Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Antibiotic-Resistant and Virulence Genes of Enterococcus Detected in Calf Colostrum—One Health Perspective
Next Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Coating Based on Tahiti Lemon Essential Oil and Green Banana Flour to Preserve the Internal Quality of Quail Eggs
Previous Article in Journal
Classifying Genetic Lines in Pork Production by Ileal Crude Protein and Amino Acid Digestibility in Growing Pigs
Previous Article in Special Issue
Influence of Genotype on Productivity and Egg Quality of Three Hen Strains Included in a Biodiversity Program
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Animals
Volume 13
Issue 12
10.3390/ani13121899
animals-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Storage Packaging Type on the Microbiological and Sensory Quality of Free-Range Table Eggs

by
Zofia Sokołowicz
1,
Miroslava Kačániová
2,
Magdalena Dykiel
3,
Anna Augustyńska-Prejsnar
1 and
Jadwiga Topczewska
1,*
1
Department of Animal Production and Poultry Products Evaluation, University of Rzeszów, Zelwerowicza Street 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland
2
Institute of Horticulture, Faculty of Horticulture and Landscape Engineering, Slovak University of Agriculture, 949 76 Nitra, Slovakia
3
Department of Food Production and Safety, State University of Applied Sciences in Krosno, Rynek 1, 38-400 Krosno, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Animals 2023, 13(12), 1899; https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121899
Submission received: 11 May 2023 / Revised: 3 June 2023 / Accepted: 5 June 2023 / Published: 6 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Insights into Optimizing Poultry Egg Production)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Eggs are a good source of high-quality protein, essential fatty acids, vitamins, and minerals. In addition to their high nutritional value, table eggs must be microbiologically safe and have favourable sensory and functional qualities. Factors that shape egg quality can be storage time and conditions. Marketable eggs may be packaged in plastic or cardboard egg packaging. The influence of the type of packaging, storage time, and temperature on the microbiological quality of the shell and contents of eggs and the foaming properties of the egg white as well as the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard-boiling were investigated. The type of packaging was shown to influence the microbiological quality of the egg contents. More bacteria were found in the contents of eggs stored in plastic packaging than in cardboard packaging. The type of packaging in which the eggs were stored did not affect the foaming properties of the egg white or the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard-boiling. Irrespective of the type of packaging, a tendency toward deterioration of the foaming properties of egg white and a deterioration of the sensory characteristics of eggs after hard-boiling was found with storage time. The storage of eggs at 5 °C was more favourable for their microbiological quality and the stability of egg white foam. Regardless of the type of packaging, eggs stored at 5 °C after hard-boiling had better yolk colour, smell, and texture than eggs stored at 22 °C.

Abstract

The studies aimed to assess the impact of packaging, storage time, and temperature on the microbiological quality as well as on the sensory quality and functional properties of chicken eggs. The study material consisted of eggs from laying hens kept under free-range conditions. The eggs packed in cardboard and plastic cartons were stored at 5 °C and 22 °C, respectively. The eggs were examined on the day of laying and on days 14 and 28 of storage. The microbiological quality of the shell and contents of the eggs and the foaming properties of the egg white stored in cardboard and plastic packaging as well as the sensory characteristics of the eggs stored in both types of packaging after hard-boiling were examined on all evaluation dates. The type of packaging in which the eggs were stored was shown to influence the microbiological quality of the egg contents. Eggs stored in plastic packaging, on days 14 and 28 of storage, contained more bacteria in egg contents than eggs stored in cardboard packaging (p < 0.05). The type of packaging in which the eggs were stored did not have an effect on the foaming properties of the egg white (p > 0.05) or on the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard-boiling. Irrespective of the type of packaging, the foaming properties of the egg white and the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard-boiling deteriorated with storage time. The effect of temperature on egg quality was found. Regardless of the type of packaging, eggs stored at 5 °C after hard-boiling had better yolk colour, smell, and texture than eggs stored at 22 °C (p < 0.05).

1. Introduction

The wide availability, relatively low price, and high nutritional value of chicken eggs make them an integral part of human diet. Eggs are a good source of high-quality protein, the necessary unsaturated fatty acids and fat-soluble vitamins, vitamins of the B group, mineral compounds, and other biologically active compounds [1,2,3].
In addition to high nutritional value, food eggs should be microbiologically safe and have advantageous sensory and functional qualities. The production of good quality eggs is crucial to its profitability and consumer acceptance [4]. Today’s consumers are showing a strong interest in animal products including farming systems that take animal welfare into account [5], making the percentage of hens kept in alternative systems to cage farming increase significantly. With the increase in egg production in non-cage systems, there is concern about the increased risk of bacterial contamination of table eggs. Most of the eggs produced are consumed as fresh table eggs and are used as a major ingredient in the food industry, which can pose a serious risk to food safety [6,7,8]. Eggs from floor and free-range systems generally have more bacteria on the surface of the eggs than eggs from cage systems [9,10]. Furthermore, Tomczyk et al. [11,12] showed that the greatest diversity and abundance of microorganisms were found in eggshells laid by hens kept in barn and free-range systems.
Microbiological contamination can endanger the quality, shelf life, and safety of eggs [13]. The eggshell microflora can contain both microorganisms that cause the eggs to spoil and pathogenic microorganisms. Of the various potential sources of risk, egg consumption has been shown to account for a significant proportion of sporadic cases of salmonellosis [14,15]. The microbiological contamination of eggs can occur vertically or horizontally. Vertical contamination occurs when eggs are formed in the hen’s ovary or oviduct [16]. Horizontal contamination occurs when the bacteria penetrate through the eggshell after eggs are laid [17,18]. Although an egg has defensive mechanisms in the form of a cover with cuticle, shell membrane of the shell, and antimicrobial proteins in the albumen, and the albumen has high pH and viscosity that hinders the multiplication of bacteria [19], bacteria can still penetrate inside the eggs. Storage conditions and time are one of the main conditions determining the safety of food eggs. Changes that occur during storage can create favorable conditions for microbiological contamination of eggs. For example, the cuticle, which is an important protective barrier, in conditions of increased relative humidity of the eggshell surface, can be digested as a result of the glycolytic activity of some bacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas) [20]. Storage time and conditions bring about a number of physical and chemical changes in egg content which in turn affect the functional (technological) characteristics and antibacterial properties of egg albumen [21,22,23]. The changes occurring in the egg content are mainly a result of water migration between the yolk and the albumen and loss of water and carbon dioxide through the pores of the eggshell. As storage time gets longer, the albumen height is reduced; however, pH and foaming properties increase [24]. The strength of the vitelline membrane surrounding the yolk is also reduced [22], which in turn favors the movement of nutrients between the albumen and the yolk [25,26]. In addition, storage time and conditions cause the degradation of egg albumen [21,25,26] and, consequently, the reduction of its antibacterial properties [21]. Storage time and conditions can have a significant impact on the physicochemical characteristics, microbiological quality, and sensory characteristics of eggs.
Consumers purchase raw eggs and egg products. Egg products account for around 20% of total egg consumption in Europe and range from 50% (149 eggs/person/year) in Denmark to 5% (eight eggs/person/year) in Poland [27]. Among egg products, hard-boiled eggs are the main item.
Sensory qualities are an important attribute of the quality of hard-boiled eggs. Consumers expect the yolk of hardboiled eggs to be centred so that the shell can be removed without damaging the white, and the yolk is fully coagulated but without a greenish colour at the border between the cooked white and the yolk [28].
Sensory properties are a significant attribute of egg quality. Instrumental evaluation gives objective results in terms of individual egg quality parameters but does not allow us to predict how a consumer perceives the product. According to Meilgaard et al. [29], the sensory evaluation results allow measuring the consumer’s reaction to food; therefore, the sensory evaluation of eggs is important and even necessary. The sensory evaluation of eggs is a common assessment of their quality and acceptance by consumers [30]. Sensory evaluation most often takes into account color, taste, and odor [31]. Storage time and conditions can affect the sensory quality of eggs [32,33,34].
Chicken eggs have numerous functional properties that are used in the foaming of food production, and the albumen being one of the most important of them [35]. Chicken egg albumen is the most frequently used foaming agent in food technology [36,37,38,39,40,41]. The foam formation capacity and the stability of the foam during storage and thermal treatment are the main factors during the formulation of new recipes for aerated foods [42].
Storage time and conditions can affect the foam formation capacity and the foam stability. As egg storage time is extended, the foam stability is reduced; the foam whipped from fresh eggs is more stable than the foam whipped from eggs after storage time [43].
Eggs in trade and with consumers are most often stored in plastic or cardboard packages (10 pieces each).
The studies aimed to assess the influence of the type of packaging, storage time, and temperature on the microbiological quality of the shell and contents of eggs and the foaming properties of the egg white as well as the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard-boiling were investigated.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Egg Samples

The study material consisted of 450 eggs (microbiological tests of the shell and egg contents 90, sensory evaluation of hard-boiled eggs 135, and egg white foam quality 225) from laying hens kept in barn conditions with free-range system. The eggs were purchased on the day of laying at one of the poultry farms. 50 eggs were evaluated on the day of laying, and the remaining 400 eggs were packed into 20 cardboard extruders of 10 eggs each and 20 plastic extruders of 10 eggs each. Eggs packed in cardboard and plastic cartons were stored: 10 cartons × 10 eggs = 100 at 5 °C (refrigerated cabinet FKv36/10, Liebherr, Ulm, Germany) and 10 cartons × 10 eggs = 100 at 22 °C (on a countertop under room conditions) and evaluated on the 14th and 28th day of storage. The microbiological quality of the shell and contents of the eggs, the sensory characteristics of the eggs after hard boiling, and the technological properties of the egg white were examined on all evaluation dates.

2.2. Microbiological Analysis

Using a swab, the surface bacterial count was measured. The entire egg’s surface was aseptically swabbed with a sterile cotton swab before being diluted with ordinary saline. The samples were serially further diluted, and 100 µL of each dilution was applied on the plate count agar (PCA) surface (Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK). Samples were dipped in 75% ethanol for 5 min and then left to air dry before being used to count the number of bacteria in egg contents. The egg’s upper end was exposed to flame for 5–10 s before being punctured using a sterile tool. After serial dilution for an aerobic bacterial count, the entire egg’s contents were combined in a sterile polythene bag and then placed on a PCA. The Petri dishes with the inoculum were incubated at 30 °C for 48–72 h. After serial dilution, the surface and contents (100 µL) were transferred to lactose-free violet red bile agar (VRBL, Oxoid, Basingstoke, UK) and incubated for 24–48 h at 37 °C.
Before detection, the microbial colonies were subcultured on TSA agar (Tryptone Soya Agar, Oxoid, UK) for 18 to 24 h at 37 °C. A colony was formed from eight different bacterial strains. According to Kačániová et al. [44], the identification was then performed using the Maldi TOF-MS Biotyper. In total, 217 isolates were found to have a value higher than 2.

2.3. Sensory Evaluation

The evaluation of the sensory characteristics of hard-boiled eggs was carried out in the laboratory of Poultry Products Evaluation. Evaluation was carried out on the day of laying and after 14 and 28 days of storage. Fifteen participants participated in the evaluation (six students aged 22 to 23 years and nine university employees aged 27 to 56 years). Before the first evaluation date, the panellists underwent a three-hour training session during which they assessed the sensory characteristics of the eggs: overall appearance, yolk colour, smell, taste, and texture. The study used specially prepared evaluation sheets to describe the sensory properties of the samples. All eggs for organoleptic evaluation were prepared the same way. Two hours prior to the start of the evaluation, the eggs were hard boiled. To do this, the eggs were placed in water at room temperature, brought to a boil, and boiled for 15 min, then removed from the pot and placed under cold running water for 10 min. After being cooled in cold water, the eggs were peeled from their shells, cut lengthwise into 2 halves, and placed in separate containers labelled with a letter-number code. Containers were covered until the assessment began. The test was conducted in a suitably prepared room free of foreign odours at 22 °C. The evaluation of each sample was carried out on a 9-point linear hedonic scale where 1 point represented the worst evaluation, 5 the indifferent evaluation, and 9 the best evaluation. Before the assessment, panellists were asked not to eat for three hours prior to the test. Panellists received mineral water and salt-free crackers to scrub their tongues and gums between sample tests.

2.4. Technological Properties of Egg White

The foaming properties were evaluated using foaming capacity (FC) and foam stability (FS) based on the method described by Ferreira et al. [45] with some modifications.
The foams were processed by whipping 100 mL of albumen for 3 min at 20 °C with a mixer operating at 1220 rpm. The volumes of foam and the drained liquid were evaluated just after whipping and during holding for 30 min at 20 °C. For the determination of FC and FS, the following formulae are used:
FC (%) = (FV/ILV) × 100%
FS (%) = [(ILV − DV)/ILV] × 100%
where: FV—volume of foam; ILV—volume of the initial; liquid phase; DV—volume of drainage.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using Statistica 13.3 [46]. The effects of packaging type, temperature, and storage time on the microbiological quality and sensory characteristics of eggs and technological characteristics of egg white were verified using ANOVA analysis. Significant differences between mean trait values were estimated using the Duncan test. Results were considered statistically significant at p < 0.05. The results obtained were subjected to a multivariate analysis of variance. The main effect was determined: the influence of P, packaging type, T, storage temperature and S–storage time, and the interaction between factors (P×T, P×S, T×S, P×T×S).

3. Results and Discussion

In cardboard box, the total count of bacteria (TCB) on eggshell ranged from 1.43 to 2.63 log cfu/mL; in plastic box, the total count of bacteria (TCB) ranged from 1.75 to 2.76 log cfu/mL (Table 1). In cardboard box, the total count of bacteria (TCB) in internal egg content ranged from 0.00 to 1.92 log cfu/mL; in plastic box, total count of bacteria (TCB) in internal egg content ranged from 0.00 to 2.49 log cfu/mL (Table 1). In cardboard box, the number of coliform bacteria (CB) on eggshell ranged from 0.00 to 2.15 log cfu/mL and in plastic box from 0.00 to 1.94 log cfu/mL. In cardboard box, the number of coliform bacteria (CB) in internal egg content ranged from 0.00 to 1.37 log cfu/mL; in plastic box, the number of coliform bacteria (CB) ranged from 0.00 to 1.80 log cfu/mL (Table 1). The study found an effect of packaging type on the total count of bacteria (TCB) and coliform bacteria (CB) in internal egg content (p < 0.05) (Table 1.). There was no effect of packaging type on the total count of bacteria (TCB) and coliform bacteria (CB) on eggshell (p > 0.05).
Factors influencing the quality of eggs after laying are mainly egg storage time and temperature [43] but also the kind of packaging [47]. The study found an effect of storage time on the total count of TCB) and coliform bacteria (CB) both on the shell surface and in the egg contents (p > 0.05). At all assessment dates, bacterial counts were higher at 22 °C than at 5 °C (Table 1). The results obtained are in agreement with the findings of Chousalkar et al. [48] that showed an increase in the ambient temperature resulted in an increase in the bacterial replication rate. The total count of bacteria on the surface of the shell and in the contents of eggs stored in both types of packaging did not exceed acceptable levels, and non-pathogenic bacteria predominated among the bacteria isolated. In this study, 217 isolates were identified from 31 species, 11 genera, and 10 families. The most isolated species was Herbaspirillum huttiense (42 isolates) (Table 2).
Among the bacteria identified, the most dangerous bacteria for human health, such as Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Listeria spp., were not found. The majority of the bacteria found on the eggshell are Gram-positive. Gram-negative bacteria are better adapted to invading the barriers of the eggshell and membranes, leading to spoiled eggs [49], but a few Gram-positive bacteria can also be present. The most common contaminants come from the genera Pseudomonas, Alcaligenes, Proteus, Arthrobacter, Escherichia, Serratia, Aeromonas, Hafnia, Citrobacter, Salmonella, Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, and Bacillus. The most important bacteria in foodborne diseases transmitted to humans from chicken eggs are from Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., Listeria spp., Staphylococcus spp., and Escherichia spp. Fecal material, soil, and dust are the principal sources of contamination to which eggs are exposed [50]. Eggs can become contaminated by microorganisms at various points along the manufacturing, processing, preparation, and consumption chains. When eggs become infected while they are developing in the hen’s ovaries, this is known as transovarian or "vertical" transfer of microorganisms. When microorganisms penetrate the eggshell and are then subjected to a contaminated environment, horizontal transmission takes place. Others disagree with Barrow and Lovell’s [51] studies that claim the most contamination is caused by horizontal spread [52]. In cardboard boxes containing eggs, 23 species of bacteria from 9 genera and 9 families were discovered (Figure 1). The most isolated species was Herbaspirillum huttiense (16%). From plastic box stored eggs were isolated 20 species of bacteria, from 8 genera and 8 families (Figure 2). The most isolated species was again Herbaspirillum huttiense (22%). Herbaspirillum huttiense bacteria belong to the genus Herbaspirillum and are widely distributed in the environment [53]. They were first described by Baldani et al. [54] as well as Obradovic et al. [55] and Dobrista et al. [56]. Although Herbaspirillum bacteria are widely distributed in the environment, they are very rarely associated with infections in humans [57]. Herbaspirillum species, which occupy the roots of plants in the rhizosphere and have been discovered in wells and other ground water, are nitrogen-fixing bacteria [58,59,60]. They convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into ammonium ions (NH4+), a form that can be taken up by plants. These bacteria are found in the roots of economically important crops, such as wheat and maize, stimulating their growth by fixing nitrogen [61]. Among the microbiota colonising the shells of the eggs tested, Staphylococcus aureus bacteria were also found, and in the study [62], it is the main microorganism causing egg spoilage [63]. The presence of Staphylococcus aureus on eggshells increases the likelihood of this pathogen entering the egg contents, leading to an increase in risk of foodborne illness. Eggshell contamination is associated with the presence of bird droppings and feathers in poultry farms [64,65]. Stenotrophomonas maltophilia was also found on the surface of the shell and in the contents of the eggs. These microorganisms can cause food spoilage and infectious diseases in consumers once they enter the food chain [66,67,68,69]. In a study conducted, the number of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bacteria was higher in eggs stored in plastic packaging than in cardboard packaging. The higher number of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia bacteria can be probably explained by their propensity to adhere to plastics and form biofilms [70].
Hard-boiled eggs are valuable ready-to-use egg products [2]. In various countries around the world, they are used for direct consumption or used as ingredients in other food products [71]. Consumers of hard-boiled table eggs are most interested in their taste and appearance [72,73]. The study showed no effect of the type of packaging during storage on the sensory characteristics of the eggs (p > 0.05) after hard-boiling. The evaluators gave similar scores for the individual characteristics of eggs (overall appearance, yolk colour, smell, taste, and texture) stored in cardboard and plastic packaging (Table 3).
Our study showed an effect of storage time on all the sensory characteristics of the eggs studied (p < 0.05) (Table 3). On day 14 of storage, the scores given by the panellists for the overall appearance, smell, taste, and texture of the eggs, both from cardboard and plastic packaging, at 5 °C were higher than on the first evaluation date (p < 0.05). On the 28th day of storage, the overall appearance, smell, taste, and texture of the eggs were rated lower than on earlier evaluation dates. Furthermore, the results of Guo et al. [32] on sensory evaluation showed that the eggs had satisfactory sensory evaluation results on the first day after laying and deteriorated with increasing storage time. The results of Attia et al. [34], who studied the sensory characteristics of eggs, showed that fresh eggs were superior in quality to eggs stored for 21 days. The effect of temperature on the sensory characteristics of eggs was found in our own research. In both cardboard and plastic packaging, the marks awarded for yolk colour, smell, and texture of eggs were higher for eggs stored at 5 °C than at 22 °C (p < 0.05). The poorer sensory evaluation results of eggs stored at room temperature (22 °C) can be linked to the faster rate of physico-chemical transformation of the egg contents during storage. Moreover, the results of the evaluation of the sensory characteristics of the eggs carried out by Attia et al. [34] showed that eggs stored at 5 °C were better than eggs stored at 23 °C. According to Alshaikhi et al. [33], poorer results in the evaluation of the sensory characteristics of eggs during storage at higher temperatures are due to an increase in evaporation and migration of water from the white to the yolk, leading to a reduction in the concentration of nutrients in the yolk. In a study by Aguinaga Bósquez et al. [74], based on human sensory evaluation, there was no effect of storage time on the characteristics of cooked eggs; however, the use of advanced analytical methods, such as e-tongue and e-nose, showed an effect of storage time (0, 30, and 60 days) on the sensory characteristics of eggs.
There was no effect of packaging type on the foaming capacity and foaming stability of egg white foam (Table 4). The foaminess and stability of foam from eggs stored in plastic and cardboard packaging was similar (p > 0.05) at all assessment dates. The foaminess of egg white foam at 5 and 22 °C was similar (p > 0.05). There was an effect of storage temperature on foam stability, with better stability of egg white foam stored at 5 °C than at 22 °C (p < 0.05). There was an effect of storage time on egg white foaminess and foam stability (p < 0.05). After 28 days of storage, the foaminess of the egg white and the stability of the foam was lower than at the first evaluation date. Foam stability was found to decrease with increasing storage time. The deterioration in foam stability can be explained by the bubble disproportioning processes taking place [35,75,76]. Drainage is also a phenomenon that weakens the foam structure. Water running off the surface of bubbles removes proteins from the interfacial boundaries, and the film becomes too thin to hold the bubble.

4. Conclusions

The results obtained indicate that the type of packaging in which the eggs are stored does not affect the foaming properties of the egg white and their sensory characteristics after hard-boiling but can affect the microbiological quality of the eggs. More bacteria were found in the contents of eggs stored in plastic packaging than in cardboard packaging. Irrespective of the type of packaging, a tendency for deterioration of the foaming properties of egg white and deterioration of the sensory characteristics of eggs after hard-boiling was found with storage time.
The results obtained may be of relevance for optimising the selection of commercial egg packaging. However, further research is required for a full assessment of the impact of packaging type on the quality of stored eggs.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Z.S. and M.D.; methodology: M.K., M.D., Z.S. and A.A.-P.; software: M.D.; validation: M.D.; formal analysis M.D. and Z.S.; investigation: M.D., M.K., A.A.-P. and Z.S.; resources: M.D. and Z.S.; data curation: M.D.; writing—original draft preparation: Z.S., M.K. and M.D.; writing—review and editing: Z.S., M.K. and M.D.; visualization: M.D., J.T. and A.A.-P.; supervision: Z.S., M.K. and J.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author (J.T.) upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Sanlier, N.; Üstün, D. Egg consumption and health effects: A narrative review. J. Food Sci. 2021, 86, 4250–4261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Réhault-Godbert, S.; Guyot, N.; Nys, Y. The Golden Egg: Nutritional Value, Bioactivities, and Emerging Benefits for Human Health. Nutrients 2019, 11, 684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Miranda, J.M.; Anton, X.; Redondo-Valbuena, C.; Roca-Saavedra, P.; Rodriguez, J.A.; Lamas, A.; Franco, C.M.; Cepeda, A. Egg and egg-derived foods: Effects on human health and use as functional foods. Nutrients 2015, 7, 706–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Pires, P.G.S.; Bavaresco, C.; Prato, B.S.; Wirth, M.L.; Moraes, P.O. The relationship between egg quality and hen housing systems—A systematic review. Livest. Sci. 2021, 250, 104597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Gautron, J.; Réhault-Godbert, S.; Van de Braak, T.G.H.; Dunn, I.C. Review: What are the challenges facing the table egg industry in the next decades and what can be done to address them? Animal 2021, 15, 100282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Tian, L.; Hu, S.; Jia, J.; Tan, W.; Yang, L.; Zhang, Q. Effects of short-term fermentation with lactic acid bacteria on the characterization, rheological and emulsifying properties of egg yolk. Food Chem. 2021, 341, 128163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Park, J.H.; Kang, M.S.; Park, K.M.; Lee, H.Y.; Ok, G.S.; Koo, M.S.; Hong, S.I.; Kim, H.J. A dynamic predictive model for the growth of Salmonella spp. and Staphylococcus aureus in fresh egg yolk and scenario-based risk estimation. Food Control 2020, 118, 107421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wilson, P.B. Recent advances in avian egg science: A review. Poult. Sci. 2017, 96, 3747–3754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Englmaierova, M.; Tumova, E.; Charvatova, V.; Skrivan, M. Effects of laying hens housing system on laying performance, egg quality characteristics, and egg microbial contamination. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 2014, 59, 345–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Samiullah, S.; Roberts, J.R.; Chousalkar, K.K. Effect of production system and flock age on egg quality and total bacterial load in commercial laying hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2014, 23, 59–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tomczyk, Ł.; Szablewski, T.; Stuper-Szablewska, K.; Nowaczewski, S.; Cegielska-Radziejewska, R. The influence of the conditions of acquisition and storage of table eggs on changes in their quality and the presence of mycobiota and Fusarium mycotoxins. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 2964–2971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Tomczyk, L.; Stępień, L.; Urbaniak, M.; Szablewski, T.; Cegielska-Radziejewska, R.; Stuper-Szablewska, K. Characterisation of the mycobiota on the shell surface of table eggs acquired from different egg-laying hen breeding systems. Toxins 2018, 10, 293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Rodriguez-Navarro, A.B.; Dominguez-Gasca, N.; Munoz, A.; Ortega-Huertas, M. Change in the chicken eggshell cuticle with hen age and egg freshness. Poult. Sci. 2013, 92, 3026–3035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Guillier, L.; Thébault, A.; Fravalo, P.; Mughini-Gras, L.; Jourdan-Da Silva, N.; David, J.; Kooh, P.; Cadavez, V.; Gonzales-Barron, U. Risk factors for sporadic salmonellosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microb. Risk Anal. 2021, 17, 100138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Mughini-Gras, L.; Enserink, R.; Friesema, I.; Heck, M.; van Duynhoven, Y.; van Pelt, W. Risk Factors for Human Salmonellosis Originating from Pigs, Cattle, Chickens and Egg Laying Hens: A Combined Case-Control and Source Attribution Analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e87933. [Google Scholar]
  16. Gast, R.K.; Regmi, P.; Guraya, R.; Jones, D.R.; Anderson, K.E.; Karcher, D.M. Contamination of eggs by Salmonella Enteritidis in experimentally infected laying hens of four commercial genetic lines in conventional cages and enriched colony housing. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 5023–5027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. McWhorter, A.R.; Chousalkar, K.K. Salmonella on Australian cage egg farms: Observations from hatching to end of lay. Food Microbiol. 2020, 87, 103384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sharaf Eddin, A.; Ibrahim, S.A.; Tahergorabim, R. Egg quality and safety with an overview of edible coating application for egg preservation. Food Chem. 2019, 296, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Rzedzicki, J.; Stępień-Pyśniak, D. Antimicrobial defence mechanisms of chicken eggs and possibilities for their use in protecting human and animal health. Ann. UMCS Lub. Med. Vet. 2009, 64, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chen, X.; Li, X.; Guo, Y.; Li, W.; Song, J.; Xu, G.; Yang, N.; Zheng, J. Impact of cuticle quality and eggshell thickness on egg antibacterial efficiency. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 940–948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rehault-Godbert, S.; Baron, F.; Mignon-Grasteau, S.; Labas, V.; Gautier, M.; Hincke, M.T.; Nys, Y. Effect of Temperature and Time of Storage on Protein Stability and Anti-Salmonella Activity of Egg White. J. Food Prot. 2010, 73, 1604–1612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Berardinelli, A.; Ragni, L.; Giunchi, A.; Gradari, P.; Guarnieri, A. Physical-mechanical modifications of eggs for food-processing during storage. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 2117–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Samli, H.E.; Agma, A.; Senkoylu, N. Effects of storage time and temperature on egg quality in old laying hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2005, 14, 548–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Silversides, F.G.; Budgell, K. The relationships among measures of egg albumen height, pH, and whipping volume. Poult. Sci. 2004, 83, 1619–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Gao, D.; Qiu, N.; Liu, Y.; Ma, M. Comparative proteome analysis of egg yolk plasma proteins during storage. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2017, 97, 2392–2400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Qiu, N.; Ma, M.; Zhao, L.; Liu, W.; Li, Y.; Mine, Y. Comparative proteomic analysis of egg white proteins under various storage temperatures. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 7746–7753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. ITAVI. Situation du Marché des Oeufs et des Ovoproduits Édition Mars. 2021. Available online: https://www.itavi.asso.fr/publications/note-de-conjoncture-poules-pondeuses-mars-2021/download (accessed on 2 May 2023).
  28. Gautron, J.; Dombre, C.; Nau, F.; Feidt, C.; Guillier, L. Review: Production factors affecting the quality of chicken table eggs and egg products in Europe. Animal 2022, 16, 100425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Meilgaard, M.C.; Civille, G.V.; Carr, B.T. Sensory Evaluation Techniques, 4th ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA; Taylor and Francis Group: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Margeta, P.; Kralik, G.; Grčević, M.; Hanžek, D.; Kralik, Z. Importance of sensory evaluation in assessment of egg quality. Poljoprivreda 2019, 25, 56–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Terčič, D.; Žlender, B.; Holcman, A. External, internal and sensory qualities of table eggs as influenced by two different production systems. Agro-Knowl. J. 2012, 13, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Guo, D.; Pan, Q.; Huang, Q.; Yi, Y.; Wang, H.; Xu, W. The Quality Analysis and Deterioration Mechanism of Liquid Egg White during Storage. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Alshaikhi, A.M.; Abdullatif, A.A.; Badwi, M.A.; Alsobayel, A.A. Effects of storage period, marketing channels and season on internal and external quality of commercial table eggs marketed in Riyadh City (Saudi Arabia). Braz. J. Poult. Sci. 2021, 23, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Attia, Y.A.; Al-Harthi, M.A.; AL-Sagan, A.A.; Hussein, E.O.; Alhotan, R.A.; Suliman, G.M.; Abdulsalam, N.M.; Olal, M.J. Responses of egg quality sustainability, sensory attributes and lipid profile of eggs and blood to different dietary oil supplementations and storage conditions. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2022, 21, 1160–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lomakina, K.; Míková, K. A study of the factors affecting the foaming properties of egg white—A review. Czech J. Food Sci. 2006, 24, 110–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Abu-Ghoush, M.; Herald, T.J.; Aramouni, F.M. Comparative study of egg white protein and egg alternatives used in an angel food cake system. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2010, 34, 411–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Balerin, C.; Aymard, P.; Ducept, F.; Vaslin, S.; Cuvelier, G. Effect of formulation and processing factors on the properties of liquid food foams. J. Food Eng. 2007, 78, 802–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Curschellas, C.; Keller, R.; Berger, R.; Rietzler, U.; Fell, D.; Butt, H.J.; Limbach, H.J. Scanning force microscopy as a tool to investigate the properties of polyglycerol ester foams. J. Colloid Interface Sci. 2012, 374, 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Li, X.; Li, J.; Chang, C.; Wang, C.; Zhang, M.; Su, Y.; Yang, Y. Foaming characterization of fresh egg white proteins as a function of different proportions of egg yolk fractions. Food Hydrocoll. 2019, 90, 118–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, T.; Tu, Z.; Shangguan, X.; Wang, H.; Sha, X.; Bansal, N. Rheological behavior, emulsifying properties and structural characterization of phosphorylated fish gelatin. Food Chem. 2018, 246, 428–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Peishan, L.; Li, P.; Zhuo, S.; Meihu, M.; Yongguo, J.; Long, S. Effect of microwave-assisted phosphorylation modification on the structural and foaming properties of egg white powder. LWT 2018, 97, 151–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Foegeding, E.A.; Luck, P.J.; Davis, J.P. Factors determining the physical properties of protein foams. Food Hydrocoll. 2006, 20, 284–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Sokołowicz, Z.; Dykiel, M.; Augustyńska-Prejsnar, A.; Krawczyk, J. The effect of storage duration on some quality traits and composition of eggs from different housing systems. Ann. Anim. Sci. 2021, 1, 459–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kačániová, M.; Klūga, A.; Kántor, A.; Medo, J.; Žiarovská, J.; Puchalski, C.; Terentjeva, M. Comparison of MALDI-TOF MS Biotyper and 16S rDNA sequencing for the identification of Pseudomonas species isolated from fish. Microb. Pathog. 2019, 132, 313–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Ferreira, M.; Benringer, R.; Jost, R. Instrumental method for characterizing protein foams. J. Food Sci. 1995, 60, 90–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. StatSoft Electronic Statistics Textbook; Data Analysis Software System; Version 13.3; StatSoft Inc.: Kraków, Poland, 2018.
  47. Drabik, K.; Próchniak, T.; Spustek, D.; Wengerska, K.; Batkowska, J. The Impact of Package Type and Temperature on the Changes in Quality and Fatty Acids Profile of Table Eggs during Their Storage. Foods 2021, 10, 2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Chousalkar, K.K.; Khan, S.; McWhorter, A.R. Microbial quality, safety and storage of eggs. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 38, 91–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. De Reu, K.; Messens, W.; Heyndrickx, M.; Rodenburg, T.B.; Uyttendaele, M.; Herman, L. Bacterial contamination of table eggs and the influence of housing systems. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2008, 64, 5–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Aygun, A. The Eggshell Microbial Activity. In Egg Innovations and Strategies for Improvements; Hester, P.Y., Ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2017; pp. 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Barrow, P.A.; Lovell, M.A. Experimental infection of egg-laying hens with Salmonella enteritidisphage type 4. Avian Pathol. 1991, 20, 335–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Humphrey, T.J. Contamination of egg shell and contents with Salmonella enteritidis: A review. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1994, 21, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Oliveira, W.K.; Ávila, H.L.; Tadra, M.Z.; Cardoso, R.L.; Fadel-Pichet, C.M.T.; de Souza, E.M.; de Oliveira Pedrosa, F.; Faoro, H. High Genomic Identity between Clinical and Environmental Strains of Herbaspirillum frisingense Suggests Pre-Adaptation to Different Hosts and Intrinsic Resistance to Multiple Drugs. Antibiotics 2021, 10, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Baldani, I.; Baldani, V.L.D.; Seldin, L.; Dobereiner, J. Characterization of Herbaspirillurn Seropedicae Gen. Nov. Sp. Nov. a Root-Associated Nitrogen-Fixing Bacterium. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 1986, 36, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Obradovic, A.; Jones, B.J.; Minsavage, V.G.; Dickstein, R.E.; Momol, M.T. A Leaf Spot and Blight of Greenhouse Tomato Seedlings Incited by a Herbaspirillum sp. Plant Dis. 2007, 91, 886–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Dobritsa, P.A.; Reddy, M.C.S.; Samadpour, M. Reclassification of Herbaspirillum Putei as a Later Heterotypic Synonym of Herbaspirillum Huttiense, With the Description of H. Huttiense subsp. Huttiense subsp. Nov. and H. Huttiense subsp. Putei subsp. Nov., Comb. Nov., and Description of Herbaspirillum Aquaticum sp. Nov. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 1418–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Liu, C.; Kwon, M.J.; Kim, M.; Byun, J.H.; Yong, D.; Lee, K. Septicemia Caused by Herbaspirillum huttiense Secondary to Pneumonia. Ann. Lab. Med. 2019, 39, 340–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Gulati, A.; Sood, S.; Rahi, P.; Thakur, R.; Chauhan, S.; Chawla, I. Diversity Analysis of Diazotrophic Bacteria Associated with the Roots of Tea. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2011, 21, 545–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. De Souza, V.; Piro, V.C.; Faoro, H.; Tadra-Sfeir, M.Z.; Chicora, V.K.; Guizelini, D.; Weiss, V.; Vialle, R.A.; Monteiro, R.A.; Steffens, M.B.R.; et al. Draft Genome Sequence of Herbaspirillum huttiense subsp. Putei IAM 15032, a Strain Isolated from Well Water. Genome Announc. 2013, 1, e002521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Tayeb, L.A.; Lefevre, M.; Passet, V.; Diancourt, L.; Brisse, S.; Grimont, P.A.D. Grimont Comparative Phylogenies of Burkholderia, Ralstonia, Comamonas, Brevundimonas and Related Organisms Derived From Rpob, gyrB and Rrs Gene Sequences. Res. Microbiol. 2008, 159, 169–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Straub, D.; Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Tsap, T.; Ludewig, U. Root ethylene signalling is involved in Miscanthus sinensis growth promotion by the bacterial endophyte Herbaspirillum frisingense GSF30(T). J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 4603–4615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Pondit, A.; Haque, Z.F.; Sabuj, A.A.M.; Khan, M.S.R.; Saha, S. Characterization of Staphylococcus aureus isolated from chicken and quail eggshell. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 2018, 5, 466–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Al-Natour, M.Q.; Alaboudi, A.R.; Al-Hatamelh, N.A.; Osaili, T.M. Escherichia coli O157:H7 facilitates the penetration of Staphylococcus aureus into table eggs. J. Food Sci. 2012, 77, 29–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Benrabia, I.; Hamdi, T.M.; Shehata, A.A.; Neubauer, H.; Wareth, G. Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in Poultry Species in Algeria: Long-Term Study on Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance. Vet. Sci. 2020, 7, 54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Qian, C.; Castaneda-Gulla, K.; Sattlegger, E.; Mutukumira, A.N. Enterotoxigenicity and genetic relatedness of Staphylococcus aureus in a commercial poultry plant and poultry farm. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2022, 363, 109454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adesiyun, A.; Offiah, N.; Seepersadsingh, N.; Rodrigo, S.; Lashley, V.; Musai, L. Frequency and antimicrobial resistance of enteric bacteria with spoilage potential isolated from table eggs. Food Res. Int. 2006, 39, 212–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Elisha, I.L.; Jambalang, A.R.; Botha, F.S.; Buys, E.M.; McGaw, L.J.; Eloff, J.N. Potency and selectivity indices of acetone leaf extracts of nine selected South African trees against six opportunistic Enterobacteriaceae isolates from commercial chicken eggs. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 2017, 17, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Sabarinath, A.; Guillaume, V.; Guillaume, B.; Mathew, V.; DeAllie, C.; Sharma, R.N. Bacterial contamination of commercial chicken eggs in Grenada, West Indies. West Indian Vet. J. 2009, 9, 4–7. [Google Scholar]
  69. Musgrove, M.T.; Northcutt, J.K.; Jones, D.R.; Cox, N.A.; Harrison, M.A. Enterobacteriaceae and related organisms isolated from shell eggs collected during commercial processing. Poult. Sci. 2008, 87, 1211–1218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. De Oliveira-Garcia, D.; Dall’Agnol, M.; Rosales, M.; Azzuz, A.C.G.S.; Alcántara, N.; Martinez, M.B.; Girón, J.A. Fimbriae and adherence of Stenotrophomonas maltophilia to epithelial cells and to abiotic surfaces. Cell. Microbiol. 2003, 5, 625–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Fang, T.; Huang, L. Growth and survival kinetics of Listeria monocytogenes in cooked egg whites. Food Control 2014, 36, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ahmad, S.; Haq, A.U.; Yousaf, M.; Kamran, Z.; Rehman, A.U.; Sohail, M.U.; Samad, H.A. Effect of canola oil and vitamin a on egg characteristics and egg cholesterol in laying hens during hot summer months. Pak. Vet. J. 2013, 33, 346–349. [Google Scholar]
  73. Fraeye, I.; Bruneel, C.; Lemahieu, C.; Buyse, J.; Muylaert, K.; Foubert, I. Dietary enrichment of eggs with omega-3 fatty acids: A review. Food Res. Int. 2012, 48, 961–969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Aguinaga Bósquez, J.P.; Kovacs, Z.; Gillay, Z.; Bázár, G.; Palkó, C.; Hingyi, H.; Csavajda, É.; Üveges, M.; Jókainé Szatura, Z.; Barbulescu, I.D.; et al. Evaluating the Effect of a Brewery By-Product as Feed Supplementation on the Quality of Eggs by Means of a Human Panel and E-Tongue and E-Nose Analysis. Chemosensors 2021, 9, 213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Alleoni, A.C.C.; Antunes, A.J. Internal quality of eggs coated with whey protein concentrate. Sci. Agric. 2004, 61, 276–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Davis, J.P.; Foegeding, E.A. Foaming and interfacial properties of polymerized whey protein isolate. J. Food Sci. 2004, 69, 404–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Animals 13 01899 g001 550
Figure 1. Percentage of isolated species of bacteria in cardboard box.
Figure 1. Percentage of isolated species of bacteria in cardboard box.
Animals 13 01899 g001
Animals 13 01899 g002 550
Figure 2. Percentage of isolated species of bacteria in plastic box.
Figure 2. Percentage of isolated species of bacteria in plastic box.
Animals 13 01899 g002
Table
Table 1. Influence of packaging type on the microbiological quality of eggs stored in different thermal conditions.
Table 1. Influence of packaging type on the microbiological quality of eggs stored in different thermal conditions.
Storage Times
(Days)		Kind of Packagep-Value for Main Effects
Cardboard BoxPlastic Box
5 °C22 °C5 °C22 °C
TCB Egg shell (log cfu/mL)P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.53
0.09
0.000
0.041
0.79
0.25
0.040
0x 1.78x 1.80x 1.75x 1.76
14x 1.43 ax 1.86 ax 1.82 a x 2.13 b
28y 2.55y 2.63y 2.40 ay 2.76 b
CB Internal egg content (log cfu/mL)P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.010
0.26
0.005
0.10
0.16
0.53
0.45
0x 0.00x 0.00x 0.00x 0.00
14y 1.59 ay 1.92 ay 2.11y 2.35 b
28y 1.601.73y 2.04y 2.49
CB Egg shell (log cfu/mL)P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.17
0.51
0.000
0.000
0.21
0.22
0.000
0x 0.00x 0.00x 0.00x 0.00
140.52x 1.12x 0.52x 1.00
28y 1.37 acy 2.15 by 1.22 acy 1.94 bc
CB Internal egg content (log cfu/mL)P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.014
0.037
0.018
0.33
0.09
0.13
0.68
00.00x 0.000.00x 0.00
140.00 a y 1.37 a0.00 ay 1.78 ac
280.52 acy 1.00 a1.64 cy 1.80 b
Explanation: TCB—total number of bacteria, CB—coliform bacteria; P—effect of kind of package, T—effect of temperature, S—effect of storage duration; x, y values in columns with different letters differ significantly; a, b, c values in rows with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Number of isolated species of bacteria.
Table 2. Number of isolated species of bacteria.
Bacterial SpeciesCardboard BoxPlastic BoxTotal
0 Day14th Day28th Day0 Day14th Day28th Day
Acinetobacter guillouiae 3 33 9
Acinetobacter johnosonii 53 3314
Aerococcus viridans5 5
Bacillus cereus3 3 6
Bacillus licheniformis 3 3
Bacillus megaterium 3 3
Bacillus simplex 3 3
Bacillus spp.3 3
Carnobacterium divergens 3 3
Corynebacterium stationis3 3
Enterobacter cloacacae 3 3
Herbaspirillum huttiense 5102101542
Kocuria rhizophila 33
Pseudomonas brenneri 3 4 7
Pseudomonas corrugata 3 3
Pseudomonas flourescens 3 3
Pseudomonas gessardii 5 3 8
Pseudomonas oleovorans 3 3
Pseudomonas proteolytica 3 3 6
Pseudomonas rhodesiae 3 3
Pseudomonas veronii 3 3 6
Staphylococcus aureus1 1
Staphylococcus delphini3 3
Staphylococcus equorum5 325520
Staphylococcus haemolyticus33 6
Staphylococcus chromogenes 3 3
Staphylococcus simulans3 3
Staphylococcus succinus3 3 6
Staphylococcus vitulinus3 33312
Staphylococcus warneri3 3
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia 3310521
Total383919256234217
Table
Table 3. Influence of packaging type on the sensory characteristics of eggs.
Table 3. Influence of packaging type on the sensory characteristics of eggs.
TraitTimeKind of Packagep-Value for Main Effects
Cardboard BoxPlastic Box
5 °C22 °C5 °C22 °C
overall appearance1x 7.93 ± 0.96x 7.93 ± 0.96x 7.93 ± 0.96x 7.93 ± 0.96P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.21
0.06
0.000
0.51
0.61
0.39
0.81
14x 8.27 ± 0.79 ax 8.00 ± 0.84x 8.13 ± 1.067.40 ± 1.12 b
28y 7.20 ± 1.08y 6.93 ± 1.16y 7.06 ± 1.17y 6.67 ± 0.98
1–287.80 ± 1.037.62 ± 1.097.71 ± 1.147.33 ± 1.13
yolk colour 18.13 ± 0.99x 8.13 ± 0.99x 8.13 ± 0.99x 8.13 ± 0.99P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.49
0.007
0.000
1.00
0.87
0.16
0.41
148.07 ± 0.88x 7.67 ± 1.05x 8.20 ± 0.86 a7.27 ± 1.39 b
287.67 ± 0.89y 6.73 ± 1.16y 7.20 ± 1.08y 6.80 ± 1.61
1–287.96 ± 0.93 a7.51 ± 1.197.84 ± 1.067.40 ± 1.44 b
smell18.13 ± 0.99x 8.13 ± 0.998.13 ± 0.99x 8.13 ± 0.99P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.93
0.000
0.000
0.59
0.69
0.017
0.98
14x 8.53 ± 0.63 ax 7.80 ± 1.15 bcx 8.53 ± 0.74 ab7.47 ± 1.19 c
28y 7.60 ± 1.05 ay 6.80 ± 1.16 by 7.80 ± 0.56 ay 6.87 ± 0.99 b
1–288.09 ± 0.97 a7.58 ± 1.22 b8.16 ± 0.82 a7.49 ± 1.16 b
taste17.80 ± 1.21x 7.80 ± 1.217.80 ± 1.217.80 ± 1.21P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.85
0.05
0.005
0.67
0.96
0.40
0.93
148.00 ± 1.257.67 ± 0.898.07 ± 0.167.40 ± 1.40
287.40 ± 1.55y 6.93 ± 1.167.47 ± 1.126.87 ± 1.00
1–287.73 ± 1.347.47 ± 1.147.78 ± 1.167.36 ± 1.25
texture1x 7.80 ± 1.20x 7.80 ± 1.20x 7.80 ± 1.20x 7.80 ± 1.20P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.09
0.002
0.000
0.67
0.39
0.039
0.47
14y 8.74 ± 0.60 ax 7.87 ± 0.99 bx 8.33 ± 0.97 ab7.20 ± 1.02 c
28x 7.40 ± 1.12y 6.60 ± 1.12y 6.80 ± 1.15y 6.67 ± 0.82
1–287.98 ± 0.14 a7.42 ± 1.23 b7.64 ± 0.267.22 ± 1.10 b
Explanation: P—effect of kind of package, T—effect of temperature, S—effect of storage duration; x, y, values in columns with different letters differ significantly; a, b, c values in rows with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Table
Table 4. Influence of packaging type on foaming properties of egg white.
Table 4. Influence of packaging type on foaming properties of egg white.
TraitTimeKind of Packagep-Value for Main Effects
Cardboard BoxPlastic Box
5 °C22 °C5 °C22 °C
Foaming capacity (%)1x 516.00 ± 36.27x 516.00 ± 36.27x 516.00 ± 36.27x 516.00 ± 36.27P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.36
0.06
0.000
0.34
0.76
0.035
0.78
14x 523.00 ± 35.06 a497.50 ± 30.39x 519.50 ± 24.55 ay 480.50 ± 25.76 b
28y 470.50 ± 25.32y 480.00 ± 37.19y 474.50 ± 23.15y 465.50 ± 27.43
1–28503.17 ± 39.36497.83 ± 36.71503.33 ± 34.55487.00 ± 36.43
Foam stability (%)1x 95.41 ± 2.29x 95.41 ± 2.29x 95.41 ± 2.29x 95.41 ± 2.29P
T
S
P×T
P×S
T×S
P×T×S		0.56
0.039
0.000
0.42
0.15
0.32
0.56
14x 93.88 ± 3.05 ay 92.57 ± 2.34y 92.29 ± 2.05y 91.04 ± 2.35 b
28y 90.79 ± 3.36z 87.91 ± 3.57y 90.38 ± 3.24y 89.76 ± 2.13
1–2893.36 ± 3.4491.96 ± 4.1592.69 ± 3.2692.07 ± 3.28
Explanation: P—effect of kind of package, T—effect of temperature, S—effect of storage duration; x, y, z values in columns with different letters differ significantly; a, b values in rows with different letters differ significantly (p < 0.05).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sokołowicz, Z.; Kačániová, M.; Dykiel, M.; Augustyńska-Prejsnar, A.; Topczewska, J. Influence of Storage Packaging Type on the Microbiological and Sensory Quality of Free-Range Table Eggs. Animals 2023, 13, 1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121899

AMA Style

Sokołowicz Z, Kačániová M, Dykiel M, Augustyńska-Prejsnar A, Topczewska J. Influence of Storage Packaging Type on the Microbiological and Sensory Quality of Free-Range Table Eggs. Animals. 2023; 13(12):1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121899

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sokołowicz, Zofia, Miroslava Kačániová, Magdalena Dykiel, Anna Augustyńska-Prejsnar, and Jadwiga Topczewska. 2023. "Influence of Storage Packaging Type on the Microbiological and Sensory Quality of Free-Range Table Eggs" Animals 13, no. 12: 1899. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani13121899

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop