Romanian Journal of Food Science

EDITURA ACADEMIEI ROMNE

http://www.ear.ro

Official Journal of the Romanian Association

of Food Professionals
http://www.asiar.ro

AISI 430 stainless steel behaviour at different disinfectants

Mihaela BRUM 1,*, Maricica STOICA 1, Geta CRC 2 and Petru ALEXE 1
1

Biochemistry and Technologies Dept., Faculty of Food Science and Engineering, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati,
111 Domneasca St., 800201 Galati, Romania
2
Chemistry Dept., Faculty of Sciences, Dunarea de Jos University of Galati, 111 Domneasca St., 800201 Galati, Romania
Received 1 October 2010; received in revised form 7 November 2010; accepted 8 November 2010

Abstract
The samples of AISI 430 stainless steel were exposed to various disinfectant solutions and then examined by
scanning electron microscopy. The chemical processes that take place on stainless steel surfaces during disinfection,
were put into evidence by measuring the pH of the working biocide solutions after their contact with stainless steel
samples. The 430 stainless steel was chosen due to the fact that it is used for public food kitchens and
catering/gastronomy industry, as well as for food processing industry. The action of three commercial disinfectants
was studied: Actisept (with active chlorine as active substance), Anasept (mixture of hexamethylenediamine,
polyhexamethylene biguanide and quaternary ammonium compounds) and Oxonia Active (mixture of peroxyacetic
acid with hydrogen peroxide). Microscopic analysis demonstrated that disinfectants induced structure modifications
of 430 stainless steel surfaces. It was concluded that the 430 stainless steel metallic surfaces are affected during the
sanitization process and the damages depend on the nature of the disinfectants.
Keywords: stainless steel, disinfection, chlorine, hydrogen peroxide, quaternary ammonium compounds, food safety,
pH, scanning electron microscopy.

1. Introduction
To achieve safety on regard of disease agents and
to ensure shelf-life are the central concerns of
hygiene of every food processing factory.
Disinfection plays a major role in successful food
processing and it is an essential step in preventing
food contamination with pathogenic and spoilage
microorganisms (Gram et al., 2007). A disinfection
protocol usually ends with the elimination of the
disinfectant traces by rinsing, but there are authors
that consider the disinfectant application being the
last step of a disinfection protocol and rinsing with
water not necessary (Burfoot and Middleton, 2009).

* Corresponding author:
E-mail address: calin.mihaela-gl@ansvsa.ro

Furthermore, some biocide producers support the

idea that as long as the remaining disinfectant in the
processing food lines does not exceed the legal
limits (Leveau and Bouix, 1999), it does not
represent a chemical risk for the consumers health
and it may reduce the general food contamination. In
other words, the remaining disinfectant serves as a
sentinel against microorganisms. However, the
residual disinfectant can potentially lead to a
significant degradation of equipments materials via
corrosion that, in turn, can increase the adhering of
soil (Masurovsky and Jordan, 1958; Holah and
Thorpe, 1990; Leclerq-Perlat and Lalande, 1994)
and affects the surface cleaning ability. The exposure
time and pH are the most important factors affecting
the activity and efficiency of the sanitizing agents
and cleaning ability, also. Austenitic stainless steels
are traditionally used for industrial applications.
39

Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944

Food Safety

Mihaela BRUM, Maricica STOICA, Geta CRC and Petru ALEXE

However, they have been progressively replaced

by ferritic stainless steels at lower cost, due to the
absence of nickel (Sabioni et al., 2003). AISI 430, a
ferritic stainless steel, is used for cutlery, kitchen
sinks and catering/gastronomy industry, as well as
for food processing industry (Foged et al., 2005),
due to material advantages, such as: economic,
aesthetic quality and low thermal expansion
coefficient (ISSF, 2007). The aim of this work is to
investigate the manner in which the surfaces of the
AISI 430 stainless steel are affected during the
sanitization process. Using scanning electron
microscopy technique allows evaluating the
influence of the residual disinfectants on metallic
surfaces.

Finally, the pH electrode was dipped in the

medium to measure the pH. To study the
disinfectants influence on the stainless steel surfaces,
there were placed the coupons of stainless steels, in
glass cylinders with fresh disinfectant solutions at
room temperature. Each glass cylinder was covered
by acrylic plate with hole. The pH measurements of
the disinfectants solution was tested in time using
the WTW INOLAB 720 pH-meter, to evaluate the
influence of the environment pH on stainless steel
surface. After disinfectants action, the modifications
of stainless steel surfaces were performed by
scanning electron microscope (Ishak et al., 2008;
Stoica et al., 2008) using a Quanta 200 (Philips)
with high magnification, in 20 fields with area of
40 m2 for each sample.

2. Materials and methods

3. Results and discussion
2.1. Samples characterization and pre-treatment
procedures
Tests were performed using AISI 430 ferritic
stainless steel. The stainless steel was supplied by
Duramet (Bacu-Romania). The chemical analysis
of the coupons was performed using the optical
emission spectral analysis technique on Spectromax
equipment (SPECTRO Analytical Instruments Gmb
H & co. KG, Germany). All stainless steel samples
were chemically cleaned and washed in distilled
water before testing (Boulang-Petermann, 1997;
Compre and al., 2001; Stoica et al., 2009, 2010).
2.2. Disinfectants
The disinfectants used in this study included
Actisept (140 ppm active chlorine, 10 min. time
action; Medicarom, UK), Anasept (0.5% in solution
of mixture of hexamethylenediamine, polyhexamethylene biguanide and quaternary ammonium
compounds; Rouasan, Romania) and Oxonia Active
(0.2% in solution of 5.8% peroxyacetic acid with
27.5% hydrogen peroxide, 30 min. time action;
Ecolab Inc., St. Paul, MN). Fresh working solutions
of each biocide were prepared by dilution in distilled
water.
2.3. Experimental set-up
The pH measurement of the corrosive environment was taken throughout the period of the experiments: initially, at 10 min, 30 min, 60 min and
finally to 480 min. Prior to using the pH, the
pH-meter was standardized by immersing firstly the
electrode in distilled water and then adjusting the
meter to pH of 7 at room temperature. The distilled
water was then wiped of the electrode with a tissue
paper.

Every production process in the food industry

requires different disinfectants that vary depending
on equipment and food product type. In the
disinfection process, pH plays a critical role in the
reduction and inactivation of fungal cells.
3.1. The pH variations of the disinfectant solutions
The pH variations of the disinfectant solutions
are presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1 shows the variations of pH of different
disinfectant solutions with AISI 430 stainless steel
tested. In general, variations of 0.5 units of pH
indicate a constant behaviour of the system studied
(Queiroz et al., 2007). As a rule, for Actisept the pH
of the biocide working solution was practically
constant, varying less than 0.5 in time (Figure 1,
series 1), but a less continuous pH increase was
observed from 5.70 to 5.99 units up to 480 minutes.
In the case of Anasept disinfectant, the pH of
solutions was practically constant, but after 480
minutes it was observed an 0.78 units increase
(Figure 1, series 2). For the Oxonia Active, the pH
was practically constant, varying less than 0.5 in
time (Figure 1, series 3). Modifications of pH could
be explained by a balance of reactions, which means
a consumption of H+ from the solution. Better pH
stability on the stainless steel interface at Actisept
and Oxonia Active, was observed. Instability of pH
in Anasept was observed up to 480 minutes. The
stability of pH was in following order: Oxonia
Active > Actisept > Anasept. These results show that
disinfectant solutions in generally are stable for their
action time up to 480 minutes indicated by the
suppliers.

40
Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944

Food Safety

AISI 430 stainless steel behaviour at different disinfectants

Figure 1. Variation of pH values against time in different disinfectant solutions:

Actisept (series 1), Anasept (series 2), Oxonia Active (series 3) with AISI 430 stainless steel.

The biocide solutions studied presented different

behaviours and pH, depending on the type and the
contact time. These characteristics should be
considered when choosing the disinfectants useful
for metallic surfaces disinfection to keep the safety
food.
3.2. Aspects of surfaces morphology
Materials that present surface changes due the
chemical disinfection will remain more hygienic
than materials which are more easily damaged on a
microscopically scale that would therefore be less
cleanable. It is widely accepted in literature that
disinfectant residuals increase the materials
corrosion (Pisigan and Singley, 1987). Each
stainless steel samples were studied by scanning
electron microscopy with high magnification.

The micrographs are presented in the Figures

25. Figure 2 presents the metallic surfaces without
disinfectant treatments.
The image on the stainless steel surface without
disinfectant treatments (Figure 2) shown grit lines
from initial surface preparation and pitting are not
observed.
3.3. Actisept effects
AISI 430 stainless steel samples were studied by
scanning
electron
microscopy
with
high
magnification at 10 min and 480 min, after exposure
to the disinfectant solution, and the results are
presented in Figure 3.
Small areas of pitting can be observed in the
scanning electron micrographs of stainless steel
surface after immersion in Actisept for 10 min
(Figure 3a)
The image of the stainless steel after 480 min of
exposure to the Actisept showing serious and
numerous pitts, may be resulted from oxidation in
the surface layer of the substrate (anodic
dissolution). The chloride ion is not consumed, it
remains in solution and attacks the stainless steel
surface (Figure 3b). Thus, the layers are less
protected in Actisept solution than normal passive
layers.
3.4. Anasept effects

Figure 2. Scanning electron micrograph of AISI 430

stainless steel surfaces without disinfectants.

AISI 430 stainless steel samples were studied by

scanning
electron
microscopy
with
high
magnification, at 60 min. and 480 min., after
exposure to the disinfectant solution, and results are
presented in Figure 4.
41

Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944

Food Safety

Mihaela BRUM, Maricica STOICA, Geta CRC and Petru ALEXE

Figure 3. Scanning electron micrographs of AISI 430 stainless steel surfaces

in Actisept disinfectant at different contact time: 10 min. (a) and 480 min. (b).

Figure 4. Scanning electron micrographs of AISI 430 stainless steel surfaces

in Anasept disinfectant at different contact time: 60 min. (a) and 480 min. (b).

In the Figure 4a, it was not observed any

destruction of the finishing surface for the stainless
steel immersed in Anasept after 60 min., while for
the stainless steel immersed for 480 min. in Anasept
there can be observed little dark spots on the surface,
without any destruction of the finishing surface
(Figure 4b). This disinfectant contains inhibitors of
corrosion; therefore, the layers are protected in
Anasept solution.
3.5. Oxonia Active effects
AISI 430 stainless steel surfaces were studied by
scanning
electron
microscopy
with
high
magnification at 30 min. and 480 min., after
exposure to the biocide solution, and results are
presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5 shows the scanning electron

micrographs of AISI 430 stainless steel surfaces in
Oxonia Active disinfectant at different contact time.
A lower destruction can be observed in the scanning
electron micrographs of stainless steel surface after
immersion in Oxonia Active for 30 min (Figure 5a).
Oxonia Active, as a strong oxidant even at very
small concentrations raises the corrosion potential
and decreases the repassivation potential and leads
to the destruction of the passive films and thus
causes pitting and crevice corrosion (Figure 5b). The
observed uniform corrosion and area localized attack
(cracks) could lead to corrosion-fatigue which is the
result of the combined action of an alternating or
cycling stresses and a corrosive environment.

42
Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944

Food Safety

AISI 430 stainless steel behaviour at different disinfectants

Figure 5. Scanning electron micrographs of AISI 430 stainless steel surfaces

in Oxonia Active disinfectant at different contact time: 30 min.(a) and 480 min.(b).

It causes the rupture of the autoprotective passive

film, upon which corrosion is accelerated. As a
conclusion, this disinfectant produced the most
remarkable surface modification compared with
other tested disinfectants.
4. Conclusions
The samples of the AISI 430 stainless steel were
exposed to various disinfectant solutions and their
behaviour was examined by scanning electron
microscopy and pH measurements.
The action of three commercially disinfectants:
Actisept, Anasept and Oxonia Active was studied.
The microscopic analysis demonstrated that
disinfectants induced structure modifications of AISI
430 stainless steel surfaces, after 8 hours contact
time.
The surface damage morphology is mainly
characterized by finishing modifications of AISI
430, more destruction for the acidic disinfectant
action and less for the neutral disinfectant.

References
Boulang-Petermann. 1997. Effect of cleaning treatment
on surface properties of stainless steel. Pitture Vernici
Eur. 73: 1922.
Burfoot D. & Middleton K. 2009. Effects of operating
conditions of high pressure washing on the removal of
biofilms from stainless steel surfaces. J. Food Eng.
90(1): 350357.
Compre C., Bellon-Fontaine M.N., Bertrand P., Costa
D., Marcus P., Poleunis C., Pradier C.M. & Walls
M.G. 2001. Kinetics of conditioning layer formation
on stainless steel immersed in seawater. Biofouling.
17: 129-145.
Foged, J. N., Folkmar Andersen J., Jepsen E., Lvstad P.,
Melsing E., Napper D., Riis A., Jrgensen C.,
Christiansen P., Ranlv P. & Boye-Mller A.R. 2005.
Guideline no. 4 Stainless steel in the food industry
an introduction. Danish Technological Institute,
version 1.0 Replacing version Ny, p. 26.

It was concluded that the residual disinfectant can

potentially lead to a significant degradation of
equipments materials via corrosion.

Gram L., Bagge-Ravn D., Yin Ng. Y., Gymoese P. &

Fonnesbech Voge B. 2007. Influence of food soiling
matrix on cleaning and disinfection efficiency on
surface attached Listeria monocytogenes. Food
Control, 18: 11651171.

This characteristic could be taken into account when

choosing the disinfectants useful for metallic
surfaces disinfection to keep the safety food.

Holah J.T., Thorpe R.H. 1990. Cleanability in relation to

bacterial retention on unused and abraded domestic
sink materials. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 69(4): 599608.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank to Dr. Alina CANTARAGIU for
the scanning electron microscopy investigation.

Ishak H.M., Misbahul Amin M. & Mohd Nazree D. 2008.

Effect of temperature on corrosion behavior of AISI
304 stainless steel with magnesium carbonate deposit.
137141.
43

Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944

Food Safety

Mihaela BRUM, Maricica STOICA, Geta CRC and Petru ALEXE

Leclerq-Perlat M-N. & Lalande M.1994. Cleanability in
relation to surface chemical composition and surface
finishing of some materials commonly used in food
industries. J. Food Eng. 23: 501517.

Stoica M., Crc G., Cantaragiu A. & Apetrei C. 2010.

Electrochemical study of stainless steel surfaces in
biodegradable biocides. J. Optoelectronics Adv. Mat.
12(4): 919922.

Leveau J.Y. & Bouix M. (coord.) 1999. Nettoyage,

dsinfection et hygine dans les bio-industries.
Lavoisier Tec & Doc. Paris, France. p. 548.

Stoica M., Crc G., Nicolau A. & Tofan C. 2008. The

Attachement of the Fungi on the Stainless Steel
Surface. Chimia Coloizilor i Suprafeelor, p. 139
143.

Masurovsky E.B. & Jordan W.K. 1958. Studies on the

Relative Bacterial Cleanability of Milk-Contact
Surfaces. J. Dairy Sci. 41(10): 13421358.
Pisigan Jr. R.A. & Singley J.E. 1987. Influence of Buffer
Capacity, Chlorine Residual, and Flow Rate on
Corrosion of Mild Steel and Copper. Journal AWWA.
79(2): 6270.
Queiroz G.M., Silva L.F., Lima J.T., Gomes J.A., Sathler
L. 2007. Electrochemical behavior and pH stability of
artificial salivas for corrosion tests. Brazilian Oral
Res. 21(3): 20915.
Sabioni A.C.S., Huntz A.M., Luz E.C., Mantel M. & Haut
C. 2003. Comparative Study of High Temperature
Oxidation Behavior in AISI 304 and AISI 439
Stainless Steels. Mat. Res. 6(2): 179185.

Stoica M., Crc G., Tofan C., Constantin O.E. & Enache
G. 2009. Effect of fungal suspensions in NaDCC
disinfectant on the corrosion behaviour AISI 304
stainless steel. J. Agroalim. Processes Technol. 15(4):
543546.
* * * ISSF (International Stainless Steel Forum).
Commercial Food Equipment / The ferritic solution /
Ferritic Stainles Steel Applications, p. 20.
* * * ISSF (International Stainless Steel Forum). 2007.
The ferritic solution / Properties-AdvantagesAplications / the essential guide to ferritic stainless
steel. p. 68.

Abbreviations
AISI American Iron and Steel Institute

44
Romanian Journal of Food Science 2011, 1(1): 3944