Hygienic aspects of using wooden and plastic cutting boards, assessed in laboratory and small gastronomy units

Abstract

There is a long-term controversy on the safety of using hardwood cutting boards in food preparation. This study was designed to compare three types of cutting boards (maple, beech wood, polyethylene) in the laboratory and in a small gastronomic unit. Samples for microbiological analysis were collected by a swabbing method from the boards' surfaces that had been contaminated with a defined meat-egg-mixture and subsequently cleaned according to manufacturers' instructions. Our study did not show significant differences between the microbiological status of the three types of cutting boards tested, all of them being overall acceptable. Use of the maple board in a small gastronomic unit for 2 months did not result in problems in cleanability.

Full text

1 23
Journal für Verbraucherschutz und
Lebensmittelsicherheit
Journal of Consumer Protection and
Food Safety
ISSN 1661-5751
J. Verbr. Lebensm.
DOI 10.1007/s00003-015-0949-5
Hygienic aspects of using wooden and
plastic cutting boards, assessed in
laboratory and small gastronomy units
Friedrich-Karl Lücke & Agnieszka
Skowyrska

1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Bundesamt für
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
(BVL). This e-offprint is for personal use only
and shall not be self-archived in electronic
repositories. If you wish to self-archive your
article, please use the accepted manuscript
version for posting on your own website. You
may further deposit the accepted manuscript
version in any repository, provided it is only
made publicly available 12 months after
official publication or later and provided
acknowledgement is given to the original
source of publication and a link is inserted
to the published article on Springer's
website. The link must be accompanied by
the following text: "The final publication is
available at link.springer.com”.

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Hygienic aspects of using wooden and plastic cutting boards,
assessed in laboratory and small gastronomy units
Friedrich-Karl Lu¨cke
1
•
Agnieszka Skowyrska
1
Received: 18 March 2015 / Accepted: 9 June 2015
Ó Bundesamt fu¨r Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (BVL) 2015
Abstract There is a long-term controversy on the
safet y of using hardwood cutting boards in food
preparation. This study was designed to compare
three types of cut ting boards (maple, beech wood,
polyethylene) in the laboratory and in a small gas-
tronomic unit. Samples for microbiological analysis
were collected by a swabbing method from the
boards’ surfaces that had been contaminated with a
defined meat–egg-mixture and subsequently cleaned
according to manufacturers’ instruc tions. Our study
did not show significant differences between the
microbiological status of the thre e types of cutting
boards tested, all of them being overall acceptable.
Use of the maple board in a small gastronomic unit
for 2 months did not result in problems in
cleanability.
Keywords Cutting boards  Wood  Plastic 
Hygiene  Cross-contamination
1 Introduction
Nowadays, cutting boards for food processing are
available in a variety of materials such as: different
types of woods, bamboo, polymers, glass, stainless
steel etc. However, until the early 1970s, wood was
the predominating material (Ak et al. 1994).
Cross-contamination of foods with foodborne
pathogenic bacteria is a major cause for foodborne
diseases. Van Asselt et al. (2008) emphasized that
cross-contamination of food at home was an impor-
tant factor, and suggested it could be included in
microbiological risk assessments (MRAs) performed
for the whole food supply chain.
The present regu lations and standards on cutting
boards are mainly based on the assumption that
wooden cutting boards are difficult to clean. Annex II
Chapter V No. 1 (b) of Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004
(European Community 2004) indicates that ‘‘all arti-
cles, fittings and equipment with which food comes
into contact are to (a) be effectively cleaned and,
where necessary, disinfected. Cleaning and disinfec-
tion are to take place at a frequency sufficient to
avoid any risk of contamination; (b) be so con-
structed, be of such materials and be kept in such
good order, repair and condition as to minimize any
risk of contamination’’. Acco rding to Annex 1.1 of the
German ‘‘General Procedural Regulation on Food
Hygiene’’ (AVV Lebensmittelhygiene 2009), the risk of
contamination is normally not minimized if wooden
equipment is used for purposes other than chopping
blocks, smoking and ripening rooms and pallets to be
used for transportation of packaged food.
Sector-specific guidelines, including various Guides
to Good Hygienic Practice notified according to
Directive (EC) No. 93/43 (European Community 1993)
and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 (European Com-
munity 2004), describe the properties of food contact
materials. Generally, they should be smooth, free of
grooves and cracks, easy to be cleaned and, where
appropriate, to be disinfected. Some Guides also pro-
vide recommendations on the material of the items.
& Friedrich-Karl Lu¨cke
friedrich-karl.luecke@he.hs-fulda.de
1
Department of Nutritional, Food and Consumer
Sciences (OE), Fulda University of Applied Sciences,
Leipziger Straße 123, 36037 Fulda, Germany
J. Verbr. Lebensm.
DOI 10.1007/s00003-015-0949-5
Journal fu
¨
r Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit
Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety
123
Author's personal copy

For the present study, guides prepared for gas-
tronomy and catering units are relevant. The Guide
to Good Hygienic Practice prepared by the DEHOGA
(2006) for gastronomy does not specify the material
for food contact items. In the 2010 version of the
Guide to Good Hygienic Practice in small movable
and/or temporary premises, published by the Berufs-
genossenschaft Nah rungsmittel und Gaststa
¨
tten
(2010), it is stated that ‘‘tools and contact surfaces
made from wood, as well as cutting boards from
plastic, must be clean and must have a smooth sur-
face without grooves. They must be kept in good
conditions. For many purposes, wood surfaces are
not appropriate, due to their porous surface. In
exceptional cases, for technological reasons, wooden
tools and surfaces are used, e.g. for rolling out
doughs for baked goods, and for chopping blocks in
meat processing. This requires higher efforts for
cleaning’’. According to the Guide to Good Hygienic
Practice for catering units (Deutscher Caritasverband
und Diakonie 2009), furnishing in large kitchens
should not be made from wood while for tools
including cutting boar ds, it is only stated that they
should not consist of soft wood or soft plastics.
On the other hand, Ak et al. (1994) pointed out that
there is poor evidence that the restrictions of use of
wooden cutting boards in food processing industr y
and in gastronomy is justified by hygienic argu-
ments. In their experiments, the recovery of bacteria
from the surface of experimentally inoculated woo-
den blocks was much lower than from plastic boards,
indicating that bacteria are absorbed and sucked into
the wood. This study triggered various other studies
on the fate of bacterial contaminants on cutting
boards. Ro¨del et al. (1994) could recover inoculated
bacteria from samples retrieved from the upper
0.25 mm layer of wooden cutting boards, especially
after the bacteria had been inoculated together with
bovine serum albumin. However, Bours illon and
Riethmu¨ller (2007) did not observe differences
between beechwood and polyethylene boards with
respect to remobilization of bacteria, and Cliver
(2006) stressed that re-transfer of bacteria from the
interior of the wood to food via knives has not been
demonstrated yet. Wood constituents, especially
those from pine, may also play a role in inactivating
adsorbed bacteria (Milling et al. 2005). Gehrig et al.
(2000) reported that bacteria may grow on cutting
boards while wet, and that wooden boards with
porous surface dry faster. Moreover, they found that
surface scars on used wooden boards did not affect
this process while scars in plastic boards delay drying
considerably.
Taken together, there is still controversy on the
hygiene of using wooden cutting boards but reviews
on this problem (Carpentier 1997; Lauzon 1998; Cliver
2006; Stingl and Domig 2008) and various other
recent studies (e.g. Prechter et al. 2002; Milling et al.
2005; Boursillon and Riethmu¨ller 2007) concluded
that there is no evidence for the superiority of plastic
cutting boards.
In the USA, it is permitted to use hardwood cut ting
surfaces in commercial food preparation provided
the surface material had been certified by the
National Sanitation Foundation (NSF). This is why we
included in our study a cutting board made from
NSF-certified North American hard maple. We also
tested this board in a real gastronomy environment
where boards are used continuously and accumulate
cuttings. In laboratory experiments (sporadic, gentle
and careful usage with no surface dama ge), we also
compared the maple board with one board from
beech and one board from polyethylene under
hygienic aspects. For this, we assessed the microbial
contamination by enumerating total aerobic meso-
philic microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae on
cutting boards after artificial contamination and
common cleaning procedures.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Cutting boards used
For the purpose of this study, we used three types of
cutting boards, namely, made from hard North
American maple certified in the USA by National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) (manufacturer: John
Boos & Co.; Brand: Boos Blocks
Ò
), beech wood, as
commonly used in homes (manufacturer: Roesle),
and polyethylene hard plastic widespread in the food
industry (manufacturer: Dick). All boards were new
and hand-washed before the first use. To maintain
the surface quality and a good cutting performance,
the instructions provided by the producer of the
maple board were followed: the board was oiled with
special mineral oil (BoosBlocks
Ò
Mystery Oil) before
the first use and af ter the third round of the labora-
tor y experiments, and after 3 weeks of use in the
bistro unit, respectively.
Different cleaning conditions were applied for
plastic and wooden cutting boards. The plastic board
was placed in an industrial dishwasher (Winterhalter
UC-L) using standard detergent (Winterhalter F 8400)
and conditions (washing temperature of 60 °C for
2 min, followed by rinsing at 85 °C), then wiped with
F.-K. Lu¨cke, A. Skowyrska
123
Author's personal copy

clean clo th and left to dry for 30 min. Wooden
boards were hand washed under warm tap water
with commercially available washing liquid (Palmo-
live
Ò
) and by using a soft cloth. After that they were
wiped with clean cloth and air dried for 30 min.
2.2 Method of artificial contamination
As a contaminant used in the laboratory experi-
ments, a food mixture, based to some extent on food
items used for testing of cleaning performance of
household used dishwashers, as specified in the
standard DIN EN 50242/EN 60436 (2008), was pre-
pared as follows: Minced meat was purchased in a
local supe rmarket, transported to the laboratory
kitchen and left at room temperature for 12 h (in
order to stimulate microbial growth). Then, 75 g of
minced beef and 75 g of minced pork were mixed
with the contents (albumen and yolk) of a me dium-
size egg (50 g). The resulting mixture had a pH of 5.8.
20 g of the mixture were then removed for micro-
biological analysis, homogenized in 180 ml of 0.85 %
sodium chloride solution containing 0.1 % tryptone.
Appropriate dilutions were then spread on Plate
Count Agar (PCA; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt) and Violet
Red Bile Glucose Agar (VRBG; Merck KGaA, Darm-
stadt), for the enumeration of aerobic mesophilic
microorganisms and Enterobacteriaceae, respectively,
and incubated at 30 °C for 2 days. In the contami-
nant mixture, Pseudomonas spp. were also
enumerated, using Cetrimid Fucidin Cep haloridin
Agar (CFC; Oxoid No. CM 0559). For the subsequent
contamination experiments, the remaining mixture
was rapidly frozen and stored at -21 °C.
2.3 Design of the study
The experiments were designed in a way to simulate
normal usage conditions of cutting boards at home
and in small gastronomic units. In addition, b oards
were tested in a laborator y setting where they a re
no cuts wi th knives. The first par t of the study was
performed in a laboratory kitchen at Fulda Univer-
sity of Applied Sciences, and the second one took
place in a bistro-type unit which provides meals for
company workers and thus served as a model for
conditions in small g astronomy units and in private
households.
In the first part of the study, all three cutting
boards (maple, beech and plastic) were examined in
five repeated experiments. For each repetition, the
frozen food mixture (prepared as described in Sect.
2.2) was thawed in cold water for about 30 min. 30 g
of the mixture were then mixed with 8 ml of cold tap
water, applied to the boards and left for 10 min. In
the meantime, the un-inoculated part of the board
was swabbed. After the food mixture had been
removed from the boards, they were left for 2 h at
room temperature. Subsequently, the contaminated
area was swabbed. Then, boards were washed as
specified above, wiped with clean cloth and left to
dry for 30 min. The last two samples were then taken
by swabbing the un-inoculated (control) areas and
contaminated areas of the boards, respectively.
In the second part of the study, only the maple
board was used. It was washed and oil treated simi-
larly as the other wooden boards in the first part of
the study before star ting the experiment s. It was left
with a small gastronomy unit (company bistro) for
2 months. During this time the board was used once
ever y working day for about 1.5 h for preparation of
sandwiches (cutting fresh vegetables, bread and rolls,
breakfast meat products and cheeses) and cleaned
manually after use. Samples were taken three times
(after the 2nd, 5th and 8th week of use). At each
sampling day, the first swab was taken after the
preparation of the last sandwiches and the second
swab after cleaning. After 2 months of use in the
bistro, the board was transported to the laboratory
kitchen. There, it was artificially contaminated,
washed and sampled in the same way as in the first
part of our stud y, in order to find out differences
between the maple board used in the laboratory
kitchen (no cut ting on the board and no damage to
the surface) and the one used in the small gastro-
nomic unit (frequently used and with visible grooves
on the surface).
2.4 Sample coding, collection and analysis
of samples
Samples were removed by swabbing from the surface
of 20 cm
2
and placing the swabs in 5 ml 0.85 % saline
solution. Subsequently, this dilution was inoculated
on: Plate Cou nt Agar (PCA, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt)
and Crystal violet Neutral Red Bile Glucose Agar
(VRBG, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt), incubated aerobi-
cally for 48 h at 30 °C, in order to obtain CFU/cm
2
of
aerobic mesophilic microorganisms and Enterobac-
teriaceae, respectively. The results were calculated
according to standard DIN 10113-1 (1998). The detec-
tion limit was 2.5 CFU/cm
2
(50 CFU/sample).
Hygienic aspects of wooden and plastic cutting boards
123
Author's personal copy

3 Results and discussion
Samples from new cutting boards without grooves,
obtained in the laboratory kitchen before cleaning,
had mean counts of aerobic mesophilic microor-
ganisms of 7.5, 23.5 and 41 CFU/cm
2
for maple, beech
and plastic boards, respectively. No Enterobacteria-
ceae were detected. The meat-egg mixture used for
contamination of the boards contained 1.7 9 10
7
,
7.7 9 10
3
and 4.5 9 10
6
/g of mesophilic aerobes, En-
terobacteriaceae, and Pseudomonas spp., respectively.
Samples obtained from the boards after artificial
contamination had 327 CFU/cm
2
(maple board) and
more than 500 CFU/cm
2
(beech and plastic board).
Enterobacteriaceae were found on only 4 of 12 samples
tested, with counts not exceeding 45 CFU/cm
2
. The
data are summarized in Table 1.
After cleaning, no Enterobacteriaceae were detec-
ted in any sample. Moreover, 23 of 30 samples had
less than 2.5 CFU/cm
2
of aerobic mesophilic
microorganisms, irrespective of previous contami-
nation. Of the remaining 7 samples having counts
between 2.5 and a maximum of 32.5 CFU/cm
2
, 3 were
obtained from the beech wood board, and 2 each
from the maple and plastic board.
Results from experiments performed in a small
gastronomic unit using the maple cutting board are
compiled in Table 1, too. Samples were collected
three times from the board before and after the
cleaning procedure. The results obtained after 2 and
5 weeks of use did not differ significantly from those
obtained after 8 weeks of use and were not included
into Table 1. Cleaning of the board gave reduction of
aerobic mesophilic microorganisms to 5 CFU/cm
2
or
below. All samples collected had \2.5 CFU/cm
2
of
Enterobacteriaceae.
The final part of the study was performed in the
laboratory kitchen with use of all three types of cut-
ting boards (maple, beech and plasti c) as well as and
the maple board used previously in the bistro in
Experiment 2). This trial was conducted according to
the procedure in Experiment 1. Important difference
between maple board from Experiment 1 and the
maple board used for 2 mont hs in bistro was the
presence of small grooves from knife cut s on the
surface of the bistro board. Bacterial counts on the
boards used in the laboratory kitchen were similar to
those obtained in the first experiment and therefore
included in Table 1. Only the aerobic mesophilic
count on one plastic board after cleaning (32.5 CFU/
cm
2
) was classified as unacceptable. Count s on all
wooden boards after applying the cleaning proce-
dure can be qualified as acceptable. The maple board
used in the bi stro for 8 weeks contained more than
500 aerobic mesophilic bacteria before and no
detectable bacteria (\2.5/cm
2
) after cleaning.
Table 1 Counts of microorganisms on cutting boards before and after cleaning
Inoculated Status cleaning Type of the board Samples with aerobic
mesophilic count/cm
2
Samples with
Enterobacteriaceae/cm
2
\2.5 2.5–24 25–249 [250 \2.5 2.5–24 25–250
No (control) Before Maple (used in laboratory) 4 1 1 0 6 0 0
Maple (used in bistro) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Beech 2 4 0 0 6 0 0
Plastic 1 4 1 0 6 0 0
After Maple (used in laboratory) 5 0 1 (32.5) 0 6 0 0
Maple (used in bistro) 1 0 0 0 1 0 0
Beech 4 2 (12.5; 2.5) 0 0 6 0 0
Plastic 5 0 1 (37.5) 0 6 0 0
Yes Before Maple (used in laboratory) 0 0 2 4 5 1 0
Maple (used in bistro) 0 0 0 4 4 0 0
Beech 0 0 0 6 2 0 4
Plastic 0 0 0 6 1 2 3
After Maple (used in laboratory) 5 1 (7.5) 0 0 6 0 0
Maple (used in bistro) 2 2 (5; 2.5) 0 0 4 0 0
Beech 5 1 (2.5) 0 0 6 0 0
Plastic 3 2 (2.5; 2.5) 1 (32.5) 0 6 0 0
Counts above 2.5 CFU/cm
2
on cleaned boards are given in brackets
F.-K. Lu¨cke, A. Skowyrska
123
Author's personal copy

Similar results were reported by Miller et al. (1996)
who found no significant differences in bacterial
loads on plastic and hardwood cutting boards after
contamination with ground beef and subsequent
cleaning.
Kleiner and Lampe (2014) also compared the Boos
Blocks
Ò
maple cutting board with a polyethylene
board, by cutting chicken or salad on them and
manually cleaning them. In ter ms of hygiene, they
found the oil-treated maple board equal or superior
to the polyethylene board, even after various use and
cleaning cycles over 4 weeks, with ever increasing
numbers of scrat ches on the boards. The lowest
counts after cleaning were obtained from a maple
board not treated with oil. Apparently, the contami-
nant liquid was sucked into this board, and bacterial
contaminants may also have been inactivated by
wood constituents.
In the studies performed by Cools et al . (2005)
and Moore et al. (2007), the inactivation of
microorganisms (Campylobacter jejuni and Sal-
monella Typhimurium, respectively) on the surfaces
studied (including beech wood, polypropylene,
stainless steel and Formica) over time was measured.
In both studies, there was a significant reduction of
recovered microorga nisms with time from all tested
surfaces. Cools et al. (2005) did not observe signifi-
cant differences between materials while Moore
et al. (2007) found a much faster inactivation on
wood.
The authors studying the recovery of microor-
ganisms from common food contact surfaces,
especially in home kitchens, uniformly highlight the
need for proper cleaning and disinfection of used
utensils (especially cutting boards) in order to mini-
mize the cross-contamination effect. Repeated
cleaning of wooden boards in the dishwasher under
harsh conditions resulted in cracks sufficiently large
to entrap bacteria, and in adsorption of organic
matter and bacteria (Welker et al. 1997), and should
be avoided.
There are no legal standards on acceptable
microbial counts on food contact surfaces, and it
makes lit tle sense to introduce them (see e.g. ICMSF
2002). However, the repealed Decision 2001/417 by
the European Commission (European Community
2001) stated that on surfaces which are cleaned, dry
and smooth, and which have contact with meat or
poultry in slaughter houses or cutting rooms, total
viable counts below 10 CFU/cm
2
and of Enterobacte-
riaceae below 1 CFU/cm
2
are acceptable. Hence, we
conclude that on cleaned boards, the counts
observed and listed in Table 1 are acceptable.
4 Conclusions
The experiments performed both in the laboratory
kitchen (with three different cutting boards) and in
the bistro (with maple board) showed no significant
differences in microbiological counts on wooden and
plastic cutting boards after proper cleaning. The
overall hygienic status of the examined boards was
good and classified as acceptable. We found no evi-
dence for an increased microbiological risk when
properly maintained wooden cutting boards are used
at home or in gastronomic units. Nevertheless,
cleaning procedures (hand wash vs. use of dish-
washer) should be always adjusted according to the
material of the boards. Hence, the instructions of the
manufacturers on cleaning and maintenance should
be followed, to ensure optimal performance and
safet y of the food preparation.
Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Margit
Ochs and Viktoria Fritz for their technical support and overall
contribution. The study was supported by Fo¨rdergesellschaft
der Heiz- und Kochgera
¨
te-Industrie mbH, Frankfurt/M.
References
Ak NO, Cliver DO, Kaspar CW (1994) Cutting boards of plastic
and wood contaminated experimentally with bacteria.
J Food Prot 57:16–22
AVV Lebensmittelhygiene (2009) Allgemeine Verwal-
tungsvorschrift u¨ber die Durchfu¨hrung der amtlichen
U
¨
berwachung der Einhaltung von Hygienevorschriften
fu¨r Lebensmittel tierischen Ursprungs und zum Verfahren
zur Pru¨fung von Leitlinien fu¨r eine gute Verfahrenspraxis.
Bundesanzeiger Nr. 178a
Berufsgenossenschaft Nahrungsmittel und Gaststa
¨
tten (2010)
Leitlinie fu¨r eine Gute Lebensmittelhygienepraxis in
ortsvera
¨
nderlichen Betriebssta
¨
tten, Mannheim. Available
from http://www.bgn.de/files/9427/24497/currentVersion/
wcoi4f0d64496752a.pdf. Last accessed 5 March 2015
Boursillon B, Riethmu¨ller V (2007) The safety of wooden
cutting boards. Br Food J 109:315–322
Carpentier B (1997) Sanitary quality of meat chopping board
surfaces: a bibliographical study. Food Microb 14:31–37
Cliver DO (2006) Cutting boards in Salmonella cross-contami-
nation. J AOAC Int 89:538–542
Cools I, Uyttendaele M, Cerpentier J, D’Haese E, Nelis HJ,
Debevere J (2005) Persistance of Campylobacter jejuni on
surfaces in a processing environment and on cutting
boards. Lett Appl Microbiol 40:418–423
DEHOGA (Deutscher Hotel- und Gaststa
¨
ttenverband e. V.)
(2006) Leitlinie fu¨r eine Gute Hygienepraxis in der
Gastronomie, Berlin
Deutscher Caritasverband e. V, Diakonisches Werk der Evan-
gelischen Kirche in Deutschland e. V. (2009) Leitlinie fu¨r
eine gute Lebensmittelhygienepraxis in sozialen Einrich-
tungen, Lambertus Verlag, Freiburg
DIN 10113-1 (1998) Untersuchung von Bedarfsgegensta
¨
nden—Bes-
timmung des Oberfla
¨
chenkeimgehaltes auf Einrichtungs-
Hygienic aspects of wooden and plastic cutting boards
123
Author's personal copy

und Bedarfsgegensta
¨
nden im Lebensmi ttelbere ich—Teil 1:
Quantitatives Tupferverfahren. Deutsches Institut fu¨r Nor-
mung, Berlin. Beuth-V erlag Berlin
DIN EN 50242/EN 60436 (2008) Elektrische Geschirrspu¨ler fu¨r
den Hausgebrauch—Messverfahren fu¨r Gebrauchseigen-
schaften. Deutsches Institut fu¨r Normung, Berlin. Beuth-
Verlag Berlin
European Community (1993) Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14
June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Official Journal L
175, 19/07/1993 P. 0001—0011. Repealed by Regulation (EC)
No 852/2004
European Community (2001) (repealed) Commission Decision
2001/471/EC of 8 June 2001 laying down rules for the
regular checks on the general hygiene carried out by the
operators in establishment s according to Directive 64/433/
EEC on health conditions for the production and market-
ing of fresh meat and Directive 71/118/EEC on health
problems affecting the production and placing on the
market of fresh poultry meat. Official Journal L 165, 21/06/
2001, pp 0048–0053
European Community (2004) Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of
the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April 2004
on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Official Journal L 139 of 30
April 2004
Gehrig M, Schnell G, Zu¨rcher E, Kucera LJ (2000) Hygienic
aspects of wood and polyethylen cutting boards regarding
food contaminations: a comparison. Holz Roh Werkst
58:265–269
ICMSF (International Commission for Microbiological Specifi-
cations for Foods) (2002) Sampling to assess control of the
environment. Chapter 11 in ICMSF: microorganisms in
Foods 7—Microbiological testing in food safety manage-
ment, Springer New York, pp 199–224
Kleiner U, Lampe U (2014) Vergleichsuntersuchungen zum
Hygienestatus von Holz- und Kunststoffschneidbrettern im
Labormodell. Rundsch f Fleischhygiene und Lebensmit-
telu¨ber wach 66:319–324
Lauzon HL (1998) Wood in the food industry: Literature review: the
suitability of materials used in the food industry , involving
direct or indirect contact with food products. Project P 98131
Nordic Wood 2 ‘‘Wood in the Food Industry’’. Nordisk
Industrifonds, Stockholm. Available from http://www.
svenska-forpackningsforeningen.se/wood-food/reports/.Last
accessed 5 March 2015
Miller AJ, Brown T, Call JE (1996) Comparison of wooden and
polyethylene cutting boards: potential for the attachment
and removal of bacteria from ground beef. J Food Protect
59:854–858
Milling A, Kehr R, Wulf A, Smalla K (2005) The use of wood in
practice—a hygienic risk? Holz Roh Werkst 63:463–472
Moore G, Blair IS, McDowell D (2007) Recovery and transfer of
Salmonella Typhimurium from four different domestic food
contact surfaces. J Food Prot 70:2273–2280
Prechter S, Betz M, Cerny G, Wegener G, Windeisen E (2002)
Hygienische Aspekte von Schneidebrettern aus Holz bzw
Kunststoff. Holz Roh Werkst 60:239–248
Ro¨del W, Hechelmann H, Dresel J (1994) Hygieneaspekte zu
Schneidunterlagen aus Holz und Kunststoff. Fleisch-
Wirtsch 74:814–821
Stingl R, Domig K (2008) Holz und Hygiene. Institut fu¨r Holz-
forschung am Department fu¨r Materialwissensc haften und
Prozesstech nik an der Universita
¨
tfu¨r Bodenkultur Wien.
Available from http://www .svenska-forpackningsforeningen.
se/wood-food/reports/. Last accessed 5 March 2015
van Asselt ED, de Jong AEI, de Jonge R, Nauta MJ (2008) Cross-
contamination in the kitchen: estimation of transfer rates
for cutting boards, hands and knives. J Appl Microbiol
105:1392–1401
Welker C, Faiola N, Davis S, Maffatore I, Batt CA (1997) Bacterial
retention and cleanability of plastic and wood cutting
boards with commercial food service maintenance prac-
tices. J Food Protect 60:407–413
F.-K. Lu¨cke, A. Skowyrska
123
Author's personal copy