Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2020 Oct 13;9(10):1453.
doi: 10.3390/foods9101453.

Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken

Affiliations

Effect of Decontamination Treatments on Campylobacter jejuni in Chicken

Elena Gonzalez-Fandos et al. Foods. .

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.

Keywords: Campylobacter jejuni; decontamination; food safety; foodborne pathogens; organic acids; poultry.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

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.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. EFSA The European Union One Health 2018 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2019;17:5926. - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.3390/foods8030111. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3547. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bell C., Kyriakides A. Campylobacter: A Practical Approach to the Organism and Its Control. Wiley-Blackwell; Oxford, UK: 2009.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1016/S0168-1605(02)00317-3. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources