Next Article in Journal
Uncovering Microbial Diversity and Community Structure of Black Spots Residing in Tomb Mural Painting
Previous Article in Journal
Identification of Released Bacterial Extracellular Vesicles Containing Lpp20 from Helicobacter pylori
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microbial Contamination and Antibiotic Resistance in Fresh Produce and Agro-Ecosystems in South Asia—A Systematic Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/microorganisms13040754
microorganisms-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
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Growth and Diversity of Spoiling and Foodborne Bacteria in Poultry Hamburgers in Modified Atmosphere and with Sulfites During Shelf Life

by
Elena González-Fandos
1,
Alba Martínez Laorden
1,
Santiago Condón Usón
2 and
María Jesús Serrano Andrés
3,*
1
Department of Food Technology, CIVA Research Center, University of La Rioja, de la Paz Avenue, 26006 Logroño, Spain
2
Food Science and Technology Department, Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón IA2, Universidad de Zaragoza, Miguel Servet St. 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
3
Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón IA2, Universidad de Zaragoza-Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón (CITA), Miguel Servet St. 177, 50013 Zaragoza, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2025, 13(4), 754; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040754
Submission received: 16 February 2025 / Revised: 20 March 2025 / Accepted: 21 March 2025 / Published: 26 March 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Microbiota in the Center Place: Detection, Antibiotic Resistance, Biofilms, the Impact on Hosts and Targeted Interventions)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Poultry meat is the most consumed meat worldwide due to its low fat content, sensory qualities, and affordability. However, its rapid spoilage, especially when minced for products like hamburgers, is a challenge. Strategies such as sulfite addition or modified-atmosphere packaging (MAP) can help control spoilage and microbial growth. This study evaluated both approaches by analyzing bacterial development in poultry hamburgers through total viable counts and MALDI-TOF identification, combining food-pathogens detection. The addition of 5 mg/kg sulfites had a limited effect, whereas increasing CO2 levels in the packaging significantly extended the shelf life by reducing the bacterial growth rates and prolonging the lag phases. The most affected bacteria were aerobic mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria, as well as Brochothrix thermosphacta. Carnobacterium spp. dominated the aerobic mesophilic group, while Enterobacter spp. was prevalent in Enterobacteriaceae and aerobic mesophilic isolates, highlighting its role in spoilage. Hafnia alvei was also relevant in the final spoilage stages. These results suggest the importance of these bacteria in poultry hamburger decay and demonstrate that MAP is an effective method to delay spoilage.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Current trends in food consumption are evolving towards healthier but tasty products. New food products developed are following novel trends that focus on the production of improved formulations that are respectful of human health and environmental care, while also considering manufacturers’ interests. When talking about meat foodstuffs, there are a wide range of products at consumers’ disposal, not only unprocessed meat such as traditional steaks or whole chickens, but also processed meat products such as sausages or hamburgers, whose launch usually involves consideration of customers’ preferences [1].
Hamburgers stand out among meat products as one of the most widely accepted options among consumers of different age groups [2]. They have conventionally been formulated with bovine meat [3]. Nevertheless, reasons such as higher bovine meat production costs compared to other species, nutritional profiles of bovine meat (commonly characterized by high fat content and tough digestibility of proteins [4], or even affective preferences related to smell and taste [5] have pushed the meat industry to create new products, similar to the already existing ones, but with improvements in some of their characteristics. Indeed, a good example of improved meat products are newly formulated poultry hamburgers [6,7,8], which have entered the scene as a groundbreaking meat product that covers most of the previously cited benefits.
Thus, poultry meat has appeared as a good alternative for the formulation of hamburgers. Besides those reasons, poultry meat production has a lower environmental impact compared to other species such as bovine or pork [9]. Its nutritional profile, considering, for instance, fat and protein content, is really attractive [10,11]; it displays high digestibility [12]; and its smell and taste are more palatable, even for people who are not keen on eating meat. All these considerations make poultry meat one of the main meats consumed in Europe [13] and even worldwide [14]. Indeed, the most recent predictions published by the European Commission [13] and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations [14] estimate an increase in poultry meat consumption in the next decade.
Nevertheless, poultry meat also poses some disadvantages, as it is more perishable than meat obtained from other species. For instance, some studies describe shelf lives of 5–7 days in chicken breast preserved in cold conditions [15,16] or turkey meat [17,18], mainly due to the growth of spoilage microbiota [19], linked to modifications in their typical characteristics that make them unacceptable to consumers [20]. By contrast, longer shelf lives have been described for beef, which shows important signs of spoilage between 7 and 14 days of preservation in similar conditions [21], even minced [22]. Although both sensorial analysis and determination of chemical parameters such as pH and total volatile basic nitrogen are commonly used as indicators of meat decay [23,24], the microbiota present in meat is the basis of the deterioration [25,26]. As muscle is a sterile matrix, it can be easily inferred that microorganisms involved in poultry meat spoilage reach muscle during slaughter, skinning, evisceration, and subsequent processes [27,28]. This risk is even higher when meat products are made from minced meat, a risk exacerbated by the high concentration of nutrients and higher availability of water [29]. Hence, poultry hamburgers comply with all the requirements previously cited to boost microbial growth, and although most of the microorganisms are only implied in meat product decay, poultry hamburgers have also been involved in several reported outbreaks [30,31,32].
Regarding worrisome foodborne pathogens in hamburgers, Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp., and Listeria monocytgenes are of major concern. These microorganisms mainly reach hamburgers during the production process, for instance, while mincing or mixing meat, and can cause serious illnesses. In the most recent data published by the European Food Safety Agency corresponding to 2022 [33], Salmonella spp. was the second causative agent, behind those unknown, while Campylobacter spp. was the fourth. Meanwhile, L. monocytogenes was the main causative agent of diseases, causing 45% of all deaths linked to foodborne outbreaks. Regarding vehicles, meat and meat products were the second-largest group involved in foodborne outbreaks, with Salmonella spp. and Campylobacter spp. being the most common causal agents. Although an accurate time–temperature cooking combination, such as 70 °C/2 min, leads to a 6-logarithm reduction in one of the most heat-resistant vegetative foodborne bacteria, L. monocytogenes [34], undercooking enables its survival, so the study of its presence in raw products is of extreme importance to reduce the risk of its intake.
Although sanitary issues are of major relevance, as spoilage bacteria are responsible for shortening the shelf life of animal-derived products, they are also responsible for significant economic losses, not only for meat product producers but also for consumers, as well as substantial rates of food waste [35,36,37]. Some of the most important microorganisms reported to be involved in meat decay are Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas spp., the latter of which is important to consider due to its ability to grow at low temperatures and form biofilms [38], potentially eventually causing foodborne outbreaks. Additionally, there are some other microorganisms that have not traditionally attracted as much attention [39] but are currently at the top of the line, such as Brochothrix thermosphacta [40,41].
In order to prevent microbial growth, there are several techniques that can be applied to food products. Nevertheless, it should be taken into consideration that meat is a raw product that can suffer from strong alterations when subjected to some physical treatments such as traditional heating [42], pulsed electric fields [43,44], ultrasonication [45], or high hydrostatic pressure [46]. To avoid changes related to these processes, apart from maintenance in cold or even freezing conditions (universal recommendations for extending the shelf life of raw meat products), some other procedures are combined to increase the preservation effect, such as the modification of the packaging atmosphere or the addition of certain additives. The modification in the gas concentration contained in the package has proved to be extremely effective in postponing the spoilage of meat products, as the reduction in oxygen concentration and its exchange for inert gases is linked to a reduction in the growth rates of the aerobic populations of spoilage microbiota present in meat products [47]. Several studies have described increases in the shelf life of poultry meat products when a modified atmosphere is used in packaging. For instance, Chouliara et al. [48] found an extension of refrigerated chicken breast shelf life from 5–6 to 11–12 days.
With the aim of extending the shelf lives of meat products, one of the most common additives added are sulfites. Although they may pose specific drawbacks over consumers’ health such as hypersensitivity, allergic diseases, vitamin deficiency, and dysbiotic events of the gut and oral microbiota [49], their use in combination with other barriers such as refrigeration allows the use of a limited amount of sulfites, harmless to human health, with good results [50].
Even though there are several methods for microbial identification in foodstuffs, MALDI-TOF (Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization Time-of-Flight) mass spectrometry is often more fit for purpose compared to molecular techniques like PCR and sequencing due to its speed, cost-effectiveness, and ability to provide comprehensive and direct identification. It can identify microorganisms within minutes after sample preparation, while molecular techniques often require hours or days. Additionally, MALDI-TOF has lower per-sample costs since it does not require expensive reagents like primers, probes, and sequencing kits. Unlike molecular methods that require prior knowledge of target organisms and are limited by primer specificity, MALDI-TOF identifies a broad range of bacteria, yeasts, and fungi based on protein spectra, eliminating the need for DNA extraction and amplification. It is particularly effective in distinguishing closely related species, which can be challenging for molecular methods due to genetic similarities. Modern MALDI-TOF systems are equipped with extensive spectral databases that ensure high accuracy in identifying foodborne pathogens and spoilage organisms. Moreover, it aligns well with food industry needs by enabling high-throughput, real-time microbial monitoring.
Hence, the aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of modified atmosphere and addition of sulfites on the evolution of the microbiota present in poultry hamburgers and their implications on shelf life using MALDI-TOF chromatography.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Design

Commercial hamburgers were provided by a local enterprise. Hamburgers were formulated with chicken (64%) and turkey (12%) meat, containing 7.9% total fat, 3.9% carbohydrates, 16.6% proteins, and 1.6% salt. Hamburgers were divided into three different batches. Batch 1 was produced without the addition of sulfites and preserved with no modifications to the packaging atmosphere. In Batch 2, minced meat was supplemented with a concentration of 5 mg/kg of sulfites during the formulation and production of hamburgers, maintaining the product without any modification in the packaging atmosphere during subsequent preservation in refrigeration. Sulfites were not added to Batch 3, but the batch was packaged with a modified atmosphere of N2 enriched with 20% CO2. The packaging was made of polyethylene (PET), which is an inert material that avoids transference between the package and hamburgers, and between the packaging atmosphere and the outer environment All the hamburgers were provided frozen, and freeze-preserved at −20 °C until used.

2.2. Sampling and Sample Preparation

In order to study the evolution of the microbiota, hamburgers were frozen immediately after production, defrosted at day 0 and maintained in refrigeration during the study. They were sampled every 2 days from days 0 to 16. Defrosting was performed overnight while maintaining hamburgers at 5 °C. The shelf life of the poultry hamburgers was set by the manufacturer as 8 days, although an extension beyond this period was proposed for this study in order to better establish the characteristics of microbiota development. Sample preparation was performed by mixing 25 g of hamburger and 225 mL of sterile buffered peptone water at 0.1% (Oxoid LTD, Basingstoke, UK), for 5 min at 230 r.p.m. on a Stomacher 400 C (Cole-Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL, USA). After filtration, the obtained juice was collected in sterile tubes. Serial dilutions were made in sterile buffered peptone water to adjust microbial concentrations for accurate counts to be sown on Petri plates using the pour plating technique. On each sampling day, 2 hamburgers per condition were analyzed, and 2 aliquots per hamburger were studied.

2.3. Total Volatile Basic Nitrogen and pH

2.3.1. pH

Microorganisms have diverse metabolic pathways with different by-products like lactic acid, acetic acid, succinic acid, etc., which produce acidification of the medium as well as foreign odors. Therefore, pH determination can be an early indicator of microbial alteration that alerts us that the shelf life is coming to an end [51]. To determine pH and test its usefulness as an indicator of microbial growth and end of shelf life, samples were prepared in the Stomacher as previously described and measured with a pH meter (pH-Meter BASIC 20+, Crison, Barcelona, Spain).

2.3.2. Total Volatile Basic Nitrogen (TVBN)

Poultry meat is rich in proteins and peptides. Their metabolization by the present microbiota produces characteristic compounds of putrefaction, making it possible to determine the TVBN as an indicator of the microbial load and shelf life of poultry meat [51]. The volatile nitrogenous bases were extracted from the sample by means of an aqueous solution of 6% (v/v) perchloric acid. Once alkalinized, the extract was subjected to steam distillation, and the volatile basic compounds were absorbed by an acid receiver. The concentration of TVBN was determined by titration of the absorbed bases [52]. Direct distillation, a method described by Antonacopoulos [53] for the determination of TVBN in fishery products [52], was used. For TVBN determination, 2 g of each batch of hamburger sample was weighed and transferred to 50 mL of 6% perchloric acid solution. The sample was mixed using an ultrasonic technique (Ultra-Turrax T25 digital, IKAR, Staufen, Germany) until homogeneous and centrifuged at 3000 rpm at 4 °C for 5 min (Megafuge 1.0 R, Heraeus, Hanau, Germany). After centrifugation, the supernatant was collected, filtered, and transferred to a distillation tube together with 3 drops of phenolphthalein. The mixture was placed in the distiller (Kjeldahl UDK 149, Cromakit, Granada, Spain) to perform an automatic distillation with a 5% potassium hydroxide solution. Once the process ended, and the samples were recovered in a flask with 20 mL of 3% boric acid and 3 mL of Tashiro Mixed Indicator (AppliChem GmbH, Darmstadt, Germany), titration was performed with 0.1 N hydrochloric acid in an automatic pH meter (AE150, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Boston, MA, USA). As a reference, a blank trial was performed without adding the 2 g of sample.
The concentration of TVBN, expressed in mg/100 g of hamburger sample, was calculated as stated in Equation (1).
Equation (1). Assessment of TVBN per 100 g of hamburger sample.
T V B N = V 1 − V 0 × 0.1 × 14 × 100 M
where
V1 = volume (mL) of 0.01 M hydrocloric acid per simple.
V0 = volume (mL) of 0.01 M hydrocloric acid per blank simple.
M = sample weight (g).

2.4. Bacterial Isolation

For the study of microbiota evolution, the following bacterial groups were studied as spoilage bacteria and process hygiene criteria: total aerobic mesophilic microorganisms, psychrotrophic microorganisms, Enterobacteriaceae, and Brochothrix thermosphacta. These microbial groups were investigated every 2 days between days 0 and 16, both inclusive. Additionally, Salmonella spp., L. monocytogenes, and Campylobacter spp. were investigated as food safety criteria. In this case, only days 0, 8, and 16 were analyzed, as these bacteria pose a food safety risk, and they should not be present in hamburgers. Also, Pseudomonas spp. was studied, following the same sampling pattern as a spoiling indicator.

2.4.1. Bacterial Culture Media

All the culture media and selective supplements used in this study were provided by Oxoid LTD (Milan, Italy).
For the growth of total aerobic mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria, samples were pour-plated, and Tryptone Soy Agar supplemented with 0.6% of Yeast Extract (TSA-YE) was used as the growth medium. Streptomycin Thallous Acetate Actidione (STAA) agar, supplemented with 7,5 g/ 100 mL of glycerol and the selective supplement STAA SR0151E, was used for the selective growth of B. thermosphacta. Again, the samples were pour-plated. Additionally, Pseudomonas spp. were studied by growing them in CFC Agar, prepared by mixing Pseudomonas Agar Base and selective supplement SR0103.
VRBG (Violet Red Bile Glucose) Agar was used for Enterobacteriaceae counting. Samples were pour-plated, and after the addition of a first layer of agar, a second layer was added to obtain microaerophilic conditions. XLD Agar (Xylose Lisine Desoxycolate) was used for Salmonella spp. growth. The color of this medium changes when acidification occurs, and Salmonella colonies exhibit a characteristic red tone with a black center. L. monocytogenes was pour-plated in Oxoid Chromogenic Listeria Agar (OCLA) supplemented with selective supplements SR0226E and SR0228E. Finally, Campylobacter spp. was grown on Campylobacter Blood-Free Selective Agar Base (CBFSA) supplemented with selective supplement SR0155E under microaerobic conditions. Microaerobic conditions were reached in small chambers by using the Campygen Oxoid™ kit (Thermo Scientific, Loughborough, UK). Hamburger samples were in all cases pour-plated. Only in the case of Enterobacteriaceae was the double-layer technique used: after sowing the sample, a second layer of agar was added to create microaerophilic conditions.

2.4.2. Bacterial Culture Conditions

Microbial culture conditions are presented in Table 1.

2.5. Identification by MALDI-TOF

MALDI-TOF® Biotyper model Microflex with the software FlexControl 3.4 and MBT Compass Version 4.180 (Brüker, MA, USA) was used for bacterial identification. The reference database used was MBT Compass Explorer 4.1, which includes 10,833 reference profiles (Brüker). This equipment is intended for the characterization of bacteria by matrix-assisted laser desorption–ionization (MALDI) time-of-flight mass spectrometry (TOF/MS). Hence, this technology identifies bacteria based on the mass spectra of cells or cellular components. One of the main advantages of this method compared with traditional identification methods is its speed of analysis, as it can identify bacteria in a few minutes.
For this purpose, 215 isolates obtained from cultures on specific media and under specific conditions, derived from hamburgers with and without sulfites and with preservation in unmodified and modified atmosphere, were identified. For mesophilic aerobic bacteria, 5 colonies per plate and condition (hamburger without sulfites and with no modifications in the packaging atmosphere, hamburger with sulfites and no modifications in the packaging atmosphere, and hamburger without sulfites and supplemented with 20% CO2 in the packaging atmosphere) were collected on days 0, 4, 8, and 16. In order to identify the microbiota, the target days were analyzed using MALDI-TOF. Enterobacteriaceae were identified for days 0, 4, and 16, as their involvement in food decay is of extreme importance in the first stages of food preservation, where a fast exponential growth is commonly detected. The growth of colonies on L. monocytogenes and Salmonella spp. isolation plates was identified by MALDI-TOF for days 0, 8, and 16 in order to have a balanced overview of their potential evolution in hamburgers, as they pose a safety risk and their presence should be avoided. The same sampling was performed for the spoiling Pseudomonas spp. Colonies were collected directly from selective media Petri plates and were kept frozen at −20 °C in a cryoprotective solution consisting of 80% sterile peptone buffered water and 20% glycerol. All the isolates were thawed and revitalized in TSA-YE prior to MALDI-TOF identification. Preparation of bacteria isolates for MALDI-TOF identification was carried out according to the manufacturer’s guidelines. The Brüker bacterial test standard (Brüker) was used for calibration according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The identification results were interpreted according to the manufacturer’s criteria. Scores of equal or greater than 2.0 indicated species-level identification, scores of 1.700–1.999 indicated genus-level identification, and scores of <1.700 were considered not reliable. For this study, only isolates with scores equal or greater than 2.0 were considered.

2.6. Data Representation, Modeling, and Statistical Analysis

Bacterial evolution results were obtained from 2 replicates, 2 aliquots per replicate, and are presented as the mean value ± standard deviation. The PRISM® 8.0.2 program was used for data processing and representation, as well as for statistical analysis via ANOVA (GraphPad Software, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA). Statistically significant differences were considered when p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. TVBN and pH

From day 8, the smell of the hamburgers began to be undesirable, indicating deep decay and matching the shelf life set by the manufacturer. This day corresponds to an inflection point in pH and TVBN (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Initially, the pH decreased in the three batches and continued to decrease in the sample kept in a protective atmosphere (p < 0.05). On the other hand, in the samples with and without sulfites and no changes to the packaging atmosphere, it increased from day 10 and day 8, respectively, although the decrease registered in pH was more pronounced in hamburgers not subjected to any extra preservation technique (no sulfites, no protective atmosphere, (p < 0.05)).
In turn, the TVBN increased similarly in the three samples until day 8 (p > 0.05), and continued with the same trend in the sample stored in a protective atmosphere, even though differences were detected in the last phases of the study, finding higher TVBN values in hamburgers not subjected to any extra preservation technique (no sulfites, no protective atmosphere, (p < 0,05). In the case of the samples with and without sulfites and no changes in the packaging atmosphere, the TVBN shot up from that day onwards, matching the increase in pH.
The increase in pH described from day 8 in samples with no modifications in the packaging atmosphere may be due to protein decomposition, in parallel with the higher increase registered in TVBN, which may underlie the alkalization of the samples [24]. By contrast, the sample stored in a protective atmosphere did not experience the same increase in pH or undergo such a large increase in TVBN as the samples kept in the modified atmosphere. As stated before, unpleasant odors were considerable from day 8 onwards, matching these pH and TVBN findings. Even though the pH and TVBN behavior of hamburgers preserved in a modified atmosphere differs from the one described in the other two batches considering the whole study period (p < 0.05), there are no significant differences between the three batches for TVBN until day 8 (p > 0.05), a point that could be set as the end of the shelf life. For pH, the hamburgers followed a different trend. Even though those kept in a modified atmosphere continued to decrease in pH during the whole study period, both these and the ones supplemented with sulfites showed a similar behavior until day 8. Hence, both techniques seem to be suitable for reducing the decrease in pH (possibly associated with bacterial metabolism) during the shelf life. On the other hand, even though the modified atmosphere seems to reduce the TVBN values beyond day 8 compared to the hamburgers kept without modifications in the packaging atmosphere, there were no changes in TVBN values until day 8 (p > 0.05), but the rapid increase on that day could indicate the end of the shelf life. Hence, even though pH and TVBN, together with sensorial characteristics, may be used as indicators of the state of the hamburgers and may be suitable for highlighting decay, they should never be used alone, as the results were not conclusive. Bacterial counts are needed to better set the end of the shelf life and guarantee the safety of hamburgers.

3.2. Bacterial Counts

3.2.1. Aerobic Mesophilic Bacteria

The initial total viable counts (TVCs) of aerobic mesophilic bacteria were of 5.63 ± 0.00–5.81 ± 0.12 log CFU/g at day 0, and a comparable increase in the TVCs of the three types of hamburgers led to a final TVC of 9.59 ± 0.24–10.34 ± 0.02 log CFU/g at day 16, with non-existing statistical differences between them (p > 0.05, Figure 3). Only lower TVCs were documented in the refrigerated hamburgers maintained in modified atmosphere conditions on days 8–14 of the shelf life of hamburgers, set by the manufacturers at 8 days. Henceforth, increasing the CO2 concentration of the headspace of the packaging could be an effective method to slow down bacterial development in poultry hamburgers, limiting their growth and side effects, even leading to the extension of shelf lives, even though the CO2 levels were not measured over the duration of this study. The increment in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere used for packaging prolongs the lag phase of bacterial growth and decreases the growth rate during the logarithmic phase [47,54]. For instance, a similar behavior was assessed by Patsias et al. [55], who described an extension of shelf life by more than 6 days by improving the modified atmosphere of precooked chicken products stored at 4 °C. Sulfite addition did not show any reduction in TVC in the study period.
Aerobic mesophilic bacteria comprise a diverse group of species present in meat that are able to grow under aerobic conditions. They are commonly used as indicators of food hygiene, and their determination is included in routine surveillance plans developed by meat industries [56,57]. Although the bacterial growth increase detected at the end of the study period prevented the modeling of the data, it indicated an extension of poultry hamburger shelf life when using sulfites or modified-atmosphere packaging enriched with CO2, with the latter approach being more fit for purpose.

3.2.2. Psychrotrophic Bacteria

Aerobic psychrotrophic bacteria were not detected up to 2–4 days of maintenance in refrigeration, with the timing depending on the characteristics of the atmosphere used for packaging: whilst psychrotrophic bacterial growth began after 2 days of maintenance in refrigeration for hamburgers packaged without modifications in the atmosphere of the packaging, it started after 4 days for those packed with a modified atmosphere (Figure 4). Whereas no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in psychrotrophic bacterial TVCs on days 0 and 2, packaging in a modified atmosphere delayed the start of bacterial detection and resulted in lower TVCs throughout the study period until day 16 (p < 0.05), where slightly lower TVCs were identified compared to mesophilic bacteria (8.98 ± 0.21–9.65 ± 0.16 log CFU/g), although no statistically significant differences were detected. Addition of sulfites did not show any delay in psychrotrophic bacterial development. As was found with the TVCs of mesophilic bacteria, changes linked to modifications in the packaging atmosphere were found to have an impact on bacterial development, making this technique suitable to be considered for shelf-life extension in poultry hamburgers. The same effect has been documented for beef patties [58] or ground beef [59] preserved in refrigeration and a modified atmosphere.
Aerobic psychrotrophic bacteria comprise a group of bacteria able to grow under low-temperature conditions. They are used in routine analyses, for instance, in the dairy sector [60], vegetable production [61], or in the meat industry [29], among others, and play an important role in the monitoring of ready-to-eat products and some other refrigerated products, as small fluctuations in temperature allow significant reductions in the time to spoilage due to fast increases in psychrotrophic bacterial populations [35]. Data obtained show slight benefits in delaying and reducing the growth of psychrotrophic bacteria when modifying packaging atmosphere, which might play an important role in hamburger decay.

3.2.3. Enterobacteriaceae

In the present study, Enterobacteriaceae TVCs were similar in the three conditions studied. An increase from 3.19 ± 0.3 log CFU/g at day 0 up to 9.44 ± 0.39 log CFU/g was observed on day 16, and no statistically significant differences were found between the three groups of hamburgers studied on any tested day (p > 0.05, Figure 5). This indicates a low efficiency of the amount of sulfites added and the modification in the gas concentration of the packaging atmosphere against this group of bacteria, facts that could be linked to a protective effect of hamburger components, such as fat or proteins [62], or to the low impact of decreasing oxygen availability on Enterobacterales, as some of the microorganisms in this group are facultative anaerobes.
Enterobacterales are usually used as an indicator of fecal cross-contamination and general hygiene during the production process. Although high TVCs at the beginning of the preservation period may indicate malpractices in the production process, they are commonly present in food products, and their presence does not necessarily pose a safety risk to consumers, as they are usually found in some parts of the intestinal tract of mammals, and some factors, such as the specific microorganism and the host response, play an important role in the pathogenesis [63]. Even though they pose a serious concern regarding the length of hamburgers’ shelf life, no significant improvement was observed under the conditions tested in this study.

3.2.4. Brochothrix Thermosphacta

In this work, the initial TVCs of B. thermosphacta in the three groups of hamburgers were analogous (p > 0.05), enabling the calculation of a joint initial TVC of 3.19 ± 0.3 log CFU/g, which increased up to 8.48 ± 0.36 log CFU/g on day 16 for those hamburgers without modifications in the packaging atmosphere and 7.56 ± 0.21 log CFU/g for those with a modified atmosphere. Both values were lower than the TVCs described in the previously mentioned bacterial groups (p < 0.05, Figure 6). Regardless of the matching TVCs on days 0 and 16, from day 4, the TVCs of B. thermospacta were lower in hamburgers preserved in a modified atmosphere, reaching 1.24 log CFU/g lower TVC on day 8 (p < 0.05) compared with the unmodified atmosphere groups of hamburgers. This reduction was maintained throughout the entire study period. This reduction in bacterial TVC points again towards a marked effect of the packaging atmosphere composition on bacterial development. In fact, although B. thermosphacta is a facultative anaerobic bacterium, its growth is markedly influenced by the availability of oxygen in the packaging atmosphere [64,65]. This finding reveals that reducing oxygen in the packaging atmosphere is a good strategy to delay the decay of poultry meat hamburgers, while the addition of sulfites has less of an effect.
B. thermosphacta is a microorganism from the Listeriaceae family that is able to grow at refrigeration temperatures and is highly involved in meat spoilage, specifically in poultry meat spoilage [66,67]. It is widely spread throughout all stages of the production chain [35], and although it is facultative anaerobic, it can lead to the fastest spoilage of foodstuffs under aerobic conditions [68]. In meat products, it consumes glucose, leading to smells characterized as the smell of cheese, associated with acetoine, diacetil, and 3-metilbutanol [69]. The results obtained in this study showed the efficiency of modifying the packaging atmosphere to control the growth of B. thermosphacta, hence delaying hamburger decay.

3.2.5. Pseudomonas spp.

Although bacterial growth was detected on Pseudomonas isolation plates, colonies did not show the typical yellowish color. Further MALDI-TOF identification was required to determine the presence of these bacteria in poultry hamburgers.

3.2.6. Salmonella spp., Listeria spp., and Campylobacter spp.

The isolation of these three species was included in this study as an indicator of safety risk. Culture on OCLA for Listeria spp. pointed to the presence of two colonies of L. monocytogenes in one of the hamburgers at the beginning of the shelf-life study (day 0), based on their typical appearance on OCLA. Also, Salmonella spp. was investigated, but no colonies with the typical appearance of Salmonella spp. on XLD agar were found. Likewise, no typical Campylobacter spp. colonies were found. These data were further confirmed by MALDI-TOF.

3.3. Bacterial Identification

Table S1 includes all the MALDI-TOF identifications performed, and Table 2 shows a brief summary of the identification results of aerobic mesophilic bacteria included in Table S1. All the identification results showed good identification. Regarding the spoilage microbiota corresponding to aerobic mesophilic bacteria, in hamburgers without sulfites and without modifications to their packaging atmosphere, the main identifications at day 0 corresponded to Rothia nasimuirum (30% of the isolates) and Staphylococcus spp. (30%), although Macrococcus caseolyticus, Escherichia coli, Proteus mirabilis, and Corynebacterium phoceense were also identified. This microbiota evolved to 60% P. mirabilis and 30% E. coli by day 4, 50% Bacillus subtilis and 50% Carnobacterium spp. (mainly C. divergens) by day 8, and increased up to 80% Carnobacterium spp. by day 16.
Regarding hamburgers with sulfites, 70% of the isolates corresponded to Carnobacterium spp. on day 0, which remained the predominant species throughout the shelf life of the hamburgers, reaching 90% of the identifications at day 8 and 100% at day 16. Other important species identified in these hamburgers were B. subtilis and Staphylococcus spp. (50% and 20% of the identifications at day 4), and Proteus spp. (10% at day 8). The aerobic mesophilic TVC in hamburgers without sulfites and with a modified atmosphere started with 50% Proteus mirabilis, 20% Micobacterium liquefacens, and 10% Carnobacterium mataromaticum, evolving towards 40% Staphylococcus spp., 20% Rothia nasimurium, 20% Bacillus spp., and 20% E. coli on day 4; 50% Carnobacterium spp., 20% Bacillus spp., and 20% Staphylococcus spp. on day 8; and 60% Carnobaterium spp. and 30% Enterobacter spp. on day 16.
The data obtained showed that the addition of sulfites reduced bacterial diversity, to the point where, on day 16, only Carnobacterium spp. was identified. This issue might be related to the sulfite reduction ability of Carnobacterium spp. [70], as the environmental conditions favor the growth of some specific bacteria. A similar effect was observed under the other conditions tested, as 60 and 80% of the isolates identified at day 16 in the absence of sulfites with and without modifications in the packaging atmosphere were also Carnobacterium spp., mainly C. divergens, a fact that indicates this species as one of the most relevant species concerning the spoilage of poultry hamburgers, regardless of the other protective techniques used. Predominance of Carnobacterium spp. during the last phases of the shelf lives of poultry meat has been previously reported [41], and it is usually considered as one of the main genera involved in meat spoilage [71]. Hence, its increase through the period evaluated and predominance in the final stages of this study further confirm Carnobcterium spp. as one of the main causes of spoilage. This microorganism is likely to be involved in the unexpected increase in bacterial counts detected at the end of the study period.
Likewise, Proteus mirabilis was highly isolated, mainly in the early days of this study. It is a common component of the normal intestinal microbiota of chicken [72], a fact that enables its transfer to the slaughter line, leading to cross-contamination, especially in evisceration processes [73]. It is an opportunistic bacterium that can cause several diseases in humans, with urinary tract infections standing out as the most prevalent [74]. Hence, it should be regarded as a concern, although it is commonly isolated from chicken meat [75,76]. Other pathogenic microorganisms, such as Staphylococcus spp., were quite prevalent, and although they are commonly isolated from chicken meat [77,78], they should also be kept under control, as species such as S. epidermis are so significant that they have even been discussed as one of the main causes of hospital-acquired bacteremia [79]. Also, Enterobacter spp. was relevant only in the final stages of this study in hamburgers with a modified atmosphere, a fact that could be related to its facultative anaerobic metabolism. Although it was less dominant, it should similarly be monitored as it is a frequent nosocomial infection [80].
Isolates corresponding to Enterobacteriaceae plates (Table 3) started with microbiota mainly composed of Pseudomonas lundensis (75%) and Staphylococcus epidermis (25%), which reveals low rates of Enterobacterales in hamburgers during the early stages of preservation after production under the tested conditions. The preservation of hamburgers without a modified atmosphere led to an increase in Enterobacterales, with Enterobacter spp. being the only microorganism recovered (100% of the identifications) at day 16. The addition of sulfites led to a significant increase in bacterial diversity (40% Serratia liuqefacens, 20% E. coli, 20% Pseudomonas lundensis, and 20% Citrobacter freundii) at day 4. At day 16, 40% of the bacterial isolates in hamburgers with sulfites and no modifications to the packaging atmosphere corresponded to Hafnia alvei, and 60% to Enterobacter spp. In contrast, the maintenance of hamburgers in a modified atmosphere did not have an impact as marked as the addition of sulfites on bacterial diversity, as sulfite addition reduced the identification to 80% E. coli and 20% Enterobacter spp. at day 4, with diversity further reduced at day 16, when only Enterobacter spp. was recovered.
As with aerobic mesophilic bacteria, Enterobacter spp. emerged as an important bacterium in the later stages of this study. In fact, it was the predominant species of Enterobacterales on day 16, to the extent that it was the only species detected on day 16 in hamburgers without sulfites (with Enterobacter kobei being the microorganism mainly detected). Other microorganisms were only detected in hamburgers with sulfites: 40% of the isolates were identified as Hafnia alvei, whereas 60% of the isolates were Enterobacter spp., specifically four different species. Hafnia alvei is commonly found in minced meat products, and both species are associated with the appearance of putrid off odors and/or greening of the meat [40].
Also, Pseudomonas spp. were identified in the early stages of maintenance. They were investigated in order to have a better view of one of the main psychrotrophic bacteria involved in the spoilage of meat-derived products (Table S1). Data obtained showed that the main bacteria identified pertained to Pseudomonas spp. (50% of the isolates, corresponding to P. aeruginosa, P. putida, and P. lundensis), but also, Citrobacter freundii (44%) and Proteus mirabilis (6%) were identified. Pseudomonas spp. is a ubiquitous genus in meat products, involved in meat spoilage at cold temperatures [81,82,83]. It has been documented to cause discolorations, off odors, and slime formation [82,84], and its growth during meat storage has been associated with important sensory changes [85]. Together with Citrobacter spp. and Proteus spp., it is among the main microorganisms associated with meat spoilage [86].
Regarding bacteria used as safety risk indicators, culture on OCLA for Listeria spp. isolations revealed the presence of L. monocytogenes in one of the hamburgers at the beginning of the shelf-life study. This was first indicated by their typical appearance on OCLA (brilliant green colonies) and then confirmed by MALDI-TOF identification (Table S1). Further analyses would be needed to establish the acceptability of the risk associated with hamburger consumption, as the presence of L. monocytogenes was linked to a unique product unit, and some other hamburgers from the same batch and/or enterprise should be analyzed in order to rule out a ubiquitous and worrisome presence of L. moncytogenes. Hence, although L. monocytogenes was identified at the initial stages of hamburger preservation, further studies would be required to consider it as a health risk and to exclude cross-contamination events during hamburger handling in bacterial microbiota studies. Other bacteria also identified in this medium were Pseudomonas spp. and Rothia nasimurium, a situation previously documented for similar selective media [87]. Both microorganisms are commonly related to meat spoilage [45].
Also, Salmonella spp. was investigated (Table S1). No colonies showed the typical appearance of Salmonella spp. on XLD agar. Nevertheless, some of the isolates were identified by MALDI-TOF, finding that, although at the beginning of this study, there was marked bacterial diversity, including identification of Staphylococcus spp., Pseudomonas spp., Kocuria spp., or E. coli, at the final stages of the study, biodiversity decreased, and the main bacterium present in hamburgers without sulfites and with no modifications to their atmosphere was Staphylococcus spp., and Hafnia alvei was predominant in hamburgers with sulfites (exactly as it happened in Enterobacteriaceae identifications). The inclusion of modifications in the atmosphere increased bacterial diversity, identifying Enterobacter spp., Carnobacterium spp., and Leuconostoc spp., again indicating Enterobacter spp. as one of the main microorganisms involved in meat spoilage. No typical Campylobacter spp. colonies were found, nor were any sent for MALDI-TOF identification.

4. Conclusions

TVBN and pH did not show conclusive evidence of hamburger decay, supporting the need for performing comprehensive microbial studies to better understand the condition of hamburgers. The study of the spoilage microbiota revealed differences across bacterial groups and the influence of the presence of sulfites/modified packaging atmosphere. While sulfites had a minimal impact on bacterial growth, the increase in CO2 concentration in the packaging atmosphere led to a generalized reduction in the TVC of aerobic mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria, as well as B. thermosphacta, not only throughout the poultry hamburger shelf life but also during extended storage periods. Although the final TVCs reached were comparable, these results suggest that reducing the available oxygen in the packaging atmosphere is an effective technique to slow down bacterial growth, a fact that could form the basis for lengthening poultry shelf life and even improving the quality of poultry hamburgers. Regarding bacterial identification, Carnobacterium spp. was the main species detected on aerobic mesophilic bacteria isolation plates, although it should be mentioned that bacterial diversity increased in hamburgers supplemented with sulfites or maintained in a modified atmosphere. On Enterobacteriaceae isolation plates, the most identified bacteria were Enterobacter, a fact particularly evident in the last days of this study, when bacterial diversity markedly decreased. As Enterobacter spp. was also highly identified on aerobic mesophilic plates, it seems to play an important role in meat decay. Hafnia alvei was also important in the final stages of this study when sulfites were added, which could be related to a higher resistance when compared to other microorganisms. Although L. monocytogenes was identified at the beginning of hamburger preservation (day 0), no isolates were detected in the subsequent days, implying irrelevance concerning food safety. All these findings suggest the involvement and importance of bacteria such as Carnobacterium spp., Enterobacter spp., or even Hafnia alvei in spoilage, and the suitability of atmosphere modification for the control and postponement of poultry hamburger decay.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/microorganisms13040754/s1; Table S1: Results from the identification of 215 isolates obtained from the culture in specific conditions of the flora of poultry hamburgers from days 0 to 16 during the preservation period.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.G.-F., S.C.U. and M.J.S.A.; methodology, E.G.-F., S.C.U., A.M.L. and M.J.S.A.; software, E.G.-F. and M.J.S.A.; validation, E.G.-F. and M.J.S.A.; formal analysis, E.G.-F., S.C.U. and M.J.S.A.; investigation, E.G.-F., S.C.U., A.M.L. and M.J.S.A.; resources, E.G.-F. and S.C.U.; data curation, E.G.-F., A.M.L. and M.J.S.A.; writing—original draft preparation, E.G.-F. and M.J.S.A.; writing—review and editing, E.G.-F. and M.J.S.A.; visualization, E.G.-F., S.C.U. and M.J.S.A.; supervision, E.G.-F., S.C.U. and M.J.S.A.; funding acquisition, E.G.-F. and S.C.U. 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 on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Ruiz-Capillas, C.; Herrero, A.M.; Pintado, T.; Delgado-Pando, G. Sensory analysis and consumer research in new meat products development. Foods 2021, 10, 429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Abdel-Naeem, H.H.; Mohamed, H.M. Improving the physico-chemical and sensory characteristics of camel meat burger patties using ginger extract and papain. Meat Sci. 2016, 118, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  3. Van Loo, E.J.; Caputo, V.; Lusk, J.L. Consumer preferences for farm-raised meat, lab-grown meat, and plant-based meat alternatives: Does information or brand matter? Food Policy 2020, 95, 101931. [Google Scholar]
  4. Wen, S.; Zhou, G.; Song, S.; Xu, X.; Voglmeir, J.; Liu, L.; Zhao, F.; Li, M.; Yu, X.; Bai, Y.; et al. Discrimination of in vitro and in vivo digestion products of meat proteins from pork, beef, chicken, and fish. Proteomics 2015, 15, 3688–3698. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anderson, E.C.; Barrett, L.F. Affective beliefs influence the experience of eating meat. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160424. [Google Scholar]
  6. Longato, E.; Lucas-González, R.; Peiretti, P.G.; Meineri, G.; Pérez-Alvarez, J.A.; Viuda-Martos, M.; Fernández-López, J. The effect of natural ingredients (amaranth and pumpkin seeds) on the quality properties of chicken burgers. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2017, 10, 2060–2068. [Google Scholar]
  7. Santos, K.D.L.; Moisés de Sousa, F.; Duarte de Almeida, R.; Pereira de Gusmão, R.; Gusmão, T.A.S. Replacement of fat by natural fibers in chicken burgers with reduced sodium content. Open Food Sci. J. 2019, 11, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Martuscelli, M.; Esposito, L.; Mastrocola, D. The role of coffee silver skin against oxidative phenomena in newly formulated chicken meat burgers after cooking. Foods 2021, 10, 1833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gerber, P.J.; Mottet, A.; Opio, C.I.; Falcucci, A.; Teillard, F. Environmental impacts of beef production: Review of challenges and perspectives for durability. Meat Sci. 2015, 109, 2–12. [Google Scholar]
  10. Babji, A.S.; Fatimah, S.; Abolhassani, Y.; Ghassem, M. Nutritional quality and properties of protein and lipid in processed meat products—A perspective. Int. Food Res. J. 2010, 17, 35–44. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bohrer, B.M. Nutrient density and nutritional value of meat products and non-meat foods high in protein. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 65, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Asensio-Grau, A.; Calvo-Lerma, J.; Heredia, A.; Andrés, A. Fat digestibility in meat products: Influence of food structure and gastrointestinal conditions. Int. J. Food Sci. Nutr. 2019, 70, 530–539. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. European Comission 2021. EU Agricultural Outlook for Markets, Income and Environment, 2021–2031. Available online: https://agriculture.ec.europa.eu/news/eu-agricultural-outlook-2021-31-sustainability-and-health-concerns-shape-agricultural-markets-2021-12-09_en (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  14. FAO, 2021. Food and Agriculture Organization. OECD Agricultural Outlook 2021–2030. Chapter 6. Meat. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb5332en/Meat.pdf (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  15. Chouliara, E.; Karatapanis, A.; Savvaidis, I.N.; Kontominas, M.G. Combined effect of oregano essential oil and modified atmosphere packaging on shelf-life extension of fresh chicken breast meat, stored at 4 °C. Food Microbiol. 2007, 24, 607–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rodríguez-Calleja, J.M.; Cruz-Romero, M.C.; O’Sullivan, M.G.; García-López, M.L.; Kerry, J.P. High-pressure-based hurdle strategy to extend the shelf-life of fresh chicken breast fillets. Food Control 2012, 25, 516–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fraqueza, M.J.; Barreto, A.S. The effect on turkey meat shelf life of modified-atmosphere packaging with an argon mixture. Poult. Sci. 2009, 88, 1991–1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fraqueza, M.J.; Barreto, A.S. Gas mixtures approach to improve turkey meat shelf life under modified atmosphere packaging: The effect of carbon monoxide. Poult. Sci. 2011, 90, 2076–2084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Vasilatos, G.C.; Savvaidis, I.N. Chitosan or rosemary oil treatments, singly or combined to increase turkey meat shelf-life. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 166, 54–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pirsa, S.; Shamusi, T. Intelligent and active packaging of chicken thigh meat by conducting nano structure cellulose-polypyrrole-ZnO film. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2019, 102, 798–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ercolini, D.; Russo, F.; Torrieri, E.; Masi, P.; Villani, F. Changes in the spoilage-related microbiota of beef during refrigerated storage under different packaging conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 4663–4671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Conte-Junior, C.A.; Monteiro, M.L.G.; Patrícia, R.; Mársico, E.T.; Lopes, M.M.; Alvares, T.S.; Mano, S.B. The effect of different packaging systems on the shelf life of refrigerated ground beef. Foods 2020, 9, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Riahi, M.; Sadrabad, E.K.; Jebali, A.; Moghaddam, S.H.H.; Mohajeri, F.A. Development of a pH-sensitive indicator label for the real-time monitoring of chicken meat freshness. J. Nutr. Fasting Health 2019, 7, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lee, E.J.; Shin, H.S. Development of a freshness indicator for monitoring the quality of beef during storage. Food Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 28, 1899–1906. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  25. Wang, G.Y.; Wang, H.H.; Han, Y.W.; Xing, T.; Ye, K.P.; Xu, X.L.; Zhou, G.H. Evaluation of the spoilage potential of bacteria isolated from chilled chicken in vitro and in situ. Food Microbiol. 2017, 63, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  26. Saenz-García, C.E.; Castañeda-Serrano, P.; Mercado Silva, E.M.; Alvarado, C.Z.; Nava, G.M. Insights into the identification of the specific spoilage organisms in chicken meat. Foods 2020, 9, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Olsen, J.E.; Brown, D.J.; Madsen, M.; Bisgaard, M. Cross-contamination with Salmonella on a broiler slaughterhouse line demonstrated by use of epidemiological markers. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 826–835. [Google Scholar]
  28. Zwirzitz, B.; Wetzels, S.U.; Dixon, E.D.; Fleischmann, S.; Selberherr, E.; Thalguter, S.; Quijada, N.M.; Dzieciol, M.; Wagner, M.; Stessl, B. Co-occurrence of Listeria spp. and spoilage associated microbiota during meat processing due to cross-contamination events. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 632935. [Google Scholar]
  29. Ercolini, D.; Russo, F.; Nasi, A.; Ferranti, P.; Villani, F. Mesophilic and psychrotrophic bacteria from meat and their spoilage potential in vitro and in beef. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 1990–2001. [Google Scholar]
  30. Haeghebaert, S.; Duché, L.; Gilles, C.; Masini, B.; Dubreuil, M.; Minet, J.C.; Bouvet, P.; Grimont, F.; Astagneau, E.D.; Vaillant, V. Minced beef and human salmonellosis: Review of the investigation of three outbreaks in France. Eurosurveillance 2001, 6, 21–26. [Google Scholar]
  31. Omer, M.K.; Alvarez-Ordonez, A.; Prieto, M.; Skjerve, E.; Asehun, T.; Alvseike, O.A. A systematic review of bacterial foodborne outbreaks related to red meat and meat products. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2018, 15, 598–611. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mellou, K.; Kyritsi, M.; Chrysostomou, A.; Sideroglou, T.; Georgakopoulou, T.; Hadjichristodoulou, C. Clostridium perfringens foodborne outbreak during an athletic event in northern Greece, June 2019. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. EFSA, 2022. Foodborne Outbreaks. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/microstrategy/FBO-dashboard (accessed on 7 March 2023).
  34. Roccato, A.; Uyttendaele, M.; Cibin, V.; Barrucci, F.; Cappa, V.; Zavagnin, P.; Longo, A.; Ricci, A. Survival of Salmonella Typhimurium in poultry-based meat preparations during grilling, frying and baking. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 197, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Nychas, G.-J.E.; Skandamis, P.N.; Tassou, C.C.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Mohareb, F.; Iriondo, M.; Doulgeraki, A.I.; Van Hoek, A.; Aarts, H.; Cauchi, M.; Nychas, G.J.E. Identification of meat spoilage gene biomarkers in Pseudomonas putida using gene profiling. Food Control 2015, 57, 152–160. [Google Scholar]
  37. Odeyemi, O.A.; Alegbeleye, O.O.; Strateva, M.; Stratev, D. Understanding spoilage microbial community and spoilage mechanisms in foods of animal origin. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 311–331. [Google Scholar]
  38. Wickramasinghe, N.N.; Ravensdale, J.; Coorey, R.; Chandry, S.P.; Dykes, G.A. The predominance of psychrotrophic pseudomonads on aerobically stored chilled red meat. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2019, 18, 1622–1635. [Google Scholar]
  39. Stanborough, T.; Fegan, N.; Powell, S.M.; Tamplin, M.; Chandry, P.S. Insight into the genome of Brochothrix thermosphacta, a problematic meat spoilage bacterium. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 83, e02786-16. [Google Scholar]
  40. Kameník, J. The microbiology of meat spoilage: A review. Maso Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2013, P, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  41. Höll, L.; Behr, J.; Vogel, R.F. Identification and growth dynamics of meat spoilage microorganisms in modified atmosphere packaged poultry meat by MALDI-TOF MS. Food Microbiol. 2016, 60, 84–91. [Google Scholar]
  42. ur Rahman, U.; Sahar, A.; Ishaq, A.; Aadil, R.M.; Zahoor, T.; Ahmad, M.H. Advanced meat preservation methods: A mini review. J. Food Saf. 2018, 38, e12467. [Google Scholar]
  43. Arroyo, C.; Eslami, S.; Brunton, N.P.; Arimi, J.M.; Noci, F.; Lyng, J.G. An assessment of the impact of pulsed electric fields processing factors on oxidation, color, texture, and sensory attributes of turkey breast meat. Poult. Sci. 2015, 94, 1088–1095. [Google Scholar]
  44. Baldi, G.; D’Elia, F.; Soglia, F.; Tappi, S.; Petracci, M.; Rocculi, P. Exploring the effect of pulsed electric fields on the technological properties of chicken meat. Foods 2021, 10, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Alarcon-Rojo, A.D.; Carrillo-Lopez, L.M.; Reyes-Villagrana, R.; Huerta-Jiménez, M.; Garcia-Galicia, I.A. Ultrasound and meat quality: A review. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2019, 55, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  46. Sun, X.D.; Holley, R.A. High hydrostatic pressure effects on the texture of meat and meat products. J. Food Sci. 2010, 75, R17–R23. [Google Scholar]
  47. Nychas, G.E.; Skandamis, P.N. Fresh meat spoilage and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP). In Improving the Safety of Fresh Meat; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2005; pp. 461–502. [Google Scholar]
  48. Chouliara, E.; Badeka, A.; Savvaidis, I.; Kontominas, M.G. Combined effect of irradiation and modified atmosphere packaging on shelf-life extension of chicken breast meat: Microbiological, chemical and sensory changes. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 226, 877–888. [Google Scholar]
  49. D’Amore, T.; Di Taranto, A.; Berardi, G.; Vita, V.; Marchesani, G.; Chiaravalle, A.E.; Iammarino, M. Sulfites in meat: Occurrence, activity, toxicity, regulation, and detection. A comprehensive review. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2020, 19, 2701–2720. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhou, G.H.; Xu, X.L.; Liu, Y. Preservation technologies for fresh meat—A review. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 119–128. [Google Scholar]
  51. Rodrigues, B.L.; da Silveira Alvares, T.S.; Sampaio, G.S.L.; Cabral, C.C.; Araujo, J.V.A.; Franco, R.M.; Mano, S.B.; Conte-Junior, C.A. Influence of vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging in combination with UV-C radiation on the shelf life of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) fillets. Food Control 2016, 60, 596–605. [Google Scholar]
  52. European Commission. Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004.DOUE n. 338; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2005; pp. 27–59. [Google Scholar]
  53. Antonacopoulos, N. Verbesserte apparatur zur quantitativen destillation wasserdampfflüchtiger stoffe. Z. Für Lebensm.-Unters. Und Forsch. 1960, 113, 113–116. [Google Scholar]
  54. Davies, A.R. Advances in modified-atmosphere packaging. In New Methods of Food Preservation; Gould, G.W., Ed.; Springer US: Boston, MA, USA, 1995; pp. 304–320. [Google Scholar]
  55. Patsias, A.; Chouliara, I.; Badeka, A.; Savvaidis, I.N.; Kontominas, M.G. Shelf-life of a chilled precooked chicken product stored in air and under modified atmospheres: Microbiological, chemical, sensory attributes. Food Microbiol. 2006, 23, 423–429. [Google Scholar]
  56. Luning, P.A.; Jacxsens, L.; Rovira, J.; Osés, S.M.; Uyttendaele, M.; Marcelis, W.J. A concurrent diagnosis of microbiological food safety output and food safety management system performance: Cases from meat processing industries. Food Control 2011, 22, 555–565. [Google Scholar]
  57. Milios, K.T.; Drosinos, E.H.; Zoiopoulos, P.E. Food Safety Management System validation and verification in meat industry: Carcass sampling methods for microbiological hygiene criteria—A review. Food Control 2014, 43, 74–81. [Google Scholar]
  58. de Nobile, M.A.; Conte, A.; Cannarsi, M.; Sinigaglia, M. Strategies for prolonging the shelf life of minced beef patties. J. Food Saf. 2009, 29, 14–25. [Google Scholar]
  59. Alp, E.; Aksu, M.İ. Effects of water extract of Urtica dioica L. and modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf life of ground beef. Meat Sci. 2010, 86, 468–473. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  60. Yuan, L.; Sadiq, F.A.; Burmølle, M.; Wang, N.I.; He, G. Insights into psychrotrophic bacteria in raw milk: A review. J. Food Prot. 2019, 82, 1148–1159. [Google Scholar]
  61. Allende, A.; Aguayo, E.; Artés, F. Microbial and sensory quality of commercial fresh processed red lettuce throughout the production chain and shelf life. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2004, 91, 109–117. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kim, S.; Ruengwilysup, C.; Fung, D.Y.C. Antibacterial effect of water-soluble tea extracts on foodborne pathogens in laboratory medium and in a food model. J. Food Prot. 2004, 67, 2608–2612. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lupp, C.; Robertson, M.L.; Wickham, M.E.; Sekirov, I.; Champion, O.L.; Gaynor, E.C.; Finlay, B.B. Host-mediated inflammation disrupts the intestinal microbiota and promotes the overgrowth of Enterobacteriaceae. Cell Host Microbe 2007, 2, 119–129. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rodríguez-Calleja, J.M.; Santos, J.A.; Otero, A.; García-López, M.L. Effect of vacuum and modified atmosphere packaging on the shelf life of rabbit meat. CyTA–J. Food 2010, 8, 109–116. [Google Scholar]
  65. Nowak, A.; Rygala, A.; Oltuszak-Walczak, E.; Walczak, P. The prevalence and some metabolic traits of Brochothrix thermosphacta in meat and meat products packaged in different ways. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2012, 92, 1304–1310. [Google Scholar]
  66. Remenant, B.; Jaffrès, E.; Dousset, X.; Pilet, M.R.; Zagorec, M. Bacterial spoilers of food: Behavior, fitness and functional properties. Food Microbiol. 2015, 45, 45–53. [Google Scholar]
  67. Rouger, A.; Tresse, O.; Zagorec, M. Bacterial Contaminants of Poultry Meat: Sources, Species, and Dynamics. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Pin, C.; García de Fernando, G.D.; Ordónez, J.A. Effect of modified atmosphere composition on the metabolism of glucose by Brochothrix thermosphacta. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 4441–4447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Dainty, R.H.; Mackey, B.M. The relationship between the phenotypic properties of bacteria from chill-stored meat and spoilage processes. J. Appl. Bacteriol 1992, 73, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Trutko, S.M.; Dorofeeva, L.V.; Shcherbakova, V.A.; Chuvil’skaya, N.A.; Laurinavichus, K.S.; Binyukov, V.I.; Ostrovskii, D.N.; Hintz, M.; Wiesner, J.; Jomaa, H.; et al. Occurrence of nonmevalonate and mevalonate pathways for isoprenoid biosynthesis in bacteria of different taxonomic groups. Microbiology 2005, 74, 153–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Barakat, R.K.; Griffiths, M.W.; Harris, L.J. Isolation and characterization of Carnobacterium, Lactococcus, and Enterococcus spp. from cooked, modified atmosphere packaged, refrigerated, poultry meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2000, 62, 83–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Drzewiecka, D. Significance and roles of Proteus spp. Bacteria in natural environments. Microb. Ecol. 2016, 72, 741–758. [Google Scholar]
  73. Firildak, G.; Asan, A.; Goren, E. Chicken carcasses bacterial concentration at poultry slaughtering facilities. Asian. J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 8, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Armbruster, C.E.; Mobley, H.L.T.; Pearson, M.M. Pathogenesis of Proteus mirabilis infection. EcoSal Plus 2018, 8, 1–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Wong, M.H.Y.; Wan, H.Y.; Chen, S. Characterization of multidrug-resistant Proteus mirabilis isolated from chicken carcasses. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2013, 10, 177–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sanches, M.S.; Baptista, A.A.S.; de Souza, M.; Menck-Costa, M.F.; Koga, V.L.; Kobayashi, R.K.T.; Rocha, S.P.D. Genotypic and phenotypic profiles of virulence factors and antimicrobial resistance of Proteus mirabilis isolated from chicken carcasses: Potential zoonotic risk. Braz. J. Microbiol. 2019, 50, 685–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aklilu, E.; Nurhardy, A.D.; Mokhtar, A.; Zahirul, I.K.; Rokiah, A.S. Molecular detection of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis (MRSE) isolates in raw chicken meat. Int. Food Res. J. 2016, 23, 322. [Google Scholar]
  78. Wang, H.; Wang, H.; Bai, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Pathogenicity and antibiotic resistance of coagulase-negative staphylococci isolated from retailing chicken meat. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2018, 90, 152–156. [Google Scholar]
  79. Miragaia, M.; Couto, I.; Pereira, S.F.; Kristinsson, K.G.; Westh, H.; Jarlov, J.O.; Carrico, J.; Almeida, J.; Santos-Sanches, I.; de Lencastre, H. Molecular characterization of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus epidermidis clones: Evidence of geographic dissemination. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002, 40, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  80. Kremer, A.; Hoffmann, H. Prevalences of the Enterobacter cloacae complex and its phylogenetic derivatives in the nosocomial environment. Eur. J. Clin. Microbiol. Infect. Dis. 2012, 31, 2951–2955. [Google Scholar]
  81. Ercolini, D.; Russo, F.; Blaiotta, G.; Pepe, O.; Mauriello, G.; Villani, F. Simultaneous detection of Pseudomonas fragi, P. lundensis, and P. putida from meat by use of a multiplex PCR assay targeting the carA gene. Compr. Rev. Food. Sci. Food Saf. 2007, 73, 2354–2359. [Google Scholar]
  82. Motoyama, M.; Kobayashi, M.; Sasaki, K.; Nomura, M.; Mitsumoto, M. Pseudomonas spp. convert metmyoglobin into deoxymyoglobin. Meat Sci. 2010, 84, 202–207. [Google Scholar]
  83. Stanborough, T.; Fegan, N.; Powell, S.M.; Singh, T.; Tamplin, M.; Chandry, P.S. Genomic and metabolic characterization of spoilage-associated Pseudomonas species. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 268, 61–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Raposo, A.; Pérez, E.; de Faria, C.T.; Ferrús, M.A.; Carrascosa, C. Food spoilage by Pseudomonas spp.—An overview. In Foodborne Pathogens and Antibiotic Resistance; Singh, O.V., Ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 41–71. [Google Scholar]
  85. Koutsoumanis, K.; Stamatiou, A.; Skandamis, P.; Nychas, G.J. Development of a microbial model for the combined effect of temperature and pH on spoilage of ground meat, and validation of the model under dynamic temperature conditions. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2006, 72, 124–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Wang, H.; Qi, J.; Dong, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Characterization of attachment and biofilm formation by meat-borne Enterobacteriaceae strains associated with spoilage. LWT-Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 86, 399–407. [Google Scholar]
  87. Angelidis, A.S.; Kalamaki, M.S.; Georgiadou, S.S. Identification of non-Listeria spp. bacterial isolates yielding a β-D-glucosidase-positive phenotype on Agar Listeria according to Ottaviani and Agosti (ALOA). Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2015, 193, 114–129. [Google Scholar]
Microorganisms 13 00754 g001
Figure 1. Evolution of the pH described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Evolution of the pH described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 13 00754 g001
Microorganisms 13 00754 g002
Figure 2. Evolution of the TVBN described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Evolution of the TVBN described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 13 00754 g002
Microorganisms 13 00754 g003
Figure 3. Aerobic mesophilic TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲).
Figure 3. Aerobic mesophilic TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲).
Microorganisms 13 00754 g003
Microorganisms 13 00754 g004
Figure 4. Aerobic psychrotrophic TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Figure 4. Aerobic psychrotrophic TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 13 00754 g004
Microorganisms 13 00754 g005
Figure 5. Enterobacteriaceae TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲).
Figure 5. Enterobacteriaceae TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲).
Microorganisms 13 00754 g005
Microorganisms 13 00754 g006
Figure 6. B. thermosphacta TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Figure 6. B. thermosphacta TVC described for poultry hamburgers without sulfites and with no changes in the packaging atmosphere (●), with sulfite addition and no changes in the packaging atmosphere (◼), and without sulfites but with a modified atmosphere (▲). p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 13 00754 g006
Table 1. Culture media and incubation conditions used for each microbial group, matching the requirements of the ISO standards.
Table 1. Culture media and incubation conditions used for each microbial group, matching the requirements of the ISO standards.
Microbial GroupMediumTemperature (°C)Incubation Time
(Days)		AtmosphereISO Standards
MesophilicTSA-YE351AerobiosisUNE-EN ISO 4833
PsychrotrophicTSA-YE77AerobiosisUNE-EN ISO 4833
EnterobacteriaceaeVRBG351AerobiosisUNE-EN ISO 21528
B.thermosphactaSTAA 252Aerobiosis-
Pseudomonas spp.CFC202Aerobiosis-
Salmonella spp.XLD351AerobiosisUNE-EN ISO 6579
L. monocytogenesOCLA101AerobiosisUNE-EN ISO 11290
Campylobacter spp.CBFSA401MicroaerophiliaEN-ISO 10.272-2
Table 2. Summary of the identification results of aerobic mesophilic bacteria included in Table S1 and obtained by MALDI-TOF.
Table 2. Summary of the identification results of aerobic mesophilic bacteria included in Table S1 and obtained by MALDI-TOF.
SulfitesAtmosphereDay 0Day 4Day 8 Day 16
% IsolatesIdentification% IsolatesIdentification% IsolatesIdentification% IsolatesIdentification
W/O *Unmodified30Rothia nasimurium60Proteus mirabilis50Carnobacterium spp.80Carnobacterium spp.
30Staphylococcus spp.30E.coli50B. subtilis10Leuconostoc mesenteroides
10Macrococcus caseolyticus10Staphylococcus simulans 10Kurthia zopfii
10Escherichia coli
10Proteus mirabilis
10Corynebacterium phoceense
W *Unmodified70Carnobacterium spp50B. subtilis90Carnobacterium divergens100Carnobaterium spp.
20Staphylococcus spp.20Staphylococcus simulans10Proteus mirabilis
10Enterococcus faecalis10Enterococcus faecalis10Proteus mirabilis
10Pseudomonas lundensis
10Carnobacterium divergens
W/O *Modified50Proteus mirabilis40Staphylococcus spp.50Carnobacterium spp.60Carnobacterium divergens
20Microbacterium liquefacens20Rothia nasimuirum20Bacillus spp.30Enterobacter spp.
10Carnobacterium maltaromaticum20Bacillus spp.20Staphylococcus spp.10Leuconostoc mesenteroides
10Rothia nasimurium20E. coli10E.coli
10Escherichia coli
* W/O (without): hamburgers without sulfites. W (with): hamburgers with 5 mg/kg of sulfites.
Table 3. Summary of the identification results of Enterobacteriaceae included in Table S1, obtained by MALDI-TOF.
Table 3. Summary of the identification results of Enterobacteriaceae included in Table S1, obtained by MALDI-TOF.
SulfitesAtmosphereDay 0Day 4Day 16
% IsolatesIdentification% IsolatesIdentification% IsolatesIdentification
W/O *Unmodified75Pseudomonas lundensis 100Enterobacter spp.
25Staphylococcus epidermis
W *Unmodified75Pseudomonas lundensis40Serratia liquefaciens60Enterobacter spp.
25Staphylococcus epidermis20Pseudomonas lundensis40Hafnia alvei
20Citrobacter freundii
20Escherichia coli
W/O *Modified75Pseudomonas lundensis80Escherichia coli100Enterobacter spp.
25Staphylococcus epidermis20Hafnia alvei
* W/O (without): hamburgers without sulfites. W (with): hamburgers with 5 mg/kg of sulfites.
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

González-Fandos, E.; Martínez Laorden, A.; Condón Usón, S.; Serrano Andrés, M.J. Growth and Diversity of Spoiling and Foodborne Bacteria in Poultry Hamburgers in Modified Atmosphere and with Sulfites During Shelf Life. Microorganisms 2025, 13, 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040754

AMA Style

González-Fandos E, Martínez Laorden A, Condón Usón S, Serrano Andrés MJ. Growth and Diversity of Spoiling and Foodborne Bacteria in Poultry Hamburgers in Modified Atmosphere and with Sulfites During Shelf Life. Microorganisms. 2025; 13(4):754. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040754

Chicago/Turabian Style

González-Fandos, Elena, Alba Martínez Laorden, Santiago Condón Usón, and María Jesús Serrano Andrés. 2025. "Growth and Diversity of Spoiling and Foodborne Bacteria in Poultry Hamburgers in Modified Atmosphere and with Sulfites During Shelf Life" Microorganisms 13, no. 4: 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040754

APA Style

González-Fandos, E., Martínez Laorden, A., Condón Usón, S., & Serrano Andrés, M. J. (2025). Growth and Diversity of Spoiling and Foodborne Bacteria in Poultry Hamburgers in Modified Atmosphere and with Sulfites During Shelf Life. Microorganisms, 13(4), 754. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms13040754

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