As a result of such research many papers have been published which approach the problem of, "What is more sanitary, wood or plastic?".

The persistence of Salmonella typhimurium inoculated on wooden and plastic cutting surfaces was investigated. Plastic showed lower counts after being cleaned⁽¹⁾. This investigator went on to show that the same was true with surfaces that were heavily scored and scratched. It should be mentioned that the persistence of these bacteria on scored surfaces indicates that regular replacement of cutting surfaces is necessary, regardless of type. Another researcher inoculated nine different hardwoods and four types of plastic cutting boards with known food borne illness bacteria⁽²⁾. The initial result was that the wooden cutting boards killed all of the microflora while the plastic actually allowed the bacteria to proliferate. Cliver⁽²⁾ later discovered that the bacteria were not eradicated from the wooden surface but actually soaked into the pores of the wood surface evading methods of sampling used.

Microbiologists with USDA and the public safety organization, NSF, provided further evidence that bacterial counts were higher and seemed to thrive on wood surfaces as compared to plastic⁽²⁾ . This was regardless of contact time or if the surfaces were heavily scored or scratched. In the same review, research conducted by Cornell and Syracuse Universities, new and used cutting surfaces of both wood and plastic were inoculated with Escherichia coli, their conclusion was, that the plastic surface was cleaner than wood⁽²⁾ .

In still another study (Boucher et. al.), Campylobacter jejuni was assessed for survival on wooden and plastic surfaces⁽³⁾. This organism was chosen as it is a common organism implicated with food borne illness associated with the consumption of milk and poultry.

Beechwood and plastic surfaces were inoculated with C. jejuni and incubated in an aerated broth to determine the ability of these organisms to grow. Limited or no growth was evident with the plastic surfaces whereas they seemed to proliferate on wooden surfaces.

It was concluded by this researcher that the growth of this bacterium on a wooden surface was possible only if it was sufficiently protected from the effects of oxygen. As this organism is highly motile it is able to move itself through the highly porous structure of wood into an environment of low oxygen content. In addition, this organism is able to produce superoxide dismutase, which means it can also protect itself from the effects of oxygen in this micro environment.

An ideal food handling surface is one that is smooth and impervious and can be effectively cleaned and sanitized. Research provides evidence of bacterial harborage with respect to wood or plastic when either of these surfaces are scored, cracked or possess crevices. Wooden surfaces are difficult to clean and sanitize as they are prone to shrinkage and warping when subjected to water, chemicals or high temperatures, whereas plastic can easily withstand all of these conditions.

References:

A Comparison of Wooden and Plastic Cutting Surfaces in a Food Processing Environment

1.	Food Safety Information. Centre for Food Technology. Department of Primary Industries, Queensland Government. 1998.
2.	Battle of the cutting boards: plastic vs. wood - round 2. Journal of Environmental Nutrition. January 1997. Vol. 20, No. 1, p 2.
3.	Enhanced Survival of Campylobacter jejuni in Association with Wood. Journal of Food Protection. Vol. 61, No. 1, pp 26-30.

The contents of this page are no longer available.

For more information about the content of this document, contact Daryl Loback.
This document is maintained by Sheila Hart.
This information published to the web on August 19, 2003.
Last Reviewed/Revised on August 5, 2005.