Next Article in Journal
Determination of Biochemical Composition in Peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch) Accessions Characterized by Different Flesh Color and Textural Typologies
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Barley Antifreeze Protein on Dough and Bread during Freezing and Freeze-Thaw Cycles
Previous Article in Journal
Vibrational Spectroscopy Coupled to a Multivariate Analysis Tiered Approach for Argentinean Honey Provenance Confirmation
Previous Article in Special Issue
Optimization of Osmotic Dehydration of Tomatoes in Solutions of Non-Conventional Sweeteners by Response Surface Methodology and Desirability Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Foods
Volume 9
Issue 10
10.3390/foods9101453
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

Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken

by
Elena Gonzalez-Fandos
*,
Alba Martinez-Laorden
and
Iratxe Perez-Arnedo
Food Technology Department, CIVA Research Center, University of La Rioja, Madre de Dios Avenue 53, 26006 Logrono, La Rioja, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Foods 2020, 9(10), 1453; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101453
Submission received: 15 September 2020 / Revised: 6 October 2020 / Accepted: 8 October 2020 / Published: 13 October 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food Processing and Shelf Life Extension)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The ability of different decontaminating treatments (acetic, citric and fumaric acids, and potassium sorbate) to decrease Campylobacter jejuni on chicken legs was evaluated. Fresh chicken legs were inoculated with C. jejuni and washed with either acetic, citric, or fumaric acid (1% and 2%), or potassium sorbate (1%, 2%, and 5%) solutions or distilled water. Evolution of C. jejuni, Pseudomonas, and Enterobacterales counts, and sensorial acceptability were evaluated after treatment (day 1) and on days 2, 4, 7, and 9 of storage at 4 °C. The lowest Pseudomonas counts were found in those legs dipped in 2% fumaric acid, while the lowest Enterobacterales populations were found in those legs dipped in 2% fumaric or 2% acetic acid. The shelf life of the legs treated was widened by at least 2 days over the control legs. The highest C. jejuni reductions after treatment were obtained in samples dipped in 2% citric acid, which were approximately 2.66 log units lower than in non-treated legs. However, the efficacy of citric acid decreased during storage. After day 2 of storage, the highest reductions of C. jejuni were found in those legs dipped in 2% acetic acid.

1. Introduction

Human campylobacteriosis is the most often reported foodborne disease in developed countries. In 2018, an incidence rate of 64.1 cases per 100,000 population was reported in the European Union, with 246,571 confirmed cases [1]. The prevalence of Campylobacter jejuni in poultry meat is elevated [2,3]. Campylobacteriosis is often associated with the consumption or handling of poultry meat [4].
Risk assessments have pointed out that reducing the Campylobacter levels on poultry have a great impact on the human cases attributed to poultry meat [5]. Therefore, decontamination of poultry has acquired increased attention as a tool to decrease human campylobacteriosis cases. The treatment with organic acids is one option to decontaminate poultry [6]. Organic acids and their salts have been added to foods as preservatives, since they are considered as safe (GRAS) [7,8]. Several studies have indicated the efficacy of organic acids and their salts (lactic, acetic, sorbic, citric) for reducing microbial counts in poultry [6,9,10,11,12].
Acetic acid has been studied as an antibacterial compound for use in poultry meat to widen its shelf life and reduce the growth of pathogens such as L. monocytogenes and Salmonella [13,14]. The effect of acetic acid on C. jejuni in poultry meat has been studied by Cosansu and Ayhan [15]. The effect of citric acid on the microbial quality of poultry meat and its ability to inhibit pathogens such as Salmonella and L. monocytogenes has been previously reported [11,16]. The effect of citric acid on C. jejuni in poultry meat has been evaluated by Ellerbroek et al. [17], Meredith et al. [18], and Koolman et al. [19]. The effectiveness of fumaric acid on C. jejuni has been studied in vitro [20]. Nevertheless, there are no studies on the effect of fumaric acid on C. jejuni in chicken meat. Considering C. jejuni is a pathogen often associated with chicken meat, it would be of interest to evaluate the effectiveness of fumaric acid on this bacteria. Potassium sorbate has been evaluated as an antibacterial compound for use in poultry meat to prolong its shelf life and reduce the growth of pathogens such as Listeria monocytogene or Salmonella [21,22]. The capacity of sorbic acid and its salts to control C. jejuni has been evaluated in vitro [20,23]. Nevertheless, there are few works on the efficacy of sorbic acid or its salts on C. jejuni in poultry meat [24].
This study was undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of potassium sorbate and acetic, citric, and fumaric acid against Campylobacter jejuni on fresh chicken legs stored at 4 °C.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Preparation of Bacterial Inoculum and Inoculation of Chicken

C. jejuni ATTCC 33291 was cultured in Preston broth (Oxoid, Hampshire, UK) under microaerobic conditions (10% CO2, 5% O2, and 85% N2) at 42 °C for 24 h. The procedure used for the preparation of inoculum and inoculation of chicken legs were previously described [25].

2.2. Chicken Legs Treatment

A total of 300 inoculated chicken legs were randomly fractionated into 10 groups. Samples in each group were dipped at 20 °C for 5 min into the following solutions: sterile distilled water (control) (Batch 1); 1% (Batch 2) or 2% (Batch 3) acetic acid; 1% (Batch 4) or 2% (Batch 5) citric acid; 1% (Batch 6) or 2% (Batch 7) fumaric acid; 1% (Batch 8), 2% (Batch 9), or 5% (Batch 10) potassium sorbate. The pH values of the solutions measured at the time of application were 2.60 (1% acetic acid), 2.52 (2% acetic acid), 2.17 (1% citric acid), 2.04 (2% citric acid), 2.03 (1% fumaric acid), 1.99 (2% fumaric acid), 8.33 (1% potassium sorbate), 8.39 (2% potassium sorbate), and 8.45 (5% potassium sorbate). Potassium sorbate and acetic, citric, and fumaric acids were provided by Scharlab (Barcelona, Spain). Afterwards, all legs were taken and drained for 5 min at at 20 °C. Then, the legs were kept at 4 °C for 8 days.

2.3. Microbiological Analyses and pH Determination

Analyses were performed on days 1 (after immersion treatment), 2, 4, 7, and 9. Each sampling day, six legs of each batch were taken out to carry out microbiological and pH analysis. For microbiological analyses, 10 g of skin were aseptically taken and homogenized in a Stomacher (IUL, Barcelona, Spain) for 2 min with 90 mL of 0.1% sterile peptone water (Oxoid). Serial decimal dilutions were prepared using the same diluent. Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacterales, and C. jejuni were determined according to the methodology described by Gonzalez-Fandos et al. [26]. For pH determinations 5 g of skin were taken and kept at 4 °C until evaluation. Measurements of pH were made using a Crison model 2002 pHmeter (Crison Instruments, Barcelona, Spain).

2.4. Sensorial Analysis

Overall acceptability was evaluated by a panel of nine members. A structured hedonic scale with numerical scores ranging from 7 (highest score) to 1 (lowest score) was used. A score of 3 was considered the borderline of acceptability.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Microbial data were converted to logarithms. Analysis of variance was carried out using the SYSTAT program for Windows, Statistics version 5.0 (Evanston, IL, USA, 1992). For assessing whether the data were normally distributed, the Shapiro-Wilk test was performed. Bartlett’s test was used to evaluate the homogeneity of variance. Tukey’s test for comparison of means was performed using the same program. The values obtained from sensory evaluation were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. Significance level was defined at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The effect of acetic, citric, and fumaric acids and potassium sorbate on Pseudomonas spp. counts is shown in Table 1. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in Pseudomonas spp. counts were detected between the legs dipped in 5% potassium sorbate, 1–2% citric or fumaric acid, and those non treated on day 1. Also, significant reductions (p < 0.05) in Pseudomonas spp. counts were found between samples dipped in 1–2% acetic acid, 2% citric acid, 1–2% fumaric acid, or 5% potassium sorbate, and those non treated on days 2, 4, and 7 of storage. The data showed that treatment with 2% fumaric acid reduced Pseudomonas populaions between 1.13 and 2.5 log units compared with the control samples. After 7 days of storage, Pseudomonas counts in legs dipped in 2% acetic acid and 2% fumaric acid were 1.63 and 2.02 log units lower than in control samples, respectively. Significant differences (p < 0.05) in Pseudomonas counts were found between the legs dipped in 2% fumaric acid and those dipped in 2% acetic acid except on day 9 of storage.
The effect of different treatments on Enterobacterales counts on chicken legs is given in Table 2. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in Enterobacterales counts were observed between the legs dipped in 5% potassium sorbate, 1–2% acetic or fumaric acids, and the control legs. Also, significant reductions (p < 0.05) in Enterobacterales counts were observed between the legs treated with 1–2% citric acid and the control legs except on day 1. The results indicated that dipping in 2% acetic acid decreased Enterobacterales counts between 1.31 and 2.06 log units compared to the control legs. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in Enterobacterales counts were detected between the legs dipped in 2% acetic acid and those dipped in 1–2% citric acid or 1–2% potassium sorbate throughout storage.
Table 3 shows the effect of different treatments on C. jejuni populations on poultry legs. On day 1, all tested treatments except 1% fumaric acid reduced the C. jejuni counts significantly (p < 0.05) compared with the untreated legs. After treatment, the highest reductions in C. jejuni populations were obtained in those legs dipped in 2% citric acid, with reductions of 2.66 log cfu/g compared with the control legs. After day 2 of storage, the highest reductions of C. jejuni were observed in those legs treated with 2% acetic acid. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in the C. jejuni counts were detected in legs treated with 1–2% acetic acid compared with those treated with 1–2% citric acid. Significant reductions (p < 0.05) in the C. jejuni populations were also detected in legs dipped in 2% acetic acid and those dipped in 1% acetic acid.
The treatment with acetic, citric, or fumaric acid significantly decreased (p < 0.05) the pH of chicken legs compared with the control ones. The differences in pH between legs dipped in citric, fumaric, or acetic acids and control legs diminished during storage. Initial pH values in samples dipped in 2% acetic, 2% citric, and 2% fumaric acid (day 1) were 4.84 ± 0.12, 4.67 ± 0.02, and 4.02 ± 0.17, respectively (1.56, 1.73, and 2.38 units less than in control samples). No significant differences (p > 0.05) were found in pH values between samples treated with potassium sorbate and those non treated. Sensory quality was not adversely affected by potassium sorbate or acetic, citric, or fumaric acid treatment, since scores of 7 were observed after treatment and on day 2. No significant differences (p > 0.05) in sensorial acceptability were observed between treated and control samples until day 4. Control legs were rejected on day 7. The samples dipped in 2% potassium sorbate or 1% citric acid were rejected on day 9 of storage, whereas the other treated samples remained acceptable on day 9. Consequently, legs receiving treatments with potassium sorbate or acetic, citric, or fumaric acids were acceptable at least 2 days longer than non-treated legs.

4. Discussion

The reduction in Pseudomonas spp. populations found in the present study are in accordance with the results of other authors applying organic acids [13,27,28]. Pseudomonas spp. is the principal spoilage bacteria in poultry meat [29]. The shelf life of poultry meat relies on its bacterial contamination. Consequently, decreasing the spoilage microorganisms in poultry, mainly Pseudomonas, could widen their shelf life. Pseudomonas spp. counts by 8 log cfu/g are associated to spoilage in poultry [30,31]. In the present research, after 7 days of storage, Pseudomonas spp. counts in control legs were 8.33 log cfu/g, being rejected. Whereas in legs treated with 1–2% acetic, 2% citric, or 1–2% fumaric acid, or 5% potassium sorbate, Pseudomonas spp. counts remained below 8 log cfu/g on day 9, and signs of spoilage were not observed. Samples washed with 1–2% potassium sorbate or 1% citric acid were rejected on day 9, with Pseudomonas spp. counts above 8.00 log cfu/g. Other studies have also shown that treatment with 1–2% acetic or citric acid, or 1–5% potassium sorbate did not adversely affect the sensorial quality of poultry and extended their shelf life [14,18,21,28].
In the current work, it was found that a washing with 1% acetic acid decreased Enterobacterales counts by 0.78 log units compared to control samples, after treatment. Similar reductions have been found by Dickens and Whittemore [32], who reported that washing of poultry carcasses in a 0.6% acetic acid decreased Enterobacterales counts by 0.71 log units. Jimenez et al. [13] pointed out a Enterobacterales decreasing of about 1.5 log units in carcasses washed with 1% acetic acid. Also, Bolton et al. [27] found that a treatment with 5% citric acid decreased Enterobacterales counts in poultry carcasses. Comparisons between treatments showed that 2% acetic or 2% fumaric acid were similar and significantly effective (p < 0.05) at reducing Enterobacterales on poultry legs as compared to the 2% citric acid treatment.
The efficacy of organic acids on microbial populations depends on the application method (immersion or spray), exposure time, and temperature [33,34]. Differences found in the bibliography can be explained by these factors. Immersion treatments seem to be more effective than spray treatments, and longer exposure time are more effective than shorter ones.
The low pH values of poultry legs washed with acetic or citric acid have also been reported by other authors [11,13], while no effect on pH values has been reported in poultry meat treated with potassium sorbate [35].
In the current study, all the treatments significantly decreased (p < 0.05) C. jejuni counts on day 1 of storage, although the reductions differed depending on the treatment. The most efficient treatment was 2% acetic acid, which reduced C. jejuni populaions by 2.35 log units after 1 day of storage. Cosansu and Ayhan [15] reported that treatment with 1% and 3% acetic acid for 10 min decreased C. jejuni populations on chicken by 0.78 and 1.27 log units, respectively, whereas lactic acid at level of 1% and 3% decreased C. jejuni by 0.36 and 1.06 log units, respectively. In the current research washing with 1 and 2% acetic acid for 5 min decreased C. jejuni populations by 0.80 and 1.34 log units, respectively, after treatment. These findings are in accordance with those shown by Zhao and Doyle [36], who reported that a treatment with 2% acetic acid for 15 s reduced C. jejuni 1.5 log units in chicken wings. Meredith et al. [18] reported a higher reduction of C. jejuni counts after treatment of chicken skin with 5% citric acid for 15 s than with lactic acid. These researchers pointed out that the Campylobacter counts on carcasses dipped in 5% citric acid for 15 s were significantly reduced after treatment, by 1.44 log cfu/cm2; however, after 5 days of storage at 4 °C, these authors did not find significant differences between the Campylobacter counts in untreated samples and those treated with 5% citric acid. Ellerbroek et al. [17] pointed out that dipping poultry carcasses in a 10% citric acid solution has a significant impact on the decreasing of C. jejuni, with reductions of 0.6–0.8 log cfu/g after treatment. Lower reductions in C. jejuni counts were reported by Koolman et al. [19] after treatment of drumsticks with 2% citric acid for 15 s (1 log cfu/cm2); these differences could be explained by the treatment time (15 s instead 5 min). Therefore, acetic acid was more efficient against C. jejuni than citric acid, except on day 1, after treatment. Beier et al. [37] pointed out that acetic or lactic acid were less efficient than citric acid in vitro. As in the current work, citric acid was effective against C. jejuni after treatment, but it should be considered that the efficacy of citric acid diminished during storage at 4 °C. The efficacy of 2% acetic acid against C. jejuni was significantly higher (p < 0.05) that the treatment with 5% potassium sorbate, although reductions between 1.09 and 1.44 log10 units were observed thorough storage. Grilli et al. [23] pointed out that acetic, lactic, and citric acids were less effective against C. jejuni than sorbic acid in vitro assays. However, Sansalone et al. [24] reported that potassium sorbate was not effective against Campylobacter jejuni in chicken meat, while storage temperature (+4 and −2 °C) was the main factor in reducing the growth of C. jejuni in chicken meat. The treatment with 1% and 2% fumaric acid decreased C. jejuni counts between 0.22–0.89 and 0.63–1.08 log10 units thorough storage, respectively. This treatment was less effective than that with acetic acid. However, Molatova et al. [20] pointed out that the inhibitory levels of fumaric acid on C. jejuni was less than 1% at pH 5.5 and 7% at pH 6.5 in vitro. Fumaric acid has been reported to be effective against other pathogens (Salmonella, E. coli, L. monocytogenes) in vegetables [38,39] and against L. monocytogenes in ham [40].
The efficacy or organic acids and their salts against C. jejuni could be higher in vitro than in poultry meat, maybe because of the buffering capacity of the meat [36,40]. Zhao and Doyle [36] pointed out that in vitro treatments with 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% acetic acid for 1 min decreased C. jejuni counts by 5 log10 cfu/mL. However, in chicken wings, the washing with 2% acetic acid for 45 s decreased C. jejuni populations by 1.4 log10 cfu/g. Also, Birk et al. [41] found that the antimicrobial effect of organic acids against C. jejuni on poultry meat was less marked than the effect in broth media. Chaveerach et al. [42] reported that acetic acid had a high antimicrobial effect on C. jejuni at low pH (4.0 and 4.5) in vitro. However, these authors observed that at pH 5.5 and 6.5, C. jejuni could survive. Molatova et al. [20] also reported that the antibacterial activity of organic acids against C. jejuni was less marked at pH 6.5 than at pH 5.5. These authors pointed out that the inhibitory concentration of fumaric acid on C. jejuni was less than 1% at pH 5.5, whereas for sorbic, citric, and acetic acid it was 6, 23, and 51%, respectively. At pH 6.5, the inhibitory concentration of fumaric, sorbic, citric, and acetic acids against C. jejuni was 7%, 41%, 57%, and 71%, respectively. Shin et al. [43]. observed than in vitro citric acid was less effective than sorbic and acetic acids against C. jejuni. Grilli et al. [23] pointed out that benzoic and propionic acids were the most effective organic acids against C. jejuni with minimal inhibitory concentration values (MIC) of 0.38% and 0.47%, respectively. These authors also found that malic and sorbic acids were effective against C. jejuni with MIC values of 3.35% and 5.6%. However, concentrations of 19.20% citric, 11.60% fumaric, 6% acetic, and 9% lactic acids failed to inhibit C. jejuni in vitro. The lowest efficacy reported by Grilli et al. [23] could be explained by the higher pH, since pH was adjusted to 6.5. The antimicrobial action of organic acids depends on their undissociated form, whose concentration is influenced by external pH and pKa values. At pH 6.5, the lowest MIC obtained by Grilli et al. [23] were for those organic acids having the highest pKa values such as propionic and sorbic, with pKa values of 4.88 and 4.76, respectively. On the other hand, according to Shin et al. [43], the inhibitory effect of organic acids against C. jejuni is more marked at 42 °C than at 4 °C. This fact could explain some differences found in the literature. The efficacy of organic acids could be different depending on the pH and medium used [41]. Birk et al. [41] reported that when C. jejuni was exposed to citric acid, it survived worse in chicken juice (pH 6.6) than in BHI broth (pH 7), while the contrary was found with acetic acid. Moreover, these authors observed that the most efficient ingredients against C. jejuni in poultry meat were not those with lower pH, since a combination containing acetic acid (pH 3.4) was more effective than a combination containing citric acid (pH 2.7). This could explain the results obtained with fumaric acid compared to acetic acid.
The antibacterial activity of organic acids has been associated to their undissociated form, whose concentration depends on the organic acid pKa and the pH of the medium [44]. In the current study, according to the pH measured in the poultry legs and pKa of the organic acids used, the highest undissociated form was found in the case of acetic acid (ratio undissociated form/dissociated form = 0.8128 for 2% acetic acid after treatment). The lowest undissociated form was observed in the case of citric acid (ratio undissociated form/dissociated form = 0.0295 for 2% citric acid after treatment). The undissociated form was also low for fumaric acid (ratio undissociated form/dissociated form = 0.1023 for 2% fumaric acid after treatment). However, Beier et al. [37] suggested that the undissociated form of organic acids plays a small role in inhibiting C. jejuni. These authors pointed out that C. jejuni inhibition was correlated with the concentration of the dissociated organic acid form. In contrast, other authors have attributed the antimicrobial activity of organic acids to both the dissociated and undissociated acid forms [45]. Moreover, Beier et al. [37] indicated that some organics acids such as acetic and lactic acid may not be adequate to control C. jejuni, since they can be used by these bacteria as an energy source. However, citric acid cannot be used by C. jejuni and, according the mentioned authors, is effective against this pathogen in vitro. The antimicrobial activity of citric acid could be also related to its chelating properties, as citric acid could remove essential nutrients, avoiding microbial growth [46]. The higher antibacterial effect of acetic acid could be explained by the fact that acetic acid is lipid-soluble, diffuses quickly through the plasma membrane, and is accumulated in the cytoplasm, causing a rapid collapse in cytoplasmic pH [46]. In contrast, citric and fumaric acids are very lipophobic. It has been proved these compounds do not diffuse through lipid membranes [46]. On the other hand, the efficacy of organic acids could also be associated to their low molecular weight, and high molecular weight compounds could be less effective to penetrate Gram negative bacterial membrane than other compounds with low molecular weight such as acetic acid (molecular weight = 60.05) [47].
It should be highlight that the use of additives in foods must be done in accordance with the regulations [48,49].

5. Conclusions

In the current research, the reductions of C. jejuni obtained with 1–2% acetic acid, 2% fumaric acid, and 1, 2, 5% potassium sorbate were above 1 log10 cfu/g on day 3 of storage, whereas 1–2% citric acid and 1% fumaric acid resulted in reductions below 1 log10 cfu/g. Citric acid was effective against C. jejuni after treatment, but it should be considered that the efficacy of citric acid decreased during storage at 4 °C. Acetic acid treatment yielded the largest C. jejuni reductions, while fumaric acid was the most effective at reducing Pseudomonas counts. This work indicates that acetic acid is effective in reducing populations of C. jejuni in chicken. The application of acetic acid may be used as an additional contribution to control C. jejuni and prolong the shelf life of raw chicken, although it cannot replace hygiene rules and good manufacturing practices.

Author Contributions

All of the authors contributed significantly to the research. E.G.-F. was involved in project design, funding acquisition, project administration, data analysis, and writing. E.G.-F., A.M.-L. and I.P.-A. contributed to the methodology, investigation, and data curation. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by University of La Rioja and Banco Santander (PROFAI 13/24 and REGI2020/33).

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the University of La Rioja (Spain) and Banco Santander for their financial support. A.M.-L. is beneficiary of a fellowship from University of La Rioja and La Rioja Government.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. EFSA. The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019, 17, 5926. [Google Scholar]
  2. Perez-Arnedo, I.; Gonzalez-Fandos, E. Prevalence of Campylobacter spp. in poultry in three Spanish farms, a slaughterhouse and a further processing plant. Foods 2019, 8, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. EFSA. The European Union summary report on trends and sources of zoonoses, zoonotic agents and food-borne outbreaks in 2012. EFSA J. 2014, 12, 3547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bell, C.; Kyriakides, A. Campylobacter: A Practical Approach to the Organism and Its Control; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rosenquist, H.; Nielsen, N.L.; Sommer, H.M.; Norrung, B.; Christensen, B.B. Quantitative risk assessment of human campylobacteriosis associated with thermophilic Campylobacter species in chickens. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2003, 83, 87–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Carpenter, C.; Smith, J.; Broadbent, J.R. Efficacy of washing meat surfaces with 2% levulinic, acetic, or lactic acid for pathogen decontamination and residual growth inhibition. Meat Sci. 2011, 58, 256–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Simon, A.; Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Tobar, V. Influence of washing and packaging on the sensory and microbiological quality of fresh peeled white asparagus. J. Food Sci. 2004, 69, FMS6–FMS12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Simon, A.; Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Vázquez, M. Effect of washing with citric acid and packaging in modified atmosphere on the sensory and microbiological quality of sliced mushrooms (Agaricus bisporus L.). Food Control 2010, 21, 851–856. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Dominguez, J.L. Efficacy of lactic acid against Listeria monocytogenes attached to poultry skin during refrigerated storage. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2006, 101, 1331–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zeitoun, A.A.; Debevere, J.M. Inhibition, survival and growth of Listeria monocytogenes on poultry as influenced by buffered lactic acid treatment and modified atmosphere packaging. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1991, 14, 161–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Herrera, B.; Maya, N. Efficacy of citric acid against Listeria monocytogenes attached to poultry skin during refrigerated storage. Int. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 44, 262–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Herrera, B. Efficacy of propionic acid against Listeria monocytogenes attached in poultry skin during refrigerated storage. Food Control 2013, 34, 601–606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jimenez, S.M.; Salsi, M.S.; Tiburzi, M.C.; Rafaghelli, R.C.; Pirovani, M.E. Combined use of acetic acid treatment and modified atmosphere packaging for extending the shelf-life of chilled chicken breast portions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 1999, 87, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Herrera, B. Efficacy of acetic acid against Listeria monocytogenes attached in poultry skin during refrigerated storage. Foods 2014, 3, 527–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Coşansu, S.; Ayhan, K. Effects of lactic and acetic acid treatments on Campylobacter jejuni inoculated onto chicken leg and breast meat during storage at 4 °C and −18 °C. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2010, 34, 98–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tamblyn, K.C.; Conner, D.E. Bactericidal activity of organic acids against Salmonella typhimurium attached to broiler chicken skin. J. Food Protect. 1997, 60, 629–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Ellerbroek, L.; Lienau, J.A.; Alter, T.; Schlichting, D. Effectiveness of different chemical decontamination methods on the Campylobacter load of poultry carcasses. Fleischwirtschaft 2007, 87, 224–227. [Google Scholar]
  18. Meredith, H.; Walsh, D.; McDowell, D.A.; Bolton, D.J. An investigation of the immediate and storage effects of chemical treatments on Campylobacter and sensory characteristics of poultry meat. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2013, 166, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Koolman, L.; Whyte, P.M.; Meade, J.; Lyng, J.; Bolton, D. Use of chemical treatments applied alone and in combination to reduce Campylobater on raw poultry. Food Control 2014, 46, 299–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Molatova, Z.; Skrivavova, E.; Macias, B.; McEwan, N.R.; Brezina, P.; Matrounek, M. Susceptibility of Campylobacter jejuni to organic acids and monoacylglycerols. Folia Microbiol. 2010, 55, 215–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Dominguez, J.L. Effect of potassium sorbate washing on the growth of Listeria monocytogenes on fresh poultry. Food Control 2007, 18, 842–846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. To, E.C.; Robach, M.C. Potassium sorbate dip as a method of extending shelf life and inhibiting the growth of Salmonella and Staphylococcus aureus on fresh, whole broilers. Poultry Sci. 1980, 59, 726–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Grilli, E.; Vitari, F.; Domeneghini, C.; Palmonari, A.; Tosi, G.; Fantinati, P.; Massi, P.; Piva, A. Development of a feed additive to reduce caecal Campylobacter jejuni in broilers at slaughter age: From in vitro to in vivo, a proof of concept. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 114, 308–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Sansalone, L.P.; Oteiza, J.M.; Giacoboni, G.; Giannuzzi, L. Predictive models for the survival of Campylobacter jejuni inoculated in chicken meat. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2010, 34, 247–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Maya, N. Effect of malic acid on Campylobacter jejuni attached to chicken skin during refrigerated storage. J. Food Process. Preserv. 2016, 40, 593–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Maya, N.; Martínez-Laorden, A.; Pérez-Arnedo, I. Efficacy of lactic acid and modified atmospheres packaging against Campylobacter jejuni on chicken during refrigerated storage. Foods 2020, 9, 109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Bolton, D.J.; Meredith, H.; Walsh, D.; McDowell, D.A. The effect of chemical treatments in laboratory and broiler plant studies on the microbial status and shelf life of poultry. Food Control 2014, 36, 230–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Bostan, K.; Aksu, H.; Ersoy, E.; Ozgen, O.; Ugur, M. The effect of pre-chilling with acetic and lactic acid on shelf-life of broiler carcasses. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2001, 4, 753–756. [Google Scholar]
  29. ICMSF (International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Foods). Microorganisms in foods. In Microbial Specifications of Food Commodities; Blackie Academic & Professional: London, UK, 1998; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  30. Nychas, G.J.; Skandamis, P.H.; Tassou, C.G.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Meat spoilage during distribution. Meat Sci. 2008, 78, 77–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Charles, N.; Williams, S.K.; Rodrick, G.E. Effects of packaging systems on the natural microflora and acceptability of chicken breast meat. Poult. Sci. 2006, 85, 1798–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dickens, J.A.; Whittemore, A.D. The effects of extended chilling times with acetic acid on the temperature and microbiological quality of processed poultry carcasses. Poult. Sci. 1995, 74, 1044–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Smulders, F.J.M.; Greer, G.G. Integrating microbial decontamination with organic acids in HACCP programmes for muscle foods: Prospects and controversies. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1998, 44, 149–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Greer, G.C.; Dilts, B. Factors affecting the susceptibility of meatborne pathogens and spoilage bacteria to organic acids. Food Res. Int. 1992, 25, 355–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dolezalová, M.; Molatová, Z.; Bunka, F.; Brezina, P.; Marounek, M. Effect of organic acids on growth of chilled chicken skin microflora. J. Food Saf. 2010, 30, 353–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhao, T.; Doyle, M.P. Reduction of Campylobacter jejuni on chicken wings by chemical treatments. J. Food Protect. 2006, 69, 762–767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Beier, R.C.; Byrd, J.A.; Caldwell, D.; Andrews, K.; Crippen, T.L.; Anderson, R.C.; Nisbet, D.J. Inhibition and interactions of Campylobacter jejuni from broiler chicken houses with organic acids. Microorganisms 2019, 7, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Kim, Y.; Kim, M.; Song, K.B. Combined treatment of fumaric acid with aqueous chlorine dioxide or UV-C irradiation to inactivate Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium, and Listeria monocytogenes inoculated on alfalfa and clover sprouts. Food Sci. Technol. 2009, 42, 1654–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Kondo, N.; Murata, M.; Isshiki, K. Efficiency of sodium hypochlorite, fumaric acid, and mild heat in killing native microflora and Escherichia coli O157:H7, Salmonella typhimurium DT104, and Staphylococcus aureus attached to fresh-cut lettuce. J. Food Protect. 2006, 69, 323–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Song, H.J.; Lee, J.H.; Song, K.B. Effects of irradiation and fumaric acid treatment on the inactivation of Listeria monocytogenes and Salmonella typhimurium inoculated on sliced ham. Radiat. Phys. Chem. 2011, 80, 1291–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Birk, T.; Gronlund, A.C.; Bak, C.; Knochel, S.; Lohse, K.; Rosenquist, H. Effect of organic acids and marination ingredients on the survival of Campylobacter jejuni on meat. J. Food Protect. 2010, 73, 258–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chaveerach, P.; Keuzenkamp, D.A.; Urlings, H.A.; Lipman, L.J.; van Knapen, F. In vitro studies on the effect of organic acids on Campylobacter jejuni/coli populations in mixtures of water and feed. Poult. Sci. 2002, 81, 621–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Shin, S.Y.; Hwang, H.J.; Kim, W.J. Inhibition of Campylovbacter jejuni in chicken by ethanol, hydrogen peroxide and organic acids. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2001, 11, 418–422. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mani-Lopez, E.; Garcia, H.S.; Lopez-Malo, A. Organic acids as antimicrobials to control Salmonella in meat and poultry products. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 713–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Eklund, T. Inhibition of microbial growth at different pH levels by benzoic and propionic acids and esters of p-hydrosybenzoic acid. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1985, 2, 159–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gurtler, J.B.; Mai, T.L. Traditional preservatives. Organic acids. In Encyclopedia of Food Microbiology, 2nd ed.; Batt, C.A., Tortorello, M.L., Eds.; Elsevier: London, UK, 2014; Volume 3, pp. 119–130. [Google Scholar]
  47. Eswaranandam, S.; Hettiarachchy, N.S.; Johnson, M.G. Antimicrobial activity of citric, lactic, malic or tartaric acids and nisin-incorporated soy protein film against Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella gaminara. J. Food Sci. 2004, 69, 79–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. European Commission. Regulation EC No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. Off. J. Eur. Union 2008, 50, 18. [Google Scholar]
  49. European Commission. Regulation EC No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council of 29 April laying down specific hygiene rules for on the hygiene of foodstuffs. Off. J. Eur. Union 2004, 139, 55–205. [Google Scholar]
Table
Table 1. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of Pseudomonas counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
Table 1. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of Pseudomonas counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
TreatmentDay of Storage
12479
Acetic
acid		1%0.03 a0.61 b0.64 b1.00 cNI
2%0.16 a1.72 c1.40 c1.63 dNI
Citric acid1%0.66 bc0.42 b0.38 b0.37 abNI
2%0.94 cd0.51 b0.64 b0.98 bNI
Fumaric
acid		1%0.75 c1.31 c1.17 c1.10 cNI
2%1.13 d2.50 d1.83 d2.02 eNI
Potassium
sorbate		1%0.10 a0.25 a0.25 a0.05 aNI
2%0.40 ab0.29 a0.91 b0.44 bNI
5%0.67 bc0.90 b1.44 c1.09 cNI
Means; means within the same column with superscript letters in common were significantly different (p < 0.05); NI, not investigated, since control samples were not analyzed on day 9.
Table
Table 2. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of Enterobacterales counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
Table 2. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of Enterobacterales counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
TreatmentDay of Storage
12479
Acetic
acid		1%0.78 c0.70 b1.01 b1.24 cNI
2%1.31 d2.06 d1.74 c1.71 dNI
Citric acid1%0.03 a0.67 b0.59 b0.53 bNI
2%0.24 ab0.94 b1.15 b1.06 cNI
Fumaric
acid		1%0.48 b0.79 b0.75 b0.52 bNI
2%1.26 d1.50 c1.84 c1.80 dNI
Potassium
sorbate		1%0.06 a0.35 a0.70 a0.11 aNI
2%0.25 a0.46 a1.17 b1.17 cNI
5%0.62 b0.81 b1.29 b1.52 cdNI
Means; means within the same column with superscript letters in common were significantly different (p < 0.05). NI, not investigated, since control samples were not analyzed on day 9.
Table
Table 3. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of C. jejuni counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
Table 3. Reductions (differences between treated samples and control samples) of C. jejuni counts (log10 cfu/g) on chicken legs resulting from washing with organic acids solutions and storage at 4 °C for 9 days.
TreatmentDay of Storage
12479
Acetic
acid		1%0.80 b2.01 d1.52 c1.23 dNI
2%1.34 c2.35 e1.99 d1.73 eNI
Citric acid1%2.19 d0.46 a0.22 ab0.11 abNI
2%2.66 e0.82 b0.33 b0.39 bNI
Fumaric
acid		1%0.22 a0.67 b0.57 b0.89 cNI
2%0.63 b0.94 b1.04 b1.08 cNI
Potassium
sorbate		1%0.78 b1.12 bc1.20 b0.82 cNI
2%0.99 bc1.24 bc1.21 b0.95 cNI
5%1.09 bc1.44 c1.31 b1.31 dNI
Means; means within the same column with superscript letters in common were significantly different (p < 0.05). NI, not investigated, since control samples were not analyzed on day 9.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gonzalez-Fandos, E.; Martinez-Laorden, A.; Perez-Arnedo, I. Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken. Foods 2020, 9, 1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101453

AMA Style

Gonzalez-Fandos E, Martinez-Laorden A, Perez-Arnedo I. Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken. Foods. 2020; 9(10):1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101453

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gonzalez-Fandos, Elena, Alba Martinez-Laorden, and Iratxe Perez-Arnedo. 2020. "Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken" Foods 9, no. 10: 1453. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9101453

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