Research Article

In vitro Efficacy Testing of Some Commercial Disinfectants against Pathogenic Bacteria Isolated from Different Poultry Farms

Hassan A. Aidaros, Eman M. Hafez, Halla E.K. El Bahgy*

Veterinary Hygiene and management Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Moshtohor 13736, Egypt.

Received | June 23, 2022; Accepted | August 05, 2022; Published | September 15, 2022

*Correspondence | Halla EK El Bahgy, Hygiene and Veterinary Care Department, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Benha University, Moshtohor 13736, Egypt; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Aidaros HA, Hafez EM, El Bahgy HEK (2022). In vitro efficacy testing of some commercial disinfectants against pathogenic bacteria isolated from different poultry farms. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 10(10): 2116-2123.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.17582/journal.aavs/2022/10.10.2116.2123

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316

 

 

Copyright: 2022 by the authors. Licensee ResearchersLinks Ltd, England, UK.

This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

INTRODUCTION

Commercial poultry production around the world is one of the most successful sectors, mainly due to its high growth rate, short generation interval and low investment per unit. Unfortunately, its progress is not enough to meet the increased demand (Shoaib et al., 2018). Intensive poultry production leads to the transmission and spread of infectious diseases due to the presence of thousands of birds in an enclosed warm and dusty environment (Collins, 2007; Li et al., 2022).

Cleaning and disinfection are very important parts of farm hygiene management for prevention, control of contagious diseases and can impact on productivity, feed conversion and welfare (Luyckx et al., 2015; Gosling, 2018). An effective sanitation plan is based on the appropriate selection of ideal disinfectant , the type of contaminants present, and their sensitivity to the available disinfectants (Jiang et al., 2018).

High microorganism concentration, disinfectant concentration, presence of organic matter, pH (pressure of hydrogen ion concentration), temperature, contact time, and surface material type all affect disinfectant efficiency (Stringfellow et al., 2009; White et al., 2018). The commonly used chemical disinfectants for poultry farms are aldehydes, halogens (chlorines and iodophors), phenols, oxidizing agents, and quaternary ammonium compounds or combinations of more than one (Chidambaranathan and Balasubramanium, 2019).

Glutaraldehyde is a very strong disinfectant that directly acts on bacterial proteins, enzymes, and metabolism leading to bacterial death. Also, it prevents the release of dihydrochloride from the outer layer of the bacterial spores to prevent sporulation (Castro Burbarelli et al., 2017; Rhee et al., 2021). It has a broad bactericidal spectrum with a highly efficient killing capacity for bacteria and virus. In addition to that, it exhibits a strong effect on the spores generated by Clostridium, which can cause necrotic enteritis, and thus is commonly used for the disinfection of bacterial spores during epidemics. So, it is more frequently applied for disinfection process in poultry farms (Brantner et al., 2014).

Quaternary ammonium compounds are effective antimicrobial agents due to their significant biocide activity, compatibility with the environment, and long-term durability (Ramzi et al., 2020). It is a cationic surfactant whose bactericidal effect depends on lipophilicity, altering cell permeability and resulting in extravasation of the bacterial content. The gram-positive bacteria are more sensitive to quaternary ammonium; this is due to the presence of more lipids on the cell wall (Battersby et al., 2017; Belter et al., 2022). Dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride compound is among the earliest disinfectants within the QUATS family that have been widely used in various fields, such as food, medicine, oil field and industrial water treatment, owing to their broad antibacterial spectrum, good water solubility and environmental stability (Wang et al., 2022).

Halogen-liberating disinfectants exert their bactericidal effect by releasing active forms (iodine or chlorine) that have lethal effect on a wide range of microorganisms. The great problem of halogen releasing chemicals is related to their relatively high suppression by organic matter. The presence of chlorine as hypochlorite compounds acts as an oxidizing agent that destroys both the bacterial DNA and cell membrane (Qiao and Shao, 2010; Aksoy et al., 2020).

Chlorine containing disinfectants can effectively kill different microbes like Staphylococcus aureus, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Enterococcus and Enterobacter, even at a low concentration (Suwa et al., 2013). Currently, chlorine-releasing agents (sodium hypochlorite, bleaching powder, sodium dichloroisocyanurate, chlorine dioxide) are widely used as disinfectants on different poultry farms (Boxall et al., 2003; Byun et al., 2021).

The aim of the present in vitro study is to improve the performance of the cleaning and disinfection process by selection of the most powerful commercial disinfectant; decrease the cost of the disinfection process through determination of the minimum concentration that has a high bactericidal effect; and avoid exposure of microorganisms to sub-inhibitory concentrations that may facilitate decreased susceptibility and the evolution of bacterial resistance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of tested strain

The standardized stable suspensions of tested isolated field strains from different chicken and duck farms production were E. coli (O114: K 90), Pasteurella multocida ( A:1) , Campylobacter jejuni and Staphylococcus aureus, that were prepared by seed-lot culture maintenance techniques (seed-lot systems) according to (Kamal et al., 2019) to obtain 3x106 CFU/ 0.1 mL suspension concentration by growing the tested strains on buffered peptone water broth at 37°C for 24 hours expect Campylobacter jejuni at 42°C for 24 hours in presence of 10% CO2 and 5% O2 then cultured them on EMB (eosine methylene blue) , blood agar media, Campylobacter selective media and paired parker media, respectively. The separated colony picked up and inoculated in peptone water broth. The suspensions were measured via making serial dilutions, then the plate counts were done using plate count agar media at 37°C for 24 hours expect Campylobacter jejuni at 42°C for 24 hours which are suitable media for all microorganism and choose suspensions of concentration 3×106 CFU/ 0.1 mL as working suspensions.

Preparation of disinfectant agents

Commercial disinfectants were prepared according to manufacturer procedure or supplier guideline. The different concentrations of commercial disinfectant were prepared by using distilled water according to (Aksoy et al., 2020; Drauch et al., 2020).

Tested disinfectants

Prophyl 2000 ®

It consists of glutraldehyde (0.13%), alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride (0.1%) and chloro 4 methyl 3 phenol (0.05%). It manufactures by Laboratoire Meriel – France company. The recommended dose is at concentration of 0.4% - 2%.

G 7 ®

It contains of glutaraldhyde, 7 quaternary ammonium chloride 12%. It manufactures by Alpha trade company for chemical. The recommended dose is 0.5%. concentration.

Prontech ®

It consists of N-Alkyl (60% C14, 30% C16, 5% C18), dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 40%, urea (inert carrier) 60%. It manufactures by United promotion ink company. The recommended dose is at 0.2% (high dose), 0.1% (low dose).

Alkadox®

It contains a sodium hypochlorite and sodium carbonate. It manufactures by Chemi-care, A.R.E company. The recommended dose is at concentration of 1%.

Biodine 2.8 ®

It consists of iodine (2.8%), phosphoric acid, alcohol ethoxylate and dodecyl benzene sulfonic acid. It manufactures by Biolink – Egypt company. The recommended dose is at concentration of 0.5% - 1%.

The surface challenge test was performed in vitro

Accurately, large squares (20cm×20cm) of the surfaces area were used for application of these disinfectants at various dilutions at room temperature in the absence of organic matter and in the presence of such matter by using calf serum. Each large square was divided into small squares of 4 cm x 4 cm and were artificially contaminated with the cultured broth for 24 hours of the tested microorganisms and acts as the initial bacterial counts of the tested pathogens and were counted before disinfectants application. Further, 1ml of calf serum was separately applied. Application of each disinfectant preparation at certain concentrations that differ from type to other at intervals of 20, 40, 60 and 90 minutes was performed, using sterile swabs for picking up the viable microorganisms from previously contaminated small squares. Whole swabs were directly transferred into sterile cotton plugged test tubes that contain 10 ml nutrient broth and 1 ml of the neutralizer of the applied preparation was added and then incubated at 37C for 24 hours after every contact time. The used neutralizer was prepared according to the protocol recommended by (Douglas and Kampf, 2011). Accurately, the used neutralizer is composed of combination of 3% Tween 80, 0.3% Lethcin, 1% Histidine, 0.5% Sodium thiosulphate and 3% Saponine in phosphate buffered saline (PBS). Any detectable bacterial growth was confirmed by culturing on specific agar plates. The bacterial count for each dilution should be read then multiplied its average by the reciprocal of the same dilution level according to (Drauch et al ., 2020). All previous steps were repeated in absence of organic matter.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis was carried out using two-way ANOVA using SPSS, ver. 25 (IBM Corp. Released 2013). Data were treated as a complete randomization design. Multiple comparisons were carried out applying Duncun test. The significance level was set at < 0.05.

RESULTS

The Prophyl 2000® succeed to complete the reduction of tested E.coli at 2% conc. within 60 minutes in the absence of O.M and within 90 minutes contact time in the presence of O.M. Furthermore, the G7® could completely reduce the tested E.coli at conc. 1% within 60 minutes without O.M and within 90 minutes with the presence of O.M, followed by the Pron-Tech® at conc. 0.2% within 90 minutes and at conc. 0.5% within 90 minutes with the presence of O.M. Finally, the Alkadox® at conc. 1.5% within 90 minutes achieved 100% reduction of tested E.coli and 99.3% with the presence of O.M., whereas Biodine® only reduced bacterial count by 95% and 83.6% at conc. 1.5% within 90 minutes in absence and presence of O.M , respectively (Table 1).

Table 2 showed that the tested disinfectants that reduced tested Pasteurella multocida by 100 % were Prophyl 2000® at (2% conc. within 40 minutes without O.M and at 60 minutes contact time with the presence of O.M., G7® at (0.5% conc. within 60 minutes without O.M and at 90 minutes contact time with the presence of O.M.) , Pron-Tech® at (0.5% within 40 minutes without O.M. and at 60 minutes contact time with the presence of O.M), Alkadox® at (1.5% at 60 minutes without O.M and at 90 minutes with the presence of O.M.) and finally Biodine® achieved 100% reduction of the tested Pasteurella multocida only at 1.5% conc. within 90 minutes contact time without presence of O.M.

The Prophyl 2000® disinfectant completely reduced the number of tested Campylobacter jejuni at (4% conc. within 20 minutes, within 40 minutes at the same conc.), G7® at (.5% conc. within 40 minutes , 1% at the same time) , Pron-Tech® at (0.2% conc. within 40 minutes , 0.5% within 60 minutes), Alkadox® at (1% conc. within 60 minutes ,1.5% within 90 minutes) and Biodine® at (1% conc. within 60 minutes , 1.5 % within 90 minutes) in the absence and presence of O.M , respectively (Table 3).

The tested disinfectants that reduced the tested Staphylococcus aureus by 100 % were Prophyl 2000® at (4% conc. within 40 minutes, within 90 minutes at the same conc.), G7® at (.5 % conc. within 60 minutes , 1% at the same time), Pron-Tech® at (.5% conc. within 60 minutes , within 90 minutes at the same conc. and Alkadox® at (1% conc.

 

Table 1: Commercial disinfectants efficacy against E. coli (3.0×106 CFU/ cm2) in relation to the different concentrations and contact times.

Disinfectants	Concentration (%)	Reduction % in absence of organic matter				Reduction % in presence of organic matter
		20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min	20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min
Prophyl 2000®	0.4	55.60fgD	73.70cdC	85.90bcB	98.10abA	39.80deD	61.00eC	70.80dB	82.10cA
	2.0	71.20bC	88.40bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	53.30bC	79.70bB	98.50aA	100.00aA
	4.0	79.80aC	94.30aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	62.90aC	84.00aB	100.00aA	100.00aA
G7®	0.25	43.50hD	60.20gC	72.60eB	84.70dA	32.10fgD	46.70hC	56.30fB	69.90eA
	0.50	62.90deC	75.40cB	99.10aA	100.00aA	46.70cD	67.60dC	93.00bB	99.50abA
	1.00	68.70bcC	85.90bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	57.10bC	74.40cB	98.90aA	100.00aA
Pron-Tech®	0.1	40.10hiD	54.90hC	67.50fB	78.00eA	29.60ghD	41.30iC	49.80gB	60.20fA
	0.2	58.50efD	69.30deC	90.60bB	100.00aA	43.30cdD	60.00efC	82.70cB	97.40aA
	0.5	65.00cdD	76.90cC	96.00aB	100.00aA	55.30bD	68.20dC	91.50bB	100.00aA
Alkadox®	0.5	37.90ijD	53.00hC	65.20fB	74.50eA	28.90ghD	37.00ijC	42.60hB	55.10gA
	1.0	56.80fgD	68.00eC	83.40cdB	99.70abA	43.30cD	56.70fC	70.00dB	95.00bA
	1.5	62.30deD	74.10cC	88.70bB	100.00aA	54.00bD	64.30deC	78.50cB	99.30abA
Biodine®	0.5	35.10jD	48.80iC	58.40gB	69.00fA	26.10hD	33.60jC	39.50iB	48.90hA
	1.0	53.00gD	62.70fgC	74.90eB	91.20cA	36.70efD	50.00gC	63.30eB	77.00dA
	1.5	58.60efD	66.90efC	80.30dB	95.00bcA	42.40cdD	56.00fC	69.10dB	83.60cA

a, b & c: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means, within the same column have the different superscript letters.

A, B & C: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means for the same attribute, within the same row have the different superscript letters.

 

Table 2: Commercial disinfectants efficacy against Pasteurella multocida (3.0×106 CFU/ cm2) in relation to the different concentrations and contact times.

Disinfectants	Concentration (%)	Reduction % in absence of organic matter				Reduction % in presence of organic matter
		20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min	20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min
Prophyl 2000®	0.4	67.20gD	85.40dC	96.00aB	100.00aA	55.10fD	71.50efC	80.30eB	89.80bA
	2.0	89.60bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	71.30cdB	97.80abA	100.00aA	100.00aA
	4.0	96.90aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	82.70aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA
G7®	0.25	56.20hD	73.80fC	82.90cB	95.60aA	47.10gD	63.00gC	68.20fB	78.50cA
	0.50	80.50cdB	99.30aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	67.00deC	94.00bcB	98.10abA	100.00aA
	1.00	91.30bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	79.20abB	99.20abA	100.00aA	100.00aA
Pron-Tech®	0.1	51.60hD	65.00gC	74.90dB	86.00bA	38.90hD	50.30hC	57.60gB	66.90dA
	0.2	74.90efC	92.70bcB	100.00aA	100.00aA	63.30eD	83.00dC	96.90abcB	99.80aA
	0.5	86.70bcB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	74.60bcC	91.30cB	100.00aA	100.00aA
Alkadox®	0.5	45.60iD	58.80hC	69.10eB	78.90cA	33.10iD	41.90iC	48.70hB	60.40eA
	1.0	69.80fgC	88.10cdB	100.00aA	100.00aA	56.70fD	72.00efC	94.10bcB	99.00aA
	1.5	78.40deC	94.70bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	68.00deC	85.90dB	97.30abA	100.00aA
Biodine®	0.5	40.30jD	52.70iC	65.20eB	74.00cA	31.50iD	37.30iC	45.00hB	53.90fA
	1.0	65.00gD	79.60eC	93.20bB	99.00aA	53.30fD	66.70fC	86.70dB	92.30bA
	1.5	76.10eC	87.90cdB	99.60aA	100.00aA	64.70eD	76.20eC	92.00cB	98.80aA

a, b & c: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means, within the same column have the different superscript letters.

A, B & C: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means for the same attribute, within the same row have the different superscript letters.

 

Table 3: Commercial disinfectants efficacy against Campylobacter jejuni (3.0×106 CFU/ cm2) in relation to the different concentrations and contact times.

Disinfectants	Concentration (%)	Reduction % in absence of organic matter				Reduction % in presence of organic matter
		20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min	20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min
Prophyl 2000®	0.4	75.90efD	92.30cC	98.90aB	100.00aA	62.50fgD	76.30gC	83.60cB	91.90bA
	2.0	99.30aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	87.00aB	99.20abA	100.00aA	100.00aA
	4.0	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	90.30aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA
G7®	0.25	69.00gD	77.90eC	86.50bB	96.90aA	56.00hD	69.10gC	77.20dB	84.80cA
	0.50	91.90bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	82.70bB	97.60abA	100.00aA	100.00aA
	1.00	99.80aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	88.60aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA
Pron-Tech®	0.1	62.50hD	71.80fC	80.40cB	88.70bA	47.90iD	58.50hC	68.10eB	75.30dA
	0.2	86.10cB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	71.60de	94.70bcB	98.60abA	100.00aA
	0.5	93.90bB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA	79.10bc	95.00abcB	100.00aA	100.00aA
Alkadox®	0.5	53.70iD	60.90gC	72.30dB	81.80cA	40.00jD	46.90iC	59.20fB	67.00eA
	1.0	77.20efC	95.80bcB	100.00aA	100.00aA	66.70efD	87.70deC	95.40abB	99.70aA
	1.5	84.60cdB	99.50abA	100.00aA	100.00aA	75.20cdC	91.40cdB	99.60aA	100.00aA
Biodine®	0.5	45.10jD	54.90hC	68.70dB	76.90cA	36.20jD	44.10iC	53.80gB	61.40fA
	1.0	73.00fgC	84.90dB	100.00aA	100.00aA	60.00ghD	81.60fC	93.70bB	97.00aA
	1.5	79.90deC	92.00cB	100.00aA	100.00aA	71.50deD	83.90efC	96.10abB	100.00aA

a, b & c: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means, within the same column have the different superscript letters.

A, B & C: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means for the same attribute, within the same row have the different superscript letters.

 

Table 4: Commercial disinfectants efficacy against Staphylococcus aureus (3.0×106 CFU/ cm2) in relation to the different concentrations and contact times.

Disinfectants	Concentration (%)	Reduction % in absence of organic matter				Reduction % in presence of organic matter
		20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min	20 min	40 min	60 min	90 min
Prophyl 2000®	0.4	59.20fgD	78.10efC	89.50cB	100.00A	44.30eD	67.80deC	75.20eB	86.40bA
	2.0	75.80bcB	97.80abA	100.00aA	100.00A	56.70bcC	93.30abB	99.70aA	100.00aA
	4.0	87.60aB	100.00aA	100.00aA	100.00A	69.10aB	98.00aA	100.00aA	100.00aA
G7®	0.25	49.50hD	64.70iC	77.10B	89.10A	34.90fD	57.70fC	64.20fB	75.40cA
	0.50	67.10deC	79.00efB	100.00aA	100.00A	53.30cdD	82.30cC	96.70abB	99.90aA
	1.00	80.40bC	92.60bcB	100.00aA	100.00A	70.00aC	89.50bB	100.00aA	100.00aA
Pron-Tech®	0.1	46.20hiD	58.50jC	70.90eB	82.00A	31.60fgD	45.30gC	52.90gB	63.10dA
	0.2	61.90efD	74.20fgC	93.80bB	100.00A	53.30cdD	70.30dC	91.30bcB	98.60aA
	0.5	78.10bC	92.30cB	100.00aA	100.00A	67.10aB	81.20cC	96.00abB	100.00aA
Alkadox®	0.5	41.40ij	55.70jk	66.90eB	77.10A	30.20fgD	39.50hC	45.20hB	57.80eA
	1.0	58.50fgD	71.30ghC	89.90cB	100.00A	50.00dD	63.30eC	87.30cB	97.50aA
	1.5	69.70deD	85.20dC	97.50abB	100.00A	59.30bD	72.00dC	91.90bcB	100.00aA
Biodine®	0.5	37.60jD	51.00kC	60.90fB	70.80A	28.50gD	34.90hC	42.20hB	50.40fA
	1.0	56.00gD	66.80hC	83.70dB	95.00A	43.30eD	56.70fC	76.00eB	88.70bA
	1.5	70.80cdD	81.40deC	92.30bcB	100.00A	54.70bcdD	67.40deC	81.50dB	94.10aA

a, b & c: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means, within the same column have the different superscript letters.

A, B & C: There is significant difference (P=0.00) between any two means for the same attribute, within the same row have the different superscript letters.

within 90 minutes ,1.5% at the same time) in the absence and presence of O.M , respectively. The Biodine® disinfectant completely reduced the tested Staphylococcus aureus only at conc. 1.5% within 90 minutes without presence of O.M (Table 4).

DISCUSSION

Preventive medicine is essential to combat poultry infectious diseases as biosecurity. As part of biosecurity strategies, effective cleaning and disinfection protocols are required to prevent disease transmission among farms (Gómez-García et al., 2022) The disinfection process is the most critical point in biosecurity plan of poultry farms and plays a key role in control of diseases and achievement of profit. The implementation of effective disinfection process at poultry production sites is of great importance for consumers and for public health, so it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly used disinfectants on some pathogenic bacteria and determine the suitable state for their application to achieve the maximum benefit by determining the most powerful disinfectants and the lowest effective concentration.

Our results summarized that Prophyl 2000® is a very effective disinfectant against tested strains of E. coli, Pasteurella multocida, Campylobacter jejuni, and Staphylococcus aureus within 60 minutes’ contact time in the absence and presence of organic matter. This is due to its aldehyde-based disinfectants that are considered one of the most powerful disinfectants and affect a wide range of bacteria and their spore through alkylation of hydroxyl, carbonyl and amino groups, which affect DNA, RNA and protein synthesis and also less affected by organic matter (Gosling, 2018; Drauch et al., 2020; Abdel-Latef and Mohammed, 2021). In addition, the G7® disinfectant is the combination of glutaraldehyde and quaternary ammonium compounds that is strong and very effective complex but less powerful than Prophyl 2000® due to the quaternary ammonium compound, which is one of the disinfectants affected by the presence of organic matter (Battersby et al., 2017; Figueroa et al., 2017; Drauch et al., 2020). Additionally, the Pron-Tech® that contains dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride compound within the QUATS family is probably one of the best chemicals to inhibit microbial germination by penetrating the bacterial cell membrane by electrostatic gravity to cause the internal substances to leak out, which eventually results in cell lysis and death (Abdel-Latef and Mohammed, 2021; Wang et al ., 2022).

Alkadox® disinfectant contains sodium hypochlorite (chlorine releasing agent) that has destructive action on bacterial cell membranes and oxidative action on irreversible bacterial enzymes, but are considered less stable disinfectant and less effective in the presence of organic matter (Guastalli et al., 2016). Moreover, the Biodine® is an iodine compound disinfectant that exhibits a broad range of microbicidal activity against bacteria by iodination of lipids and oxidation of cytoplasmic membrane compounds but couldn’t completely eliminate the tested microorganisms within 90 minutes expect at high concentration and only minimized the bacterial count at low concentration, that is the least effective tested disinfectants that highly affected by the presence of organic matter (Aksoy et al., 2020).

There is a highly significant difference between bacterial efficacy of tested disinfectants at same contact time and concentration of tested disinfectant in presence and absence of O.M as remaining organic material in poultry farms is known to decrease the efficacy of disinfectants. This negative effect was also reported from the field once to focus on the importance of proper cleaning procedures before applying disinfectants (Drauch et al., 2020). Furthermore, the efficiency of disinfectants was significantly increase with high concentration and long contact time that clearly affect the reduction percentage of disinfection to pathogens (Wales et al., 2021).

Finally, our results summarized that Prophyl 2000® was the most effective disinfectant against E. coli, Pasteurella multocida, Campylobacter jejuni and Staphylococcus aureus, while the Biodine® was the weakest one. In addition, the organic matter is one of the most serious factors affecting the bactericidal power of some commercial disinfectants (Sato et al., 2019; Saadatpour and Mohammadipanah, 2022).

CONCLUSION

However, there are various types of disinfectants furthermore; the selection of the most effective one is not easy decision. So, the evaluation process of commercial disinfectants helps the poultry producer to put their hand on the most powerful one that can achieve the most successful sanitation plan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Faculty of Veterinary Medicine / Benha University for supporting this work.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

novelty statement

This study is the first in Egypt to evaluate G7® and Pron-Tech® commercial disinfectants against field pathogenic serotypes of E. coli, Pasteurella multocida, Campylobacter jejuni, and Staphylococcus aureus isolated from chicken and duck.

authors contribution

HAA and HEKE designed the concept for this research and scientific paper. EMH had sampled and HEKE and EMH had analyzed the data and interpreted the results. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

REFERENCES

Abdel-Latef GK, Mohammed AN (2021). Efficiency evaluation of some novel disinfectants and anti-bacterial nanocomposite on zoonotic bacterial pathogens in commercial Mallard duck pens for efficient control. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res. 8(1): 105. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2021.h492

Aksoy A, Kahlout KEM El, Yardimci H (2020). Comparative evaluation of the effects of binzalkonium chloride, iodine, gluteraldehyde and hydrogen peroxide disinfectants against avian Salmonellae focusing on genotypic resistance pattern of the Salmonellae serotypes toward benzalkonium chloride. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. 22. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2019-1055

Battersby T, Walsh D, Whyte P, Bolton D (2017). Evaluating and improving terminal hygiene practices on broiler farms to prevent Campylobacter cross-contamination between flocks. Food Microbiol. 64: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fm.2016.11.018

Belter B, McCarlie SJ, Boucher-van Jaarsveld CE , Bragg RR. (2022). Investigation into the Metabolism of Quaternary Ammonium Compound Disinfectants by Bacteria. Microbial Drug Resist. https://doi.org/10.1089/mdr.2022.0039

Boxall NS, Perkins, NR , Marks D, Jones B, Fenwick SG , Davies PR (2003). Free available chlorine in commercial broiler chicken drinking water in New Zealand. J. Food Protect. 66(11): 2164-2167. https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-66.11.2164

Brantner CA, Hannah RM, Burans JP, Pope RK (2014). Inactivation and ultrastructure analysis of Bacillus spp. and Clostridium perfringens spores. Microscop. Microanaly. 20(1): 238-244. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1431927613013949

Byun KH, Han SH, Yoon JW, Park SH, Ha SD (2021). Efficacy of chlorine-based disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide) on Salmonella Enteritidis planktonic cells, biofilms on food contact surfaces and chicken skin. Food Cont. 123: 107838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2020.107838

Castro Burbarelli MF, Valle Polycarpo G, Lelis KD, Granghelli CA, Pinho ACC De, Queiroz SRA, Fernandes AM, Souza RLM De, Moro MEG, Andrade Bordin R de (2017). Cleaning and disinfection programs against Campylobacter jejuni for broiler chickens: productive performance, microbiological assessment and characterization. Poult. Sci. 96(9): 3188–3198. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex153

Chidambaranathan AS, Balasubramanium M (2019). Comprehensive review and comparison of the disinfection techniques currently available in the literature. J. Prosthod. 28(2): e849-e856. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12597

Collins ML (2007). The role of intensive poultry production industry in the spread of avian influenza. A report by Compassion in World Farming February .

Douglas H, Kampf G (2011). Efficacy of three surface disinfectants against spores of Clostridium difficile biotype O27. Elsevier Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health. 214: 172–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2010.10.004

Drauch V, Ibesich C, Vogl C, Hess M, Hess C (2020). In-vitro testing of bacteriostatic and bactericidal efficacy of commercial disinfectants against Salmonella Infantis reveals substantial differences between products and bacterial strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 328: 108660. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2020.108660

Figueroa A, Hauck R, Saldias-Rodriguez J, Gallardo RA (2017). Combination of quaternary ammonia and glutaraldehyde as a disinfectant against enveloped and non-enveloped viruses. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 26(4): 491–497. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfx021

Gómez-García M, Argüello H, Pérez-Pérez L, Vega C, Puente H, Mencía-Ares Ó, Carvajal A (2022). Combined in-vitro and on-farm evaluation of commercial disinfectants used against Brachyspira hyodysenteriae. Porcine Health Manag. 8(1): 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40813-021-00244-9

Gosling RJ (2018). A review of cleaning and disinfection studies in farming environments. Livestock. 23(5) : 232–237. https://doi.org/10.12968/live.2018.23.5.232

Guastalli BHL, Batista DFA, Souza AIS, Guastalli EAL, Lopes PD, Almeida AM, Prette N, Barbosa FO, Stipp DT, Freitas Neto OC (2016). Evaluation of disinfectants used in pre-chilling water tanks of poultry processing plants. Brazilian J. Poult. Sci. : 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2015-0110

Jiang L, Li M, Tang J, Zhao X, Zhang J, Zhu H, Yu X, Li Y, Feng T, Zhang X (2018). Effect of different disinfectants on bacterial aerosol diversity in poultry houses. Front. Microbiol. Frontiers. : 2113. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2018.02113

Kamal MA, Khalaf MA, Ahmed ZAM, Jakee J El (2019). Evaluation of the efficacy of commonly used disinfectants against isolated chlorine-resistant strains from drinking water used in Egyptian cattle farms. Vet. World. 12(12): 20-25. https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2019.2025-2035

Li Y, Arulnathan V, Heidari MD, Pelletier N (2022). Design considerations for net zero energy buildings for intensive, confined poultry production: A review of current insights, knowledge gaps, and future directions. Renewable Sustain. Energy Rev. 154: 111874. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2021.111874

Luyckx K, Dewulf J, Weyenberg S Van, Herman L, Zoons J, Vervaet E, Heyndrickx M, Reu K De (2015). Comparison of sampling procedures and microbiological and non-microbiological parameters to evaluate cleaning and disinfection in broiler houses. Poult. Sci. 94(4): 740–749. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pev019

Qiao N, Shao Z (2010). Isolation and characterization of a novel biosurfactant produced by hydrocarbon‐degrading bacterium Alcanivorax dieselolei B‐5. J. Appl. Microbiol., 108(4): 1207-1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2009.04513.x

Ramzi A, Oumokhtar B, Filali Mouatassem T, Benboubker M, Ouali Lalami A El (2020). Evaluation of antibacterial activity of three quaternary ammonium disinfectants on different germs isolated from the hospital environment. BioMed research international 2020Hindawi,. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6509740

Rhee CH, Kang YE, Han B, Kim YW, Her M, Jeong W, Kim S (2021). Virucidal efficacy of seven active substances in commercial disinfectants used against H9N2 low pathogenic avian influenza virus. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 30(4): 100198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japr.2021.100198

Saadatpour F, Mohammadipanah F (2022). Enhancement of bactericidal effect of Chlorhexidine using choline augmentation as a natural additive. American J. Infect. Control. 50(1): 39–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajic.2021.05.012

Sato Y, Ishihara M, Nakamura S, Fukuda K, Kuwabara M, Takayama T, Hiruma S, Murakami K, Fujita M, Yokoe H (2019). Comparison of various disinfectants on bactericidal activity under organic matter contaminated environments. Biocont. Sci. 24(2): 103–108. https://doi.org/10.4265/bio.24.103

Shoaib M, Ashraf I, Chaudhary KM, Talib U, Usman M, Khan AA (2018). Farm and Disease Management by Commercial Poultry Farmers. Curr. Res. Agric. Sci. 5(2): 42–47. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.68.2018.52.42.47

Stringfellow K, Anderson P, Caldwell D, Lee J, Byrd J, McReynolds J, Farnell M (2009). Evaluation of disinfectants commonly used by the commercial poultry industry under simulated field conditions. Poult. Sci. 88(6): 1151-1155. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00455

Suwa M, Oie S, Furukawa H (2013). Efficacy of disinfectants against naturally occurring and artificially cultivated bacteria. Biolog. Pharmaceut. Bullet. 36(3): 360-363. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b12-00721

Wales AD, Gosling RJ., Bare HL, Davies RH (2021). Disinfectant testing for veterinary and agricultural applications: A review. Zoon. Pub. Health., 68(5): 361-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/zph.12830

Wang S, Sun J, Shan B, Fan W, Ding R, Yang J, Zhao X (2022). Performance of dodecyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride as bactericide and corrosion inhibitor for 7B04 aluminum alloy in an aircraft fuel system. Arabian J. Chem. 15(7): 103926. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arabjc.2022.103926

White D, Gurung S, Zhao D, Farnell Y, Byrd J, McKenzie S, Styles D, Farnell M (2018). Evaluation of layer cage cleaning and disinfection regimens. J. Appl. Poult. Res. 27(2): 180–187. https://doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfx056