| Literature DB >> 32545362 |
Hudson T Thames1, Anuraj T Sukumaran1.
Abstract
Poultry is one of the largest sources of animal-based protein in the United States. Poultry processing has grown from a small local network of plants to nearly 500 plants nationwide. Two of the most persistent bacteria in poultry processing are Salmonella and Campylobacter. It was not until the introduction of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point systems in 1996 that major efforts to reduce bacterial contamination were developed. Traditionally, chlorine has been the industry standard for decontaminating chicken meat. However, antimicrobials such as peracetic acid, cetylpyridinium chloride, and acidified sodium chlorite have replaced chlorine as primary antimicrobials. Despite current interventions, the emergence of stress-tolerant and biofilm-forming Salmonella and Campylobacter is of primary concern. In an effort to offset growing tolerance from microbes, novel techniques such as cold plasma treatment, electrostatic spraying, and bacteriophage-based applications have been investigated as alternatives to conventional treatments, while new chemical antimicrobials such as Amplon and sodium ferrate are investigated as well. This review provides an overview of poultry processing in the United States, major microbes in poultry processing, current interventions, emerging issues, and emerging technologies in antimicrobial treatments.Entities:
Keywords: Antimicrobials; Campylobacter; Prevalence; Salmonella; bacteriophage; biofilm; chicken
Year: 2020 PMID: 32545362 PMCID: PMC7353592 DOI: 10.3390/foods9060776
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Reports on the prevalence of Salmonella and Campylobacter in various retail poultry products in the United States.
| Bacteria | Name of Product | Level of Prevalence | Year of Sampling | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Retail Chicken | 84//378 (22%) | 2006–2007 | [ |
|
| Retail Chicken | 9/212 (4.2%) | 2000 | [ |
|
| Retail Chicken | 158/1320 (12%) | 2011 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 1345/10097 (13.3%) | 2000–2010 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 60/210 (28.5%) | 2000–2010 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 47/105 (44.7%) | 2014–2015 | [ |
|
| Drums Stick | 43/105 (41%) | 2014–2015 | [ |
|
| Ground Chicken | 13/49 (26%) | 2009 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 3064/6138 (49.9%) | 2002–2007 | [ |
|
| Whole carcass | 84/194 (43.3%) | 2006–2007 | [ |
|
| Retail Chicken | 42/156 (26.9%) | 2010 | [ |
|
| Retail Chicken | 130/174 (70.6%) | 2000 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 4659/9968 (46.7%) | 2000–2010 | [ |
|
| Boneless meat | 308/755 (41%) | 2005–2011 | [ |
|
| Chicken Breast | 584/2376 (24.6%) | 2015 | [ |
|
| Chicken liver | 29/45 (64.4%) | 2018 | [ |
Emerging food safety issues associated with Salmonella and Campylobacter in poultry processing.
| Bacteria | Issue | Findings | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| Biofilm | Increased biofilm forming ability in | [ |
|
| Heat tolerance | [ | |
|
| Acid tolerance | [ | |
|
| Antibiotic resistance | [ | |
|
| Cross-tolerance | Exposure to single stressor resulting in increased tolerance to multiple stressors | [ |
|
| Thermal processing tolerance | [ | |
|
| Reactive Arthritis | Human infections leading to reactive arthritis | [ |
|
| Biofilm | Increased tolerance to antimicrobials | [ |
|
| Stress tolerance | Increased tolerance to heat and oxygen | [ |
|
| Heat tolerance | Increased tolerance to heat | [ |
|
| Aerotolerance | Increased tolerance to oxygen | [ |
|
| Heat tolerance | Increased tolerance to high temperatures | [ |
|
| Guillain–Barré Syndrome | Chickens infected with | [ |
Efficacy of current and emerging antimicrobial technologies in reducing Salmonella and Campylobacter in various poultry meat products.
| Antimicrobial | Chicken Product | Bacteria | Type of Treatment | Result (Log CFU Reduction) | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PAA (1000 ppm) | Chicken breast |
| Immersion | 1.92 | [ |
| PAA (750 ppm) | Chicken Breast |
| Immersion | 2.23 | [ |
| PAA (0.1%) | Drumsticks |
| Dip | 2.0 | [ |
| PAA (0.1%) | Ground Chicken |
| Immersion | 1.5 | [ |
| PAA (0.1%) | Ground Chicken |
| Immersion | 1.4 | [ |
| PAA (750 ppm) | Chicken Breast |
| Immersion | 4.08 | [ |
| PAA (1000 ppm) | Chicken Breast |
| Immersion | 1.87 | [ |
| PAA (0.1%) | Whole Carcass |
| Dip | 2.0 | [ |
| PAA (0.1%) | Ground Chicken |
| Immersion | 1.3 | [ |
| PAA (1200 ppm) | Drumsticks |
| Spray | 1.14 | [ |
| CPC (0.6%) | Drumsticks |
| Spray | 4.0 | [ |
| CPC (0.6%) | Ground Chicken |
| Spray | 0.8 | [ |
| CPC (0.5%) | Ground Chicken |
| Spray | 0.5 | [ |
| CPC (0.6%) | Drumsticks |
| Spray | 0.8 | [ |
| CPC (0.6%) | Ground Chicken |
| Spray | 0.8 | [ |
| CPC (0.5%) | Whole Carcass |
| Spray | 1.2 | [ |
| ASC (1200 ppm) | Drumsticks |
| Dip | 1.8 | [ |
| ASC (1200 ppm) | Chicken Breast |
| Dip | 0.9 | [ |
| ASC (1000 ppm) | Chicken Breast |
| Spray | 1.6 | [ |
| Chlorine (30 ppm) | Whole Carcass |
| Chiller tank | 56.8% | [ |
| Chlorine (0.003%) | Whole Carcass |
| Chiller tank | No significant difference | [ |
| Chlorine (50 ppm) | Broiler Wing Drumettes |
| Chiller tank | No significant difference | [ |
| Chlorine (30 ppm) | Whole Carcass |
| Chiller tank | 12.8% | [ |
| Chlorine (0.003%) | Whole Carcass |
| Chiller tank | No significant difference | [ |
| Chlorine (50 ppm) | Broiler Wing Drumettes |
| Chiller tank | No significant difference | [ |
| TSP (10%) | Whole Carcass |
| Dip | 2.0 | [ |
| TSP (10%) | Chicken patty |
| Immersion | 1.18 | [ |
| TSP (12%) | Chicken Breast Skin |
| Spin Chiller | 1.4 | [ |
| TSP (8%) | Whole Carcass |
| Dip | 2.27 | [ |
| TSP (12%) | Chicken Breast Skin |
| Spin chiller | 1.8 | [ |
| TSP (10%) | Whole Carcass |
| Dip | 2.27 | [ |
| Amplon (3–4 gpm) | Whole Carcass |
| Spray | 3.25 | [ |
| Amplon (15 s) | Whole Carcass |
| Post-Chill Immersion | 1.53 | [ |
| Sodium Ferrate (0.15%) | Chicken Thighs |
| Spray | 0.65 | [ |
| Sodium Ferrate (0.3%) | Chicken Thighs |
| Spray | 0.89 | [ |
| Cold plasma | Chicken Breast |
| Spray | 2.71 | [ |
| Bacteriophage | Chicken Breast |
| Not specified | 3.12 | [ |
| Bacteriophage | Chicken Skin |
| Immersion | 1 | [ |
| Bacteriophage | Chicken Breast |
| Not specified | 1.86 | [ |
| Bacteriophage | Chicken Thighs |
| Pipette | 1.1 | [ |
Advantages and limitations of current and emerging antimicrobial interventions.
| Technology | Advantages | Limitations | Max Permissible Limit | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chlorine | -Industry standard for many years | -Decreasing efficacy due to chlorine tolerance | 50 ppm | [ |
| Amplon | -Improved antimicrobial activity | -Limited research | Mixture flow between 5–10 gal/min in water | [ |
| Cetylpyridinium chloride | -Effective antimicrobial as a spray application | -efficacy limited by current USDA restrictions on maximum permissible limits and contact time | Spray: 0.3 g/lb of raw poultry | [ |
| Acidified Sodium Chlorite | -Viable alternative to current chemical antimicrobials | -Can cause deleterious effects on sensory characteristics | Spray or dip: 1200 ppmImmersion: 150 ppm | [ |
| Trisodium phosphate | -High microbiocidal capacity for gram negative bacteria | -Accelerated spoilage in retail products | 12% in mixed solution | [ |
| Sodium Ferrate | -Strong biocidal capabilities | -Limited studies on meat products | NA | [ |
| Electrostatic Spray | -Improved antimicrobial coverage on meat | -Mixed results on efficacy | NA | [ |
| Bacteriophage | -Target specificity | -Limited research in commercial processing | Applied to achieve a level of 1 × 107–1 × 109 plaque forming units | [ |
| Peracetic acid | -Most effective antimicrobial in chilling applications | -Limited activity against biofilms | 2000 ppm | [ |
| Cold Plasma | -Cost effective | -May affect quality attributes | NA | [ |