Novus International Journal of
Biotechnology & Bioscience
2012, Vol. 1, No. 1
www.novusj.com
Biocontrol efficacy of various preservatives against food borne pathogens
in poultry chicken
M. Darwina, D.Kanchana and P.Saranraj*
Department of Microbiology, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram – 608 002.
___________________________________________________________________________
ABSTRACT
In the present study, the poultry chicken sample collected in three locations and four bacterial
cultures were isolated and characterized from the collected sample. Based on the morphological
characters observed under the microscopic, the four bacteria (PB1), (PB2), (PB3), (PB4) were
isolated and initially identified as Escherichia coli (PB1), Bacillus cereus (PB2), Vibrio cholerae
(PB3) and Yersinia enterocolitica (PB4) respectively. Growth studies on the effect of pH and
temperature the four poultry bacteria were conducted. Decrease in the growth of all the four
poultry bacteria were observed with increase in the concentration of acetic acid and citric acids.
The growth of all the poultry bacterial culture were effectively inhibited at 1000 µg ml-1 and lower
inhibition zone was found at 200 µg ml-1. The inhibitory effect on the poultry culture was more in
acetic acid compared to citric acids. The effect of preservatives (potassium metabisulphite, sodium
benzoate) on the inhibition of growth of poultry bacteria was studied and for all the cultures, the
inhibition zone area increased with increase in the concentration of the preservatives. Escherichia
coli (PB1), Bacillus cereus (PB2), Vibrio cholerae (PB3) and Yersinia enterocolitica (PB4) were
effectively inhibited at 1400 µg ml-1. The inhibitory effect for all the poultry bacteria was more in
potassium metabisulphite compared to sodium benzoate.
KEYWORDS: Poultry chicken, Food borne pathogens, Organic acids and Chemical
preservatives
*Corresponding author: P.Saranraj
Department of Microbiology, Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar, Chidambaram – 608 002.
E.mail: microsaranraj@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
Food spoilage is a metabolic process that causes foods to be undesirable or unacceptable for
human consumption due to changes in sensory characteristics. Spoiled foods may be safe to
eat, i.e. they may not cause illness because there are no pathogens or toxins present, but
changes in texture, smell, taste, or appearance cause them to be rejected. Some ecologists
have suggested these noxious smells are produced by microbes to repulse large animals,
thereby keeping the food resource for themselves [1]. Muscles of healthy animals do not
contain any bacteria or fungi but as soon as animals are slaughtered, meat is exposed to
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
contaminants and good sanitation practices are essential to produce high quality meats. The
number of spoilage organisms on meat just after slaughter is a critical factor in determining
shelf life. The surface of beef carcasses may contain anywhere from 101 to 107 cfu/cm2, most
of which are psychrotrophic bacteria. Chopping and grinding of meats can increase the
microbial load as more surface area is exposed and more water and nutrients become
available [2]. A large variety of microbes are commonly found on fresh meat, but different
microbes become dominant during spoilage of different meats depending on pH, composition
and texture of processed meats, temperature and packaging atmosphere [3].
Rapid growth in consumer demand for poultry and poultry products over the last decade and
increased international trade in these foods have focused attention on objective measures of
food safety and quality. Poultry is a highly perishable food. After slaughtering, raw chicken
tends to deteriorate in 4–10 days, even when stored under refrigeration temperature. The time
for deterioration also depends upon the condition of the poultry carcasses at the time of
slaughter, the type of packaging and storage conditions used [4]. The initial microflora of
fresh poultry fillets comprised of heterogeneous flora, such as Pseudomonas spp.,
Brochothrix thermosphacta and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) [5]. Pseudomonas species such as
Pseudomonas fragi, Pseudomonas lundensis and Pseudomonas fluorescens are generally
predominant. Other major spoilage flora of poultry muscle stored aerobically include
Moraxella spp., Psychrobacter spp. and Acinetobacter spp. [6, 7]. The growth of these
microorganisms may form surface slime, degrade structural components, cause off odours
and change appearance [8].
According to Fries, 2002 [9], the microflora of the poultry is transferred from the primary
production site to production lines, and further, by subsequent contamination. Poultry is the
main source of bacteria of the genes Campylobacter and carriers of Campylobacter jejuni
have been found in many poultry flocks. Contamination of carcasses with this bacterium may
be as high as 50% and more [10, 11]. The level of contamination of poultry meat with
Campylobacter sp., mostly Campylobacter jejuni was 50.9% ubiquity of bacteria of the genus
Listeria is an important factor influencing the possibility of poultry. Contamination presence
of Listeria monocytogenes in fresh poultry meat varies from 0% to 64% have isolated Listeria
sp. In 27.8% of fresh chicken samples [12] have emphasized the significance of the presence
of Yersinia spp. In chicken meat which had been found in 65% of samples of retail chicken
carcasses. Contamination with Vibrio cholerae is important in the evaluation of safety and
hygienic quality of chicken meat, but also in the etiology of food poisoning [13].
Controlling microbial contamination during poultry processing is a difficult task. The
microbial issues facing poultry processing differs from that of other terrestrial muscle foods.
Among these is the sheer volume of animals processed in a single facility, where modern
operations can have production rates of up to 12,000 birds per hour. The difficulty of
maintaining a sanitary processing environment aggravates problems of spreading
microorganisms between carcasses [14]. To date, many methods have been proposed to
measure and detect bacterial spoilage in meat [15]. These methods include ATP
bioluminescence assays, enumeration methods based on microscopy, the measurement of
electrical phenomena [16], PCR and ELISA [17]. Although some of these methods are
accurate, these assays might have major drawbacks of being time-consuming, labourintensive, lacking specificity and may not provide rapid results. However, in modern food
processing, rapid and accurate detection and enumeration are necessary with the concomitant
implementation of corrective actions to correct process deviations. The present study is
focused on biocontrol efficacy of various preservatives against food borne pathogens in
poultry chicken.
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Collection of sample
The poultry samples were collected from three different locations (Sirkazhi, Kollidam and
Chidambaram) in Cuddalore District, Tamil Nadu, India and used for this present study.
2.2. Isolation, enumeration and identification of microorganism form the poultry
sample
The bacteria present in the poultry sample were isolated by pour plate technique. The MRS
agar was used for the isolation of pathogenic microorganism from the poultry sample.
Enumeration of microorganism was done by using Qubec colony counter and the number of
colonies was expressed in cfu/ml. Well grown bacterial colonies were picked and further
purified by streaking. The isolated strains were maintained on Nutrient agar slants and stored
at 4°C. Identification of the bacterial isolates was carried out by the routine bacteriological
methods i.e., By the colony morphology, Preliminary tests like Gram staining, Capsule
staining, Endospore staining, motility, catalase and oxidase, plating on selective media and by
performing biochemical tests.
2.3. Effect of pH on the growth of bacteria poultry bacteria on dry weight basis
The sterilized Nutrient broth was prepared and distributed at 100ml quantities in 250ml
Erlenmeyer flask and the pH was adjusted to various levels from 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5,
6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5 and 8.0 in each flask by adding 0.1N HCl or 0.1 KOH and pH in each broth
was tested with the help of glass electrode pH meter. After sterilization, 1ml of the standard
inoculums of the bacterial culture viz., Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and
Yersinia enterocolitica were added respectively and incubated for 48 hours at 30°C. After the
incubation period the residue in an oven 50°C until a constant weight was obtained.
2.4. Effect of temperature on the growth of poultry on wet weight basics.
The sterilized Nutrient broth was prepared and distributed at 100ml quantities in 250ml
Erlenmeyer flasks. After sterilization 1ml of the standard inoculums of bacterial culture viz.,
Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica were added
respectively and incubated for 48 hours at different temperature viz., 0°C, 5°C, 10°C, 15°C,
20°C, 30°C, 40°C, 45°C, 50°C, and 60°C in BOD incubator. After the incubation period the
residue in an oven 50°C until constant weight was obtained.
2.5. Effect of chemical preservatives on the inhibition of growth of the poultry bacteria
The effect of different concentrations of the chemical preservatives (potassium
metabisulphate, sodium benzoate and sodium propionate) on the inhibition of growth of the
food borne bacterial culture was studied. The Nutrient agar medium prepared with pH 4.0 and
sterilized and seeded with the bacterial culture of Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio
cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica. Different concentrations of potassium metabisulphite
viz., 0, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, 1400 µg ml-1, sodium benzoate viz., 0, 200, 400, 600,
800, 1000, 1200, 1400 µg ml-1 and sodium propionate viz., 0, 200, 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200,
1400 µg ml-1 were prepared using sterile water. The sterile paper discs (5 mm) dipped in 100
µl of different concerns of potassium metabisulphite, sodium benzoate and sodium
propionate were placed aseptically over the seeded medium the paper discs dipped sterile
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
distilled water served as control. The plates were incubated at room temperature for 24 hours
and the inhibition zones (in mm) were measured.
2.6. Effect of organic acids on the growth of food borne bacteria
The effect of different concentration of organic acids on the growth of the bacterial culture
was studied using citric acid and acetic acid. The sterilized Nutrient broth was prepared and
distributed in 100 ml quantities in 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks incorporated with different
concentrations of the citric acid and acetic acid viz., 0.0, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1.0, 2.0, percent.
Broth without organic acids served as control. 1ml of the standardized inoculums (107 cells
ml-1) of the bacterial culture Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia
enterocolitica were added and incubated for 48 hours, at 30°C three replications were
maintained. After incubation, the growth of the bacterial culture at different concentration of
each acids was measured as absorbance increase at 420nm in spectrophotometer.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Poultry is more popular in the consumer market because of advantages such as easy
digestibility and acceptance by the majority of people [18]. However, the presence of the
pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms in poultry and its by products remains a significant
concern for suppliers, consumers and public health officials worldwide. Bacterial
contamination of these foods depends on the bacterial level of the poultry carcases used as
the raw product, the hygienic practice during manipulation and on the time and temperature
of storage the control and inspection during production, storage and distribution are generally
rare. Therefore, it is important to prevent the hazards and to provide a safe and whole some
product for human consumption [19]. The contamination of raw chicken with bacterial
pathogens has important implications for public health [20]. In addition to good
manufacturing process, the microbial load of fresh poultry can be reduced substantially by the
application of decontaminants.
Processing of poultry litter is necessary for destruction of potential pathogens, improvement
of handling and storage characteristics and maintenance or enhancement of palatability [21].
Pathogenic microbial organisms gain access to the animal body through contaminated feed
and water [22]. The presence of these pathogenic microorganism impacts negatively on feed
utilization and physiological functions within the animal system. Poultry feeds are essential
source of energy needed to generate heat and to support the chemical reactions in which all
physiological processes depended. Many of these reactions elements, hence must be provided
in the diet [23]. In addition is water, since virtually all cell mediated reactions take place in an
aqueous medium. In most cases, poultry feed ingredients are delivered in bulk and usually in
very large quantities conveyed from one store house to another.
Poultry and poultry meat are often found contaminated with potentially pathogenic
microorganisms such as Salmonella, Campylobacter, Vibrio cholerae, Escherichia coli and
Listeria. In some occasions also, Yersinia enterocolitica and Aeromonas and Clostridium
perfringens have the potential to be important pathogens in poultry products. However,
Salmonella, Campylobacter and to a lesser extent Listeria are considered to be the major food
borne pathogens in the poultry industry. It is evident that preventive measures, including
monitoring programmers, to reduce the numbers of Salmonella, Campylobacter and possibly
other pathogens, during the growing period should focus on changes in husbandry practices,
as well as on the use of technologies and products that have been shown to the effective
against colonization by these organisms. Microbial contaminants are thus transmitted from
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
contaminated to non contaminated carcasses or equipment. Consequently, additional
treatment of product before or after they leave the processing plant, and intensive consumer
information and education about the potential risk of the consumption of poultry products,
should be part of the poultry industry strategy for the future.
The presence of pathogenic bacteria in poultry (chicken) sample from different location, viz.,
Sirkazhi, Kollidam and Chidambaram were collected from market, to study the presence of
pathogenic bacteria in these poultry sample. The results of the investigation includes
examination of the pathogenic bacteria in poultry, estimation of the total bacterial load,
isolation and characterization of the bacterial isolates, studies on the environmental factors
like pH, temperature, studies of the effect of preservatives like citric acid, acetic acid. The
inhibitory effect of chemical preservatives and organic acids against food borne pathogens
also investigated in this present study. The presence of pathogenic bacteria in poultry
(chicken) sample from three different location collected from the market were examined. The
particulars of the three location of poultry sample are summarized in Table-1. The poultry
sample is fresh and 24 hours. The moisture content of chicken sample as 38-5% the pH was
3.8, the external and internal appearance of all samples were normal. Four different bacterial
isolates PB1, PB2, PB3 and PB4 were isolated from poultry sample using the selective
media. Based on the morphological characters like cell shape and size, Gram staining, spore
staining, motility test, the bacterial isolates were identified as Bacillus cereus (PB1),
Escherichia coli (PB2), Vibrio cholerae (PB3) and Yersinia enterocolitica (PB4).
Arotupin et al. (2007)[24] evaluated the microbiological and physiochemical qualities using
standard microbiological and analytical methods. The bacterial count was highest in poultry
starter with 2.50×104 cfu ml-1, while the least count of 6.60×102 cfu ml-1 was recorded in
layer top mash fungal count was highest in layer top mash 7.40×102 cfu ml-1 and least in
grower mash (1.50×102 cfu ml-1). A total of seventeen microorganism were isolated which
include Aerobacter aerogenes, Bacillus cereus, Erwinia amylovora, Micrococcus luteus,
Vibrio cholerae, Aspergillus flavus, Aspergillus fumigates, Aspergillus niger, Acualospora
macrospore, Gladosporum fulvum, Dotchinza populae, Fusarium sp., Geotrichium
candidum, Pleurophrgmium sp., Rhizopus stolonifer, Candida albicans and Saccharomyces
cerevisiae.
Table-1: Collection of isolates from poultry sample
S.No
Place
Dilution
Microbial count (cfu/ml)
1.
Sirkazhi
10-4
143
10-5
135
10-6
130
10-4
134
10-5
122
10-6
115
10-4
113
2.
3.
Kollidam
Chidambaram
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
10-5
102
10-6
97
Renata Cegielska et al. (2008)[25] microbiologically determined total counts aerobic bacteria,
Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus. Sensory examination of the product was also
conducted. The application of modified atmosphere packaging of pretreated poultry meat
products stored at 1±1°C makes it possible to extend their shelf life over 2 times. They
modified atmosphere packaging and store or pretreated poultry meat products, with the
simultaneous maintenance of continuous cooling chain, is a highly effective method for
extending their shelf life. In this study, the growth of three different poultry bacteria viz.,
Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica, on dry weight
basis of 48 hours was studied at different pH levels and the results are presented in Table-2.
The dry weight of four poultry bacteria at 48 hours increased with increase in pH levels from
3.0 to 7.0 and later slightly decreased at pH 7.5 and 8.0. More weight was recorded in
Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica, at pH 7.5.
Abdul Raof et al. (1993)[26] reported the Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli can grow at pH of
4.5 proving that they can be easily multiply in acid foods. Spittstossser and Churey (1989)[27]
studied that some spore forming strains could grow at a pH 3.7 or lower. In the present
investigation, increase in pH from 3.0 to 7.0 increased the growth of the three poultry bacteria
viz., Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica later
slightly decreased at 7.5 and 8.0 based on their wet and dry weight basis. The mean higher
growth at 7.0 (0.030 mg ml-1) and slightly lower growth at 3.0 (0.013) mg ml-1. The results
are in agreement with the findings of Meena (2004)[28] that the growth of the bacterial culture,
Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus were inhibited at 3.0 and growth increased from pH 3.5 to
7.0.
Table-2: Studies on the effect of pH on the growth of bacteria from poultry sample
S. No
pH
Escherichia coli
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia
enterocolitica
1.
4.0
0.012
0.024
0.010
0.016
2.
4.5
0.019
0.027
0.015
0.010
3.
5.0
0.021
0.030
0.016
0.012
4.
5.5
0.026
0.032
0.018
0.015
5.
6.0
0.029
0.035
0.021
0.023
6.
7.0
0.031
0.037
0.025
0.028
7.
7.5
0.034
0.042
0.029
0.037
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
8.
8.0
0.030
0.030
0.023
0.033
9.
8.5
0.027
0.027
0.019
0.031
10.
9.0
0.014
0.025
0.015
0.026
The growth of four different poultry bacteria viz., Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Vibrio
cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica on dry weight of 48 hours was studied at different
temperature levels and the results are presented in Table-3. The net weight of four poultry
bacteria at 48 hours increased in the temperature levels from 0°C to 35°C and more weight
was recorded in 30°C. The isolation temperature of pathogens in untreated poultry ranged
between 37°C for Salmonella and Mycobacterium, 41°C for Clostridium and Escherichia
coli, 42°C for Staphylococcus. In the present study, the growth of poultry bacteria increased
with increase in the temperature levels from 20°C to 35°C. The three poultry bacteria viz.,
Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica possessed the
optimum temperature of 35°C (0.263 mg ml-1) and recorded higher growth based on their wet
weight basis.
Table-3: Effect on the temperature on the growth of poultry chicken pathogen on dry
weight basis
S.No
Temperature (°C)
Escherichia coli
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia
enterocolitica
1.
0
-
-
-
-
2.
5
0.203
0.207
0.204
0.202
3.
10
0.214
0.219
0.222
0.215
4.
15
0.220
0.238
0.235
0.223
5.
20
0.238
0.247
0.252
0.242
6.
30
0.253
0.272
0.295
0.270
7.
40
0.249
0.260
0.272
0.260
8.
45
0.240
0.251
0.280
0.242
9.
50
0.238
0.245
0.260
0.230
10
60
0.227
0.232
0.251
0.215
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
The effect of acetic acid on the inhibition of growth of four poultry bacteria viz., Bacillus
cereus, Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica was studies and the
results presented in Table-4. Diameter of the inhibition zone of all the bacterial culture
increased with increase in concentrations of acetic acid from 200 to 1000 µb ml-1. Among
the four bacterial cultures tested, Acetic acid highly inhibited the growth of Yersinia
enterocolitica by showing 30mm zone of inhibition followed by Vibrio cholerae (29mm) and
Bacillus cereus (27mm). The least zone of inhibition was seen in Escherichia coli (25mm).
Table 4: Studies on the effect on Acetic acid on the growth of poultry chicken bacteria
using paper disc assay test
Diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Acetic acid %
Bacillus cereus
Escherichia coli
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia enterocolitica
0
-
-
-
-
200
-
-
7
9
400
13
11
15
16
600
16
12
18
19
800
23
20
25
27
1000
27
25
29
30
The effect of citric acid on the inhibition of growth of four poultry bacteria viz., Escherichia
coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica was studied and the results
presented in Table-5. Among the four bacterial cultures tested, Citric acid highly inhibited the
growth of Yersinia enterocolitica by showing 29mm zone of inhibition followed by Vibrio
cholerae (27mm) and Bacillus cereus (25mm). The least zone of inhibition was seen in
Escherichia coli (24mm).
Gomashe and Tuman (2006)[29] revealed that a newly identified antimicrobial agent citric
acid is highly effective against multiple drug resistant uropathogens such as Escherichia coli
and Klebsiella sp. (2000 µg ml-1), Proteus sp. (1180 µg ml-1) and Vibrio cholerae (1080 µg
ml-1). Citric acid as a chemotherapeutic agent, the main reason for using acetic acid as a
preservative was its high toxicity for the microorganism even at low concentrations, its nontoxic effect on human body. Commercial availability and low cost [30]. In the present study,
the growth of three poultry bacterial culture viz., Bacillus cereus, Escherichia coli, Vibrio
cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica was effectively inhibited at 1000 ppm concentration of
acetic and citric acid. From the results, acetic acid recorded a higher mean inhibition zone
followed by citric acid.
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
Table 5: Studies on the effect of Citric acid on the growth of poultry chicken using
paper disc assay
Diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Citric acid %
Escherichia coli
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia enterocolitica
0
-
-
-
-
200
-
6
7
9
400
10
12
14
15
600
16
17
19
20
800
20
22
23
24
1000
24
25
27
29
The effect of potassium metabisulphite at various concentrations viz., 0, 200, 400, 600, 800,
1000, 1200, 1400 µg ml-1 was tested for the inhibition of growth of the bacterial cultures
Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica by Paper disc
assay method, the results are summarized in Table-6. No inhibition zone was noticed in the
µg ml-1 (control) treatment in which paper disc was dipped in sterile water. The inhibition
zone area increased with increase in the concentration of potassium metabisulphite for all the
four bacterial cultures. Among the four bacterial cultures tested, potassium metabisulphite
highly inhibited the growth of Vibrio cholerae by showing 25mm zone of inhibition followed
by Yersinia enterocolitica (24mm). The least zone of inhibition was seen in Escherichia coli
(20mm) and Bacillus subtilis (20mm).
Table 6: Studies on the effect of potassium metabisulphite on the inhibition of growth
of poultry chicken bacteria by paper disc assay
Diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Potassium
metabisulphite
Escherichia coli
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
Yersinia
enterocolitica
0
-
-
-
-
200
6
8
8
7
400
9
11
9
8
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
600
12
13
11
10
800
14
15
16
15
1000
15
16
17
16
1200
17
18
18
17
1400
20
20
25
24
The effect on sodium benzoate on the inhibition of growth of the bacterial cultures
Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica was studied at
various concentration viz., 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 1000, 1200, 1400, 1600 µg ml-1. The results are
presented in Table 7. In the 0 µg ml-1 (control) treatment of paper disc dipped in sterile water
no inhibition zone was noticed in all four bacterial cultures. The inhibition zone increased
with concentration of sodium benzoate for all the bacterial cultures. Among the four bacterial
cultures tested, sodium benzoate highly inhibited the growth of Vibrio cholerae by showing
21mm zone of inhibition followed by Escherichia coli (20mm) and Bacillus subtilis (20mm).
The least zone of inhibition was seen in Yersinia enterocolitica (19mm).
In the present study, potassium metabisulphite, sodium benzoate and sodium propionate were
effective inhibited the growth of all the three bacterial cultures viz., Bacillus cereus,
Escherichia coli, Vibrio cholerae and Yersinia enterocolitica at 1400 µg ml-1 and the higher
mean inhibition zone was recorded on potassium metabisulphite followed by sodium
benzoate and sodium propionate. Many researchers have reported that sorbate, propionate
and benzoate have both antibacterial and antifungal properties [31, 32, 33].
Table 7: Studies on the effect of sodium benzoate on the inhibition of growth of poultry
chicken sample bacteria by paper disc assay
Diameter of inhibition zone (mm)
Sodium benzoate
(µg ml-1)
Escherichia coli
Bacillus cereus
Vibrio cholerae
0
-
-
-
200
7
8
9
7
400
8
9
10
8
600
9
10
12
9
800
11
12
14
10
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
Yersinia enterocolitica
1000
13
15
16
12
1200
16
17
18
15
1400
18
19
20
17
1600
20
20
21
19
Recently, Jageethadevi et al. (2012)[34] investigated the inhibitory effect of chemical
preservatives and organic acids on the growth of bacterial pathogens. The poultry chicken
sample collected in three locations and four bacterial cultures were isolated and characterized
from the collected sample. Based on the morphological characters observed under the
microscopic, the four bacteria were isolated and initially identified as Vibrio
parahaemolyticus, Shigella sonnei, Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium
respectively. Decrease in the growth of all the four bacteria were observed with increase in
the concentration of acetic acid and citric acids. The growth of all the bacterial culture were
effectively inhibited at 1000 µg ml-1 and lower inhibition zone was found at 200 µg ml-1. The
inhibitory effect on the bacterial culture was more in acetic acid compared to citric acids. The
effect of preservatives (potassium sorbate and calcium propionate) on the inhibition of
growth of bacteria was studied and for all the cultures, the inhibition zone area increased with
increase in the concentration of the preservatives. Vibrio parahaemolyticus, Shigella sonnei,
Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella typhimurium were effectively inhibited at 1400 µg ml1
. The inhibitory effect for all the bacteria was more in potassium sorbate compared to
calcium propionate.
4. CONCLUSION
In this present study, it is concluded that the chemical preservatives and organic acids are of
predominant efficacy in preservation of poultry chicken from the bacterial isolates. The
chemical preservatives potassium sorbate and calcium propionate are effective in the control
of poultry chicken spoilage causing bacteria like Escherichia coli (PB1), Bacillus cereus
(PB2), Vibrio cholerae (PB3) and Yersinia enterocolitica (PB4). The spoilage causing
bacterial isolates were effectively inhibited at 1400 µg ml-1 and the inhibitory effect for all
the poultry bacteria was more in potassium metabisulphite compared to sodium benzoate.
5. REFERENCES
1. Charles N, WilliamsSK and Rodrick GE, Effects of packaging systems on the
natural microflora and acceptability of chicken breast meat, Poultry Science,
2006, 85, 1798–1801.
2. Cosentino S, Barra A, Pisano B, Cabizza M, Pirisi FM and Palmas F, Composition
and antimicrobial properties of Sardinian Juniperus essential oils against food
borne pathogens and spoilage microorganisms, J Food Prot., 2003, 66, 1288–
1291.
3. Ellis DI and Goodacre R, Quantitative detection and identification methods for
microbial spoilage, In Balakburn C deW (ed.), Food poilage Microorganisms,
CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton FL, 2006, p. 3–27.
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
4. Jimenez SM, Salsi MS, Tiburzi MC, Rafaghelli RC, Tessi MA and Coutaz VR,
Spoilage microflora in fresh chicken breast stored at 4°C influence of packaging
methods, Journal of Applied Microbiology, 1997, 83, 613–618.
5. Nychas JE and Tassou CC, Spoilage process and proteolysis in chicken as
detected by HPLC, Journal of Science and Food Agriculture, 1997, 74, 199–208.
6. Davies A and Board R, 1998, The Microbiology of Meat and Poultry, London,
UK: Blackie Academic and Professional.
7. Arnaut-Rollier I, Zutter LD and Hoof JV, Identities of the Pseudomonas spp. in
flora from chilled chicken, International Journal of Food Microbiology, 1999, 48,
87–96.
8. Russell SM, Fletcher DL and Cox NA, Spoilage bacteria of fresh broiler chicken
carcasses, Poultry Science, 1996, 75, 2041–2047.
9. Fries R, Reducing Salmonella transfer during industrial poultry meat production,
World Poultry Sci. J., 2002, 58, 527-540.
10. Mead GC, Hygiene problems and control of process contamination. In: processing
of poultry. (Mead G.C., Ed.), Elsevier Science Publisher Ltd., 1989, pp: 183-220.
11. Stern NJ, Jones DM, Weslex IV and Rolins DM, Colonisation of chick by nonculturable Campylobacter spp., Let. Appl. Microbiol., 1994, 18, 33-36.
12. Captia R Alonso-Callesa C, Prieto M, Garcia-Fernandez and Moreno, B,
Incidence and pathogenicity of Yersinia sp. isolates from poultry in Spain, Food
Microbiol., 2002, 19, 295-301.
13. Jablonski LM and Bohach GA, Staphylococcus aureus in Food Microbiology:
fundamentals and frontiers. (Doyle, M.P., L.R.Beuchat, T.J.Montville, eds),
American Society for Microbiology, Washigton, D.C., 1997, 353-375.
14. Adams MR and Moss MO, Food Microbiology, 2nd edn., Bodmin, Cornwall: The
Royal Society of Chemistry, MPG Books, 2000.
15. Davies A and Board R, The Microbiology of Meat and Poultry. London, UK:
Blackie Academic and Professional, 1998.
16. Champiat D, Matas N, Monfort B and Fraass H, Application of biochem
iluminescence to HACCP, Luminescence, 2001, 16: 193–198.
17. Hong Y, Berrang ME, Liu T, Hofacre CL and Maurer JJ, Rapid detection of
Campylobacter coli, C. jejuni and Salmonella enterica on poultry carcasses by
using PCR, Enzyme- linked immunosorbent assay, Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, 2003, 69, 3492–3499.
18. Yashoda KP, Sachindra NM, Sakhare PZ and Rao DN, Microbiological quality of
broiler chicken carcasses processed hygienically in a small scale poultry
processing unit, J. Food Quality, 2001, 24, 249-259.
19. Singh RD, Mandel LN and Pandey JN, Isolation of aerobic microorganisms from
poultry meat at central poultry farm and retail shop, Patna. Poult. Guide, 1984,
21, 71-74.
20. Captia R, Alonso-Callesa C, Prieto M, Garcia-Fernandez and Moreno B,
Incidence and pathogenicity of Yersinia spp. Isolates from poultry in Spain. Food
Microbiol., 2002, 19, 295-301.
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience
21. Fontenot JP, Utilization of poultry litter as feed for beef cattle, Animal Residuals
Management, 2000, 19, 234-252.
22. Youdeowei A, Ezedinma Foi and Onsi OC, Introduction to tropical Agriculture.
Longman Ltd., Lagos, 1999, Pp. 20-130.
23. Uwaezuoke JC, Ogbbulie JN and Njoku JN, Antibiotic sensitivity pattern of
bacterial isolates from poultry feed, Int. J. Envion. Health Hum. Dev., 2000, 1, 2328.
24. Arotupin DJ, Kayode RMO and Awojobi KO, Microbiological and
physiochemical qualities of selected commercial poultry feeds in Ajure, Nigeria,
Journal of Biological Sciences, 2007, 6, 981-984.
25. Renata Cegielska-Radzieyjeurska, Barbara Tycner, Jacek kijowski, Jan Zabielski
and Tomasz Szablesoski, Quality and shelf life of chilled. Pretreated map poultry
meat products, Bull vet Inst Pulawy., 2008, 52, 603-609.
26. Abdul-Raouf UM, Beuchat LR and Ammar MS, Survival and growth of
Escherichia coli 0157:H7 in ground, roasted beef as affected by pH, acidulants
and temperature, Appl. Environ. Microbial., 1993, 59, 2364-2368.
27. Splittstoesser DF and Churey JJ,.Effect of low concentration of Sorbic acid on the
heat resistance and viable recovery of neosartorya fischeri ascospores, J. Food
Prot., 1989, 52, 821-822.
28. Meena G, Studies on food borne infections in convenience foods. M.Sc.(Ag.)
Thesis, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar, Tamil nadu, 2004.
29. Gomeshe AU and Tumane PM, In vitro antimicrobial activity of citric acid against
multiple drug resistant uropathogenes, J. Curr. Sci., 2011, 9(2), 595-598.
30. Subba Rao MS and Johar DS, Inhibitory effect of acetic acid and sodium benzoate
on the growth of two strains of osmophilic yeast, J. Food. Sci., 1959, 383-386.
31. El-Shenawy MA and Marth EH, Sodium benzoate inhibits growth of inactives
Listeria monocytogenes, Journal Food Prot., 1988, 51: 525-530.
32. El-Shenawy MA and Marth EH, Inhibition and inactivation of Listeria
monocytogenes by sorbic acid, J. Food Prot., 1989, 51, 842-847.
33. Masdooq AA, Salihu AE, Muazu A, Habu AK and Sugum MY, Pathogenic
bacteria associated with respiratory disease poultry with reference to Pasterella
multocida, International Journal of Poultry Science, 2008, 7, 674-675.
34. Jageethadevi A, Saranraj P and Ramya N, Inhibitory effect of chemical
preservatives and organic acids on the growth of bacterial pathogens in poultry
chicken, Asian Journal of Biochemical and Pharmaceutical Research, 2012, 1 (2),
1-9.
Novus International Journal of Biotechnology & Bioscience