoidan, an algal-derived compound with quorum-sensing inhibitory effects [42].
To address these challenges, combined disinfection strategies have been explored, such as sodium hypochlorite coupled with UV-C irradiation, which has demonstrated improved efficacy against V. parahaemolyticus biofilms on seafood-processing lines [119]. Furthermore, peracetic acid (PAA) has proven effective in controlling planktonic V. parahaemolyticus populations at concentrations as low as 0.005%, suggesting potential for integration into routine sanitation protocols in seafood environments [120]. Biofilm structure and resilience are also influenced by atmospheric conditions; studies show that V. parahaemolyticus and L. monocytogenes biofilms alter their architecture and EPS composition in response to varying oxygen levels, highlighting the importance of environmental management during processing and storage [121].
Although data on antimicrobial resistance (AMR) in seafood-associated biofilms remain limited compared to the meat and dairy sectors, studies suggest that biofilm-embedded Vibrio strains have been found to harbor resistance genes against β-lactam antibiotics (e.g., blaTEM, blaCTX-M-55, blaAmpC), aminoglycosides (aac(6’)-Ib, aac(3)-IV), tetracycline (tetA), and fluoroquinolones (qnrA) [121,122,123,124,125].
4.4. Beverage Industry
The beverage sector, including breweries, soft drink manufacturing, and bottling facilities, faces persistent biofilm challenges associated with the continuous processing of sugar-rich liquids in moist environments. Spoilage microorganisms such as Lactobacillus spp., Pediococcus spp., and Acetobacter spp. readily form biofilms on pipelines, storage tanks, and filling equipment, leading to product spoilage, off-flavors and recurring contamination issues [126].
Complex biofilms in commercial draft beer-dispensing systems including Acetobacter and Lactobacillus species persist even after routine cleaning, posing a hazard to product quality and consumer safety [127,128].
Beverage-processing lines are particularly susceptible to biofilm formation due to the widespread use of narrow-diameter piping with complex loops, junctions, and dead-end sections found in carbonation circuits, syrup-dosing systems, and beverage dispensers. These architectural features create stagnant zones beyond the reach of cleaning solutions, fostering conditions for biofilm establishment and persistence. Bottling and filling machines also present critical control points, as valves, nozzles, and gaskets serve as frequent sites of residue buildup and microbial adhesion [126]. Moreover, the moderate operating temperatures (20–30 °C) and the acidic or sugar-rich nature of many beverages further support the growth of spoilage organisms. Inadequate flow rates and insufficient turbulence during CIP cycles reduce cleaning efficacy, particularly in narrow or irregular piping, making biofilm removal challenging [129].
Beyond microbiological risks, biofilms in beverage processing can cause serious technical issues, including the microbially influenced corrosion (MIC) of stainless-steel equipment and pipelines. The biofilm matrix promotes localized corrosion by creating anaerobic microenvironments and facilitating the accumulation of corrosive metabolic by-products, such as organic acids and sulfides. This results in equipment degradation, reduced heat transfer efficiency, and increased maintenance costs [130].
4.5. Bakery and Ready-to-Eat Foods
Bakery and ready-to-eat (RTE) food production environments face contamination risks linked to the high carbohydrate content, low water activity zones, and post-processing handling stages typical of these industries. These environments promote the persistence of specific pathogens such as Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria monocytogenes, particularly during cooling, slicing, and packaging operations [131].
A critical risk factor in bakery lines is post-baking contamination. Although baking itself provides an effective kill step, subsequent exposure to ambient air, conveyor belts, and slicing equipment can reintroduce pathogens. Studies show that L. monocytogenes is present in a small but significant proportion of RTE foods. For example, a large-scale survey in Poland found contamination in 0.1% of RTE products with strains often linked to human listeriosis and showing resistance to multiple antibiotics [132]. According to a 2021 RASFF notification, Listeria monocytogenes contamination was detected in deep-frozen bakery products originating from Ukraine and distributed across several EU countries. The notification, issued by Hungary, resulted in the withdrawal of the affected products from the market, highlighting the importance of strict post-processing control measures in the bakery sector [133].
Additionally, bakery products incorporating creams, custards, or fillings face dual risks of contamination with psychrotrophic pathogens and spoilage organisms. Epidemiological data have identified Listeria monocytogenes contamination in refrigerated cream-filled bakery products. For instance, a Croatian survey detected the pathogen in 6.25% of cake samples—many containing cream or custard fillings [134].
Many countries set a limit of 100 CFU/g for L. monocytogenes in low-risk RTE foods, while others (like the US) enforce zero tolerance, leading to recalls for any detection [135].
Humidity and condensation within bakery cooling tunnels and packaging zones further exacerbate contamination risks. Controlled studies demonstrated that condensation droplets on cooled surfaces can facilitate bacterial transfer rates up to 4-log higher compared to dry surfaces, particularly favoring L. monocytogenes adhesion on stainless steel and polyethylene materials [136].
A case study by Ribeiro and Clérigo (2017) assessed Staphylococcus aureus colonization among bakery workers and revealed that 40% of employees were carriers with 25% of isolates identified as methicillin resistant (MRSA). The study also highlighted lapses in hygiene practices, such as the inconsistent use of personal protective equipment, emphasizing the role of food handlers as a potential source of S. aureus contamination in bakery environments [137]. Hait et al. (2012) reported a Staphylococcus aureus outbreak linked to a bakery in Illinois, where contaminated cream-filled pastries caused foodborne illness in over 100 individuals. The investigation revealed that inadequate refrigeration and poor hygiene practices allowed S. aureus to proliferate and produce enterotoxins in the bakery products [138]. Necidová et al. (2022) evaluated the growth of S. aureus and enterotoxin production in delicatessen and fine bakery products under various storage conditions. The study showed that S. aureus could multiply rapidly on bakery products stored at ambient temperatures, reaching levels sufficient for enterotoxin production within a short time [139].
Addressing these sector-specific challenges requires integrating targeted measures such as the real-time monitoring of slicing equipment, humidity control in packaging zones, and rigorous hygiene protocols for post-processing stages. Antimicrobial coatings and treated surfaces, including belts and blades, have demonstrated the ability to reduce bacterial contamination and cross-contamination in food-processing environments. Reported reductions in microbial load can be substantial, but the exact percentage varies depending on the antimicrobial agent and application method [136,140]. Contact-active antimicrobial surfaces (such as cationic polymers) are effective in the short term but may lose activity as organic material or bacterial debris accumulates, shielding the active surface from further contamination [141,142,143]. While pilot studies and laboratory tests show promising reductions in contamination (sometimes up to 80%), large-scale, long-term implementation faces challenges such as cost, durability, and maintaining antimicrobial activity over time [140,141,142].
4.6. Fresh Produce Handling
Fresh produce handling presents unique challenges regarding biofilm formation, especially because fruits and vegetables are often consumed raw or minimally processed. Pathogens such as Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica, and Listeria monocytogenes are frequently implicated in produce-related outbreaks. The irregular topography of produce such as stomata, lenticels, trichomes, and cuticular cracks creates protective niches that facilitate initial bacterial adhesion and subsequent biofilm development [144,145,146].
During harvesting, contaminated irrigation water, soil, or handling equipment can introduce biofilm-forming bacteria onto produce surfaces. A systematic review of 277 fresh produce associated outbreaks in Europe and North America found that vegetables accounted for 34.1% of outbreaks in Europe and 47.4% in North America with contaminated irrigation water frequently identified as a contributing factor [147]. Supporting this, a 2013 outbreak investigation in Sweden linked E. coli O157:H7 contamination of lettuce directly to irrigation water used on the farm [148].
Patel et al. (2013) investigated Salmonella survival on spinach irrigated with contaminated water. While Salmonella levels fell below detection at 24 h when water contamination was low (<126 CFU/100 mL), strains with strong biofilm-forming ability persisted significantly longer, up to 35 days, when contamination was high [149].
Kim et al. (2023) investigated the internalization of Salmonella enterica into leafy vegetables under post-harvest conditions, focusing on factors such as temperature, humidity, and wash water contamination. The study demonstrated that Salmonella can rapidly adhere to leaf surfaces and internalize through natural openings like stomata and cut edges. Higher storage temperatures and contaminated wash water significantly increased the risk of internalization and persistence [42].
Sanitization procedures such as chlorine washes and peracetic acid treatments often fail to eradicate biofilms on produce. Chhetri et al. (2019) demonstrated that E. coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes biofilms on spinach leaves exposed to 100 ppm free chlorine exhibited a markedly reduced log reduction compared to free-floating cells [150].
Similarly, Salmonella biofilms have been shown to persist on tomato surfaces despite standard sanitization procedures. Studies highlighted the capacity of Salmonella to embed within natural surface crevices, such as stem scars, allowing the pathogen to evade surface disinfection methods commonly applied post-harvest [151].
The efficacy of sanitizers against foodborne pathogens is influenced by the type of surface and environmental conditions. Park and Kang (2018) demonstrated that chlorine dioxide (ClO2) gas was significantly more effective at lower temperatures. When applied at 15 °C, ClO2 achieved up to a 3-log reduction in Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella Typhimurium, and Listeria monocytogenes on spinach leaves, tomatoes, and stainless steel surfaces. In contrast, treatment at 25 °C resulted in markedly lower pathogen reductions. The authors also observed that glass surfaces allowed for higher pathogen inactivation under similar conditions [152].
Storage conditions further influence biofilm formation on produce. Modified atmosphere packaging (MAP), commonly used to prolong shelf life, can inadvertently support the persistence of Listeria monocytogenes biofilms by creating microaerophilic environments favorable for their growth on fresh-cut vegetables even at temperatures as low as 4 °C [153].
Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of biofilm-associated contamination across major food sectors, illustrating the need for sector-specific strategies to manage and mitigate biofilm formation and its consequences on food safety [91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158].
5. Economic Impact Analysis
5.1. Impact on Food Safety and Quality
Biofilms in food-processing environments lead to significant economic burdens due to their role in contamination, equipment damage, and increased operational costs. Persistent biofilms can harbor pathogenic microorganisms, leading to foodborne illnesses and necessitating costly product recalls. For instance, biofilm-associated contamination has been implicated in numerous foodborne illness outbreaks, resulting in substantial financial losses for companies, including legal fees, lost sales, and reputational damage [159].
Biofilms contribute to equipment degradation through corrosion and fouling, leading to increased maintenance costs and potential equipment replacement. The presence of biofilms on processing equipment surfaces can impair heat transfer efficiency and increase energy consumption, further escalating operational expenses [160].
Cleaning and sanitation efforts to control biofilms also incur additional costs. The resilience of biofilms to standard cleaning agents necessitates more frequent and intensive cleaning protocols, increasing labor, water, and chemical usage. These enhanced cleaning requirements can disrupt production schedules and reduce overall efficiency [7].
Implementing advanced biofilm control strategies, such as enzymatic cleaners, bacteriophage applications, and surface modifications, can entail higher initial investments. However, these measures have been shown to effectively reduce biofilm formation and persistence, leading to long-term cost savings. For example, the use of enzymatic cleaners can enhance biofilm removal efficiency, decreasing the frequency and intensity of cleaning cycles [161].
While the upfront costs of these advanced interventions may be higher, the potential savings from reduced product losses, lower maintenance expenses, and minimized downtime can offset the initial investments. A comprehensive cost–benefit analysis should consider these long-term economic advantages when evaluating biofilm control strategies.
Quantitative cost analyses suggest that the implementation of enzymatic and bacteriophage-based treatments in food-processing environments is promising but requires careful financial planning. Enzymatic cleaners, particularly those targeting polysaccharides or proteins in EPS matrices, have an estimated cost ranging from 3 to 5 Euros per liter, depending on formulation and supplier. Based on pilot-scale studies in dairy-processing facilities, a single enzymatic treatment cycle, requiring 10–15 L per 1000 L of CIP solution, incurs operational costs between 30 and 75 euros per cleaning session, which is slightly higher than traditional caustic cleaning but with measurable reductions in water consumption and residue levels [162]. Compared to enzymatic cleaners, commercially available phage products are priced at approximately 0.09–0.27 Euros per pound (0.45 kg) of treated food particularly in meat-processing environments [163]. Despite the higher upfront cost, phage treatments have been shown to achieve reductions of up to 4 log units in microbial populations, thereby extending the intervals between sanitation cycles and significantly reducing overall contamination levels [164]. However, both methods face economic challenges in scalability, especially for high-throughput facilities, where repeat applications and storage stability (particularly cold-chain requirements for phages) add recurring operational costs.
As shown in Figure 2 and Table 4, biofilm-related economic losses vary substantially across continents with Europe and North America experiencing the highest total costs due to large-scale, regulated food industries and frequent recalls. In contrast, Asia and Africa face unique challenges tied to infrastructure and environmental conditions [159,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195].
5.2. Consumer Health Implications
The public health risks posed by biofilms in the food industry are multifaceted, extending beyond contamination to more serious implications such as persistent foodborne outbreaks and antimicrobial resistance (AMR). While previous sections have outlined the resilience of biofilms to standard sanitization and their role in harboring pathogens, it is critical to emphasize the downstream impact on human health and the broader healthcare system [1]. Biofilm-associated pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, and Cronobacter sakazakii have been linked to severe illnesses with high morbidity and mortality particularly in vulnerable populations including infants, pregnant women, the elderly, and immunocompromised individuals [61,196,197,198]. These microorganisms, once shielded within biofilms, exhibit enhanced resistance to antibiotics and disinfectants, leading to prolonged survival on food contact surfaces and in processing environments [199].
The resilience of biofilms to cleaning agents means that even with standard sanitation protocols, these pathogens can remain on surfaces and contaminate subsequent batches of food. This persistent contamination underscores the importance of effective biofilm control measures to protect public health [1].
Educating consumers about proper food-handling practices is crucial in preventing foodborne illnesses associated with biofilm-forming pathogens. Public awareness campaigns can inform individuals about the risks of consuming contaminated foods and the steps they can take to minimize these risks. For example, the Partnership for Food Safety Education’s ‘Fight BAC!’ campaign, operating in the United States, emphasizes four key practices: clean, separate, cook, and chill. These guidelines help consumers understand the importance of hygiene, preventing cross-contamination, cooking foods to safe temperatures, and proper refrigeration [200].
Moreover, public education initiatives can highlight the significance of purchasing food from reputable sources, checking expiration dates, and being aware of food recalls. By empowering consumers with knowledge, these programs play a vital role in reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses linked to biofilm-associated pathogens [201].
6. Conclusions
Biofilms present a persistent and complex challenge across all sectors of the food industry. These structured microbial communities not only facilitate the survival of pathogenic and spoilage organisms under harsh conditions but also significantly reduce the efficacy of conventional cleaning and disinfection protocols. Their ability to form on a wide range of surfaces including stainless steel, plastics, and rubber enables the long-term contamination of food-processing environments, leading to serious public health implications and considerable economic losses.
As highlighted in this review, biofilm-associated risks are particularly critical in dairy, meat, seafood, beverage, bakery, and fresh produce industries, where environmental factors such as moisture, temperature, and nutrient residues favor rapid microbial adhesion and matrix formation. Moreover, the role of multi-species biofilms, quorum sensing, and horizontal gene transfer in enhancing biofilm resilience and antimicrobial resistance underscores the need for multidisciplinary strategies.
Current detection and control measures, while useful, are often insufficient for complete biofilm eradication. Therefore, future directions must prioritize the development of real-time monitoring systems, natural and enzymatic biofilm disruptors, innovative surface modifications, and integration of biofilm control within existing food safety management systems such as HACCP and ISO 22000.
Furthermore, ongoing education, regulatory reinforcement, and investment in biofilm research are essential for minimizing risks and improving food safety. A proactive, evidence-based approach tailored to specific processing environments and microbial threats will be critical in reducing the prevalence and impact of biofilms in the global food supply chain.
Conceptualization, A.B.-C. and S.-C.B.; methodology, A.B.-C.; software, S.-C.B.; validation, K.I., A.M. (Adriana Morar) and S.-A.P.; formal analysis, A.M. (Adriana Morar); investigation, A.B.-C. and I.H.; resources, K.I.; data curation, I.-M.B. and C.G.; writing—original draft preparation, A.B.-C.; writing—review and editing, S.-A.P. and R.-T.P.; visualization, A.-M.P.; supervision K.I., A.M. (Adriana Morar), A.M. (Adela Marcu); project administration, I.-M.B.; funding acquisition, K.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
No new data were created or analyzed in this study.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Figure 1 Distribution of biofilm-associated contamination across food sectors. Legend: Sectoral risk distribution based on literature evidence of biofilm occurrence and contamination trends (references [
Figure 2 Estimated economic losses from biofilm contamination by country. Legend: Values are conceptual estimates derived from qualitative synthesis and sector studies, intended to illustrate cross-country comparison data from the reviewed studies [
Biofilm-associated pathogens.
| Pathogen | Health | Severity | At-Risk Group | Biofilm Relevance | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pseudomonas | Opportunistic infections | Severe in | Immunocompromised | Highly resistant to | [ |
| Bacillus cereus | Vomiting, | Mild to moderate | General population | Spore-former; survives cooking | [ |
| Vibrio spp. | Cholera, | Severe | Coastal communities, travelers | Survives in marine | [ |
| Cronobacter | Sepsis, | Severe | Infants (neonates) | Survives in powdered | [ |
| Yersinia | Enteritis | Moderate | Children | Cold-tolerant biofilms | [ |
| Listeria | Listeriosis | Severe | General population | Biofilm protects bacteria; persists on surfaces | [ |
| Salmonella spp. | Salmonellosis | Moderate to severe | General population | Forms resistant biofilms on various surfaces | [ |
| Escherichia coli O157:H7 | Hemorrhagic colitis | Severe | General population | Biofilms enhance survival on meat and produce | [ |
| Staphylococcus aureus | Food poisoning | Mild to moderate | General population | Biofilms increase cleaning resistance | [ |
| Campylobacter spp. | Gastroenteritis | Moderate | General population | Biofilms promote persistence in food/water | [ |
Foodborne outbreaks linked to biofilm-forming bacteria across Europe.
| Country | Year | Product | Bacteria | Setting | People | Control Measure | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| France | 2013 | Bottled mineral water | Salmonella enterica | Bottling plant | Multiple cases | Plant | [ |
| Germany | 2018 | Blood sausage | Listeria monocytogenes | Processing plant | 47 cases | Recall | [ |
| Spain | 2019 | Chilled pork products | Listeria monocytogenes | Meat-processing facility | >200 cases, 3 deaths | Recall | [ |
| Italy | 2020 | Hospital-prepared meals | Listeria monocytogenes | Hospital kitchen | 4 patients | Equipment sanitation | [ |
| Greece | 2021 | School meals | Clostridium perfringens | Catering service | 30 students | Improved hygiene | [ |
| Poland | 2022 | Various food samples | Listeria monocytogenes | Retail food | Not specified | Surveillance | [ |
Regional impact of biofilm-associated foodborne pathogens in the global food industry.
| Continent | Key Food Sectors Affected | Estimated Annual Losses | Most Common Biofilm-Forming Pathogens | Typical Control Challenges | Notable Outbreaks/Case Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe | Dairy, Meat, Seafood, Fresh Produce | EUR 5–6 billion | Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp. | Multi-species resistance, outdated equipment | 2018 frozen vegetable outbreak (EU-wide, Hungary origin) [ |
| North America | Meat, Ready-to-Eat, Dairy | USD 7–8 billion | Listeria spp., E. coli O157:H7, S. aureus | Compliance variation across processors | Blue Bell Creameries recall (USA, 2015) [ |
| South America | Poultry, Produce, Seafood | USD 1.5–2 billion | Salmonella spp., Pseudomonas spp. | Tropical climate favors rapid growth, sanitation variability | Poultry-linked Salmonella spp. outbreaks (Brazil) [ |
| Asia | Seafood, Fresh Produce, Street Foods | USD 3–4 billion | Vibrio spp., Salmonella spp., Shigella spp. | Water sanitation, informal processing sectors | Street food outbreaks (India, Southeast Asia) [ |
| Africa | Dairy, Poultry, RTE foods | >USD 1 billion | E. coli, Listeria spp., Campylobacter | Resource-limited monitoring, limited traceability | Milk-related outbreaks in East Africa [ |
| Australia New Zealand | Meat, Dairy, Fresh Produce | ~USD 800 million | Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella enterica | Long distribution chains, refrigeration gaps in remote areas | Listeria spp. in cantaloupe (Australia, 2018) [ |
Legend: RTE—ready to eat. Values are conceptual estimates derived from qualitative synthesis and sector studies intended to illustrate cross-country comparison data from the reviewed studies [
1. Galié, S.; García-Gutiérrez, C.; Miguélez, E.M.; Villar, C.J.; Lombó, F. Biofilms in the food industry: Health aspects and control methods. Front. Microbiol.; 2018; 9, 898. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.00898]
2. Rosario, L.L.D.; Mohan, H.; Fedin, F.A.; Dev, S.S. Biofilms in Food Processing: A Comprehensive Review of Understanding Formation, Challenges, and Future Directions. Bioscan; 2024; 19, pp. 400-408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.63001/tbs.2024.v19.i02.S.I(1).pp400-408]
3. Flemming, H.C.; Wingender, J. The Biofilm Matrix. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2010; 8, pp. 623-633. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro2415] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20676145]
4. Pang, X.; Hu, X.; Du, X.; Lv, C.; Yuk, H.-G. Biofilm formation in food processing plants and novel control strategies to combat resistant biofilms: The case of Salmonella spp. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2023; 32, pp. 1703-1718. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01349-3] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37780596]
5. Popa, S.A.; Herman, V.; Tîrziu, E.; Morar, A.; Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Imre, M.; Pătrînjan, R.-T.; Imre, K. Public Health Risk of Campylobacter spp. Isolated from Slaughterhouse and Retail Poultry Meat: Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles. Pathogens; 2025; 14, 316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens14040316] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/40333059]
6. Bucur, I.-M.; Moza, A.C.; Pop, M.; Nichita, I.; Gaspar, C.M.; Cojocaru, R.; Gros, R.-V.; Boldea, M.V.; Tîrziu, A.; Tîrziu, E. Hunting Dynamics and Identification of Potentially Pathogenic Bacteria in European Fallow Deer (Dama dama) across Three Hunting Reserves in Western Romania. Microorganisms; 2024; 12, 1236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12061236]
7. Bridier, A.; Briandet, R.; Thomas, V.; Dubois-Brissonnet, F. Resistance of Bacterial Biofilms to Disinfectants: A Review. Biofouling; 2011; 27, pp. 1017-1032. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08927014.2011.626899]
8. Koo, H.; Allan, R.N.; Howlin, R.P.; Stoodley, P.; Hall-Stoodley, L. Targeting microbial biofilms: Current and prospective therapeutic strategies. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2017; 15, pp. 740-755. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro.2017.99]
9. Burmølle, M.; Thomsen, T.R.; Fazli, M.; Dige, I.; Christensen, L.; Homøe, P.; Tvede, M.; Nyvad, B.; Tolker-Nielsen, T.; Givskov, M.
10. Hall-Stoodley, L.; Costerton, J.W.; Stoodley, P. Bacterial biofilms: From the natural environment to infectious diseases. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2004; 2, pp. 95-108. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrmicro821]
11. Bucur, I.-M.; Herman, V.; Moza, A.; Nichita, I.; Obiștoiu, D.; Gros, R.V.; Hotea, I.; Tîrziu, A.; Tîrziu, E. Research on the Isolation and Identification of Some Bacteria from Food Products of Animal Origin. Rev. Rom. Med. Vet.; 2023; 33, pp. 70-74. Available online: https://agmv.ro/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/70_74_Bucur_5-min.pdf (accessed on 20 April 2025).
12.
13. Prashanth, K.; Sawant, A.R.; Panda, L. Genetic basis of biofilm formation and their role in antibiotic resistance, adhesion, and persistent infections in ESKAPE pathogens. Understanding Microbial Biofilms: Fundamentals to Applications; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 395-414. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-99977-9.00034-X]
14. Fazeli-Nasab, B.; Sayyed, R.Z.; Mojahed, L.S.; Rahmani, A.F.; Ghafari, M.; Antonius, S. Biofilm production: A strategic mechanism for survival of microbes under stress conditions. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.; 2022; 42, 102337. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102337]
15. Akter, S.; Rahman, M.A.; Ashrafudoulla, M.; Ha, S.D. Biofilm formation and analysis of EPS architecture comprising polysaccharides and lipids by Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli on food processing surfaces. Food Res. Int.; 2025; 209, 116274. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2025.116274]
16. Wang, X.; Chen, C.; Hu, J.; Liu, C.; Ning, Y.; Lu, F. Current strategies for monitoring and controlling bacterial biofilm formation on medical surfaces. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.; 2024; 282, 116709. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2024.116709] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39024943]
17. Karygianni, L.; Ren, Z.; Koo, H.; Thurnheer, T. Biofilm matrixome: Extracellular components in structured microbial communities. Trends Microbiol.; 2020; 28, pp. 668-681. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2020.03.016] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32663461]
18. Hasan, M.I.; Aggarwal, S. Matrix matters: How extracellular substances shape biofilm structure and mechanical properties. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces; 2025; 246, 114341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.colsurfb.2024.114341] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39536603]
19. Seviour, T.; Derlon, N.; Dueholm, M.S.; Flemming, H.C.; Girbal-Neuhauser, E.; Horn, H.; Lin, Y. Extracellular polymeric substances of biofilms: Suffering from an identity crisis. Water Res.; 2019; 151, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2018.11.020]
20. Saharan, B.S.; Beniwal, N.; Duhan, J.S. From formulation to function: A detailed review of microbial biofilms and their polymer-based extracellular substances. Microbe; 2024; 5, 100194. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.microb.2024.100194]
21. Solano, C.; Echeverz, M.; Lasa, I. Biofilm dispersion and quorum sensing. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.; 2014; 18, pp. 96-104. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2014.02.008]
22. Li, L.-L.; Malone, J.E.; Iglewski, B.H. Regulation of the Pseudomonas aeruginosa quorum-sensing regulator VqsR. J. Bacteriol.; 2007; 189, pp. 4367-4374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/JB.00007-07]
23. Kong, K.-F.; Vuong, C.; Otto, M. Staphylococcus quorum sensing in biofilm formation and infection. Int. J. Med. Microbiol.; 2006; 296, pp. 133-139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmm.2006.01.042] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16487744]
24. Machado, I.; Silva, L.R.; Giaouris, E.D.; Melo, L.F.; Simões, M. Quorum sensing in food spoilage and natural-based strategies for its inhibition. Food Res. Int.; 2020; 127, 108754. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108754]
25. Wang, L.-L.; Malone, J.E.; Iglewski, B.H. Regulatory mechanisms of the LuxS/AI-2 quorum-sensing system and bacterial resistance. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; 2019; 63, e01186-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.01186-19]
26. Fong, J.; Zhang, C.; Yang, R.; Boo, Z.Z.; Tan, S.K.; Nielsen, T.E.; Givskov, M.; Liu, X.; Bin Weng, L.; Yang, L. Combination Therapy Strategy of Quorum Quenching Enzyme and Quorum Sensing Inhibitor in Suppressing Multiple Quorum Sensing Pathways of P. aeruginosa. Sci. Rep.; 2018; 8, 1155. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-19504-w]
27. Uroz, S.; Chhabra, S.R.; Camara, M.; Williams, P.; Oger, P.; Dessaux, Y. N-Acylhomoserine lactone quorum-sensing molecules are modified and degraded by Rhodococcus erythropolis W2 by both amidolytic and novel oxidoreductase activities. Microbiology; 2005; 151, pp. 3313-3322. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1099/mic.0.27961-0] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16207914]
28. Packiavathy, I.A.S.V.; Sasikumar, P.; Pandian, S.K.; Ravi, A.V. Prevention of Quorum-Sensing-Mediated Biofilm Development and Virulence Factors Production in Vibrio spp. by Curcumin. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2013; 97, pp. 10177-10187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00253-013-4704-5]
29. Naga, N.G.; El-Badan, D.E.; Ghanem, K.M.; El-Badan, N.G. It Is the Time for Quorum Sensing Inhibition as Alternative Strategy of Antimicrobial Therapy. Cell Commun. Signal.; 2023; 21, 133. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12964-023-01154-9] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37316831]
30. Ciulla, M.; Di Stefano, A.; Marinelli, L.; Cacciatore, I.; Di Biase, G. RNAIII Inhibiting Peptide (RIP) and Derivatives as Potential Tools for the Treatment of S. aureus Biofilm Infections. Curr. Top. Med. Chem.; 2018; 18, pp. 2068-2079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1568026618666181022120711]
31. Vinayamohan, P.G.; Pellissery, A.J.; Venkitanarayanan, K. Role of Horizontal Gene Transfer in the Dissemination of Antimicrobial Resistance in Food Animal Production. Curr. Opin. Food Sci.; 2022; 47, 100882. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2022.100882]
32. Michaelis, C.; Grohmann, E. Horizontal Gene Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Biofilms. Antibiotics; 2023; 12, 328. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12020328]
33. Panlilio, H.; Rice, C.V. The Role of Extracellular DNA in the Formation, Architecture, Stability, and Treatment of Bacterial Biofilms. Biotechnol. Bioeng.; 2021; 118, pp. 2129-2141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bit.27760]
34. Claverys, J.-P.; Martin, B.; Polard, P. The Genetic Transformation Machinery: Composition, Localization, and Mechanism. FEMS Microbiol. Rev.; 2009; 33, pp. 643-656. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-6976.2009.00164.x]
35. Winter, M.; Buckling, A.; Harms, K.; Johnsen, P.J.; Vos, M. Antimicrobial Resistance Acquisition via Natural Transformation: Context Is Everything. Curr. Opin. Microbiol.; 2021; 64, pp. 133-138. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mib.2021.09.009]
36. Pan, J.; Singh, A.; Hanning, K.; Zhao, X.; Xu, D.; Li, M.; Wang, Y. A Role for the ATP-Dependent DNA Ligase LigE of Neisseria gonorrhoeae in Biofilm Formation. BMC Microbiol.; 2024; 24, 29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12866-024-03193-9]
37. Madsen, J.S.; Burmølle, M.; Hansen, L.H.; Sørensen, S.J. The Interconnection Between Biofilm Formation and Horizontal Gene Transfer. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol.; 2012; 65, pp. 183-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-695X.2012.00960.x]
38. Liu, F.; Luo, Y.; Xu, T.; Lin, H.; Qiu, Y.; Li, B. Current Examining Methods and Mathematical Models of Horizontal Transfer of Antibiotic Resistance Genes in the Environment. Front. Microbiol.; 2024; 15, 1371388. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1371388] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38638913]
39. Nesse, L.L.; Simm, R. Biofilm: A Hotspot for Emerging Bacterial Genotypes. Advances in Applied Microbiology; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2018; Volume 103, pp. 223-246.
40. Humphrey, S.; Fillol-Salom, A.; Quiles-Puchalt, N.; Ibarra-Chávez, R.; Chen, J.; Penadés, J.R. Bacterial chromosomal mobility via lateral transduction exceeds that of classical mobile genetic elements. Nat. Commun.; 2021; 12, 6509. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26004-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34750368]
41. Sadiq, F.; De Reu, K.; Burmølle, M.; Maes, S.; Heyndrickx, M. Synergistic Interactions in Multispecies Biofilm Combinations of Bacterial Isolates Recovered from Diverse Food Processing Industries. Front. Microbiol.; 2023; 14, 1159434. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2023.1159434]
42. Kim, U.; Lee, S.Y.; Oh, S.W. A review of mechanism analysis methods in multi-species biofilm of foodborne pathogens. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2023; 32, pp. 1665-1677. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-023-01317-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37780597]
43. Baker-Austin, C.; Oliver, J.; Alam, M.; Ali, A.; Waldor, M.; Qadri, F.; Martínez-Urtaza, J. Vibrio spp. Infections. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers; 2018; 4, pp. 1-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41572-018-0005-8]
44. Brumfield, K.; Usmani, M.; Chen, K.; Gangwar, M.; Jutla, A.; Huq, A.; Colwell, R. Environmental Parameters Associated with Incidence and Transmission of Pathogenic Vibrio spp. Environ. Microbiol.; 2021; 23, pp. 7314-7340. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1462-2920.15716]
45. Peng, F.; Jiang, Y.; Feng, J.; Forsythe, S.J.; Li, R.; Zhou, Y.; Man, C. Antibiotic and Desiccation Resistance of Cronobacter sakazakii and C. malonaticus Isolates from Powdered Infant Formula and Processing Environments. Front. Microbiol.; 2017; 8, 316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.00316] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28303125]
46. Ioannidis, A.; Kyratsa, A.; Ioannidou, V.; Bersimis, S.; Chatzipanagiotou, S. Detection of Biofilm Production of Yersinia enterocolitica Strains Isolated from Infected Children and Comparative Antimicrobial Susceptibility of Biofilm Versus Planktonic Forms. Mol. Diagn. Ther.; 2014; 18, pp. 309-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40291-013-0080-1]
47. EFSA. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2013. EFSA J.; 2015; 13, 3991. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3991]
48. Karampoula, F.; Doulgeraki, A.I.; Fotiadis, C.; Tampakaki, A.; Nychas, G.E. Monitoring Biofilm Formation and Microbial Interactions That May Occur During a Salmonella Contamination Incident across the Network of a Water Bottling Plant. Microorganisms; 2019; 7, 236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7080236]
49. Halbedel, S.; Wilking, H.; Holzer, A.; Kleta, S.; Fischer, M.A.; Lüth, S.; Flieger, A. Large Nationwide Outbreak of Invasive Listeriosis Associated with Blood Sausage, Germany, 2018–2019. Emerg. Infect. Dis.; 2020; 26, pp. 1456-1464. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid2607.200225] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32568037]
50. Rodríguez-Campos, D.; Rodríguez-Melcón, C.; Alonso-Calleja, C.; Capita, R. Persistent Listeria monocytogenes Isolates from a Poultry-Processing Facility Form More Biofilm but Do Not Have a Greater Resistance to Disinfectants than Sporadic Strains. Pathogens; 2019; 8, 250. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8040250]
51. Russini, V.; Spaziante, M.; Zottola, T.; Fermani, A.G.; Di Giampietro, G.; Blanco, G.; Fabietti, P.; Marrone, R.; Parisella, R.; Parrocchia, S.
52. Papanikou, S.; Sideroglou, T.; Chrysostomou, A.; Kyritsi, M.A.; Spaniolas, S.; Bouboulis, D.; Mellou, K. A Point Source Gastroenteritis Outbreak in a High School Putatively Due to Clostridium perfringens: Timely Investigation Is Everything. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.; 2023; 20, pp. 41-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2022.0057]
53. Kowalska, J.; Maćkiw, E.; Stasiak, M.; Kucharek, K.; Postupolski, J. Biofilm-Forming Ability of Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated from Retail Food in Poland. J. Food Prot.; 2020; 83, pp. 2032-2040. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/JFP-20-135]
54. Burman, E.; Bengtsson Palme, J. Microbial Community Interactions Are Sensitive to Small Changes in Temperature. Front. Microbiol.; 2021; 12, 672910. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2021.672910]
55. Pan, Y.; Breidt, F.; Kathariou, S. Resistance of Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms to Sanitizing Agents in a Simulated Food Processing Environment. Appl. Envir. Microbiol.; 2006; 72, pp. 7711-7717. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01065-06]
56. Zeng, B.; Wang, C.; Zhang, P.; Guo, Z.; Chen, L.; Duan, K. Heat Shock Protein DnaJ in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Affects Biofilm Formation via Pyocyanin Production. Microorganisms; 2020; 8, 395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms8030395]
57. Srey, S.; Jahid, I.K.; Ha, S.D. Biofilm Formation in Food Industries: A Food Safety Concern. Food Control; 2013; 31, pp. 572-585. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2012.12.001]
58. Dourou, D.; Beauchamp, C.S.; Yoon, Y.; Geornaras, I.; Belk, K.E.; Smith, G.C.; Sofos, J.N. Attachment and Biofilm Formation by Escherichia coli O157 at Different Temperatures on Various Food-Contact Surfaces Encountered in Beef Processing. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2011; 149, pp. 262-268. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2011.07.004]
59. Abdelhamid, A.G.; Yousef, A.E. Collateral Adaptive Responses Induced by Desiccation Stress in Salmonella enterica. LWT; 2020; 133, 110089. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2020.110089]
60. Vestby, L.K.; Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S.; Heir, E.; Nesse, L.L. Biofilm Forming Abilities of Salmonella Are Correlated with Persistence in Fish Meal-and Feed Factories. BMC Vet. Res.; 2009; 5, 20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-5-20]
61. Li, F.; Chen, J.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Liu, Z. The Effect of Carbon Source and Temperature on the Formation and Characteristics of Bacillus licheniformis and Bacillus cereus Biofilms in Milk Powder Production Facilities. J. Dairy Sci.; 2024; 107, pp. 23-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2023.115239]
62. Shree, P.; Singh, C.; Sodhi, K.; Surya, J.; Singh, D. Biofilms: Understanding the Structure and Contribution Towards Bacterial Resistance in Antibiotics. Med. Microecol.; 2023; 15, 100084. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.medmic.2023.100084]
63. Tuytschaever, T.; Raes, K.; Sampers, I. Biofilm Detection in the Food Industry: Challenges in Identifying Biofilm EPS Markers and Analytical Techniques with Insights for Listeria monocytogenes. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2025; 432, 111091. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2025.111091]
64. Mayer, P.; Smith, A.C.; Hurlow, J.; Morrow, B.R.; Bohn, G.A.; Bowler, P.G. Assessing Biofilm at the Bedside: Exploring Reliable Accessible Biofilm Detection Methods. Diagnostics; 2024; 14, 2116. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14192116]
65. McGlennen, M.; Dieser, M.; Foreman, C.M.; Warnat, S. Monitoring Biofilm Growth and Dispersal in Real Time with Impedance Biosensors. J. Ind. Microbiol. Biotechnol.; 2023; 50, kuad022. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jimb/kuad022] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37653441]
66. Whitehead, K.A.; Verran, J. Formation, Architecture and Functionality of Microbial Biofilms in the Food Industry. Curr. Opin. Food Sci.; 2015; 2, pp. 84-91. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cofs.2015.02.003]
67. Gieroba, B.; Krysa, M.; Wojtowicz, K.; Wiater, A.; Pleszczyńska, M.; Tomczyk, M.; Sroka-Bartnicka, A. The FT-IR and Raman Spectroscopies as Tools for Biofilm Characterization Created by Cariogenic Streptococci. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2020; 21, 3811. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms21113811] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32471277]
68. Grudlewska-Buda, K.; Skowron, K.; Gospodarek-Komkowska, E. Comparison of the Intensity of Biofilm Formation by Listeria monocytogenes Using Classical Culture-Based Method and Digital Droplet PCR. AMB Expr.; 2020; 10, 75. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13568-020-01007-5] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32303851]
69. Funari, R.; Shen, A.Q. Detection and Characterization of Bacterial Biofilms and Biofilm-Based Sensors. ACS Sens.; 2022; 7, pp. 347-357. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acssensors.1c02722]
70. Oliveira, A.; Cunha, M.d.L.R. Comparison of Methods for the Detection of Biofilm Production in Coagulase-Negative Staphylococci. BMC Res. Notes; 2010; 3, 260. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-3-260]
71. Wang, X.; Xue, J.; Zhu, H.; Chen, S.; Wang, Y.; Xiao, Z.; Luo, Y. Advances in Biofilm Characterization: Utilizing Rheology and Atomic Force Microscopy in Foods and Related Fields. Adv. Compos. Hybrid. Mater.; 2024; 7, 143. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s42114-024-00950-2]
72. Chowdhury, M.A.H.; Reem, C.S.A.; Ashrafudoulla, M.; Rahman, M.A.; Shaila, S.; Ha, A.J.W.; Ha, S.D. Role of Advanced Cleaning and Sanitation Techniques in Biofilm Prevention on Dairy Equipment. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.; 2025; 24, e70176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.70176]
73. Stiefel, P.; Mauerhofer, S.; Schneider, J.; Maniura-Weber, K.; Rosenberg, U.; Ren, Q. Enzymes Enhance Biofilm Removal Efficiency of Cleaners. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.; 2016; 60, pp. 3647-3652. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.00400-16]
74. Meireles, A.; Borges, A.; Giaouris, E.; Simões, M. The Current Knowledge on the Application of Anti-Biofilm Enzymes in the Food Industry. Food Res. Int.; 2016; 86, pp. 140-146. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.06.006]
75. Jiménez Pichardo, R.; Hernández Martínez, I.; Regalado González, C.; Santos Cruz, J.; Meas Vong, Y.; Wacher Rodarte, M.C.; Carrillo Reyes, J.; Sánchez Ortega, I.; García Almendárez, B.E. Innovative Control of Biofilms on Stainless Steel Surfaces Using Electrolyzed Water in the Dairy Industry. Foods; 2021; 10, 103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods10010103]
76. Wang, D.; Zhao, X.; Wang, H. Recent Advances of Bacteriophage-Derived Strategies for Biofilm Control in the Food Industry. Food Biosci.; 2023; 54, 102819. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102819]
77. Lu, J.; Hu, X.; Ren, L. Biofilm Control Strategies in Food Industry: Inhibition and Utilization. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2022; 123, pp. 103-113. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.03.007]
78. Dallagi, H.; Jha, P.K.; Faille, C.; Le Bail, A.; Rawson, A.; Benezech, T. Removal of Biocontamination in the Food Industry Using Physical Methods: An Overview. Food Control; 2023; 151, 109645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2023.109645]
79. Yushina, Y.; Zaiko, E.; Grudistova, M.; Semenova, A.; Makhova, A.A.; Bataeva, D.S.; Demkina, E.V.; Nikolaev, Y.A. Patterns of Biofilm Formation by Members of Listeria, Salmonella, and Pseudomonas at Various Temperatures and the Role of Their Synergistic Interactions in the Formation of Biofilm Communities. Microbiology; 2024; 93, pp. 598-609. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1134/S0026261724604792]
80. Brooks, J.D.; Flint, S.H. Biofilms in the Food Industry: Problems and Potential Solutions. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2008; 43, pp. 2163-2176. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2008.01839.x]
81. Giaouris, E.; Chorianopoulos, N.; Nychas, G.J.E. Co-Culture with Listeria monocytogenes within Dual-Species Biofilms Dramatically Enhances Resistance of Pseudomonas putida to Benzalkonium Chloride. PLoS ONE; 2013; 8, e77276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0077276] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24130873]
82. Pang, X.Y.; Yang, Y.S.; Yuk, H.G. Biofilm Formation and Disinfectant Resistance of Salmonella sp. in Mono- and Dual-Species with Pseudomonas aeruginosa. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2017; 123, pp. 651-660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.13521]
83. Chen, Q.; Zhang, X.; Wang, Q.; Yang, J.; Zhong, Q. The Mixed Biofilm Formed by Listeria monocytogenes and Other Bacteria: Formation, Interaction and Control Strategies. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr.; 2024; 64, pp. 8570-8586. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2023.2200861]
84. Lee, E.; Oh, M.; Kim, J. Inhibitory Effects of Combinations of Chemicals on Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, and Staphylococcus aureus Biofilms during the Clean-in-Place at an Experimental Dairy Plant. J. Food Prot.; 2020; 83, pp. 878-885. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/JFP-19-505]
85. Gutiérrez, D.; Rodríguez Rubio, L.; Martínez, B.; Rodríguez, A.; García, P. Bacteriophage Derived Antimicrobials: Strategies Beyond Lytic Phage. Front. Microbiol.; 2016; 7, 829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00829]
86. Simões, M.; Simões, L.C.; Pereira, M.O. Biofilm Prevention and Control by Surface Modification. Biofilm; 2020; 2, 100034. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bioflm.2020.100034]
87. FAO/WHO. Codex Alimentarius: International Food Standards, Guidelines and Codes of Practice; FAO/WHO: Rome, Italy, 2025; Available online: https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/ (accessed on 15 April 2025).
88. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA); FDA: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2025; Available online: https://www.fda.gov/food/guidance-regulation-food-and-dietary-supplements/food-safety-modernization-act-fsma (accessed on 15 April 2025).
89. Coughlan, L.M.; Cotter, P.D.; Hill, C.; Alvarez-Ordóñez, A. New Weapons to Fight Old Enemies: Novel Strategies for the (Bio)Control of Bacterial Biofilms in the Food Industry. Front. Microbiol.; 2016; 7, 1641. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.01641] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27803696]
90. Liu, X.; Yao, H.; Zhao, X.; Ge, C. Biofilm Formation and Control of Foodborne Pathogenic Bacteria. Molecules; 2023; 28, 2432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/molecules28062432] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36985403]
91. Díaz, M.; Ladero, V.; Del Río, B.; Redruello, B.; Fernández, M.; Martín, M.; Álvarez, M. Biofilm-Forming Capacity in Biogenic Amine-Producing Bacteria Isolated from Dairy Products. Front. Microbiol.; 2016; 7, 591. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2016.00591] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27242675]
92. Diarra, C.; Goetz, C.; Gagnon, M.; Roy, D.; Jean, J. Biofilm Formation by Heat-Resistant Dairy Bacteria: Multispecies Biofilm Model under Static and Dynamic Conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2023; 89, pp. e00713-e00723. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/aem.00713-23]
93. Catania, A.; Di Ciccio, P.; Ferrocino, I.; Civera, T.; Cannizzo, F.; Dalmasso, A. Evaluation of the Biofilm-Forming Ability and Molecular Characterization of Dairy Bacillus spp. Isolates. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.; 2023; 13, 1229460. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1229460]
94. Briega, I.; Garde, S.; Sánchez, C.; Rodríguez-Mínguez, E.; Picon, A.; Ávila, M. Evaluation of Biofilm Production and Antibiotic Resistance/Susceptibility Profiles of Pseudomonas spp. Isolated from Milk and Dairy Products. Foods; 2025; 14, 1105. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods14071105]
95. Borucki, M.K.; Peppin, J.D.; White, D.; Loge, F.; Call, D.R. Variation in Biofilm Formation among Strains of Listeria monocytogenes. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2003; 69, pp. 7336-7342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.69.12.7336-7342.2003]
96. Desmousseaux, C.; Guilbaud, M.; Jard, G.; Tormo, H.; Oulahal, N.; Hanin, A.; Laithier, C. Biofilms in the Milking Machine, from Laboratory Scale to On-Farm Results. J. Dairy Sci.; 2025; 108, pp. 8120-8140. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25352]
97. Savaşan, S.; Sezener, M. The Determination of Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Properties in Pseudomonas aeruginosa Isolates from Raw Milk Samples. J. Anatol. Environ. Anim. Sci.; 2022; 7, pp. 21-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.35229/jaes.1019978]
98. Meng, L.; Liu, H.; Lan, T.; Dong, L.; Hu, H.; Zhao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Zheng, N.; Wang, J. Antibiotic Resistance Patterns of Pseudomonas spp. Isolated from Raw Milk Revealed by Whole Genome Sequencing. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 1005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.01005]
99. Quintieri, L.; Fanelli, F.; Caputo, L. Antibiotic Resistant Pseudomonas spp. Spoilers in Fresh Dairy Products: An Underestimated Risk and the Control Strategies. Foods; 2019; 8, 372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods8090372]
100. LaPointe, G.; Wilson, T.; Tarrah, A.; Gagnon, M.; Roy, D. Microbial Community Tracking from Dairy Farm to Factory: Insights on Biofilm Management for Enhanced Food Safety and Quality. J. Dairy Sci.; 2025; 108, pp. 8101-8119. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25397]
101. Flint, S.; Palmer, J.; Bloemen, K.; Brooks, J.; Crawford, R. The Growth of Bacillus stearothermophilus on Stainless Steel. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2001; 90, pp. 151-157. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.2001.01215.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11168716]
102. Medina, C.; Manriquez, D.; Gonzalez-Córdova, B.; Pacha, P.; Vidal, J.; Oliva, R.; Latorre, A. Biofilm Forming Ability of Staphylococcus aureus on Materials Commonly Found in Milking Equipment Surfaces. J. Dairy Sci.; 2025; 108, pp. 3382-3389. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25416] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39890071]
103. Ávila-Novoa, M.; Solís-Velázquez, O.; Guerrero-Medina, P.; González-Gómez, J.; González-Torres, B.; Velázquez-Suárez, N.Y.; Martínez-Chávez, L.; Martínez-Gonzáles, N.E.; De la Cruz-Color, L.; Ibarra-Velázquez, L.M.
104. Ban-Cucerzan, A.; Morar, A.; Tîrziu, E.; Imre, K. Evaluation of Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Bacteria Isolated from Biofilm in Meat Processing Units. Antibiotics; 2023; 12, 1408. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics12091408]
105. Calhoun, C.; Geornaras, I.; Zhang, P. Pseudomonas in Meat Processing Environments. Foods; 2025; 14, 1615. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods14091615]
106. Sterniša, M.; Centa, U.; Drnovšek, A.; Remškar, M.; Možina, S. Pseudomonas fragi biofilm on stainless steel (at low temperatures) affects the survival of Campylobacter jejuni and Listeria monocytogenes and their control by a polymer molybdenum oxide nanocomposite coating. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2023; 394, 110159. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110159]
107. Teh, A.; Lee, S.; Dykes, G. Association of Some Campylobacter jejuni with Pseudomonas aeruginosa Biofilms Increases Attachment under Conditions Mimicking Those in the Environment. PLoS ONE; 2019; 14, e0215275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215275]
108. Hilbert, F.; Scherwitzel, M.; Paulsen, P.; Szostak, M. Survival of Campylobacter jejuni under Conditions of Atmospheric Oxygen Tension with the Support of Pseudomonas spp. Appl. Environ. Microbiol.; 2010; 76, pp. 5911-5917. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01532-10] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20639377]
109. Xu, Z.S.; Pham, V.D.; Yang, X.; Gänzle, M.G. High-Throughput Analysis of Microbiomes in a Meat Processing Facility: Are Food Processing Facilities an Establishment Niche for Persisting Bacterial Communities?. Microbiome; 2025; 13, 25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40168-024-02026-1]
110. Wang, R.; Guragain, M.; Chitlapilly Dass, S.; Palanisamy, V.; Bosilevac, J.M. Impact of Intense Sanitization on Environmental Biofilm Communities and the Survival of Salmonella enterica at a Beef Processing Plant. Front. Microbiol.; 2024; 15, 1338600. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2024.1338600] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38435686]
111. Chitlapilly Dass, S.; Bosilevac, J.M.; Weinroth, M.; Kalchayanand, N.; Arthur, T.M.; Wheeler, T.L.; Schmidt, J.W. Impact of Mixed Biofilm Formation with Environmental Microorganisms on E. coli O157:H7 Survival Against Sanitization. NPJ Sci. Food; 2020; 4, 16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41538-020-00076-x]
112. Burdová, A.; Véghová, A.; Minarovičová, J.; Drahovská, H.; Kaclíková, E. The Relationship Between Biofilm Phenotypes and Biofilm-Associated Genes in Food-Related Listeria monocytogenes Strains. Microorganisms; 2024; 12, 1297. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms12071297] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/39065070]
113. Wagner, E.; Pracser, N.; Thalguter, S.; Fischel, K.; Rammer, N.; Pospíšilová, L.; Alispahic, M.; Wagner, M.; Rychli, K. Identification of Biofilm Hotspots in a Meat Processing Environment: Detection of Spoilage Bacteria in Multi-Species Biofilms. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2020; 328, 108668. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108668]
114. Rossi, D.A.; Dumont, C.F.; Santos, A.C.S.; Vaz, M.E.L.; Prado, R.R.; Monteiro, G.P.; Melo, C.B.d.S.; Stamoulis, V.J.; dos Santos, J.P.; de Melo, R.T. Antibiotic Resistance in the Alternative Lifestyles of Campylobacter jejuni. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.; 2021; 11, 535757. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2021.535757]
115. Manafi, L.; Aliakbarlu, J.; Saei, H. Antibiotic Resistance and Biofilm Formation Ability of Salmonella Serotypes Isolated from Beef, Mutton, and Meat Contact Surfaces at Retail. J. Food Sci.; 2020; 85, 15335. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.15335]
116. Romeo, M.; Lasagabaster, A.; Lavilla, M.; Amárita, F. Genetic Diversity, Biofilm Formation, and Antibiotic Resistance in Listeria monocytogenes Isolated from Meat-Processing Plants. Foods; 2025; 14, 1580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods14091580]
117. Chitlapilly Dass, S.; Wang, R. Biofilm Through the Looking Glass: A Microbial Food Safety Perspective. Pathogens; 2022; 11, 346. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/pathogens11030346] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35335670]
118. Vezzulli, L.; Pezzati, E.; Moreno, M.; Fabiano, M.; Pane, L.; Pruzzo, C. VibrioSea Consortium. Benthic Ecology of Vibrio spp. and Pathogenic Vibrio Species in a Coastal Mediterranean Environment (La Spezia Gulf, Italy). Microb. Ecol.; 2009; 58, pp. 808-818. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00248-009-9542-8]
119. Roy, P.K.; Mizan, M.F.R.; Hossain, M.I.; Han, N.; Nahar, S.; Ashrafudoulla, M.; Toushik, S.H.; Shim, W.-B.; Kim, Y.-M.; Ha, S.-D. Elimination of Vibrio parahaemolyticus Biofilms on Crab and Shrimp Surfaces Using Ultraviolet C Irradiation Coupled with Sodium Hypochlorite and Slightly Acidic Electrolyzed Water. Food Control; 2021; 128, 108179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2021.108179]
120. Wang, D.; Palmer, J.S.; Fletcher, G.C.; On, S.L.W.; Gagic, D.; Flint, S.H. Efficacy of Commercial Peroxyacetic Acid on Vibrio parahaemolyticus Planktonic Cells and Biofilms on Stainless Steel and Greenshell™ Mussel (Perna canaliculus) Surfaces. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2023; 405, 110372. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2023.110372]
121. Qian, H.; Li, W.; Guo, L.; Tan, L.; Liu, H.; Wang, J.; Pan, Y.; Zhao, Y. Stress Response of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms to Different Modified Atmospheres. Front. Microbiol.; 2020; 11, 23. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2020.00023] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32153513]
122. Mitsuwan, W.; Boripun, R.; Saengsawang, P.; Intongead, S.; Boonplu, S.; Chanpakdee, R.; Morita, Y.; Boonmar, S.; Rojanakun, N.; Suksriroj, N.
123. Jiang, Y.; Wang, P.; Qu, M.; Wang, T.; Li, F.; Wang, L.; Yao, L. Effects of luxS Gene on Growth Characteristics, Biofilm Formation and Antimicrobial Resistance of Multi-Antimicrobial Resistant Vibrio parahaemolyticus Vp2015094 Isolated from Shellfish. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2023; 134, lxad172. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jambio/lxad172] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37580170]
124. Nguyen, K.; Truong, P.; Thi, H.; Ho, X.; Van Nguyen, P. Prevalence, multidrug resistance, and biofilm formation of Vibrio parahaemolyticus isolated from fish mariculture environments in Cat Ba Island, Vietnam. Osong Public Health Res. Perspect.; 2024; 15, pp. 56-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.24171/j.phrp.2023.0181] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38481050]
125. Manna, T.; Guchhait, K.; Jana, D.; Dey, S.; Karmakar, M.; Hazra, S.; Manna, M.; Jana, P.; Panda, A.; Ghosh, C. Wastewater-Based Surveillance of Vibrio cholerae: Molecular Insights on Biofilm Regulatory Diguanylate Cyclases, Virulence Factors and Antibiotic Resistance Patterns. Microb. Pathog.; 2024; 196, 106995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micpath.2024.106995]
126. Storgårds, E.; Salo, S.; Wirtanen, G. Microbial Attachment and Biofilm Formation in Brewery Bottling Plants. J. Inst. Brew.; 2006; 112, pp. 232-240. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/ASBCJ-64-0008]
127. Bose, N.; Auvil, D.P.; Moore, E.L.; Moore, S.D. Microbial Communities in Retail Draft Beers and the Biofilms They Produce. Microbiol. Spectr.; 2021; 9, pp. e01404-e01421. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1128/Spectrum.01404-21]
128. Quain, D.E. Draught beer hygiene: Cleaning of dispense tap nozzles. J. Inst. Brew.; 2016; 122, pp. 388-396. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jib.335]
129. Miller, L.A.; Buckingham-Meyer, K.; Goeres, D.M. Simulated Aging of Draught Beer Line Tubing Increases Biofilm Contamination. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2024; 415, 110630. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2024.110630]
130. Sun, Z.; Guo, N.; Wang, X.; Guo, Z.; Liang, X.; Yang, J.; Liu, T. Adhesion and Corrosion Effects of Biofilms on Steel Surface Mediated by Hydrophilic Exopolysaccharide Colanic Acid. Corros. Sci.; 2024; 229, 111876. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.corsci.2024.111876]
131. Shi, X.; Zhu, X. Biofilm Formation and Food Safety in Food Industries. Trends Food Sci. Technol.; 2009; 20, pp. 407-413. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2009.01.054]
132. Maćkiw, E.; Korsak, D.; Kowalska, J.; Félix, B.; Stasiak, M.; Kucharek, K.; Antoszewska, A.; Postupolski, J. Genetic diversity of Listeria monocytogenes isolated from ready-to-eat food products in retail in Poland. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2021; 358, 109397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2021.109397]
133. European Commission. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)—Notification 2021.499377: Listeria monocytogenes in Deep-Frozen Bakery Products from Ukraine; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2021; Available online: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window/screen/notification/499377 (accessed on 19 July 2025).
134. Uhitil, S.; Jakšić, S.; Petrak, T.; Medić, H.; Gumhalter-Karolyi, L. Prevalence of Listeria monocytogenes and the other Listeria spp. in cakes in Croatia. Food Control; 2004; 15, pp. 213-216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(03)00049-5]
135. Farber, J.M.; Zwietering, M.; Wiedmann, M.; Schaffner, D.; Hedberg, C.W.; Harrison, M.A.; Hartnett, E.; Chapman, B.; Donnelly, C.W.; Goodburn, K.E.
136. Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S. Listeria monocytogenes: Biofilm formation and persistence in food-processing environments. Biofilms; 2004; 1, pp. 107-121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1479050504001322]
137. Ribeiro, E.; Clérigo, A. Assessment of Staphylococcus aureus colonization in bakery workers: A case study. Vertentes e Desafios da Segurança 2017; Corticeiro Neves, M.; Camarada, M.A.; Leal, Â.; Marques da Silva, M.; Morgado, H.; Álvaro, J.; Castelão, A.; Morgado, R.; Ramos, I.; Ferreira, N.
138. Hait, J.; Tallent, S.; Melka, D.; Keys, C.; Bennett, R. Staphylococcus aureus outbreak investigation of an Illinois bakery. J. Food Saf.; 2012; 32, pp. 435-444. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jfs.12002]
139. Necidová, L.; Bursová, Š.; Haruštiaková, D.; Bogdanovičová, K. Evaluation of Staphylococcus aureus Growth and Staphylococcal Enterotoxin Production in Delicatessen and Fine Bakery Products. Acta Vet. Brno; 2022; 91, pp. 417-425. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2754/avb202291040417]
140. DeFlorio, W.; Liu, S.; White, A.; Taylor, T.; Cisneros-Zevallos, L.; Min, Y.; Scholar, E. Recent Developments in Antimicrobial and Antifouling Coatings to Reduce or Prevent Contamination and Cross-Contamination of Food Contact Surfaces by Bacteria. Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Saf.; 2021; 20, pp. 3093-3134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1541-4337.12750]
141. Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S. Effects of Materials Containing Antimicrobial Compounds on Food Hygiene. J. Food Prot.; 2011; 74, pp. 1200-1211. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-042]
142. Riga, E.; Vöhringer, M.; Widyaya, V.; Lienkamp, K. Polymer-Based Surfaces Designed to Reduce Biofilm Formation: From Antimicrobial Polymers to Strategies for Long-Term Applications. Macromol. Rapid Commun.; 2017; 38, 1700216. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/marc.201700216]
143. Song, B.; Zhang, E.; Han, X.; Zhu, H.; Shi, Y.; Cao, Z. Engineering and Application Perspectives on Designing an Antimicrobial Surface. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces; 2020; 12, pp. 21330-21341. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b19992]
144. Zhu, Q.; Gooneratne, R.; Hussain, M. Listeria monocytogenes in Fresh Produce: Outbreaks, Prevalence and Contamination Levels. Foods; 2017; 6, 21. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods6030021] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28282938]
145. Jahid, I.; Ha, S. A Review of Microbial Biofilms of Produce: Future Challenge to Food Safety. Food Sci. Biotechnol.; 2012; 21, pp. 299-316. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10068-012-0041-1]
146. Yuhana, N.; Ruzelan, N.; Mubarak, A.; Lani, M.; Abdullah, W. A Review of Microbial Safety and Bacterial Biofilm Formation of Fresh Vegetables. UMT J. Undergrad. Res.; 2024; 6, pp. 54-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46754/umtjur.v6i2.478]
147. Aiyedun, S.O.; Onarinde, B.A.; Swainson, M.; Dixon, R.A. Foodborne Outbreaks of Microbial Infection from Fresh Produce in Europe and North America: A Systematic Review of Data from This Millennium. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol.; 2021; 56, pp. 2215-2223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14884]
148. Söderström, A.; Österberg, P.; Lindqvist, A.; Jönsson, B.; Lindberg, A.; Blide Ulander, S.; Andersson, Y. A Large Escherichia coli O157 Outbreak in Sweden Associated with Locally Produced Lettuce. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.; 2008; 5, pp. 339-349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2007.0065]
149. Patel, J.; Singh, M.; Macarisin, D.; Sharma, M.; Shelton, D. Differences in Biofilm Formation of Produce and Poultry Salmonella enterica Isolates and Their Persistence on Spinach Plants. Food Microbiol.; 2013; 36, pp. 388-394. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2013.06.019]
150. Chhetri, V.S.; Janes, M.E.; King, J.M.; Doerrler, W.; Adhikari, A. Effect of Residual Chlorine and Organic Acids on Survival and Attachment of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes on Spinach Leaves during Storage. LWT; 2019; 105, pp. 298-305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2019.02.019]
151. Kowalska, B. Fresh Vegetables and Fruit as a Source of Salmonella Bacteria. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med.; 2023; 30, pp. 9-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.26444/aaem/156765]
152. Park, S.H.; Kang, D.H. Effect of Temperature on Chlorine Dioxide Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella typhimurium, and Listeria monocytogenes on Spinach, Tomatoes, Stainless Steel, and Glass Surfaces. Int. J. Food Microbiol.; 2018; 275, pp. 39-45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2018.03.015]
153. Álvarez-Ordoñez, A.; Coughlan, L.; Briandet, R.; Cotter, P. Biofilms in Food Processing Environments: Challenges and Opportunities. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol.; 2019; 10, pp. 173-195. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-food-032818-121805] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30653351]
154. Wang, R. Biofilms and Meat Safety: A Mini-Review. J. Food Prot.; 2019; 82, pp. 120-127. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-18-311] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30702946]
155. De Carvalho, C.C.C.R. Marine Biofilms: A Successful Microbial Strategy with Economic Implications. Front. Mar. Sci.; 2018; 5, 126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2018.00126]
156. Sharan, M.; Vijay, D.; Dhaka, P.; Bedi, J.; Gill, J. Biofilms as a Microbial Hazard in the Food Industry: A Scoping Review. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2022; 133, pp. 2210-2234. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.15766] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35945912]
157. Carrascosa, C.; Raheem, D.; Ramos, F.; Saraiva, A.; Raposo, A. Microbial Biofilms in the Food Industry—A Comprehensive Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health; 2021; 18, 2014. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18042014]
158. Zhao, A.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y. Understanding Bacterial Biofilms: From Definition to Treatment Strategies. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol.; 2023; 13, 1137947. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2023.1137947]
159. Cámara, M.; Green, W.; MacPhee, C.E.; Rakowska, P.D.; Raval, R.; Richardson, M.C.; Slater-Jefferies, J.; Steventon, K.; Webb, J.S. Economic Significance of Biofilms: A Multidisciplinary and Cross-Sectoral Challenge. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes; 2022; 8, 42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41522-022-00306-y]
160. Speranza, B.; Corbo, M.R. The Impact of Biofilms on Food Spoilage. The Microbiological Quality of Food; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 259-282. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100502-6.00014-5]
161. Dawan, J.; Zhang, S.; Ahn, J. Recent Advances in Biofilm Control Technologies for the Food Industry. Antibiotics; 2025; 14, 254. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics14030254]
162. Guerrero-Navarro, A.E.; Ríos-Castillo, A.G.; Ripolles-Avila, C.; Zamora, A.; Hascoët, A.S.; Felipe, X.; Castillo, M.; Rodríguez-Jerez, J.J. Effectiveness of Enzymatic Treatment for Reducing Dairy Fouling at Pilot-Plant Scale under Real Cleaning Conditions. LWT; 2022; 154, 112634. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112634]
163. Moye, Z.D.; Woolston, J.; Sulakvelidze, A. Bacteriophage Applications for Food Production and Processing. Viruses; 2018; 10, 205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/v10040205] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29671810]
164. Sillankorva, S.M.; Oliveira, H.; Azeredo, J. Bacteriophages and Their Role in Food Safety. Int. J. Microbiol.; 2012; 2012, 863945. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/863945]
165. Hoffmann, S.; Scallan Walter, E. Economic Burden of Foodborne Illnesses Acquired in the United States circa 2023: A comprehensive estimate of $75 billion in losses. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.; 2024; 21, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2023.0157]
166. Hofer, U. The Cost of Biofilms. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.; 2022; 20, 445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00758-1]
167. Scharff, R.L. Economic burden from health losses due to foodborne illness in the United States. J. Food Prot.; 2012; 75, pp. 123-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-11-058]
168. Scharff, R.L. Food Attribution and Economic Cost Estimates for Meat and Poultry Related Illnesses. J. Food Prot.; 2020; 83, pp. 1430-1437. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/JFP-19-548]
169. Yang, X.; Scharff, R.L. Foodborne Illnesses from Leafy Greens in the United States: Attribution, Burden, and Cost. J. Food Prot.; 2024; 87, 100275. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfp.2024.100275]
170. Minor, T.; Lasher, A.; Klontz, K.; Brown, B.; Nardinelli, C.; Zorn, D. The Per Case and Total Annual Costs of Foodborne Illness in the United States. Risk Anal.; 2015; 35, pp. 1125-1139. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/risa.12316]
171. Grace, D. Burden of foodborne disease in low-income and middle-income countries and opportunities for scaling food safety interventions. Food Secur.; 2023; 15, pp. 1475-1488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12571-023-01391-3]
172. Newman, K.L.; León, J.S.; Rebolledo, P.A.; Scallan, E. The impact of socioeconomic status on foodborne illness in high-income countries: A systematic review. Epidemiol. Infect.; 2015; 143, pp. 2473-2485. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0950268814003847]
173. Havelaar, A.H.; Kirk, M.D.; Torgerson, P.R.; Gibb, H.J.; Hald, T.; Lake, R.J.; Praet, N.; Bellinger, D.C.; de Silva, N.R.; Gargouri, N.
174. Kirk, M.D.; Pires, S.M.; Black, R.E.; Caipo, M.; Crump, J.A.; Devleesschauwer, B.; Döpfer, D.; Fazil, A.; Fischer-Walker, C.L.; Hald, T.
175. Kipper, D.; Mascitti, A.K.; De Carli, S.; Carneiro, A.M.; Streck, A.F.; Fonseca, A.S.K.; Ikuta, N.; Lunge, V.R. Emergence, Dissemination and Antimicrobial Resistance of the Main Poultry-Associated Salmonella Serovars in Brazil. Vet. Sci.; 2022; 9, 405. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/vetsci9080405]
176. Thomas, M.K.; Vriezen, R.; Farber, J.M.; Currie, A.; Schlech, W.; Fazil, A. Economic Cost of a Listeria monocytogenes Outbreak in Canada, 2008. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.; 2015; 12, pp. 966-971. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2015.1965] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26583272]
177. Glass, K.; McLure, A.; Bourke, S.; Cribb, D.M.; Kirk, M.D.; March, J.; Daughtry, B.; Smiljanic, S.; Lancsar, E. The Cost of Foodborne Illness and Its Sequelae in Australia Circa 2019. Foodborne Pathog. Dis.; 2023; 20, pp. 419-426. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1089/fpd.2023.0015] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37610847]
178. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Foodborne Illnesses: Updated Cost Estimate Is Needed for Better Allocation of Federal Food Safety Funding. GAO 25-107606. 2024; Available online: https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107606.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2025).
179. Food Safety Information CouncilFood Standards Australia New ZealandAustralian National University. Annual Cost of Foodborne Illness in Australia. Final Report. 2022; Available online: https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-09/ANU%20Foodborne%20Disease%20Attribution%20Final%20Report.pdf (accessed on 11 May 2025).
180. NSW Food Authority. Food Poisoning in Australia. 2023; Available online: https://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/consumer/food-poisoning (accessed on 11 May 2025).
181. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS). Updating Economic Burden of Foodborne Diseases Estimates for Inflation and Income Growth. ERR 297. 2021; Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/pub-details?pubid=102639 (accessed on 11 May 2025).
182. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (ERS). Cost Estimates of Foodborne Illnesses. Data Adjusted to 2023 USD. 2018; Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/cost-estimates-of-foodborne-illnesses (accessed on 11 May 2025).
183. Majowicz, S.E.; McNab, W.B.; Sockett, P.; Henson, S.; Doré, K.; Edge, V.L.; Wilson, J.B. Burden and cost of gastroenteritis in a Canadian community. J. Food Prot.; 2006; 69, pp. 651-660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-69.3.651]
184. Manipis, K.; Cronin, P.; Street, D.; Church, J.; Viney, R.; Goodall, S. Examination of methods to estimate productivity losses in an economic evaluation: Using foodborne illness as a case study. Pharmacoeconomics; 2025; 43, pp. 453-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-024-01458-9]
185. World Bank Group. Foodborne Illnesses in Low- and Middle-Income Countries Cause Productivity and Medical Costs of ~US $110 B/Year. World Bank Press Release. 2018; Available online: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/23/food-borne-illnesses-cost-us-110-billion-per-year-in-low-and-middle-income-countries (accessed on 11 May 2025).
186. CGIAR/SNV. County-Level Study Estimated Foodborne Disease Economic Cost. 2019; Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/d861c8cd-401b-4dcc-9cff-ab78b3d20a9d/content (accessed on 11 May 2025).
187. China CDC Weekly. Bacterial foodborne outbreaks in China: Surveillance data 2023. China CDC Wkly.; 2023; 5, pp. 591-599. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.46234/ccdcw2023.091]
188. EFSA. Multi country outbreak of Listeria monocytogenes ST6 linked to frozen vegetables, 2015–2018. EFSA Support. Publ.; 2018; 15, 1448. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1448]
189. CDC. Multistate Outbreak of Listeriosis Linked to Blue Bell Creameries Products. Final Update: 10 June 2015. Available online: https://archive.cdc.gov/#/details?url=https://www.cdc.gov/listeria/outbreaks/ice-cream-03-15/index.html (accessed on 11 May 2025).
190. Teklemariam, A.D.; Al-Hindi, R.R.; Albiheyri, R.S.; Alharbi, M.G.; Alghamdi, M.A.; Filimban, A.A.R.; Al Mutiri, A.S.; Al-Alyani, A.M.; Alseghayer, M.S.; Almaneea, A.M.
191. Muzembo, B.A.; Kitahara, K.; Mitra, D.; Ohno, A.; Khatiwada, J.; Dutta, S.; Miyoshi, S.I. Shigellosis in Southeast Asia: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Travel Med. Infect. Dis.; 2023; 52, 102554. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2023.102554] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36792021]
192. Mutua, F.K.; Masanja, H.; Chacha, J.; Kang’ethe, E.K.; Kuboka, M.; Grace, D. A Rapid Review of Foodborne Fisease Hazards in East Africa. CGIAR Report. 2021; Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/b862cb5c-eabb-4112-8014-93276dda57cd/content (accessed on 11 May 2025).
193. Olanya, O.M.; Hoshide, A.K.; Ijabadeniyi, O.A.; Ukuku, D.O.; Mukhopadhyay, S.; Niemira, B.A.; Ayeni, O. Cost estimation of listeriosis (Listeria monocytogenes) occurrence in South Africa in 2017 and its food safety implications. Food Control; 2019; 102, pp. 231-239. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.02.007]
194. Khandaker, S.A.; Alauddin, M. Economic analysis of food-borne diseases control program in Australia. Int. J. Soc. Econ.; 2005; 32, pp. 767-782. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03068290510612575]
195. Rabiee, P.; Faraz, A.; Ajlouni, S.; Hussain, M.A. Microbial Contamination and Disease Outbreaks Associated with Rockmelons (Cucumis melo): Implications for Public Health Protection. Foods; 2024; 13, 2198. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods13142198]
196. Finn, L.; Onyeaka, H.; O’Neill, S. Listeria monocytogenes Biofilms in Food-Associated Environments: A Persistent Enigma. Foods; 2023; 12, 3339. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/foods12183339]
197. Wang, Y.; Feng, Y.; Wang, X.; Ji, C.; Upadhyay, A.; Xiao, Z.; Luo, Y. A Short Review on Salmonella spp. Involved Mixed-Species Biofilm on Food Processing Surface: Interactions, Disinfectant Resistance and Its Biocontrol. J. Agric. Food Res.; 2025; 19, 101660. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.101660]
198. Sharma, G.; Sharma, S.; Sharma, P.; Chandola, D.; Dang, S.; Gupta, S.; Gabrani, R. Escherichia coli Biofilm: Development and Therapeutic Strategies. J. Appl. Microbiol.; 2016; 121, pp. 309-319. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jam.13078] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26811181]
199. Sharma, S.; Mohler, J.; Mahajan, S.D.; Schwartz, S.A.; Bruggemann, L.; Aalinkeel, R. Microbial Biofilm: A Review on Formation, Infection, Antibiotic Resistance, Control Measures, and Innovative Treatment. Microorganisms; 2023; 11, 1614. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11061614] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37375116]
200. Partnership for Food Safety Education. Fight BAC!®—Home Food Safety Resources. Available online: https://www.fightbac.org/ (accessed on 13 March 2025).
201. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Public Education and Communication. Food Safety and Quality: Capacity Development. 2024; Available online: https://www.fao.org/food/food-safety-quality/capacity-development/public-education-communication/en/ (accessed on 25 April 2025).
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Imre Kálmán 1
; Morar Adriana 1
; Marcu Adela 2
; Hotea Ionela 3
; Sebastian-Alexandru, Popa 1
; Răzvan-Tudor, Pătrînjan 1
; Iulia-Maria, Bucur 3
; Gașpar Cristina 3 ; Ana-Maria, Plotuna 3 ; Sergiu-Constantin, Ban 4 1 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timișoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania; [email protected] (K.I.); [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (I.H.); [email protected] (R.-T.P.); [email protected] (I.-M.B.); [email protected] (C.G.); [email protected] (A.-M.P.), Research Institute for Biosecurity and Bioengineering, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timișoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania
2 Faculty of Biotechnology of Animal Resources, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timișoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania; [email protected]
3 Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Life Sciences “King Mihai I” from Timișoara, 300645 Timișoara, Romania; [email protected] (K.I.); [email protected] (A.M.); [email protected] (I.H.); [email protected] (R.-T.P.); [email protected] (I.-M.B.); [email protected] (C.G.); [email protected] (A.-M.P.)
4 Independent Researcher, 300668 Timișoara, Romania; [email protected]