Next Article in Journal
Growth Kinetics of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella enterica on Dehydrated Vegetables during Rehydration and Subsequent Storage
Next Article in Special Issue
Facile Fabrication of Anthocyanin-Nanocellulose Hydrogel Indicator Label for Intelligent Evaluation of Minced Pork Freshness
Previous Article in Journal
Assessing the Risk of Seasonal Effects of Campylobacter Contaminated Broiler Meat Prepared In-Home in the United States
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Ultrasensitive Detection of Aflatoxin M1 Using Gold Nanoparticles Modified Electrode with Fe3+ as a Probe
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/foods12132560
foods-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

Inhibition of Salmonella Enteritidis by Essential Oil Components and the Effect of Storage on the Quality of Chicken

by
Wu Wang
*,
Tingting Li
,
Jing Chen
and
Yingwang Ye
School of Food and Biological Engineering, Hefei University of Technology, Hefei 230009, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2023, 12(13), 2560; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132560
Submission received: 31 May 2023 / Revised: 26 June 2023 / Accepted: 26 June 2023 / Published: 30 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mechanism and Engineering Research on Processing, Storage and Preservation of Fresh Food)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research investigates the antibacterial potential of plant essential oil components including thymol, carvacrol, citral, cinnamaldehyde, limonene, and β-pinene against Salmonella Enteritidis (S. Enteritidis). Through the determination of minimum inhibitory concentration, three kinds of natural antibacterial agents with the best inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis were determined, namely thymol (128 μg/mL), carvacrol (256 μg/mL), and cinnamaldehyde (128 μg/mL). Physical, chemical, microbial, and sensory characteristics were regularly monitored on days 0, 2, 4, and 6. The findings of this study reveal that both thymol at MIC of 128 μg/mL and carvacrol at MIC of 256 μg/mL not only maintained the sensory quality of chicken, but also decreased the pH, moisture content, and TVB-N value. Additionally, thymol, carvacrol and cinnamaldehyde successfully inhibited the formation of S. Enteritidis biofilm, thereby minimizing the number of S. Enteritidis and the total aerobic plate count in chicken. Hence, thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde have more effective inhibitory activities against S. Enteritidis, which can effectively prevent the spoilage of chicken and reduce the loss of its functional components.

1. Introduction

In the course of the process of slaughter, circulation, sale, and processing, raw fresh meat is susceptible to contamination by S. Enteritidis, which can cause bacterial infections and even lead to food poisoning [1,2]. The control and elimination of S. Enteritidis in retail meat products poses a significant challenge. Tetracycline and sulfanilamide antibiotics are currently widely employed in poultry through drinking water and feed. However, many drug-resistant phenotypes of Salmonella isolates from food animals have been identified, and these are significantly higher than those found in human clinical isolates [3,4]. Consequently, the proficient surveillance of S. Enteritidis stands as an indispensable component in the deterrence and management of alimentary illnesses, thereby holding considerable import in the preservation of human well-being.
Plant essential oils (Eos) are considered viable alternatives to traditional antibacterial agents. The use of plant Eos as antibacterial agents not only implies greater safety for humans and a more environmentally friendly option due to their natural origin, but also represents a low risk of pathogenic microorganisms developing resistance. Thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde have drawn considerable attention among researchers for their antibacterial potential [5,6]. Thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde have broad-spectrum bacteriostatic effects. In the research of Qingliu Wei et al., a box-Behnken design model was selected, and 2.40 μL/mL cinnamon EO, 1.00 μL/mL cinnamon EO, and 3.50 μL/mL tea tree EO were optimized, which could effectively reduce the total aerobic plate count [7]. The antibacterial mechanism of cinnamon EO is achieved by exerting an impact on the respiratory metabolism, energy metabolism, and substance metabolism of S. Enteritidis, thereby resulting in a decrease in bacterial growth [8]. In the exploration of the impact of EOs on the adhesion of Salmonella strains and HT-29 cells, Alibi noted that six types of essential oils exhibited varying degrees of inhibitory effects on biofilm formation. Cinnamon oil demonstrated a remarkable inhibition rate of 99.10%, followed by clove oil with 97.64%, thyme oil with 95.90%, rosemary oil with 79.84%, turmeric oil with 28.98%, and sage oil with 15.55% [9]. The synergistic effect of different essential oils can change the permeability of the cell membrane, the leakage of dissolved substances in cells, the denaturation of membrane proteins, and the destruction of proton kinetics, thus achieving the antibacterial effect [10,11,12,13]. In addition, the use of natural preservatives and antimicrobial agents in polymer matrices has become a new trend. Peng et al. prepared antimicrobial packaging films from agar/konjac glucomannan (KA) and carvacrol (CV) and showed that the composite film containing 2% carvacrol was the most effective in preserving freshness and could extend the shelf life of frozen chicken breasts from 5 to 9 days [14]. Lian has arrived at the conclusion that thyme EO in chitosan composite film exhibits the highest release rate in a 50% ethanol solution. As the concentration of ethanol increases, the release rate of the essential oil from the composite film slows down, while the antibacterial activity of the film improves [15]. Meanwhile, researchers have been exploring nanoencapsulation technology to address the issues posed by lipid-soluble active ingredients that are insoluble in water or that are air-unstable or that have a pungent odor [16]. Although the incorporation of thymol crystals into zeolite networks has reduced the volatility of thymol, the strong aroma of the essential oil itself may alter the flavor of food, posing potential obstacles to certain applications [17]. Sodium alginate-based cinnamaldehyde controlled-release active packaging films loaded with halloysite nanotubes have broad prospects for application in high-fat food packaging [18]. In addition, the biodegradability of composite films, preparation costs, and potential risks associated with their use in food warrant further consideration and resolution by researchers [19].
Chicken is considered to be a major source of human Salmonella infection. Researchers have successfully isolated bacteriophages resistant to various Salmonella serotypes from raw chicken skin and claws [20]. Microbial infections not only result in the loss of nutrients and functional components in chicken meat, but also produce toxins that pose a threat to human health [21]. To effectively prevent and control S. Enteritidis in chicken meat, the use of safe and natural antimicrobial agents such as thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde is of utmost importance [22]. Extensive research has been conducted on the antibacterial properties and inhibitory mechanisms of using plant essential oils as a method to suppress Salmonella in animal feed. However, there is limited research on the application of EOs for antibacterial and preservation purposes in fresh meat products [23,24,25]. The ultimate purpose of this study is to investigate the inhibitory effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on S. Enteritidis, as well as their potential to improve the quality of chicken meat. Therefore, this research provides sufficient theoretical and practical basis for addressing the antibacterial and preservation issues of chicken.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

Based on our preliminary research, an S. Enteritidis was screened from retail meat in the Hefei area [26]. Thymol (>99.0% purity), carvacrol (99% purity), limonene (>95.0% purity), citral (97% purity), cinnamaldehyde (≥95% purity), and β-pinene (purity ≥ 95%) were purchased from Shanghai Aladdin Biochemical Technology Co., Ltd. (Shanghai, China).
Buffered peptone water (BPW), bismuth sulfite agar (BSA), brilliant green sulfa agar (BGSA), Mueller-Hinton broth (MH), plate count agar (PCA), and tryptic soy broth (TSB) were purchased from Qingdao Haibo Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Qingdao, China).

2.2. Minimum Inhibitory Concentration(MIC) Determinations

Initially, antimicrobial agents (such as thymol, carvacrol, limonene, citral, cinnamaldehyde, and β-pinene) at different concentrations (4096, 2048, 1024, 512, 256, 128, 64, 32, 16, 8, 4, 2, and1 μg/mL, respectively) were added into sterile 96-well polystyrene plates. Antimicrobial agents were added to wells 1–13, 10 μL per well, and well 14 was utilized as a growth control without the addition of antimicrobial agents. Subsequently, bacterial suspensions with turbidity equivalent to 0.5 McFarland standard were prepared using the direct bacterial suspension method and diluted 1:1000 in Mueller-Hinton broth. Then, 100 μL suspensions of S. Enteritidis were added to each well, each well was sealed, and each well was incubated for 48 h in ambient air at 37 °C to determine the results. The MIC is defined as the concentration where no visible bacterial growth is observed after 48 h of incubation at 37 °C under microaerophilic conditions [27].

2.3. Sample Preparation

The chicken used in this study was obtained from the Yong-hui Supermarket in Hefei. Three essential oil components with the smallest MIC were selected, and thymol at 128 μg/mL, carvacrol at 256 μg/mL, and cinnamaldehyde at 128 μg/mL were uniformly coated on fresh chicken, while the control group was coated with anhydrous ethanol. The samples were stored at 4 °C, and samples were taken on days 0, 2, 4, and 6, respectively. Under sterile conditions, four groups of samples (25–30 g each, treated with thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde) were immersed in S. Enteritidis suspension with a concentration of 107 CFU/g for 15 s, drained, and sampled on days 0, 2, 4, and 6.

2.4. Microbial Indicators Determinations

In the ultraclean workbench, 10 g of ground chicken was mixed with 9 mL of sterilized saline solution to create a 1:10 diluted sample. After shaking for 1 min, a series of 10-fold dilutions were performed and three appropriate dilutions were plated and incubated at 37 °C for 48 h to determine the total aerobic plate count [28].
Using the threefold dilution and most probable number (MPN) method, the amount of S. Enteritidis in chicken samples was determined. Specifically, 10 g of chicken meat was placed into a sterile homogenization bag containing 90 mL of BPW and homogenized for 1 min, and then 100 uL of the mixture was spread on BSA and BGSA plates, which were incubated at 37 °C for 24 h to analyze the presence of Salmonella colonies [29]. Following the procedure described in the Health Canada “Method Summary” (MFHPB-20), putative Salmonella colonies were isolated and subjected to biochemical and serological tests to confirm the identification of S. Enteritidis [30].

2.5. Antimicrobial Effects

A total of 20 μL of bacterial liquid (107 CFU/mL) of S. Enteritidis isolates was added into a sterile 96-well plate, and 180 μL of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde were added to make their final concentrations 1/4 MIC, 1/2 MIC, and MIC respectively. Six parallel wells were provided for each strain, and 200 μL of TSB broth containing no bacteria was added to the negative control well, and then it was allowed to stand at 37 °C for 12 h. Crystal violet assay was performed to evaluate biofilm formation, and the optic density at 590 nm was measured. The average value is the result of at least three tests.
The ability of bacterial strain biofilm formation is classified into four categories [31]:
OD ≤ ODC is a nonbiofilm former,
ODC < OD ≤ 2ODC is a weak biofilm former,
2ODC < OD ≤ 4ODC is a moderate biofilm former,
4ODC < OD is a strong biofilm former.
Among them, the cutoff optical density value (ODC) is defined as three standard deviations higher than the average or average ODAV of the negative control.

2.6. Physical and Chemical Indexes Determinations

2.6.1. pH

By using a Five Easy Plus pH meter (Shanghai, China, Mettler Toledo Instrument Co., Ltd.), the electrode of the pH meter was directly placed in the meat tissue to determine the pH value [32]. The equipment was calibrated before measurement, and the experiment was repeated three times for each sample.

2.6.2. Moisture Content

The moisture content of chicken was determined by the AOAC (2009) standard method.

2.6.3. TVB-N

Referring to the method of Zhang et al., 10 g minced sample was added to 100 mL distilled water, homogenized for 1 min, and determined by automatic Kjeldahl nitrogen analyzer [33].

2.6.4. Color

After the sample was ground, it was spread all over the bottom of the vessel, and immediately measured by a spectrophotometer. The spectrophotometer was preheated for 15 min before use and used after calibration, and recorded as brightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*).

2.7. Sensory Evaluation

Six people with sensory evaluation experience formed the evaluation group, including three boys and three girls. Members of the evaluation team independently evaluated the color, smell, viscosity, and overall acceptability of each sample, and could not communicate with each other. All samples were graded according to the grading criteria in Table 1.

2.8. Statistical Analysis

The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan’s multiple range test in SPSS 14.0 software. Statistical significance was considered when p < 0.05. Additionally, data visualization graphs were created using Origin 2023 software.

3. Results

3.1. MIC

The compounds, namely thymol, carvacrol, limonene, citral, cinnamaldehyde, and β-pinene, exhibited a certain degree of inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis. Table 2 displays the MIC values of six essential oil constituents against S. Enteritidis, with thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde exhibiting MIC values of 128, 256, and 128 μg/mL, respectively, representing the three constituents with the smallest MIC values. Generally, a smaller MIC value indicates greater inhibition of bacterial growth, particularly in relation to S. Enteritidis. It is worth noting that EOs mainly composed of aldehydes and phenols have higher antibacterial activity, such as cinnamaldehyde, citral, carvacrol, and thymol, followed by EOs containing terpenoid alcohols [34]. Thymol and carvacrol have been found to disrupt the bacterial biofilm, causing the breakdown of the cell membrane and leakage of intracellular contents, ultimately resulting in cell death [12]. The aldehyde groups contained in citral and cinnamaldehyde can easily penetrate the cell wall and destroy the structure of polysaccharides. In addition, the aldehyde groups can also act on protein transporters, playing a role of sterilization [35,36]. Therefore, thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde with low MIC were chosen for the next experiment.

3.2. Inhibitory Effect on S. Enteritidis Biofilm

From Figure 1, it can be observed that thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde all have significant inhibitory effects on the formation of S. Enteritidis biofilms. As shown in Figure 1A, the OD value of the thymol-treated group at MIC significantly began to decrease compared to the control group and 1/4 MIC (p < 0.05) after 12 h of cultivation (early stage of biofilm formation). Therefore, it can be concluded that high concentrations of thymol have an inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis biofilm formation at the early stage. At 24 h (basic biofilm formation) and 48 h (mature biofilm formation), the inhibitory effect of thymol on S. Enteritidis biofilms became more pronounced with increasing concentrations, as the OD values decreased with increasing concentrations, indicating that the ability of thymol to inhibit S. Enteritidis biofilms increased with increasing concentration. As shown in Figure 1B, carvacrol at MIC had a significant inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis biofilm formation throughout the entire process (p < 0.05) compared to the control group. It is worth noting that the OD values of 1/2 MIC and 1/4 MIC were significantly higher than those of the control group at 12 h and 24 h, indicating that low concentrations of carvacrol had a promoting effect on S. Enteritidis biofilm formation at the early and basic formation stages. The OD values of 1/2 MIC and MIC were significantly lower than those of the control group at 12 h and 24 h, indicating that high concentrations of carvacrol had a strong inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis biofilm formation at the early and mature stages. As shown in Figure 1C, the cinnamaldehyde-treated group had a significant inhibitory effect on S. Enteritidis biofilms at each concentration after 24 h and 48 h (p < 0.05). Using lower concentrations of EO will increase the permeability of the cell membrane and eventually lead to the destruction of cell membrane structures. Nevertheless, lower concentrations of EOs do not impact the viability of the cells. Conversely, the utilization of higher concentrations of EOs leads to extensive membrane damage and complete disruption of homeostasis, which ultimately results in the death of cells. Carvacrol and thymol can prevent or interfere with biofilm formation, and they can also eradicate preformed biofilms [37,38].

3.3. Changes in the Total Aerobic Plate Count of Chicken during Storage

During the storage of chicken, with the increase of days, the total aerobic plate count in each groups increased significantly (p < 0.05), as shown in Figure 2. Among them, the total aerobic plate count in the thymol treatment group and the carvacrol treatment group was significantly lower than those in the other two groups (p < 0.05), which indicated that thymol and carvacrol had obvious inhibitory effects on microbial reproduction in chicken during storage. However, the antibacterial effect of the cinnamaldehyde treatment group is not ideal. There was no significant difference between the two groups on the second and fourth days of storage (p > 0.05).
Similar to many other antibacterial agents and food preservation techniques, the effectiveness of cinnamaldehyde in food systems has been significantly reduced. This may be attributed to the inherent properties of chicken, such as ion strength and water activity, as well as differences in composition, including protein and fat content. These factors can affect the distribution of antibacterial agents within cells, thereby further diminishing their bactericidal activity [39]. On the fourth day of storage, the total aerobic plate count in the control group reached 6.22 Lg CFU/g, which exceeded the national fresh meat standard. Thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde were all within the standard range of fresh meat, and total aerobic plate counts were 4.98 Lg CFU/g, 4.99 Lg CFU/g, and 5.98 Lg CFU/g, respectively. Meat is generally considered to be spoiled when the total aerobic plate count in meat products exceeds 6.0 Lg CFU/g [40]. On the sixth day of storage, all the treatment groups exceeded the fresh meat standard, indicating that the chicken in the control group could be stored for about two days, while thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde had obvious antibacterial effects, which could prolong the storage time to about four days.

3.4. Changes in S. Enteritidis Count in Chicken Meat during Storage

In Figure 3, a comparison is made between the antibacterial effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde against S. Enteritidis during the storage of chicken. At day 0, the number of S. Enteritidis in each group was 4.39 Lg CFU/g, and the concentration of S. Enteritidis suspension used in the experiment was 7 Lg CFU/g. This indicates that a certain loss of Salmonella suspension occurred during the experimental operation, resulting in a final concentration of S. Enteritidis suspension dispersed on the surface of the chicken of 4.39 Lg CFU/g [41]. On the second day of storage, the number of S. Enteritidis in thymol and carvacrol treatment groups decreased to 4.20 Lg CFU/g and 3.96 Lg CFU/g, respectively, showing good antibacterial effect, which also proved that thymol and carvacrol had the strongest antibacterial effect in the first two days. However, the number of S. Enteritidis in the cinnamaldehyde treatment group and the control group had no significant difference in the first four days. Therefore, cinnamaldehyde’s ability to inhibit S. Enteritidis in chicken was weaker than thymol and carvacrol, which was confirmed in the research of Hoffman et al. [42] Furthermore, there are researchers who have proposed an order of antibacterial effectiveness of EOs as follows: thymol > oregano > carvacrol > trans-cinnamaldehyde > eugenol. Among these, thymol has demonstrated the strongest antibacterial effect against Salmonella, Escherichia coli, and Klebsiella pneumoniae [43]. With the extension of storage time, the number of Salmonella in each group increased rapidly. On one hand, due to the volatilization of thymol and carvacrol over time, the antibacterial effects of thymol and carvacrol are weakened. On the other hand, MIC thymol and carvacrol could not completely inhibit the growth of S. Enteritidis, but increased the lag time of S. Enteritidis. Although MIC concentrations of thymol and carvacrol in culture media were effective in inhibiting the growth of S. Enteritidis, the antimicrobial effect of applying MIC concentrations of thymol and carvacrol to chicken was diminished. Hence, the use of two or more complex EOs may need to be further considered in order to achieve similar antibacterial effects in food systems as in culture-based systems.

3.5. Changes in pH Values of Chicken during Storage

pH value is one of the most important factors affecting the quality of meat, which can affect the color, water retention capacity, flavor, tenderness, and shelf life of meat. A higher pH value is beneficial to the growth and reproduction of microorganisms, which means a short shelf life, while a lower pH value means a poor water retention ability [44]. The changes in the pH value of chicken during storage by thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde are shown in Figure 4. The increase in microorganisms promotes the decomposition of protein in chicken meat, producing alkaline nitrogen-containing compounds such as amino acids, biogenic amines, and ammonia, which leads to aggravated meat spoilage and an increase in pH value. On the sixth day of storage, all groups experienced spoilage, indicating that chicken meat treated with thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde had a shelf life of four days, delaying the spoilage of chicken meat. Compared with the control group, thymol, parsley phenol, and cinnamaldehyde can inhibit the growth and reproduction of microorganisms, reduce the pH value, and achieve a certain preservation effect.

3.6. Changes of Moisture Content of Chicken during Storage

The moisture content of fresh meat is an important factor affecting sensory quality and consumer perception [45]. During storage, the water content of chicken changes smoothly, as shown in Table 3. In general, the water content of chicken in each treatment groups did not change significantly during storage (p > 0.05). The decrease in moisture content of the control group during the first two days of storage can be attributed to the stiff state of the chicken meat, its poor water-holding capacity, and the loss of some free water during the sample preparation process. High moisture content in meat can lead to rapid putrefaction after death, as microorganisms proliferate rapidly in meat with a water content exceeding 80% [46]. From the second day of storage, the moisture contents of the thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde treatment groups were higher than that of the control group, indicating that these three EOs inhibited the growth of microorganisms, slowed down the decomposition of chicken protein and fat, and thereby reduced the increase in moisture content.

3.7. Changes in the TVB-N of Chicken during Storage

The TVB-N value is an important quality indicator to evaluate the freshness of meat. The degradation of proteins and other nitrogenous compounds leads to the accumulation of organic amines, which are often referred to as total volatile basic nitrogen (TVB-N) [47]. The changes in the TVB-N content of chicken meat during storage for thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde are shown in Figure 5, where TVB-N values in all treatment groups showed an increasing trend with time, similar to the changes in pH and total aerobic plate count. TVB-N values were as high as 20.17 mg/100 g in the control group and 18.13 mg/100 g in the cinnamaldehyde-treated group at day four of storage, both exceeding the fresh meat standard (≤15 mg/100 g), while thymol- and carvacrol-treated groups still did not exceed the standard, at 14.79 mg/100 g and 14.84 mg/100 g, respectively. The level of TVB-N in meat is related to the growth of microorganisms and the hydrolysis of protein into ammonia and amine. Chicken treated with thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde leads to a decrease in the number of microorganisms responsible for protein degradation and the production of nonprotein nitrogen compounds including ammonia and amine. TVB-N significantly decreases compared to the control group. However, during storage, the antibacterial ability of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde gradually weakens, and the amplitude of TVB-N growth correspondingly increases. [48,49]. All treatment groups exceeded the standard on day six of storage, and the control group had a TVB-N value of 26.29 mg/100 g, which exceeded the standard for spoiled meat (>25 mg/100 g). The results indicate that thymol and carvacrol treatments can be effectively applied in chicken systems as natural bacterial inhibitors to extend the shelf life of chicken meat up to four days.

3.8. Changes in Chicken Color during Storage

The color of meat is an important indicator for consumers to evaluate the freshness of meat and make a purchase decision accordingly [50]. The changes in L*, a*, and b* values on the surface of chicken during storage are shown in Table 4. The L* values of each treatment group showed a trend of increasing first and then decreasing. The increase in L* values may be due to the destruction of the protein structure caused by the enzymatic degradation of protein, which leads to more light scattering [51]. The proliferation of microorganisms accelerates the spoilage and deterioration of chicken, causing a decrease in brightness, a sticky and darkened surface, and reduced elasticity after storage for four days. In the middle storage period, the brightness of the chicken treated with thymol and carvacrol was significantly higher than that of the control group (p < 0.05), which may be because thymol and carvacrol inhibited the growth of microorganisms and reduced the formation of methemoglobin, indicating that thymol and carvacrol treatment can improve the brightness of chicken. With the extension of storage time, the a* value of each treatment group showed a downward trend, while the b* values showed an upward trend. From the second day of storage, the red degrees of the thymol and carvacrol treatment groups were higher than that of control group (p < 0.05), which slowed down the oxidation of myoglobin to methemoglobin. On the sixth day, the red value decreased rapidly, which promoted the production of methemoglobin, so the change trend of the b* value was opposite to that of the a* value.

3.9. Changes in the Sensory Indicators of Chicken during Storage

Table 5 illustrates the sensory changes in chicken meat during storage when treated with thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde. Within the first two days of storage, there were no significant differences in color, odor, or overall acceptability (p > 0.05) among the different treatment groups. However, there was a significant difference in viscosity between the thymol group and the control group (p < 0.05), with only a slight stickiness observed on the surface of the chicken meat. On the fourth day of storage, there were significant differences in color, odor, viscosity, and overall acceptability (p < 0.05) between the thymol and carvacrol treatment groups and the control group, while only stickiness and overall acceptability (p < 0.05) showed significant differences between the cinnamaldehyde group and the control group, indicating a weaker preservation effect of cinnamaldehyde. The overall acceptability score of the control group was only 5.33, which was below the level that consumers would accept, with an odor score of 4, indicating a strong and unpleasant smell on the fourth day of storage, as well as a dull and sticky surface on the chicken meat. The overall acceptability score of the cinnamaldehyde group was also only 5.66, indicating a weak preservation effect, while the overall acceptability scores of the thymol and carvacrol treatment groups were both above 7, indicating that thymol and carvacrol could significantly inhibit the growth and reproduction of protein-degrading microorganisms. On the sixth day, the overall acceptability scores of all groups were around 3, indicating rapid microbial growth, which had penetrated into the chicken meat tissue and gradually decomposed to produce decay flavor substances such as dimethyl sulfide [49]. The antimicrobial properties of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde have been demonstrated to effectively minimize the microbial count, prolong the shelf life of products, and enhance the sensory quality of chicken.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, the inhibitory effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on S. Enteritidis during storage and on the quality characteristics of chicken meat were evaluated. The results of physicochemical analysis showed that MIC (128 μg/mL) thymol- and MIC (256 μg/mL) carvacrol-treated chicken surfaces minimized the number of S. Enteritidis and total aerobic plate count, reduced pH and TVB-N, and extended the shelf life from two to four days compared to MIC (128 μg/mL) cinnamaldehyde. The results of sensory analysis showed that the color, odor, viscosity, and overall acceptability of the chicken remained good in the thymol and carvacrol groups. This study confirmed that thymol and carvacrol were more effective in inhibiting S. Enteritidis and improving chicken quality. Based on current research findings, our future efforts will focus on the development of an antibacterial film that combines thymol, carvacrol, cinnamaldehyde, and polysaccharides, which will be applied to fresh food packaging.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.L. and J.C.; methodology, T.L.; validation, T.L. and J.C.; formal analysis, J.C.; investigation, T.L.; resources, W.W.; data curation, T.L.; writing—original draft preparation, T.L. and J.C.; writing—review and editing, W.W. and Y.Y.; supervision, Y.Y.; project administration, W.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2022YFD2100602).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, as no animals or humans were used within the study. All meat used in the study was purchased in commercial supermarkets.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated for this study are available from the authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank Yingwang Ye from HFUT for their help during the experiment.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References

  1. Jiang, Z.; Anwar, T.M.; Peng, X.; Biswas, S.; Elbediwi, M.; Li, Y.; Fang, W.; Yue, M. Prevalence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Recovered from Pig-Borne Food Products in Henan, China. Food Control 2021, 121, 107535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hofer, U. Salmonella Enteritidis: Chicken or Egg? Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2021, 19, 682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Lee, K.Y.; Atwill, E.R.; Pitesky, M.; Huang, A.; Lavelle, K.; Rickard, M.; Shafii, M.; Hung-Fan, M.; Li, X. Antimicrobial Resistance Profiles of Non-Typhoidal Salmonella from Retail Meat Products in California, 2018. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 835699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System. J. Vet. Res. 2020, 64, 281–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lin, L.; Mei, C.; Shi, C.; Li, C.; Abdel-Samie, M.A.; Cui, H. Preparation and Characterization of Gelatin Active Packaging Film Loaded with Eugenol Nanoparticles and Its Application in Chicken Preservation. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hui, X.; Yan, G.; Tian, F.-L.; Li, H.; Gao, W.-Y. Antimicrobial Mechanism of the Major Active Essential Oil Compounds and Their Structure–Activity Relationship. Med. Chem. Res. 2017, 26, 442–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wei, Q.; Liu, X.; Zhao, S.; Li, S.; Zhang, J. Research Note: Preservative Effect of Compound Spices Extracts on Marinated Chicken. Poult. Sci. 2022, 101, 101778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zhang, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Chen, X.; Li, W.; Wang, L.; Li, W.; Du, J.; Zhang, S. Effects of Cinnamon Essential Oil on the Physiological Metabolism of Salmonella Enteritidis. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 1035894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Alibi, S.; Selma, W.B.; Mansour, H.B.; Navas, J. Activity of Essential Oils Against Multidrug-Resistant Salmonella Enteritidis. Curr. Microbiol. 2022, 79, 273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ju, J.; Xie, Y.; Yu, H.; Guo, Y.; Cheng, Y.; Qian, H.; Yao, W. Analysis of the Synergistic Antifungal Mechanism of Eugenol and Citral. LWT 2020, 123, 109128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Yang, R.; Miao, J.; Shen, Y.; Cai, N.; Wan, C.; Zou, L.; Chen, C.; Chen, J. Antifungal Effect of Cinnamaldehyde, Eugenol and Carvacrol Nanoemulsion against Penicillium digitatum and Application in Postharvest Preservation of Citrus Fruit. LWT 2021, 141, 110924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kachur, K.; Suntres, Z. The Antibacterial Properties of Phenolic Isomers, Carvacrol and Thymol. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2020, 60, 3042–3053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Ma, M.; Zhao, J.; Yan, X.; Zeng, Z.; Wan, D.; Yu, P.; Xia, J.; Zhang, G.; Gong, D. Synergistic Effects of Monocaprin and Carvacrol against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium in Chicken Meat Preservation. Food Control 2022, 132, 108480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Peng, S.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, T.; Hati, S.; Mo, H.; Xu, D.; Li, H.; Hu, L.; Liu, Z. Characterization of Carvacrol Incorporated Antimicrobial Film Based on Agar/Konjac Glucomannan and Its Application in Chicken Preservation. J. Food Eng. 2022, 330, 111091. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lian, H.; Shi, J.; Zhang, X.; Peng, Y. Effect of the Added Polysaccharide on the Release of Thyme Essential Oil and Structure Properties of Chitosan Based Film. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2020, 23, 100467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zheng, H.; Wang, J.; You, F.; Zhou, M.; Shi, S. Fabrication, Characterization, and Antimicrobial Activity of Carvacrol-Loaded Zein Nanoparticles Using the PH-Driven Method. IJMS 2022, 23, 9227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cometa, S.; Bonifacio, M.A.; Bellissimo, A.; Pinto, L.; Petrella, A.; De Vietro, N.; Iannaccone, G.; Baruzzi, F.; De Giglio, E. A Green Approach to Develop Zeolite-Thymol Antimicrobial Composites: Analytical Characterization and Antimicrobial Activity Evaluation. Heliyon 2022, 8, e09551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Cui, R.; Zhu, B.; Yan, J.; Qin, Y.; Yuan, M.; Cheng, G.; Yuan, M. Development of a Sodium Alginate-Based Active Package with Controlled Release of Cinnamaldehyde Loaded on Halloysite Nanotubes. Foods 2021, 10, 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wang, J.; Zhao, F.; Huang, J.; Li, Q.; Yang, Q.; Ju, J. Application of Essential Oils as Slow-Release Antimicrobial Agents in Food Preservation: Preparation Strategies, Release Mechanisms and Application Cases. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 2023, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Duc, H.M.; Son, H.M.; Honjoh, K.; Miyamoto, T. Isolation and Application of Bacteriophages to Reduce Salmonella Contamination in Raw Chicken Meat. LWT 2018, 91, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, Y.; Dai, J.; Ma, X.; Jia, C.; Han, J.; Song, C.; Liu, Y.; Wei, D.; Xu, H.; Qin, J.; et al. Nano-Emulsification Essential Oil of Monarda didyma L. to Improve Its Preservation Effect on Postharvest Blueberry. Food Chem. 2023, 417, 135880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Moon, S.H.; Waite-Cusic, J.; Huang, E. Control of Salmonella in Chicken Meat Using a Combination of a Commercial Bacteriophage and Plant-Based Essential Oils. Food Control 2020, 110, 106984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Oliveira, G.R.; Oliveira, W.K.; Andrade, C.; Melo, A.D.B.; Luciano, F.B.; Macedo, R.E.F.; Costa, L.B. Natural Antimicrobials for Control of Salmonella Enteritidis in Feed and in Vitro Model of the Chicken Digestive Process. J. Anim. Physiol. Anim. Nutr. 2019, 103, 756–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhang, S.; Shen, Y.R.; Wu, S.; Xiao, Y.Q.; He, Q.; Shi, S.R. The Dietary Combination of Essential Oils and Organic Acids Reduces Salmonella Enteritidis in Challenged Chicks. Poult. Sci. 2019, 98, 6349–6355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Paparella, A.; Mazzarrino, G.; Chaves-López, C.; Rossi, C.; Sacchetti, G.; Guerrieri, O.; Serio, A. Chitosan Boosts the Antimicrobial Activity of Origanum vulgare Essential Oil in Modified Atmosphere Packaged Pork. Food Microbiol. 2016, 59, 23–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, W.; Chen, J.; Shao, X.; Huang, P.; Zha, J.; Ye, Y. Occurrence and Antimicrobial Resistance of Salmonella Isolated from Retail Meats in Anhui, China. Food Sci. Nutr. 2021, 9, 4701–4710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tang, X.; Shen, Y.; Song, X.; Benghezal, M.; Marshall, B.J.; Tang, H.; Li, H. Reassessment of the Broth Microdilution Method for Susceptibility Testing of Helicobacter pylori. J. Infect. Dis. 2022, 226, S486–S492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tu, Q.; Li, S.; Zeng, Z.; Liu, Y.; Wang, C.; Chen, S.; Hu, B.; Li, C. Cinnamon Essential Oil Liposomes Modified by Sodium Alginate-chitosan: Application in Chilled Pork Preservation. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2023, 58, 939–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Catford, A.; Ganz, K.; Tamber, S. Enumerative Analysis of Salmonella in Outbreak-Associated Breaded and Frozen Comminuted Raw Chicken Products. J. Food Prot. 2017, 80, 814–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Reid, A. 2009 MFHPB-20: Isolation and Identification of Salmonella from Food and Environmental Samples. In HPB Methods for the Microbiologcal Analysis of Foods, Vol. 2. The Compendium of Analytical Methods. Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 36, 24. [Google Scholar]
  31. Shatila, F.; Yaşa, İ.; Yalçın, H.T. Biofilm Formation by Salmonella Enterica Strains. Curr. Microbiol. 2021, 78, 1150–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Zduńczyk, W.; Tkacz, K.; Modzelewska-Kapituła, M. The Effect of Superficial Oregano Essential Oil Application on the Quality of Modified Atmosphere-Packed Pork Loin. Foods 2023, 12, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Zhang, F.; Kang, T.; Sun, J.; Wang, J.; Zhao, W.; Gao, S.; Wang, W.; Ma, Q. Improving TVB-N Prediction in Pork Using Portable Spectroscopy with Just-in-Time Learning Model Updating Method. Meat Sci. 2022, 188, 108801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dhifi, W.; Bellili, S.; Jazi, S.; Bahloul, N.; Mnif, W. Essential Oils’ Chemical Characterization and Investigation of Some Biological Activities: A Critical Review. Medicines 2016, 3, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ding, J.; Dwibedi, V.; Huang, H.; Ge, Y.; Li, Y.; Li, Q.; Sun, T. Preparation and Antibacterial Mechanism of Cinnamaldehyde/Tea Polyphenol/Polylactic Acid Coaxial Nanofiber Films with Zinc Oxide Sol to Shewanella putrefaciens. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2023, 237, 123932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, J.; Du, C.; Li, Q.; Hu, A.; Peng, R.; Sun, F.; Zhang, W. Inhibition Mechanism and Antibacterial Activity of Natural Antibacterial Agent Citral on Bamboo Mould and Its Anti-Mildew Effect on Bamboo. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 202244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Čabarkapa, I.; Čolović, R.; Đuragić, O.; Popović, S.; Kokić, B.; Milanov, D.; Pezo, L. Anti-Biofilm Activities of Essential Oils Rich in Carvacrol and Thymol against Salmonella Enteritidis. Biofouling 2019, 35, 361–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Galgano, M.; Mrenoshki, D.; Pellegrini, F.; Capozzi, L.; Cordisco, M.; Del Sambro, L.; Trotta, A.; Camero, M.; Tempesta, M.; Buonavoglia, D.; et al. Antibacterial and Biofilm Production Inhibition Activity of Thymus vulgaris L. Essential Oil against Salmonella Spp. Isolates from Reptiles. Pathogens 2023, 12, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Misiou, O.; Van Nassau, T.J.; Lenz, C.A.; Vogel, R.F. The Preservation of Listeria -Critical Foods by a Combination of Endolysin and High Hydrostatic Pressure. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 266, 355–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Zhao, R.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, H.; Song, R.; Li, Y. Performance of Eugenol Emulsion/Chitosan Edible Coating and Application in Fresh Meat Preservation. Food Process. Preserv. 2022, 46, e16407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moon, H.; Kim, N.H.; Kim, S.H.; Kim, Y.; Ryu, J.H.; Rhee, M.S. Teriyaki Sauce with Carvacrol or Thymol Effectively Controls Escherichia coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella typhimurium, and Indigenous Flora in Marinated Beef and Marinade. Meat Sci. 2017, 129, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Hoffman-Pennesi, D.; Wu, C. The Effect of Thymol and Thyme Oil Feed Supplementation on Growth Performance, Serum Antioxidant Levels, and Cecal Salmonella Population in Broilers. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 2010, 19, 432–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Liu, X.; Liu, R.; Zhao, R.; Wang, J.; Cheng, Y.; Liu, Q.; Wang, Y.; Yang, S. Synergistic Interaction Between Paired Combinations of Natural Antimicrobials Against Poultry-Borne Pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2022, 13, 811784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Wen, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, K.; Cao, H.; Mao, H.; Dong, X.; Yin, Z. Analysis of the Physical Meat Quality in Partridge (Alectoris chukar) and Its Relationship with Intramuscular Fat. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1225–1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Lin, Y.; Hu, J.; Li, S.; Hamzah, S.S.; Jiang, H.; Zhou, A.; Zeng, S.; Lin, S. Curcumin-Based Photodynamic Sterilization for Preservation of Fresh-Cut Hami Melon. Molecules 2019, 24, 2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sari, T.V.; Hasanah, U.; Harahap, R.I.H.; Zalukhu, P.; Trisna, A. Chemical and Physical Quality of Broiler Meat with Drinking Water Containing Boiled and Fermented Water of Various Cooking Spices as Phytobiotics. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2022, 977, 012137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bekhit, A.E.-D.A.; Holman, B.W.B.; Giteru, S.G.; Hopkins, D.L. Total Volatile Basic Nitrogen (TVB-N) and Its Role in Meat Spoilage: A Review. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2021, 109, 280–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Majdinasab, M.; Niakousari, M.; Shaghaghian, S.; Dehghani, H. Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Coating Based on Basil Seed Gum Incorporated with Shirazi Thyme and Summer Savory Essential Oils Emulsions for Shelf-Life Extension of Refrigerated Chicken Fillets. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 108, 106011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Hematizad, I.; Khanjari, A.; Basti, A.A.; Karabagias, I.K.; Noori, N.; Ghadami, F.; Gholami, F.; Teimourifard, R. In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Gelatin-Nanochitosan Films Incorporated with Zataria multiflora Boiss Essential Oil and Its Influence on Microbial, Chemical, and Sensorial Properties of Chicken Breast Meat during Refrigerated Storage. Food Packag. Shelf Life 2021, 30, 100751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Tomasevic, I.; Djekic, I.; Font-i-Furnols, M.; Terjung, N.; Lorenzo, J.M. Recent Advances in Meat Color Research. Curr. Opin. Food Sci. 2021, 41, 81–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ijaz, M.; Li, X.; Zhang, D.; Hussain, Z.; Ren, C.; Bai, Y.; Zheng, X. Association between Meat Color of DFD Beef and Other Quality Attributes. Meat Sci. 2020, 161, 107954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Foods 12 02560 g001 550
Figure 1. Inhibitory effects of thymol (A), carvacrol (B), and cinnamaldehyde (C) on biofilm formation in Salmonella. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Figure 1. Inhibitory effects of thymol (A), carvacrol (B), and cinnamaldehyde (C) on biofilm formation in Salmonella. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Foods 12 02560 g001
Foods 12 02560 g002 550
Figure 2. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on total aerobic plate counts of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Figure 2. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on total aerobic plate counts of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Foods 12 02560 g002
Foods 12 02560 g003 550
Figure 3. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on Salmonella counts of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–c) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Figure 3. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on Salmonella counts of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–c) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Foods 12 02560 g003
Foods 12 02560 g004 550
Figure 4. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the pH of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Figure 4. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the pH of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Foods 12 02560 g004
Foods 12 02560 g005 550
Figure 5. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the TVB-N of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Figure 5. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the TVB-N of chicken at storage. The different superscripts (a–d) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups within the same storage time.
Foods 12 02560 g005
Table
Table 1. Standards of sensory evaluation for chicken.
Table 1. Standards of sensory evaluation for chicken.
IndicatorsScoreScoring Criteria
Color8–10 pointsLight red, glossy surface
6–7 pointsSlightly dim, slightly shiny surface
6 points or fewerDull, surface matte
Odor8–10 pointsNormal smell of chicken, no peculiar smell
6–7 pointsSlightly smelly
6 points or fewerFishy odor or ammonia odor
Stickiness8–10 pointsMoist, not sticky
6–7 pointsWetter, not sticky
6 points or fewerSticky hands
Overall acceptability8–10 pointsWilling to accept
6–7 pointsAcceptable
6 points or fewerUnacceptable
Table
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentrations.
Table 2. Minimum inhibitory concentrations.
Essential Oil Main IngredientsThymolCarvacrolLimoneneCitralCinnamaldehydeβ-Pinene
MIC (μg/mL)12825610245121282048
Table
Table 3. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the moisture content of chicken at storage.
Table 3. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the moisture content of chicken at storage.
ParameterProcessing GroupsDays of Storage
0 d2 d4 d6 d
Moisture content00.75 Aa0.74 Bb0.74 Bb0.74 Bb
Thymol0.75 ABa0.75 Bab0.76 Aa0.75 ABa
Carvacrol0.75 Aa0.75 Aab0.76 Aa0.76 Aa
Cinnamaldehyde0.74 Ba0.75 ABa0.75 ABb0.76 Aa
Different superscript letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups for the same storage time; different superscript letters (A,B) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different storage times for the same treatment group.
Table
Table 4. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on color of chicken at storage.
Table 4. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on color of chicken at storage.
ParameterProcessing GroupsDays of Storage
0 d2 d4 d6 d
L* values054.87 Da56.37 Cb57.40 Bb55.27 Ab
Thymol54.61 Da58.09 Ca58.42 Ba57.03 Aa
Carvacrol54.86 Da57.93 Ca58.34 Ba56.21 Aab
Cinnamaldehyde54.69 Da55.45 Cc57.36 Bb55.38 Abc
a* values05.13 Da4.55 Cb4.10 Bb3.49 Ab
Thymol5.12 Da4.91 Ca4.78 Ba4.10 Aa
Carvacrol5.07 Da4.99 Ca4.73 Ba3.74 Ab
Cinnamaldehyde5.14 Da4.84 Ca4.13 Bb3.58 Ab
b* values031.54 Da32.71 Ca34.50 Ba35.93 Aa
Thymol31.14 Dab32.12 Cab33.11 Bb34.60 Ac
Carvacrol30.92 Db31.51 Cb32.31 Bc35.30 Ab
Cinnamaldehyde31.29 Dab32.49 Ca34.34 Ba35.86 Aa
Different superscript letters (a–c) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups for the same storage time; different superscript letters (A–D) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different storage times for the same treatment group.
Table
Table 5. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the sensory parameters of chicken at storage.
Table 5. Effects of thymol, carvacrol, and cinnamaldehyde on the sensory parameters of chicken at storage.
Sensory IndicatorsProcessing Groups0 d2 d4 d6 d
ColorControl group9.50 ± 0.84 Aa8.67 ± 1.21 Aa6.00 ± 0.89 Bb4.33 ± 0.82 Cb
Thymol9.50 ± 0.84 Aa9.17 ± 0.98 Aa7.33 ± 0.82 Ba6.17 ± 0.75 Ca
Carvacrol9.33 ± 0.82 Aa9.17 ± 0.95 Aa7.83 ± 0.75 Ba5.83 ± 0.75 Ca
Cinnamaldehyde9.33 ± 0.82 Aa8.83 ± 0.98 Aa6.83 ± 0.75 Bab4.16 ± 0.75 Cb
OdorControl group9.67 ± 0.52 Aa8.67 ± 1.03 Aa4.00 ± 0.89 Bb2.33 ± 0.82 Cb
Thymol9.83 ± 0.41 Aa9.00 ± 0.89 Aa6.50 ± 1.05 Ba3.17 ± 0.75 Cab
Carvacrol9.67 ± 0.82 Aa9.17 ± 0.75 Aa5.67 ± 0.82 Ba3.50 ± 0.55 Ca
Cinnamaldehyde9.50 ± 0.84 Aa8.83 ± 0.75 Aa3.83 ± 0.75 Bb2.50 ± 0.84 Cb
StickinessControl group9.83 ± 0.41 Aa8.33 ± 0.52 Bb6.83 ± 0.75 Cb5.83 ± 0.75 Da
Thymol9.67 ± 0.52 Aa9.50 ± 0.84 Aa8.50 ± 1.05 Ba6.83 ± 0.75 Ca
Carvacrol9.83 ± 0.41 Aa9.33 ± 1.03 ABab8.33 ± 1.37 Ba6.67 ± 1.03 Ca
Cinnamaldehyde9.83 ± 0.41 Aa9.17 ± 0.98 ABab8.17 ± 0.98 Ba6.50 ± 0.84 Ca
Overall acceptabilityControl group9.84 ± 0.41 Aa8.33 ± 1.03 Ba5.33 ± 0.82 Cb2.83 ± 0.75 Da
Thymol9.67 ± 0.52 Aa9.33 ± 0.82 Aa7.17 ± 0.75 Ba3.50 ± 1.05 Ca
Carvacrol9.67 ± 0.82 Aa9.00 ± 0.89 Aa7.00 ± 0.63 Ba3.50 ± 0.84 Ca
Cinnamaldehyde9.67 ± 0.52 Aa9.00 ± 0.89 Aa5.67 ± 1.03 Bb3.00 ± 1.26 Ca
Different superscript letters (a,b) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different treatment groups for the same storage time; different superscript letters (A–D) indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) between different storage times for the same treatment group.
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

Wang, W.; Li, T.; Chen, J.; Ye, Y. Inhibition of Salmonella Enteritidis by Essential Oil Components and the Effect of Storage on the Quality of Chicken. Foods 2023, 12, 2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132560

AMA Style

Wang W, Li T, Chen J, Ye Y. Inhibition of Salmonella Enteritidis by Essential Oil Components and the Effect of Storage on the Quality of Chicken. Foods. 2023; 12(13):2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132560

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Wu, Tingting Li, Jing Chen, and Yingwang Ye. 2023. "Inhibition of Salmonella Enteritidis by Essential Oil Components and the Effect of Storage on the Quality of Chicken" Foods 12, no. 13: 2560. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods12132560

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