Research Article

 

Assessing Cleaning and Disinfection Regime in a Slaughterhouse against Carcasses Contamination

 

Essam Samir Soliman1*, Sherif Abdel-Rahman Moawed2, Ahmed Mohamed garhy Ziaan3

1Department of Animal Hygiene, Zoonosis and Animal Behavior; 2Department of Animal Wealth Development, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt-41522; 3Slaughterhouses Inspection Department, Directorate of Veterinary Medicine, Ismailia, Egypt, 41513

 

 

Editor | Kuldeep Dhama, Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Received | July 21, 2016; Accepted | August 10, 2016; Published | August 22, 2016

*Correspondence | Essam S Soliman, Department of Animal Hygiene, Zoonosis and Animal Behavior, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt-41522; Email: [email protected]

Citation | Soliman ES, Moawed SA and Ziaan AMG (2016). Assessing cleaning and disinfection regime in a slaughterhouse against carcasses contamination. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(9): 449-457.

DOI | http://dx.doi.org/10.14737/journal.aavs/2016/4.9.449.457

ISSN (Online) | 2307-8316; ISSN (Print) | 2309-3331

Copyright © 2016 Soliman et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

 

 

Introduction

 

A well-planned, well-executed and controlled cleaning and sanitation program inside a slaughterhouse is very important to achieve the required hygienic standard. Cleaning and sanitation alone, however, will not assure the required hygienic standard; where process disinfection is important factor. Lack of efficient sanitation and improper disinfection program in a slaughterhouse can contributes bacterial contamination of carcasses (Dixon et al., 1991).

 

Microbial contamination of animal carcasses during slaughtering is an unavoidable condition (Dickson and Anderson, 1991). Carcass dressing and evisceration processes constitute critical points in the microbial contamination of muscle; for which corrective measures need to be implemented (Gill et al., 1999; Bacon et al., 2000; Abdalla et al., 2009a; Abdalla et al., 2009b). Fecal matter was a major source of contamination and could reach carcasses through direct deposition, as well as indirect contact with contaminated equipment, workers, installations and air (Borch and Arinder, 2002).

 

Poor sanitation procedures have been linked to sustained bacterial levels (Pepper et al., 1993; Soliman et al., 2009), thus disinfectants that are effective against bacterial suspensions may have a reduced efficacy especially against bacteria that adhere to surfaces (Mosteller and Bishop, 1993). The effective use of reliable disinfectants is of fundamental importance to many control measures, particularly in all-in-all-out systems (MacLaren et al., 2001); as potential disinfectants act on microorganisms at several target sites resulting in membrane disruption, metabolic inhibition, and lysis of the bacterial cell (Maillard, 2002). Disinfectant efficacy is often tested against laboratory bacterial suspensions (Bloomfield et al., 1991). However, this approach may not always prove to mimic commercial; slaughtering and processing conditions, thus, making it difficult to determine the true and actual effectiveness of the disinfectant.

 

The objectives of this study was to evaluate cleaning and disinfection regime in a slaughterhouse (Abo-Khalifa abattoir- Ismailia- Egypt) against recovery of environmentally-robust zoonotic enteric pathogens such as Salmonella spp. and E. coli spp., as well as conducting an experimental designs for laboratory evaluation of the used chemical disinfectants’ effectiveness against these pathogens.

 

Material and methods

 

Study Design

The study design was conducted in two pathways, the first pathway was a field assessment of cleaning and disinfection regime in a slaughterhouse, and the second pathway was conducting a laboratory evaluation of the used chemical disinfectants. Regular Visits on a weekly basis for a period of six months (from April 2015 to September 2015) were assigned to a slaughterhouse (Abo-Khalifa abattoir- Ismailia- Egypt). Routine cleaning and disinfection procedures were investigated (water under pressure with soap, followed by sodium hypochlorite solution 3%, and finally carbolic acid 6.5%) for evaluation.

 

Sampling

A total of 480 samples (180 environmental and 300 carcass samples) were collected during the study period. Environmental swab samples (60 wall swabs and 60 floor swabs) were collected using sterile swabs previously moistened in peptone buffered water (PBW) before and after slaughtering procedures. Each swab sample was obtained by swabbing five points of 25 cm × 25 cm. Sixty (60) water samples were collected before and after slaughtering procedures from the main water sources inside the slaughterhouse using plastic bottles; they were thoroughly washed, rinsed with deionized water and soaked for 48 h in 50% HNO3, then rinsed thoroughly with deionized water and air-dried.

 

The carcass samples, including 120 muscle samples (right and left shoulder muscles, right and left colata muscles), 120 lymph node samples (right and left pre-scapular lymph nodes, right and left pre-femoral lymph nodes) and 60 organ samples (liver and spleen) were collected. All samples were preserved in ice box and transferred to the laboratory. Environmental samples (wall, floor swabs and water) were kept in refrigerator at 4 ºC, while non-environmental samples (muscles, lymph nodes and organs) were kept frozen at -20 ºC until used for examination.

 

Sample Preparation

Environmental and carcass samples were prepared according to the technique recommended by APHA (2001). Frozen carcass samples were thawed by placing them in the refrigerator overnight, the meat package (organs, lymph nodes and muscles) were opened in biological safety cabinet, then 25 g from each sample were transferred aseptically to a sterile polyethylene bags containing 225 mL of 0.1% sterile buffered peptone water. The content of the bag were homogenized using stomacher (Lab. Blender 400, Seward Lab., and London) to have a dilution of 10-1. One mL of the original dilution of all samples (wall and floor swabs, water samples, muscles, lymph nodes and organs) was transferred aseptically to a test tube containing 9 mL sterile 0.1% buffered peptone water (w/v) to prepare a dilution of 10-2. Tenfold decimal serial dilution up to 10-6 were prepared to cover the expected range of samples contamination which could be easily counted.

 

Bacteriological Examination

Aerobic Bacterial (TBC) and Enterobacteriaceae Count (TEC): Bacterial counts (total bacterial count TBC and total enterobacteriaceae count TEC) were applied using drop plate technique (Zelver et al., 1999; Herigstad et al., 2001). Total aerobic Bacterial Count (TBC) was performed using standard plate count agar at 37ºC for 24 - 48 h. On the other hand, Total Enterobacteriaceae Count (TEC) was conducted using Eosine Methylene Blue Agar (EMB) at 37 ºC for 24 - 48 h revealing the growth of typical metallic green colonies. Counting plates showed 30 - 300 CFU per plates (Cruickshank et al., 1975, 1980). Five typical colonies (metallic green colonies) were selected and cultured onto MacConkey agar plates, and incubated at 37ºC for 24 h, pure colonies on MacConkey agar plates were inoculated onto nutrient slant and incubated at 37ºC for 24 h and kept for further identification.

 

Isolation of Salmonella and E.coli spp.

All samples were pre enriched in peptone buffer water and incubated at 37ºC for 8±2 h. 0.1 mL of pre-enriched samples was transferred to 10 mL pre-warmed tetrathionate broth, incubated at 42ºC for 24±3 h. A loop from tetrathionate broth was streaked onto CHROMagar plates

 

Table 1: Log Total Bacterial Count (TBC) and Total Enterobactereacie Count (TEC) in carcasses samples’ slaughtered in the examined slaughterhouse

Sample	Sample level	Log TBC mean ±SE	Log TEC mean ±SE
Muscles	R. Colata Ms	4.51336a ± 0.15438	3.00529a ± 0.09501
	L. Colata Ms	4.63806a ± 0.15853	3.05745a ± 0.10994
	R. Shoulder Ms	4.68878a ± 0.14458	2.99325a ± 0.09810
	L. Shoulder Ms	4.53089a ± 0.17871	3.01761a ± 0.13067
	P value	0.840	0.711
Lymph Nodes	R. Prefemoral L.n.	4.39252a ± 0.16721	2.75361a ± 0.10420
	L. Prefemoral L.n.	4.66924a ± 0.18649	2.97011a ± 0.10075
	R. Prescapular L.n.	4.80139a ± 0.15277	2.96378a ± 0.09548
	L. Prescapular L.n.	4.54119a ± 0.17058	3.16341a ± 0.11645
	P value	0.368	0.058
Internal Organs	Liver	4.64887a ± 0.18027	3.14379a ± 0.10705
	Spleen	4.50044a ± 0.16903	3.06634a ± 0.08002
	P value	0.357	0.449

 

Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

and incubated at 37ºC for 24 h. Typical Salmonella spp. colonies showed pink colour, while E. coli colonies showed blue colour. Five typical colonies were streaked on the surface of nutrient agar and incubated at 37 ºC ± 1 for 24±3 h. The growing colonies were picked and kept for biochemical confirmation using traditional biochemical set including indole test, Methyl Red, Voges Proskauer, Cimmon Citrate (IMVIC) and TSI (Triple sugar iron agar) / LIA (Lysine Iron Agar) reactions.

 

Laboratory Evaluation of in-use Disinfectants

Preparation of Dry and Wet Models of Bacterial Suspensions: E.coli and Salmonella spp. that were stored onto nutrient slopes were resuscitated on tubes of tetrathionate broth and incubated at 42ºC for 24 h, then plated onto CHROMagar and incubated at 37ºC for 24 h, typical colonies of E. coli and Salmonella spp. were counted and tenfold serial dilution was prepared. A concentration of (8×103 CFU) was used for preparing two models: dry and wet models (dry model was prepared on a stainless steel carrier and wet model was prepared on buffered peptone water), one mL of wet model, as well as carriers of dry models were added to 4.5 mL of 5% yeast suspension (a source of organic matter, dispensed into tubes, sterilized by autoclaving at 121 ºC / 20 min, subjected to pre-enrichment in buffered peptone water followed by selective culture, to demonstrate freedom from E.coli and Salmonella contamination) to simulate the conditions of slaughterhouse.

 

Preparation of Disinfectant Concentrations: The disinfectants were used in the slaughterhouse, Carbolic Acid 6.5% and Sodium Hypochlorite 3% were prepared from original stocks with additional concentrations (above and below the recommended concentration by manufacturer). Carbolic Acid was tested at the concentrations 5%, 6.5% and 10%. Sodium Hypochlorite was tested at the concentrations 3%, 5%, 8% and 10%.

 

Testing of Disinfectant Concentrations: One mL of bacterial suspension (wet model), as well as ten carriers (dry model) were added / immersed to four replicates of 9 mL disinfectant concentration: carbolic acid (5%, 6.5% and 10%), sodium hypochlorite (3%, 5%, 8% and 10%). Combinations were mixed, allowed to stand at cool room temperature and shaken briefly. After 0.25, 0.5, 1, 2 and 4 h contact time points, 0.1 mL aliquots were mixed with 10 mL disinfectant neutralizer (tween 80 3%). One mL of the combination in neutralizer was transferred to a resuscitation tube of 9 mL nutrient broth. The inoculated resuscitation tubes were incubated overnight, then plated onto CHROMagar and incubated at 37 ºC for 24 h. The development of typical colonies of both E.coli and Salmonella was detected and counted.

 

Statistical Analysis

The data obtained were assessed using SPSS 10.01 (version 20). Differences between the treatments and groups were determined with the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test with Duncan’s posttest for some parameters, while the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis was used to detect the mean rank and frequencies of both E. coli and Salmonella. Univariate analysis of variance was used to compare the influence of the tested disinfectant concentrations against pathogens in relation to exposure time. The data were expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Differences were considered significant at P ≤ 0.05 and P < 0.01 (Levesque, 2007). Bacterial count logarithmic transformation were done before analysis. The correlation co-efficient was calculated to compare the influence of each measured parameter mean values on each other (Fulekar, 2009).

 

Results

 

A uniform pattern of carcass contamination from the slaughterhouse’s floors and walls was reflected on carcasses samples’ bacteriological examination. A high log total bacterial and enterobacteriaceae counts with no significant differences (P > 0.05) between the different types of carcass samples including muscles, lymph nodes and internal organs as a result of insufficient cleaning and disinfection routine in the slaughterhouse (Table 1). On another view, the collected floor; wall swabs and water samples from the slaughterhouse revealed a highly significant increase (P<0.01) as revealed in (Table 2) in log total bacterial and enterobacteriaceae counts in after slaughtering samples when compared to after disinfection samples.

 

Total bacterial count in carcass and environmental samples (Table 3) revealed a highly significant (P < 0.01) strong positive (r = 0.819), significant (P ≤ 0.05) intermediate positive (r = 0.441) and a highly significant (P < 0.01) strong positive (r = 0.719) correlations between muscles with lymph nodes, liver and spleen, respectively. Significant (P ≤ 0.05) weak positive (r = 0.391), a highly significant (P < 0.01) strong positive (r = 0.736) correlation between lymph nodes with liver and spleen, respectively. A highly significant (P < 0.01) strong intermediate (r = 0.589) correlation between liver and spleen. A predominant non-significant (P > 0.05) weak (positive / negative) correlations was revealed between carcass and environmental samples in total bacterial count (Table 3).

 

Total enterobacteriaceae count in carcass and environmental samples (Table 3), revealed a highly significant (P<0.01) strong positive (r=0.805), significant (P≤0.05) intermediate positive (r=0.436) and a highly significant intermediate positive (r=0.511) correlations between muscles with lymph nodes, liver and spleen, respectively. Non-significant (P>0.05) weak positive (r=0.320), strong, significant (P≤0.05) intermediate positive (r=0.443) correlation between lymph nodes with liver and spleen, respectively.

 

Table 2: Log Total Bacterial Count (TBC) and Total Enterobactereacie Count (TEC) in environmental samples from in the examined slaughterhouse

Sample	Sample level	Log TBC mean ± SE	Log TEC mean ± SE
Floor Swabs	After Disinfection	1.65596b ± 0.20401	0.75655b ± 0.17424
	After Slaughtering	5.46737a ± 0.09120	3.75536a ± 0.04249
	P value	0.001	0.001
Wall Swabs	After Disinfection	0.74618b ± 0.17050	0.91647b ± 0.18322
	After Slaughtering	4.51728a ± 0.09374	3.34518a ± 0.03697
	P value	0.001	0.001
Water samples	After Disinfection	2.50222b ± 0.56055	1.60020b ± 0.13621
	After Slaughtering	4.78108a ± 0.09901	3.77128a ± 0.08028
	P value	0.001	0.001

 

Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

Table 3: Log Total Bacterial Count (TBC) correlations (Above Diagonal) and Log Total Enterobactereacie Count (TEC) correlations (Below Diagonal) between carcasses and environmental samples from the examined slaughterhouse

Bacterial Count r	Muscle	Lymph Nodes	Liver	Spleen	Floor Swabs	Wall Swabs	Water
Muscle	1	0.819**	0.441*	0.719**	0.087	0.056	0.042
Lymph Nodes	0.805**	1	0.391*	0.736**	-0.015	0.060	0.269
Liver	0.436*	0.320	1	0.589**	0.208	0.258	0.093
Spleen	0.511**	0.443*	0.432*	1	0.140	0.189	0.193
Floor Swabs	0.307	0.223	0.221	0.084	1	0.319	-0.060
Wall Swabs	0.162	0.278	-0.003	0.218	0.282	1	-0.209
Water	-0.275	-0.197	-0.416*	-0.310	-0.395*	-0.240	1

**: Correlation is highly significant (P < 0.01); *: Correlation is significant (P ≤ 0.05); NS: Correlation is non-significant (P > 0.05); r: 0.1 – 0.39 represent weak correlation; r: 0.40 – 0.69 represent intermediate correlation; r: 0.70 – 1.00 represent strong correlation (Fulekar, 2009)

 

Table 4: Intensity and frequencies of E. coli infection in carcasses and environmental samp

Type/level of Samples			Mean Rank	Frequency
				Positive	Negative	Total
Carcass Samples	Muscle	R. Colata Ms	62.50a	22a	8a	30
		L. Colata Ms	62.50a	22a	8a	30
		R. Shoulder Ms	64.50a	23a	7a	30
		L. Shoulder Ms	52.50a	17a	13a	30
		P value	0.326	P=0.321	χ2=3.492
	Lymph nodes	R. Prefemoral L.n.	63.50a	25a	5a	30
		L. Prefemoral L.n.	59.50a	23a	7a	30
		R. Prescapular L.n.	59.50a	23a	7a	30
		L. Prescapular L.n.	59.50a	23a	7a	30
		P value	0.900	P=0.898	χ2=0.589
	Internal Organs	Liver	32.00a	19a	11a	30
		Spleen	29.00a	16a	14a	30
		P value	0.436	P=0.432	χ2=0.617
Environmental Samples	Floor Swabs	After Disinfection	26.50b	12b	18a	30
		After Slaughtering	34.50a	20a	10b	30
		P value	0.040	P=0.038	χ2=4.286
	Wall Swabs	After Disinfection	26.50b	14b	16a	30
		After Slaughtering	34.50a	22a	8b	30
		P value	0.037	P=0.035	χ2=4.444
	Water	After Disinfection	28.50a	25a	5a	30
		After Slaughtering	32.50a	29a	1a	30
		P value	0.088	P=0.085	χ2=2.963

 

Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

Significant (P ≤ 0.05) intermediate positive (r = 0.432) correlation between liver and spleen. A predominant non-significant (P > 0.05) weak (positive / negative) correlations was revealed between carcass and environmental samples in total enterobacteriaceae count (Table 3).

 

E. coli and Salmonella isolation (Table 4 and 5) from carcass samples revealed no significant differences (P > 0.05) in frequencies of isolation and nearly similar mean rank (60%) among the 300 carcass samples. On the other hand the frequencies of isolation among the environmental samples (20% - 40%) revealed a highly significant increase (P<0.01) in floor, wall swabs and water samples collected after slaughtering compared to samples collected after disinfection, in contra verse of a non-significant differences (P>0.05) in log TEC from water samples collected after the two stages of sampling.

 

Carbolic acid wet model 6.5% (Table 6) achieved a highly significant (P<0.01) 100% killing efficacy after 4 h exposure, compared to carbolic acid wet models 5%, 10% that achieved non-significant (P>0.05) 51% killing efficacy after 4 h contact, non-significant (P>0.05) 100% killing efficacy after only 2 h exposure, respectively. Carbolic acid dry models 5%, 6.5% and 10% (Table 6) achieved highly significant (P<0.01) 60%, 97%, and non-significant (P>0.05) 100% killing efficacy after 4 h contact, respectively.

 

Sodium hypochlorite wet model 3% (Table 7) achieved non-significant (P>0.05) 47.5% killing efficacy after 4 h exposure, compared to Sodium hypochlorite wet model 5%, 8% and 10% achieved highly significant (P<0.01) 78%, 94% and non-significant (P>0.05) 100% killing efficacy after 4 h contact, respectively. On the other hand, Sodium hypochlorite dry models 3%, 5%, 8% and 10% revealed highly significant (P<0.01) 46%, 73%, 86% and 100% killing efficacy after 4 h exposure, respectively.

 

Discussion

 

At the slaughterhouse, standard strict measures were pointed as a proper control measure to prevent the transmission of the micro-organisms to and from animal carcasses and slaughterhouse environment. Meanwhile, even when cleaning procedures were classified as satisfactory and a strong disinfectants were used.

 

Table 5: Intensity and frequencies of Salmonella infection in carcasses and environmental samples

Type/level of Samples			Mean Rank	Frequency
				Positive	Negative	Total
Carcass Samples	Muscle	R. Colata Ms	58.50a	17a	13a	30
		L. Colata Ms	54.50a	15a	15a	30
		R. Shoulder Ms	64.50a	20a	10a	30
		L. Shoulder Ms	64.50a	20a	10a	30
		P value	0.479	P=0.475	χ2=2.500
	Lymph nodes	R. Prefemoral L.n.	59.50a	20a	10a	30
		L. Prefemoral L.n.	65.50a	23a	7a	30
		R. Prescapular L.n.	61.50a	21a	9a	30
		L. Prescapular L.n.	55.50a	18a	12a	30
		P value	0.575	P=0.571	χ2=2.003
	Internal Organs	Liver	30.50a	14a	16a	30
		Spleen	30.50a	14a	16a	30
		P value	1.0	P=1.000	χ2=0.001
Environmental Samples	1. Floor Swabs	After Disinfection	22.00b	6b	24a	30
		After Slaughtering	39.00a	23a	7b	30
		P value	0.001	P=0.001	χ2=19.288
	Wall Swabs	After Disinfection	23.50b	6b	24a	30
		After Slaughtering	37.50a	20a	10b	30
		P value	0.001	P=0.001	χ2=13.303
	Water	After Disinfection	20.00b	3b	27a	30
		After Slaughtering	41.00a	24a	6b	30
		P value	0.001	P=0.001	χ2=29.697

 

Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

Table 6: Laboratory efficacy of Carbolic acid (5%, 6.5%, 10%) at different times of exposure against bacterial mixture in wet model and dry model

Contact Time/hr	Model	Concentration
		5%	6.5%*	10%	Total
0.25	Dry	3.1e ± 1.0825	9.0e ± 2.8584	22.1d ± 3.7974	11.4e ± 2.8154
	Wet	3.1c ± 1.0825	6.2e ± 2.2243	20.9c ± 4.3712	10.1d ± 2.7885
0.5	Dry	16.8d ± 3.1663	23.1d ± 1.6535	45.6c ± 2.1949	28.5d ± 3.9313
	Wet	17.5b ± 2.4473	32.8d ± 2.1875	60.3b ± 5.3125	36.8c ± 5.6627
1	Dry	35.3c ± 1.9348	75.0c ± 0.5103	85.4b ± 1.5598	65.2c ± 6.5584
	Wet	45.0a ± 2.1040	84.0c ± 1.3858	99.3a ± 0.3865	76.1b ± 6.9421
2	Dry	49.6b ± 0.7864	92.3b ± 0.7447	98.7a ± 0.2570	80.2b ± 6.5786
	Wet	50.0a ± 1.0206	91.3b ± 2.0999	100.0a ± 0.000	80.4a ± 6.6169
4	Dry	60.0a ± 1.3501	97.9a ± 0.2991	100.0a ± 0.000	85.9a ± 5.5622
	Wet	51.2a ± 0.5103	100.0a ± 0.000	100.0a ± 0.000	83.7a ± 6.9307
Total	Dry	33.0c ± 4.8313	59.5b ± 8.4001	70.4a ± 7.1907	54.3 ± 4.4512
	Wet	33.3c ± 4.5152	62.8b ± 8.4579	76.1a ± 7.3393	57.4 ± 4.5892

 

*Recommended concentration by manufacture to be used in field; Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

Table 7: Laboratory efficacy of Sodium Hypochlorite (2%, 5%, 8%, 10%) at different times of exposure against bacterial mixture in wet model and dry model

Contact Time/hr	Model	Concentration
		3%*	5%	8%	10%	Total
0.25	Dry	3.2e ± 1.0825	16.8e ± 2.7243	18.1e ± 1.0825	22.1e ± 1.3858	15.0e ± 2.0041
	Wet	7.5d ± 2.1040	19.6e ± 3.2425	19.6e ± 1.8663	27.5d ± 1.3501	18.5e ± 2.1036
0.5	Dry	11.8d ± 0.8068	30.6d ± 2.5259	37.5d ± 0.5103	37.5d ± 2.4473	29.3d ± 2.8275
	Wet	21.8c ± 3.0830	36.8d ± 1.3010	39.3d ± 1.6535	57.8c ± 3.1612	38.9d ± 3.4727
1	Dry	25.6c ± 1.9432	50.0c ± 1.0206	58.1c ± 0.8068	71.2c ± 2.6516	51.2c ± 4.3645
	Wet	35.9b ± 1.6437	50.6c ± 2.0728	71.5c ± 2.4138	80.6b ± 1.9432	59.6c ± 4.6104
2	Dry	34.6b ± 1.6437	60.0b ± 1.3501	73.1b ± 1.5728	92.9b ± 0.4824	65.1b ± 5.4927
	Wet	49.0a ± 0.5983	69.3b ± 1.4878	85.6b ± 1.1967	99.4a ± 0.3321	75.8b ± 4.8737
4	Dry	46.2a ± 1.6137	73.1a ± 1.6535	86.7a ± 0.6929	100.0a ± 0.000	76.5a ± 5.1649
	Wet	47.5a ± 1.3501	78.4a ± 2.2462	94.2a ± 1.0325	100.0a ± 0.000	80.0a ± 5.2988
Total	Dry	24.3d ± 3.5937	46.1c ± 4.6910	54.7b ± 5.6429	64.7a ± 7.0166	47.4 ± 3.1289
	Wet	32.3d ± 3.7068	51.0c ± 4.9650	62.0b ± 6.5159	73.0a ± 6.3542	54.6 ± 3.1861

 

*Recommended concentration by manufacture to be used in field; Means carrying different superscripts in the same column are significantly different at (P ≤ 0.05) or highly significantly different at (P < 0.01); Means carrying the same superscripts in the same column are non-significantly different at (P > 0.05)

 

Some micro-organisms as E.coli and Salmonella was still able to survive and detected in environmental samples of the slaughterhouse and in carcass samples (Carrique-Mas and Davies, 2008).

 

It has been described that holes in floors and walls make it difficult for the penetration of disinfectant solutions and what is more, the biofilms created by Salmonella can make the action of the disinfectants more difficult (Marin et al., 2009). The average intermediate degree of correlations between total bacterial counts, total enterobacteriaceae counts with the different environmental and carcass samples ensured the deficient access of disinfectant to some areas in the slaughterhouse contributing a definite contamination of the carcass directly or indirectly through the workers, equipment and air.

 

It was cleared from our results that carbolic acid recommended concentration (6.5%) achieved the 100% killing efficacy only after 4 h in wet model, on the contrary carbolic acid 6.5% dry model achieved only 97% at the same time of contact and under the same experimental conditions. The same distinguish in killing efficacy was noticed in sodium hypochlorite dry model 3 % (46% after 4 h contact) compared to sodium hypochlorite wet model 3% (47.5% after 4 h contact). The differences in disinfectant performance between the two models (dry, wet) are probably a result of several factors. Physiological status of the micro-organism especially E.coli and Salmonella in the dried versus the wet preparations; adaptive responses by the micro-organism in conditions of low water activity (Russell, 2004; Fraise et al., 2008) and reduced nutrient availability (Hoff and Akin, 1986). It has been observed that susceptibility of members of the enterobacteriaceae to certain antiseptics and disinfectants, may increase or decrease depending on cell density, growth rate and the limiting nutrient (Brown et al., 1990; Bjergbæk et al., 2008).

 

The reduction of the microbial contamination (Rahkio and Korkeala, 1996) depends on the enforcement of hygienic practice such as regular disinfection of working tools and worker hands are important in reducing the microbiological contamination of carcasses. The used routine disinfection in the slaughterhouse depends on the usage of disinfectants that are effective and efficient against wide variety of micro-organisms and doesn’t tent the meat and its marketability (Sander et al., 2002)

 

Conclusion & Recommendation

 

Current research prove that routinely cleaning and disinfection procedures performed at the slaughterhouse were not able to control microbial growth, and subsequently carcass contamination with some zoonotic enteric pathogens such as E. coli and Salmonella spp. using the recommended concentrations of in-use disinfectants. Although the high germicidal power of carbolic acid, it is not recommended to be used inside the slaughterhouses. Recommended carbolic acid (6.5%) and sodium hypochlorite (3%) concentrations failed to achieve the expected efficacy. Correction of carbolic acid and sodium hypochlorite concentrations up to 10%, 8%, respectively is required.

 

A new line and strategies have to be taken in consideration to enhance the cleaning and disinfection procedures in a slaughterhouse, such as considering the usage of green chemistry disinfectants that might have a higher germicidal potential, long term effectiveness and safe to be used inside the slaughterhouses. Others sources of contamination have to be considered during evaluation of the routine cleaning and disinfection program in the slaughterhouse, and in disease control strategies as workers; equipment; air and containers used for transportation of animals to the slaughterhouse.

 

Acknowledgments

 

Prof. Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Aal Sobieh for his tremendous direction during the processing of the work.

 

Authors’ contribution

 

All authors contributed equally in samples collection, reviewing and improving of the manuscript.

 

References

Abdalla MA, Siham E Suliman, Alian YYHA (2009a). Microbial contamination of sheep carcasses at slaughterhouse in Khartoum State. Sud. J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Husb. 48(1-2): 51-56.

Abdalla MA, Suliman SE, Ahmed DE, Bakhiet AO (2009b). Estimation of bacterial contamination of indigenous bovine carcasses in Khartoum (Sudan). Afr. J. Microbiol. Res. 3(12): 882-886.

APHA (2001). American Pharmaceutical Association 148th Annual Meeting. March 16- 20, San Francisco, California.

Bacon RT, Belk KE, Sofos IN, Clayton RP, Reagan JA, Smith GC (2000). Microbial populations on animal hides and beef carcasses at different stages of slaughter in plants employing multiple-sequential interventions for decontamination. J. Food Prot. 63(8): 1080-l086.

Bjergbæk LA, Haagensen JAJ, Molin S, Roslev P (2008). Effect of oxygen limitation and starvation on the benzalkonium chloride susceptibility of Escherichia coli. J. Appl. Microbiol. 105(5): 1310-1317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2672.2008.03901.x

Bloomfield SF, Arther M, Looney E, Begun K, Patel H (1991). Comparative testing of disinfectant and antiseptic products using proposed European suspension testing methods. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 13(5): 233–237. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-765X.1991.tb00617.x

Borch E, Arinder P (2002). Bacteriological safety issues in beef and ready-to-eat meat products, as well as control measures. Meat Sci. 62(3): 381-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00125-0

Brown MR, Collier PJ, Gilbert P (1990). Influence of growth rate on susceptibility to antimicrobial agents: modification of the cell envelope and batch and continuous culture studies. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 34(9):1623-1628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AAC.34.9.1623

Carrique-Mas J, Davies RH (2008). Sampling and bacteriological detection of Salmonella in poultry and poultry premises: A review. Rev. Sci. Tech. 27(3): 665-677. http://dx.doi.org/10.20506/rst.27.3.1829

Cruickshank R, Duguid JP, Marmion BP, Swain RHA (1975). The enterobacteriaceae: Salmonella. In: “Medical Microbiology.” Vol. 11, 12th Edition. Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, London and New York. Pp. 403-419.

Cruickshank R, Duguid JP, Marmion BP, Swain RHA (1980). The Practice of Medical Microbiology Volume 2, 12th Edition, Churchill Livingstone Edinburgh and New York, Pp. 193, 194, 299.

Dickson JS, Anderson ME (1991). Control of Salmonella on beef tissue surfaces in a model system by pre and post-evisceration washing and sanitizing, with and without spray chilling. J. Food Prot. 54(7): 514-518.

Dixon ZR, Acuff GR, Lucia LM, Vanderzant C, Morgan JB, May SG, Savell JW (1991). Effect of degree of sanitation from slaughter through fabrication on the microbiological and sensory characteristics of beef. J. Food Prot. 54(3), 200-207.

Fraise AP, Maillard JY, Sattar S (2008). Russell, Hugo and Ayliffe’s principles and practice of disinfection, preservation and sterilization. 4th Edition. Oxford, UK, Wiley-Blackwell. Pp. 98-127.

Fulekar (Ed.) MH (2009). Bioinformatics: Applications in Life and Environmental Sciences, Springer. Pp. 110. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8880-3

Gill CO, McGinnis JC, Jones T (1999). Assessment of the microbiological conditions of tails, tongues, and head meat at two beef-packing plants. J. Food Prot. 62(6):674-677.

Herigstad B, Hamilton M, Heersink J (2001). How to optimize the drop plate method for enumerating bacteria. J. Microbiol. Meth. 44(2): 121-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7012(00)00241-4

Hoff JC, Akin EW (1986). Microbial resistance to disinfectants: mechanisms and significance. Environ. Hlth. Perspect. 69: 7-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.86697

Levesque R (2007). SPSS Programming and Data Management: A Guide for SPSS and SAS® Users, Fourth Edition, SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.

MacLaren I, Wales A, Breslin M, Davies R (2001). Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of salmonella farm contamination. Avian Pathol. 40(1): 33-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2010.537303

Maillard JY (2002). Bacterial target sites for biocide action. Symp. Ser. Soc. Appl. Microbiol. (31): 16S-27S. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2672.92.5s1.3.x

Marin C, Hernandiz A, Lainez M (2009). Biofilm development capacity of Salmonella strains isolated in poultry risk factors and their resistance against disinfectants. Poult. Sci. 88(2): 424-431. http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/ps.2008-00241

Mosteller TM, Bishop JR (1993). Sanitizer efficacy against attached bacteria in a milk biofilm. J. Food Prot. 56(1): 34–41.

Pepper IL, Josephson KL, Bailey RL, Burr MD, Gerba CP (1993). Survival of indicator organisms in Sonoran Desert soil amended with sewage sludge. J. Environ. Sci. Hlth. A28: 1287-1302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10934529309375943

Rahkio M, Korkeala H (1996). Microbiological contamination of carcasses related to hygiene practice and facilities on slaughtering lines. Acta Vet. Scand. 37(3): 219-228.

Russell AD (2004). Bacterial adaptation and resistance to antiseptics, disinfectants and preservatives is not a new phenomenon. J. Hosp. Infect. 57(2): 97-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2004.01.004

Sander JE, Hofacre CL, Cheng IH, Wyatt RD (2002). Investigation of resistance of bacteria from commercial poultry sources to commercial disinfectants. Avian Dis. 46(4): 997-1000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1637/0005-2086(2002)046[0997:IOROBF]2.0.CO;2

Soliman ES, Taha EG, Sobieh MAA, Reddy PG (2009). Efficacy of some commercial disinfectants on Salmonella enterica serovar typhimurium. Am. J. Anim. Vet. Sci. 4(3): 58-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/ajavsp.2009.58.64

Zelver N, Hamilton M, Pitts B, Goeres D, Walker D, Sturman P, Heersink J (1999). Measuring antimicrobial effects on biofilm bacteria: from laboratory to field. Methods Enzymol. 310: 608-628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0076-6879(99)10047-8