In food processing, material selection affects more than performance; it directly impacts safety, durability, and long-term cost.
Among the most widely used materials are 304 and 316 stainless steels, both of which are classified as food-grade and suitable for direct contact with food. Although closely related in composition, their behavior and cost differ significantly depending on the application.1
This article compares the two grades, clarifies their food safety credentials, and offers practical guidance for selecting the right alloy for hygienic and cost-effective equipment design.
Image Credit: Mohha_stock
Both 304 and 316 stainless steels are classified as food-grade and meet regulatory standards for direct contact with food, including FDA regulations, EU Framework Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, and NSF/ANSI 51 certification. Their food safety performance is rooted in three key traits: corrosion resistance, chemical stability, and ease of cleaning.2
Food-grade stainless steels are formulated to minimize impurities such as lead, cadmium, and sulfur, which can otherwise leach into food. A protective chromium oxide layer—maintained through proper passivation—prevents corrosion and inhibits contamination.2
Surface finish further influences hygiene: smooth, electropolished surfaces reduce microbial adhesion and simplify cleaning, which is especially important in dairy, brewing, and other beverage processing environments.
Comparing Properties of 304 vs 316
While both are austenitic stainless steels, their chemical composition and corrosion resistance differ:
Chemical Composition
| Element |
304 SS |
316 SS |
| Chromium (Cr) |
17.5–20.0 % |
16.0–18.5 % |
| Nickel (Ni) |
8.0–11.0 % |
10.0–14.0 % |
| Molybdenum (Mo) |
0 % |
2.0–3.0 % |
Corrosion Resistance
Stainless Steel 304
Grade 304 is a widely used, cost-effective choice for general food and beverage applications. It offers good resistance to most oxidizing acids and does not corrode easily in standard processing environments.
However, it is susceptible to pitting corrosion in chloride-rich conditions, making it less suitable for applications involving salty or briny water.3
Stainless Steel 316
The addition of molybdenum gives 316 stainless steel enhanced resistance to pitting and crevice corrosion, particularly in chloride-exposed, acidic, or high-temperature environments. It works well in seafood processing, acidic food products like citrus or tomatoes, and in facilities that use aggressive cleaning-in-place (CIP) systems.
In these situations, 316 lasts longer and performs more reliably than 304.3,4
Durability and Strength
Stainless Steel 304
304 stainless steel is known for being tough and reliable. It withstands frequent cleaning, physical wear, and everyday mechanical stress in food industry settings.5
Stainless Steel 316
316 is even more durable, especially in harsh conditions or when equipment is exposed to strong chemicals or constant use. It’s a better choice when components face ongoing stress, aggressive cleaners, or rough handling. While both grades are strong, 316 is more resilient in demanding environments.3, 5
Hygiene and Cleanability
Both 304 and 316 stainless steels are non-porous, easy to clean, and resistant to bacterial buildup. Their smooth, polished surfaces make them ideal for hygienic applications and help meet food safety standards. In practical terms, there’s little difference in hygiene performance—both grades are excellent for maintaining clean, sanitary food-contact surfaces.3
Download your PDF copy now!
Temperature Resistance
Stainless Steel 304
304 performs reliably up to 870 °C (1600 °F), making it suitable for most cooking and thermal processing applications. It resists deformation at elevated temperatures, but continuous exposure beyond this range may affect its structural integrity.3
Stainless Steel 316
316 handles both high and low temperatures more effectively than 304. It maintains its strength and corrosion resistance during extended exposure to heat, cold, or repeated temperature changes. This makes it a better choice for sterilization, freezing, and equipment that goes through frequent heating and cooling cycles.3
Cost Considerations
Stainless Steel 304
304 is the more affordable option and is commonly used in general-purpose food handling, where chemical exposure is low. Its lower cost makes it a practical choice for equipment that doesn’t need extra corrosion resistance.3
Stainless Steel 316
316 is more expensive due to its higher nickel and molybdenum content. However, in demanding applications, the investment pays off in longer service life and reduced maintenance.3
Side-by-Side Property Comparison
Side-by-Side Property Comparison
| Property |
304 SS |
316 SS |
| Max. Operating Temperature |
~870 °C |
~800 °C |
| SCC Resistance |
Moderate |
High |
| Weldability |
Excellent |
Excellent |
Addressing Misconceptions
When choosing between 304 and 316 stainless steel, the decision should be based on the environment the equipment will be used in, not just how the materials compare on paper.
A frequent misconception is that 316 is always the superior choice. While it excels in corrosive environments, its performance advantages don’t always justify the cost in milder conditions. For example, in dairy processing, 304 performs adequately unless exposed to harsh disinfectants or biofilm-forming thermophilic bacteria like Geobacillus stearothermophilus, which can exacerbate corrosion under certain cleaning regimes.6,7
Even biofilm formation and microbial corrosion risks—often cited in defense of 316—depend more on cleaning routines and surface finish than on grade alone. In many cases, switching to 316 does not significantly improve hygiene or resistance if the cleaning protocols are already sound.6
Making the Right Choice: 304 or 316?
Both 304 and 316 stainless steels are safe, durable choices for food processing applications. The right grade depends on the specific environment—particularly factors like chemical exposure, chloride levels, hygiene requirements, and budget.
Understanding the strengths and limitations of each alloy helps avoid overengineering, reduce unnecessary costs, and ensure long-term performance in line with food safety standards.
What Is the Difference Between 304 and 316 Stainless Steel? | Technical Tuesday
Want to verify which stainless steel grade you're working with? Read our guide to testing and identifying stainless steel grades.
References and Further Readings
1. Dewangan, A.; Patel, A.; Bhadania, A. (2015). Stainless Steel for Dairy and Food Industry: A Review. J. Mater. Sci. Eng. https://www.hilarispublisher.com/open-access/stainless-steel-for-dairy-and-food-industry-a-review-2169-0022-1000191.pdf
2. Jullien, C.; Bénézech, T.; Carpentier, B.; Lebret, V.; Faille, C. (2003). Identification of Surface Characteristics Relevant to the Hygienic Status of Stainless Steel for the Food Industry. Journal of Food Engineering. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260877402001504
3. Gupta, A. (2024). Comparative Analysis of Aisi 304 and Aisi 316 Stainless Steel Pulsed Nd: Yag Laser Welding. Latest Trends in Engineering and Technology, CRC Press. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.1201/9781032665443-58/comparative-analysis-aisi-304-aisi-316-stainless-steel-pulsed-nd-yag-laser-welding-anikate-gupta
4. Mazinanian, N.; Herting, G.; Wallinder, I. O.; Hedberg, Y. (2016). Metal Release and Corrosion Resistance of Different Stainless Steel Grades in Simulated Food Contact. Corrosion. https://content.ampp.org/corrosion/article/72/6/775/1720/Metal-Release-and-Corrosion-Resistance-of
5. Mazelam, N. D. S.; Yahya, S.; Ab Ghani, Z.; Ahmad, Z.; Samsudin, D.; Muhd Zailani, N. A. (2022). Influence of Hydrochloric Acid against Food-Grade Steel Sus304 and Its Corrosion Impact. Journal of Academia. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/70069/1/70069.pdf
6. Gupta, S.; Anand, S. (2018). Induction of Pitting Corrosion on Stainless Steel (Grades 304 and 316) Used in Dairy Industry by Biofilms of Common Sporeformers. International Journal of Dairy Technology. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1471-0307.12444
7. Khanal, S. N.; Anand, S.; Muthukumarappan, K.; Huegli, M. (2014). Inactivation of Thermoduric Aerobic Sporeformers in Milk by Ultrasonication. Food control. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0956713513004684?via%3Dihub
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are those of the author expressed in their private capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of AZoM.com Limited T/A AZoNetwork the owner and operator of this website. This disclaimer forms part of the Terms and conditions of use of this website.