2

I have unfortunately just skimmed through the recent open access paper Microbiome analysis and confocal microscopy of used kitchen sponges reveal massive colonization by Acinetobacter, Moraxella and Chryseobacterium species (M. Cardinale et al. Scientific Reports 7, Article number: 5791 (2017) doi:10.1038/s41598-017-06055-9)

It reports an extensive analysis of a group of kitchen sponge specimines. From the abstract:

Two of the ten dominant OTUs, closely related to the RG2-species Chryseobacterium hominis and Moraxella osloensis, showed significantly greater proportions in regularly sanitized sponges, thereby questioning such sanitation methods in a long term perspective. FISH–CLSM showed an ubiquitous distribution of bacteria within the sponge tissue, concentrating in internal cavities and on sponge surfaces, where biofilm–like structures occurred. Image analysis showed local densities of up to 5.4 * 1010 cells per cm3, and confirmed the dominance of Gammaproteobacteria. Our study stresses and visualizes the role of kitchen sponges as microbiological hot spots in the BE, with the capability to collect and spread bacteria with a probable pathogenic potential. (emphasis added)

A quick take-home message from the paper is that typical efforts to try to re-sanitize used sponges may only shift the sponges bacterial population toward a more potentially pathogenic population, and that it is probably a better idea to simply dispose of the sponge perhaps weekly and get a fresh one instead of microwaving it.

There's a nice write-up in the NYTimes science section, Cleaning a Dirty Sponge Only Helps Its Worst Bacteria, Study Says:

Stop. Drop the sponge and step away from the microwave.

That squishy cleaning apparatus is a microscopic universe, teeming with countless bacteria. Some people may think that microwaving a sponge kills its tiny residents, but they are only partly right. It may nuke the weak ones, but the strongest, smelliest and potentially pathogenic bacteria will survive.

Then, they will reproduce and occupy the vacant real estate of the dead. And your sponge will just be stinkier and nastier and you may come to regret having not just tossed it, suggests a study published last month in Scientific Reports.

Personally I've always hated the whole concept of kitchen sponges and now feel vindicated. Isn't something that can trap biomatter (bacteria, food particles) and keep it moist for extended periods of time the antithesis of what you would want to clean your dishes with?

Question: Aren't sponges simply a bad idea for washing dishes in the first place?

I'm not looking for opinion, rather I'm asking about policy and practice. Since what we do in the privacy of our own kitchen sink is our own, I'd like to ask if kitchen sponges are generally approved for use in restaurants or institutional food preparation settings? Do they have sterilization protocols? Does this paper speak to those?


Background:

enter image description here

above: "(A) Kitchen sponges, due to their porous nature (evident under the binocular; (B)) and water-soaking capacity, represent ideal incubators for microorganisms. Scale bar (B): 1 mm. (C) Pie charts showing the taxonomic composition of the bacterial kitchen sponge microbiome, as delivered by pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene libraries of 28 sponge samples (top and bottom samples of 14 sponges, respectively). For better readability, only the 20 most abundant orders and families are listed." From here.

enter image description here

above: "Neighbor-joining phylogenetic tree of the ten most abundant OTUs in the analyzed kitchen sponges, as retrieved by pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicon libraries. The relative abundance (percentage of the total sequence dataset) and the detection frequency (number of sponges where they were detected) are given in parenthesis after the OTU number. The most similar reference sequences retrieved by BLAST and EzTaxon alignment (type strains only) were included in the tree, followed by the corresponding accession numbers. Red circles indicate risk group 2 organisms, according to the German Technical Rule for Biological Agents No. 466 (TRBA 46631). Numbers at the nodes indicate percentage values of 1000 bootstrap re–samplings (only percentages ≥ 50 are shown). Scale bar represents substitution rate per nucleotide position." From here.

uhoh
  • 5,436
  • 2
  • 30
  • 77
  • 1
    I vote to close. This isn't a question but a review. – David Aug 05 '17 at 09:01
  • @David the section at the end with the sentences that end in question marks would be the question, as would the title (also has a question mark). How can you say this is not a question. I will add Question: to the question, in bold, to help you find the sentences that are ending in question marks (besides the title). There is nothing wrong with summarizing a small part of a recent paper as background to a question. It happens all the time. There is a big difference between a summary and a review, and this is not a review in any way. Your stated reasons for closing are not in line with SE. – uhoh Aug 05 '17 at 11:42
  • 1
    @David you could also consider making some positive recommendations how to further improve the question, rather than reaching for the "insta-close" button. Public health and sanitary procedures are certainly on-topic here. If you'd like to see some improvement in the question, why not take a moment and explain what you'd recommend? – uhoh Aug 05 '17 at 11:49
  • @uhoh - I don't think most of us can answer what restaurants do or don't do. There are probably not a lot of health inspectors on the site. As such, your major questions are probably as easy for you to google as for us. Norovirus is the most likely agent to cause illness from a restaurant; that's a virus, not a bacteria. Salmonella is high, as is listeria, campylobacter and e. coli. Other fecal-to-oral transmissions are harmful. If those aren't grown in the sponge, then you have a cruddy but not dangerous sponge. – anongoodnurse Aug 05 '17 at 11:54
  • 1
    Putting things into perspective (again, not a health inspector), you're less likely to get sick from food if employees wash their hands well after relieving themselves, if the public isn't allowed to touch/serve themselves the food (those tongs!), and the kitchen is kept clean. – anongoodnurse Aug 05 '17 at 12:02
  • @anongoodnurse thanks, but I'm asking about the nature of sponges, and if it's a good idea to use them to wash dishes and I'd like to stay focused on that. Wouldn't a non-porous mesh or scrubber be better than something that provides an ideal medium for growth? The same way that reusable wooden kitchen implements are discouraged or in some cases against code compared to plastic/teflon/metal. – uhoh Aug 05 '17 at 12:08
  • @anongoodnurse I'm not interested in what "most of us" can answer. It would not make sense to hold back on question because "most of us" can't answer them, would it? In fact wouldn't "I don't think most of us can answer..." be equally valid on perhaps half of all the questions in any SE site, and particularly on the good and/or challenging questions? How is saying that helpful in this case? – uhoh Aug 05 '17 at 12:13
  • 1
  • Your question as stated seems to be about kitchen hygiene and not biology. Good questions in this area may or may not be appropriate on SE Health. 2. However, as posed "Aren't...a bad idea", the negation presupposes the answer "yes" and the word "idea" invites subjective discussion rather than fact. As such this falls into categories described in questions to avoid asking. So if you do post on Health, try to ask a precise question in a neutral way, e.g. "Is there any evidence that kitchen sponges are a source of disease?"
  • – David Aug 05 '17 at 13:39
  • @David OK thanks! That's very helpful! Now that you've initiated the close process, I'm not sure if it makes sense to revise the question now, or wait until the whole thing runs its course. I'm probably a bit unusual in that I try to babysit my question and respond to helpful suggestions in real time to avoid closing, but once it's started it's often like trying to stop a train. Plus it's getting a bit late here for me to do some "inspired" rewriting, so maybe letting it run its course might be the best way to proceed. – uhoh Aug 05 '17 at 13:49
  • 1
    I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about healthy policy and not biology. – fileunderwater Aug 18 '17 at 17:32