EcaSafe disinfecting fluids are used extensively in agriculture. They can result in increased yields and improved animal husbandry by destroying bacteria in animal drinking water and stock pens.
· Improved living environment with less contact with dangerous or toxic chemicals,
· Improved water quality with effective biofilm removal.
· Cost and time savings with fewer flushings of water systems
· Significant profit improvement with lower purchase costs, storage costs, reporting costs and handling efficiency.
· Safe to store, use and dispose. Good for the environment
Here is a very useful overview produced by UKmeat.org relating to the washing of poultry
Information that relates to specific question(s) is highlighted with the appropriate question number in yellow for chicken broilers, blue for ducks and orange for Turkeys.
In the early 1980s, Mulder (1981) determined that effective washing, including the use of heated (60oC) water, could cause substantial reductions in microbial numbers associated with chicken broiler carcasses. For maximum benefit, carcasses needed to be washed thoroughly before the chilling stage of processing (even when water immersion chilling was used). Furthermore, the visual cleanliness of carcasses was improved when both the inside and the outside of the carcasses were washed. Inside/outside washing removed residual pieces of tissue detritus and blood spots from the carcass surface. Corry and colleagues (2007) also report reductions in the numbers of a E. coli K12 marker strain of more than 1 log CFU cm-2 if washing was for 20 seconds with 80oC water. The Corry study also showed a 1.6 log recustion in C. jejuni was possible using a 30 second, 75oC wash Q58-Q59 Q52-Q53. A separate publication by the same research team from the same project (James et al., 2006) showed that around 3 log reductions could be obtained (without extensive degradation of carcass appearance) if, after hot water washing, crust freezing of the carcass occurred. Since effective washing can have such a large impact on carcass microbiology, Mulder (1981) advises that spray equipment should be checked periodically. Particular attention should be paid to any spray nozzles to ensure they do not become blocked and adequately wash all of the carcass surfaces. Mulder notes that fixed jet-style nozzles can be as effective as spray systems in reducing microbial numbers on poultry meat Q53-Q57 Q47-Q51.
Although the early studies of Mulder (1981) and the later work of Corry (2007) concentrated on the effect of wash water temperatures, cold carcass water washes have also recently been shown to reduce populations of campylobacters and salmonellas associated with chicken broiler carcasses. Although it is difficult to see any significant campylobacter-reduction benefit when each individual washing stage is assessed in isolation (Keener et al., 2004), when all of the wash stages are apprasied over the entire process, significant reductions in Salmonella prevalence from 80% to 24% (Berrang and Bailey, 2009) were observed. Effective washing causes typical reductions in Campylobacter numbers from 2.58 log CFU/ml chicken carcass rinse to 1.15 log CFU/ml and E. coli numbers from 4.6 to 2.69 log CFU/ml (Guerin et al., 2010; Berrang and Bailey, 2009) Q53-Q57 Q47-Q51. Furthermore, there was a reduction in the numbers of campylobacters on carcasses between plucking and chilling in eight of ten fully colonized flocks as a consequence of washing (Allen et al., 2007) Q53-Q57 Q47-Q51. The Allen observation confirms an early report from Abu-Ruwaida and colleagues that a cold spray washing step caused a reduction of log 1 to numbers of campylobacters Q53-Q57 Q47-Q51. Notermans et al (1980) remark that for washing to be effective at removing bacteria, it has to occur as soon as possible after a contamination event, and before bacteria can become attached to the carcass surfaces. Once attached it is very difficult to remove bacteria from meat (Selgas, 1993). Q53-Q57 Q47-Q51.
Washing of carcasses (including the use of chemical decontaminants)
Information relating to chemical washing has been included for information only and should be read in combination with a recent scientific opinion commissioned by the European Food Safety Authorityhttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1178620773085.htm. Currently plant operators within the EU are not allowed to use chemicals such as weak solutions of lactic acid as rinses for fresh meat as a way of reducing bacterial contamination.
A comprehensive review by Bolder (1997) summarised the literature relating to chlorine, lactic acid, acetic acid, conic acid, inorganic phosphates (e.g. trisodium phosphate), organic preservatives such as benzoates and propionates and also oxidizers such as hydrogen peroxide and ozone as ways of decontaminating meat. Bolder is careful to explain that a decontamination strategy should not, however, be the method of first choice to eliminate bacteria during or after processing. Bolder shares the opinion of the EU that were chemical additions to rinses allowed, it may tempt producers to neglect process hygiene. Much of the information below is a paraphrased summary of the Bolder review, with updates provided by del Río et al. (2007) and Loretz et al. (2010).
Pressurised water. Escudero-Gilete et al. (2005) report that double washing chicken carcasses with water applied at 196 and 1471 kPa respectively can cause modest reductions in numbers of total aerobic mesphiles, Enterobacteriaceae,Pseudomonas and staphylococci. Using water at a temperature of 17oC caused up to a single log reduction in the indicator numbers. An earlier study by Wang et al. (1997) investigated the effects of water pressure and temperature and found that the highest reductions to numbers of Salmonella Typhimurium of around 1.6 logs were obtained using water at 35oC and a pressure of 621 kPa. Wang and colleagues hypothesise that the reductions observed for washing under pressure may only be apparent because the water impact drives the bacteria into the chicken skin, making it more difficult to remove them during processing in the laboratory.
Chlorine. Chlorine (and related molecules such as chloramines, chlorine dioxide, sodium hypochlorite and hydrochloric acid) are effective general sanitisers in water. Strictly, chlorine cannot be used as an additive to carcass wash water with the intention of reducing bacterial numbers on the carcass. However, for plants with boreholes, the water extracted can be treated with chlorine at low concentrations to render it potable. Residues in treated borehole water are likely to have minor impact on the carcass microbiology (Bolder, 1997). In those countries where the addition of chlorine is permitted, the levels do not normally exceed 50ppm, which results in a reduction in microbial load of around one log (James et al., 1992; Northcutt et al., 2005). Application of 200 ppm chlorine appears to reduce bacteria substantially on poultry carcasses (Bolder, 1997). Salmonella were effectively eradicated from turkey carcasses by treatment with 300-400ppm of chlorine but not by 50ppm (Bautista et al., 1997). Thiessen et al (1984) attempted to use 1.33 ppm to control Salmonella in poultry chiller water but found a trivial reduction of only 0.5 logs in bacteriological numbers on the skin surface. A disadvantage of chlorine is that if it is mixed with water at excessively high concentrations (upwards of 30 ppm), it will begin to corrode stainless steel and other materials used for pipe joins and valves. Furthermore, since chlorine treated-water is impacting on carcass surfaces, there is a risk that reactions between the organic (i.e. a chemical which contains carbon) tissue and the chlorine could form carcinogenic (cancer-causing) side products such as trihalomethanes.
Ozone. Ozone is a trimer of oxygen (O3). The molecule is unstable, and quickly breaks down to atmospheric oxygen (O2) and an oxygen radical. The radical is highly destructive and will react with a wide range of materials including the molecules that form microorganisms. Ozone is a powerful disinfectant which can potentially destroy indicators, pathogens and protozoa. Furthermore, ozone is less likely to form carcinogenic compounds than chlorine-based sanitisers, but it has been shown to form bromate; which can cause cancers in laboratory animals. Ozone will however oxidise (corrode) most metals and plastics. It is also hazardous to human lungs if inhaled. The primary advantage of ozone is that it is fast acting, short-lived and leaves very little behind in the way of residues; most of the molecule breaks down to oxygen and is released into the air. Water purified by ozone has none of the taint that is characteristic of water treated with chlorine. Sheldon and Brown () chilled poultry carcasses in ozonated water and demonstrated neither visual defects to the carcasses, nor sensory off-flavours. However, the reduction of bacterial counts was poor (only a single log reduction) for both total counts and psychrotrophs; furthermore, there was no increase in shelf life.
Lactic and other acids. Smulders and colleagues (1986) undertook an early review and initial studies of the bactericidal properties of lactic acid as a surface decontaminant for fresh meats, slaughter byproducts and poultry. The primary focus of the study was reducing meat contamination with enteropathogenic Enterobacteriaceae and Campylobacter spp. and the extension of shelf life under refrigeration. The authors concluded that using lactate at concentrations of 1%-2% (v/v; pH 2.4) did not cause significant organoleptic changes or discoloration of meat surfaces. The organic acid treatment resulted in significant reductions of the bacterial numbers as a consequence of the low pH and also by direct action of undissociated acid. In the undissociated form, lactic acid is able to cross bacterial membranes and acts as an ionophore (i.e. it depletes the energy reserves of the bacteria). The Smulders study noted there were no adverse changes in the composition of the bacterial flora (i.e. reducing the numbers of bacteria on the meat did not open a niche that allowed the growth of pathogens). Smulders and colleagues concluded the use of lactic acid washing could improve microbiological meat safety.
Similarly, Bolder (1997) summarises earlier work and concludes that a solution of lactate of 1-2% (w/v) reduces the bacterial counts on poultry carcasses immediately after slaughter and during storage, without affecting organoleptic characteristics such as colour and flavour. Killinger et al. (2010) validated immersion in 2% lactate as more effective than chlorine in reducing the numbers of Salmonella, mesophilic aerobes and coliforms for mobile slaughterhouses.
Bautista et al. (1997) tested the efficacy of a 1.24% lactic acid spray and found a significant reduction in the total number of aerobic bacteria (2.4 logs) on turkey carcasses. Boulder (1997) and Smulders et al (1986) both highlight the concentration of an acid and the pH of the solution are essential factors in determining an antibacterial effect. Furthermore, the bactericidal effect of organic acids can be augmented by increasing the contact time and temperature of the acid treatment, or by treating the animals soon after they are killed. However, that is not the case for all acids. Boulder reviews that a 3% solution of succinic acid, when used as a surface disinfectant for poultry skin at a temperature of 60oC, did not result in the elimination of Salmonella spp. Similarly, a low dose of acetic acid (10mg/l), used at 4oC on beef carcasses, was ineffective as a decontamination treatment (Avens et al., 1996). The efficiency of bacterial kill is likely influenced by the nature of the surface to which the bacteria are attached (Bolder, 1997). Lactic acid destroys bacteria from lean pork meat surfaces more effectively than from fatty surfaces (which repel any water-based solution). The point at which contamination occurs during the slaughter process may also influence the degree of bacterial adherence to the skin as a consequence of the fact that bacteria require sufficent time to become attached to meat (Selgas et al., 1993).
Trisodium phosphate (TSP). Rodriguez de Ledesma et al. (1996) treated chicken wings with a combination of TSP and hot water and found a 3-log reduction in the number of spoilage bacteria after 7d at 4oC. In keeping with the findings of Corry et al (2007), Rodriguez de Ledesma and colleagues observed that the hot water treatment led to a temporarily abnormal appearance of the product, which disappeared after a few days of storage. A short application of hot water did not affect the internal temperature of the product. Bolder (1997) summarises that the authors also suggested that the TSP treatment could be modified into a TSP dip at 95oC, followed by quick chilling in a blast freezer. Slavik et al. (1994) also found no susceptibility of Campylobacter spp. on chicken carcasses towards TSP treatment at low temperature (12oC). For similar reasons to those described above for lactate, TSP is not effective at inactivating microorganisms on fatty tissues. Wang et al. (1997) note that TSP-mediated reductions in Salmonella numbers are improved if the chemical is applied under a pressure of between 620 and 1034 kPa. Russell (2003) reports that a concentration of 10% is routinely used in commercial processing in the USA for effective bacterial kill.
The application of TSP as a spray treatment on turkey carcasses (which have an outer fatty skin layer) caused neither a reduction in Salmonella levels nor a significant reduction in coliform counts (l.8 logs; Bautista et al., 1997). Application of an aqueous acidic sodium pyrophosphate product in poultry chiller water (1.5%; pH2.8) led to a significant reduction of viable coliform and E. coli counts in the water (Rathgeber and Waldroup, 1995). Although the application of water chilling is decreasing in poultry processing in Europe, this product could be considered for other applications such as its addition to scald water (Bolder, 1997).
Hydrogen peroxide. Hydrogen peroxide has been reported as having both bactericidal and bacteriostatic mechanisms of action (Juven and Pierson, 1996). Hydrogen peroxide antibacterial activity is mainly based on the formation of radicals which damage essential cellular polymers (Bolder, 1997). Hydrogen peroxide as a poultry carcass decontaminant showed a minimum effective dose of 0.5% (w/v) in water. However, poultry carcasses exposed to peroxide show a temporary bleaching, bloating of the carcasses and there is excessive foaming of chiller water, because poultry skin contains the enzyme catalase which produces oxygen from peroxide (Mulder et al., 1987; Lillard and Thomson, 1983). Fletcher et al. (1993) applied a combined spray treatment of sodium bicarbonate and hydrogen peroxide, to slightly extend the shelf life of poultry meat and commented that lengthy exposure time to the chemicals appearred to be an important factor for effectiveness. Preliminary experiments on chicken broilers and ducks that were dipped in a solution of up to 5% (v/v) of a commercially available product containing hydrogen peroxide, stabilized with glycerol, did not show any significant reductions to numbers of total bacteria, or numbers of Enterobacteriaceae, Pseudomonas or Salmonella. Bolder (1997) concluded that the application of hydrogen peroxide for carcass decontamination seems to be an effective and safe method to control the spread of pathogens.
Electrolysed oxidising (EO) water. EO water is generated by passing an electrical current through a weak solution of sodium chloride dissolved in tap water. The electrolysis generates hydrogen gas and hydroxide radicals at the cathode. At the anode, the chlorine ions from the salt are neutralised and form chlorine gas. If the chlorine at the anode is reacted with hydroxide at the cathode, hypochlorite (the active agent in bleach) is formed. If the pH of the solution is lowered, hypochloric acid is formed (Fabrizio et al 2002). EO water is used to describe solutions of hypochlorite, hypochloric acid and mixtures of these two antibacterial agents.
Over the last 10 years, a number of studies have assessed EO water as a decontamination method for poultry carcasses. One of the early studies by Park and colleagues (2002) artificially inoculated the chicken broiler wing skin with a six strain mixture of Campylobacter jejuni. The initial results were promising with the Park collaboration reporting that complete inactivation of 107 C. jejuni occurred within 10 seconds of the wings being immersed in undiluted EO water (50 mg/l residual chlorine). Diluted EO water (25 mg/l residual chlorine) was less effective reducing an initial inoculation of 107 to 102 after 10 seconds immersion in EO water.
Fabrizio et al (2002) undertook comparisons between a range of potential carcass decontamination treatments which included evaluations of EO water (EOW). Concentrations of chlorine in the EOW ranged from 20-50mg/l. Carcasses were inoculated with lab-grown Salmonella enterica Typhimurium. Immersion chilling in acidic EO water reduced numbers of Salmonella from 2.7 logs to 1.8 logs at day zero; and after seven days in a chiller, the EOW chilled carcass salmonella counts were reduced by one log compared with the control count of 2.28 logs. Reductions in the numbers of other indicators varied, but were typically two-three logs reductions. Spray washing carcasses with acidic EOW for 15 seconds did not significantly reduce salmonella numbers at day zero, but after seven days the salmonella numbers were 1 log lower compared with the control. Although the Fabrizio study showed some activity for EOW, the same publication also evaluated acetic acid (AA) and trisodium phosphate (TSP). Both AA and TSP had significantly more antibacterial activity than EOW.
In 2005, Kim and colleagues undertook an evaluation of basic and acidic EOW as treatments to reduce faecal contamination and Campylobacter numbers on chicken carcasses. The study simulated commercial processing conditions but used ‘New York Dressed’ chickens (which are not eviscerated). The Kim study assessed the effect of spraying carcasses with EOW before artificially contaminating the carcasses with manure or a five strain cocktail of C. jejuni as a simulation of contamination applied to the carcase as the viscera were removed. EO water was applied to the carcasses by spraying or immersion. Pre spraying the carcasses with alkaline EO water significantly reduced the ability of caecal contents to attach to the carcase and resulted in a reduced visual cleanliness evaluation score compared with tap water. No microbiology was undertaken for the spray application treatments. Immersion of carcasses in acidic EO water (40 mg/l chlorine) for 40 minutes caused a single but not significant log reduction in Campylobacter numbers compared with a tap water control. The only effective treatment identified by Kim and co-workers was a pre-spray with acidic EO water followed by immersion in chlorinated tap water. Kim concludes that pre-evisceration spraying carcasses with alkali EOW may have some effectiveness as a cleaning agent, but that EO water was not more effective than tap water at removing/killing campylobacters.
More recently in 2007, Northcutt et al undertook similar EO water-based studies using chicken carcasses artificially inoculated with caecal contents containing lab-grown mixtures of Salmonella enterica Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejunias well as to naturally present E. coli and total aerobic mesophiles. The contaminated carcases were spray washed carcasses with either acidic EO water or hypochlorite solution. Washing in either hypochlorite solution or acidic EO water significantly reduced the numbers of total mesophiles and E. coli. Acidified EO water had a marginally better performance in reducing both of these indicator groups. Compared with the controls, typical reductions in total mesophile numbers was around six logs for both wash types. There were no apparent (or significant) differences between each water type reducing numbers of Salmonella and campylobacters on the chicken carcasses. The acidified EO water reduced the numbers of salmonellas by 2.7 logs and campylobacters by 1.7 logs. The hypochlorite reduced Salmonella by 2.4 logs and campylobacters by 1.6 logs. The initial inoculation for both zoonotic agents was five logs. The Northcutt study applied the water using an inside outside washer and also determined that increasing wash time from 5 seconds to 15 seconds caused significantly increased microbial kill.
A Belgian study has assessed the economics of a variety of carcass decontamination methods for chicken broilers (Gellynck et al. 2008). The study concluded that the “decontamination of carcasses with electrolyzed oxidizing water applied in the processing plant was the most cost efficient” decontamination method in terms of the bacterial reductions per Euro. The second most cost effective was the use of lactic acid.
In summary, there are three studies which claim a significant effect for EOW in reducing chicken carcass bacterial counts and a single study which claims no significant effect unless EOW spraying is used in combination with hypochlorite immersion. The law in the UK (and the EU) is that EOW can be used “provided the water at the point of application is potable“. In essence, that means if the chlorine level generated in the EO water was too high for the water to be judged as potable then EOW would not be allowed. All of the trials summarised used high concentrations of chlorine in the EO water; 20-50 mg/l chlorine is too high to be classed as potable. EO water may have benefit for UK processors, but further trials in commercial situations are needed to support or refute its effectiveness at the allowed concentrations of chlorine.
The expert opinion of a BPC-appointed panel of knowledgeable industry representatives and academics from Bristol University was used as the basis for Q60. Presently, there is no published evidence that shows microbiologically-significant differences between manual and automated rehang systems between different sections of the line. The expert opinion was made because of the increased area that contacts the carcass surface when a human hand is used compared with an automatic rehang system.
Abu-Ruwaida A S, Sawaya W N, Dashti B H, Murad M Al-Othman H A (1994) Microbiological quality of broilers during processing in a modern commercial slaughterhouse in Kuwait. Journal of Food Protection 57:887-892.
Allen V M, Bull S A, Corry J E L, Domingue G, Jorgensen F, Frost J A , Whyte R, Gonzalez A, Elviss N and Humphrey T (2007) Campylobacter spp. Contamination of chicken carcasses during processing in relation to flock colonization.International Journal of Food Microbiology 113:54–61.
Bautista. D., Sylvester, N., Barbut, S. and Griffiths, M. (1997). The decontamination efficacy of antimicrobial rinses on turkey carcasses using response surface designs. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 34:279-292.
Berrang, M.E. and Bailey, J.S. (2009) On-line brush and spray washers to lower numbers of Campylobacter and Escherichia coli and presence of Salmonella on broiler carcasses during processing. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 18:74-78.
Escudero-Gilete, M.L., Gonzalez-Miret, M.L. and Heredia, F.J. (2005) Multivariate study of the decontamination process as a function of time, pressure and quantity of water used in washing stage after eviusceration in poultry meat production. Journal of Food Engineering 69:245-251.
Fabrizio,K.A., Sharma,R.R., Demirci,A. and Cutter,C.N. (2002) Comparison of electrolyzed oxidizing water with various antimicrobial interventions to reduce Salmonella species on poultry. Poultry Science 81, 1598-1605.
Fletcher, D. L., Russell, S. M., Walker, J. M. and Baily, J. S. (1993). An evaluation of a rinse procedure using sodium bicarbonate and hydrogen peroxide on the recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses. Poultry Sci. 72: 2152-2156. (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Gellynck, X., Messens, W., Halet, D., Grijspeerdt, K., Hartnett, E. and Viaene, J. (2008) Economics of Reducing Campylobacter at Different Levels within the Belgian Poultry Meat Chain Journal of Food Protection 71:479-485.
Guerin, M. T., Sir, C., Sargeant, J. M., Waddell, L., O’Connor, A. M., Wills, R. W., Bailey, R. H. and Byrd, J. A. (2010) The change in prevalence of Campylobacter on chicken carcasses during processing: A systematic review. Poultry Science89:1070-1084.
James, C., James, S. J., Hannay, N., Purnell, G., Barbedo-Pinto, C., Yaman, H., Araujo, M., Gonzalez, M. L., Calvo, J., Howell, M., Corry, J. E. (2006) Decontamination of poultry carcasses using steam or hot water in combination with rapid cooling, chilling or freezing of carcass surfaces. International Journal of Food Microbiology. 114:195 – 203
James, O. J., Brewer, R.L., Prucha, J. C., Williams, W.O. and Parham, D. R. (1992). Effects of chlorination of chill water on the bacteriologic profile of raw chicken carcasses and giblets. J. Am. Vet. Med. Assoc. 200:60-63 (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Kim,C., Hung,Y.C. and Russell,S.M. (2005) Efficacy of electrolyzed water in the prevention and removal of fecal material attachment and its microbicidal effectiveness during simulated industrial poultry processing. Poultry Science 84, 1778-1784.
Mulder R W A W. (1981) The effect of different bird washers on the microbiological quality of broiler carcasses. Veterinary Quarterly 3: 124 – 130. (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Mulder, R. W. A. W., van der Hulst, M. C. and Bolder, N. M. (1987) Research Note: Salmonella decontamination of broiler carcasses with lactic acid, t-cysteine and hydrogen peroxide Poultry Sci. 66:1555-1557. (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Northcutt, J. K., Smith, D. P., Musgrove, M. T., Ingram, K. D. and Hinton, A. (2005). Microbiological impact of spray washing broiler carcasses using different chlorine concentrations and water temperatures. Poultry Science 84:1648–1652.
Northcutt,J., Smith,D., Ingram,K.D., Hinton,A. and Musgrove,M. (2007) Recovery of bacteria from broiler carcasses after spray washing with acidified electrolyzed water or sodium hypochlorite solutions. Poultry Science 86, 2239-2244.
Park,H., Hung,Y.C. and Brackett,R.E. (2002) Antimicrobial effect of electrolyzed water for inactivating Campylobacter jejuni during poultry washing. International Journal of Food Microbiology 72, 77-83.
Slavik, M. F., Kim, J-W., Pharr, M. D., Raben, D., Tsai, S. and Lobsinger, C. M. (1994) Effect of trisodium phosphate on campylobacter attached to post chill chicken carcasses. J. Food. Protect. 57:324-326
Smulders, F. J. M., Barendsen, P., Van Logtestijn, J. G., Mossel, D. A. A. and G. M. Van Der Marel. 1986. Review: Lactic acid: considerations in favour of its acceptance as a meat decontamininant. International Journal of Food Science and Technology 21:419–436.
Notermans S, Terbijhe R J, Van Schothorst M. (1980) Removing faecal contamination of broilers by spray-cleaning during evisceration. British Poultry Science. 21: 115 -21 (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Rathgeber. B. M. and Waldroup, A. L. (1995). AntibacterIal activity of a sodium acid pyrophosphate product in chiller water against selected bacteria on broiler carcasses. J. Food Protect. 58:530-534.
Rodriguez de Ledesma, A.M., Rieman, H. P., and Farver, T. B. (1996) Short time treatment with alkali and/or hot water to remove common pathogenic and spoilage bacteria from chicken wing skin. J. Food Prot. 59:746-750.
del Río, E., Panizo-Morán, M., Prieto, M., Alonso-Calleja, C. and Capita, R. (2007). Effect of various chemical decontamination treatments on natural microflora and sensory characteristics of poultry. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 115: 268-280.
Russell, S. (2003) Intervention strategies for reducing em>Salmonella prevalence on ready-to-cook chicken. Part 1. Processing. Poultry International 42:21-25 (A large (40MB) download of a free version of the complete papers in the series)
Sheldon, B. W. and Brown, A. C. (1986). Efficacy of ozone as a disinfectant for poultry carcasses and chill water. J. Food Sci. 51: 305-309.
Thiessen, G. P., Usborne, W. R. and Orr, H. L. (1984) The efficacy of chlorine dioxide in controlling Salmonella contamination and its effect on product quality of chicken broiler carcasses. Poultry Sci. 63:647-653. (this article is too old to be available electronically)
Wang, W.C, Li, Y., Slavik, M. F. and Xiong, H. (1997). Trisodium phosphate and cetylpyridium chloride spraying on chicken skin to reduce attached Salmonella Typhimurium. Journal of Food Protection 60, 992-994.
Currently used hatchery sanitizers (formaldehyde gas and glutaraldehyde) are noxious to humans and chicks, and may pose a serious health risk. Thus, a sanitizer that does not harm chicks, is inexpensive to produce, and is effective would be a useful tool for the poultry industry. Quote from University of Georgia, USA
ActivSure disinfecting fluids from EcaSafe can be used as a viable alternative for the removal of Salmonella from egg shells which would otherwise be spread throughout the hatchery environment, leading to cross-contamination and eventual contamination of the product. Electrostatic spraying or misting systems work well and we can advise you how to implement in your hatchery.