Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination

Two experimental models of Salmonella contamination were used in an attempt to mimic the conditions of disinfectant use on farms. A wet model, for conditions such as boot dips, used disinfectant application to a slurry of poultry faeces inoculated with Salmonella Enteritidis or Salmonella Typhimurium. A dry model, for disinfectant application to surfaces and equipment with adherent or residual organic material, used Salmonella-inoculated poultry faeces that were air-dried onto wooden dowels, immersed in disinfectant solution then left in air at room temperature overnight. All samples were subjected to a disinfectant neutralization step and resuscitation in broth, followed by Salmonella culture on semi-solid then indicator media. Disinfectants were tested at 0.5x, 1x and 2x the concentrations specified for the general control of bacterial pathogens on livestock premises in the UK (Defra General Orders rates). Chlorocresol-based disinfectants provided consistently high rates of Salmonella killing in both wet and dry tests. Formaldehyde-containing disinfectants showed very high efficacy in the dry test but were less effective in the shorter wet test, whereas the efficacy of glutaraldehyde without formaldehyde was variable between products. Other chemical classes tested (quaternary ammonium compounds, amphoteric surfactants, iodine preparations, peroxygens and a substituted phenol blend) were only moderately effective. They often required concentrations above General Orders rates to eliminate the test salmonellas, and frequently elimination was not achieved even under maximal conditions of concentration and exposure.

[1]  S. Gorman,et al.  Antimicrobial activity, uses and mechanism of action of glutaraldehyde. , 1980, The Journal of applied bacteriology.

[2]  S. Denyer,et al.  Mechanisms of action of disinfectants , 1998 .

[3]  Jean-Yves Maillard,et al.  Russell, Hugo and Ayliffe's Principles and Practice of Disinfection, Preservation and Sterilization: Fourth Edition , 2008 .

[4]  A. Cremieux,et al.  Antibacterial activity of phenolic compounds and aromatic alcohols. , 1990, Research in microbiology.

[5]  R. Davies,et al.  Assessment of cleaning and disinfection in Salmonella-contaminated poultry layer houses using qualitative and semi-quantitative culture techniques. , 2006, Veterinary microbiology.

[6]  R H Davies,et al.  Observations on disinfection regimens used on Salmonella enteritidis infected poultry units. , 1995, Poultry science.

[7]  P. B. Lynch,et al.  Efficacy of cleaning and disinfection on pig farms in Ireland , 2007, Veterinary Record.

[8]  C. Hofacre,et al.  Investigation of Resistance of Bacteria from Commercial Poultry Sources to Commercial Disinfectants , 2002, Avian diseases.

[9]  S. Farr,et al.  Oxidative stress responses in Escherichia coli and Salmonella typhimurium. , 1991, Microbiological reviews.

[10]  A. D. Russell,et al.  Antiseptics and Disinfectants: Activity, Action, and Resistance , 2001, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[11]  R. Davies,et al.  Longitudinal survey of the occurrence of Salmonella in pigs and the environment of nucleus breeder and multiplier pig herds in England , 2009, Veterinary Record.

[12]  M. R. Brown,et al.  Influence of growth rate on susceptibility to antimicrobial agents: modification of the cell envelope and batch and continuous culture studies , 1990, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[13]  M. Nawaz,et al.  Isolation and molecular characterization of fluoroquinolone-resistant Escherichia coli from poultry litter. , 2005, Poultry science.

[14]  T. Møretrø,et al.  Evaluation of efficacy of disinfectants against Salmonella from the feed industry , 2009, Journal of applied microbiology.

[15]  E. Soliman,et al.  Efficacy of Some Commercial Chemical Disinfectants on Salmonella enterica Serovar Typhimurium , 2009 .

[16]  F. Aarestrup,et al.  Susceptibility of different bacterial species isolated from food animals to copper sulphate, zinc chloride and antimicrobial substances used for disinfection. , 2004, Veterinary microbiology.

[17]  J. Carey,et al.  Evaluation of disinfectants commonly used by the commercial poultry industry under simulated field conditions. , 2009, Poultry science.

[18]  K. Gradel,et al.  Possible associations between Salmonella persistence in poultry houses and resistance to commonly used disinfectants and a putative role of mar. , 2005, Veterinary microbiology.

[19]  F. Barras,et al.  Redundant Hydrogen Peroxide Scavengers Contribute to Salmonella Virulence and Oxidative Stress Resistance , 2009, Journal of bacteriology.

[20]  S. Gandy Perspective: Prevention is better than cure , 2011, Nature.

[21]  R H Davies,et al.  A comparison of the efficacy of different disinfection methods in eliminating Salmonella contamination from turkey houses , 2009, Journal of applied microbiology.

[22]  M. Webber,et al.  Prolonged treatment of Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium with commercial disinfectants selects for multiple antibiotic resistance, increased efflux and reduced invasiveness. , 2007, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[23]  L. Piddock,et al.  Commonly used farm disinfectants can select for mutant Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium with decreased susceptibility to biocides and antibiotics without compromising virulence. , 2007, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[24]  R. Davies,et al.  A comparison of the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection methods in eliminating Salmonella spp. from commercial egg laying houses , 2009, Avian pathology : journal of the W.V.P.A.

[25]  J. C. Hoff,et al.  Microbial resistance to disinfectants: mechanisms and significance. , 1986, Environmental health perspectives.

[26]  Ivan Erill,et al.  Aeons of distress: an evolutionary perspective on the bacterial SOS response. , 2007, FEMS microbiology reviews.

[27]  A. Russell Factors Influencing the Efficacy of Antimicrobial Agents , 2008 .

[28]  S. Denyer Mechanisms of action of biocides , 1990 .

[29]  R H Davies,et al.  Surface disinfection tests with Salmonella and a putative indicator bacterium, mimicking worst-case scenarios in poultry houses. , 2004, Poultry science.

[30]  S. Belkin,et al.  Hypochlorous acid activates the heat shock and soxRS systems of Escherichia coli , 1996, Applied and environmental microbiology.

[31]  R. Davies,et al.  Sampling and bacteriological detection of Salmonella in poultry and poultry premises: a review. , 2008, Revue scientifique et technique.

[32]  L. McMullen,et al.  A Microbiological Assessment of On-Farm Food Safety Cleaning Methods in Broiler Barns , 2006 .

[33]  P. Roslev,et al.  Effect of oxygen limitation and starvation on the benzalkonium chloride susceptibility of Escherichia coli , 2008, Journal of applied microbiology.

[34]  E. Bessems THE EFFECT OF PRACTICAL CONDITIONS ON THE EFFICACY OF DISINFECTANTS , 1998 .

[35]  J. Chapman Biocide resistance mechanisms , 2003 .

[36]  R. Eckroade,et al.  Evaluation of disinfectants against Salmonella enteritidis. , 1996, Avian diseases.

[37]  J. Costerton,et al.  Extrapolating to bacterial life outside the test tube. , 1991, The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy.

[38]  A. Ruys [Surface disinfection]. , 1954, Nederlands tijdschrift voor geneeskunde.

[39]  R. Chuanchuen,et al.  Susceptibilities to antimicrobials and disinfectants in Salmonella isolates obtained from poultry and swine in Thailand. , 2008, The Journal of veterinary medical science.

[40]  R. Cozens,et al.  Effect of nutrient depletion on the sensitivity of Pseudomonas cepacia to antimicrobial agents. , 1983, Journal of pharmaceutical sciences.