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
. 2024 May 29;14(11):1611.
doi: 10.3390/ani14111611.

The In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Phytogenic and Acid-Based Eubiotics against Major Foodborne Zoonotic Poultry Pathogens

Affiliations

The In Vitro Antibacterial Activity of Phytogenic and Acid-Based Eubiotics against Major Foodborne Zoonotic Poultry Pathogens

Konstantinos Kiskinis et al. Animals (Basel). .

Abstract

The aim of the study was to investigate in vitro the antibacterial activity of 8 commercial drinking water additives against major zoonotic poultry pathogens (Campylobacter spp., Escherichia coli, Salmonella Typhimurium, Staphylococcus aureus and Listeria spp.). We tested two essential oil-based phytogenics (Phyto CSC Liquide B, AEN 350 B Liquid), two acid-based eubiotics (Salgard® liquid, Intesti-Flora), and four blends of essential oils and organic acids (ProPhorceTM SA Exclusive, Herbal acid, Rigosol-N and Eubisan 3000). The antibacterial activity was determined by estimating the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) using a microdilution method. The MICs of the products against Campylobacter spp. ranged from 0.071% to 0.568% v/v, in which Herbal acid, a blend rich in lactic and phosphoric acids, also containing thyme and oregano oils, exhibited the highest efficacy (MIC: 0.071% v/v) against all the tested strains. The MICs of the tested products against Escherichia coli ranged between 0.071% and 1.894% v/v. Specifically, the MIC of Rigosol-N, a blend of high concentrations of lactic and acetic acid, was 0.142% v/v for both tested strains, whereas the MICs of Intesti-Flora, a mixture rich in lactic and propionic acid, ranged from 0.284% to 0.568% v/v. The MICs of the products against Salmonella Typhimurium were between 0.095% and 1.894% v/v. Specifically, the MIC of Eubisan 3000, a blend rich in oregano oil, was 0.284% v/v. The MICs against Staphylococcus aureus were between 0.142% and 9.090% v/v. The MICs of Phyto CSC Liquide B, which is rich in trans-cinnamaldehyde, were between 3.030% and 9.090% v/v, showing the highest MIC values of all tested products. Finally, the MIC values of the tested commercial products against Listeria spp. were 0.095% to 3.030% v/v. The MICs of ProPhorceTM SA Exclusive, a highly concentrated blend of formic acid and its salts, were 0.095-0.142% v/v against Listeria spp., while the MICs of AEN 350 B Liquid were between 0.284% and 1.894% exhibiting high Listeria spp. strain variability. In conclusion, all the selected commercial products exhibited more or less antibacterial activity against pathogenic bacteria and, thus, can be promising alternatives to antibiotics for the control of zoonotic poultry pathogens and the restriction of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria.

Keywords: acid-based eubiotics; antimicrobial activity; minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC); phytogenic additives; poultry; zoonotic bacteria.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Apostolos Patsias is employed by Agricultural Poultry Cooperation of Ioannina “PINDOS”. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as potential conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic representation of the microdilution MIC method used to evaluate the antibacterial activity of the commercial drinking water additives against major zoonotic poultry bacteria. The numbers 1–12 referred to the gradient concentrations of the tested products while letters A–C referred to the treatment groups, letter E to positive control, letters G and H to the negative controls, and letters D and F were blank.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Graphs of recorded MIC values (columns; mean %v/v ± SD) of the tested commercial products on the tested (A) Campylobacter, (B) E.coli and (C) S. Typhimunium strains.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Graphs of recorded MIC values (columns; mean %v/v ± SD) of the tested commercial products on the tested (A) S. aureus and (B) Listeria spp. strains.

References

    1. OECD (Economic Co-operation and Development) FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2023–2032. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome, Italy: 2023. pp. 1–90.
    1. EMA Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) EMA and EFSA Joint Scientific Opinion on measures to reduce the need to use antimicrobial agents in animal husbandry in the European Union, and the resulting impacts on food safety (RONAFA) EFSA J. 2017;15:e04666. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gonçalves-Tenório A., Silva B., Rodrigues V., Cadavez V., Gonzales-Barron U. Prevalence of Pathogens in Poultry Meat: A Meta-Analysis of European Published Surveys. Foods. 2018;7:69. doi: 10.3390/foods7050069. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hafez H.M., Hauck R. Zoonoses: Infections Affecting Humans and Animals. Springer International Publishing; Cham, Switzerland: 2022. Zoonoses Transmitted by Poultry: Risks Related to Poultry Rearing and Eating Poultry Products Zoonoses; pp. 1–24.
    1. EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) EFSA Panel on Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW) Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat (poultry) EFSA J. 2012;10:2741

LinkOut - more resources