Top

Original Article

Split Viewer

Korean J. Vet. Serv. 2022; 45(4): 277-284

Published online December 30, 2022

https://doi.org/10.7853/kjvs.2022.45.4.277

© The Korean Socitety of Veterinary Service

Synergistic antibacterial effect of disinfectants and microbubble water to Salmonella Typhimurium

Seung-Won Yi , Young-Hun Jung , Sang-Ik Oh , Han Gyu Lee , Yoon Jung Do , Eun-Yeong Bok , Tai-Young Hur , Eunju Kim *

Division of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea

Correspondence to : Eunju Kim
E-mail: keunjunim@korea.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-0474

Received: November 2, 2022; Revised: December 2, 2022; Accepted: December 2, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0). which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Salmonella is a pathogenic bacterium that has long been important industrially because it has a wide host range and can be transmitted to humans through direct contact as well as indirect contact such as food contaminated with animal waste. Understanding how to reduce Salmonella contamination in pig farms is important for public health and the livestock industry from an economic perspective. In the swine industry, high concentrations of disinfectants have been applied because it is difficult to effectively control Salmonella in environments contaminated with organic substances. In order to evaluate the synergetic effect of disinfectants, the efficacy of two commercial disinfectants diluted in hard water and microbubble water (MBW) were compared under the laboratory condition. Different concentrations of both disinfectants combined with 1% detergent diluted in the two diluents were evaluated for their antibacterial effect. In the case of monopersulfate-based disinfectant groups, the growth of Salmonella was not observed at 1:200 dilution with both the hard water and MBW combined with 1% detergent. In the case of citric acid-based disinfectant, the bacterial growth was not observed at 1:800 dilution with MBW combined with 1% detergent. Our results show that the use of MBW as a diluent might improve the biological activities of acid-based disinfectant.

Keywords Disinfectant, Detergent, Microbubble water, Salmonella Typhimurium

Salmonella is gram-negative intracellular pathogenic bacteria that has long been important industrially because it has a wide host range and can be transmitted to humans through direct contact as well as indirect contact such as food contaminated with animal waste (Eng et al, 2015; Heier et al, 2016; Rönnqvist et al, 2018; Ostanello and De Lucia 2020). Animal-derived bacterial infections are a serious public health risk factor as well as an occupational risk for farm workers who come into regular contact with livestock (Fosse et al, 2009; Wales et al, 2011; Snary et al, 2016). Several studies on human Salmonella infections showed that 22% of Dutch cases and 14% of Danish cases were attributed to pork or pork products (Authority 2006; Bonardi 2017). In order to reduce Salmonella contamination in livestock, farm hygiene management through cleaning and disinfection is one of the important factors (Moretro et al, 2009; Andres and Davies 2015). Many studies have emphasized the usefulness of cleaning and disinfection in farms and livestock-related facilities in reducing the level of Salmonella infection in pigs (Andres and Davies, 2015; Martelli et al, 2017; Walia et al 2017). However, the antibacterial efficacy of disinfectants used in farms and livestock facilities is often reduced owing to organic substances such as feces left on surfaces and biofilms produced by bacteria (da Costa Luciano et al, 2016; Skowron et al, 2019). In a swine industry, there is a tendency to use high concentrations of disinfectants because it is difficult to effectively control Salmonella in environments contaminated with organic substances. Such increased use of disinfectant chemicals and their subsequent discharge into wastewater may cause adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems, accumulation on vegetables, and contamination of the food chain via wastewater irrigation and sludge application (Dewey et al, 2021; Subpiramaniyam 2021; Marteinson et al, 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a method that can effectively control pathogens while reducing the amount of disinfectant used.

Microbubble water (MBW) refers to water with gaseous structures comprising either a single gas or mixed gases, with diameter ranging from microns to nanometers, which have extensive uses in waste water purification, drug delivery system, aquaculture, cleaning, and some early industrial applications (Patel et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2022). It finds applications in several fields owing to its unique properties such as longer stability, free radical formation, scouring, surface attraction, and oxidation, which gives benefits such as controlling the pathogen growth and biofilm formation as well as improving the solid/oil/liquid separation processes (Patel et al, 2021). The removal of microbial pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella, foodborne pathogens, as well as pesticides, was reported during washing with MBW with and without additives/oxidizing agents (Zhang et al, 2022). Additionally, a previous study showed that carbon dioxide MBW could significantly improve the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorine and peracetic acid against Escherichia coli and Listeria respectively (Patel et al, 2021). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether MBW as a diluent solution is associated with improving the effectiveness of disinfectants. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the synergy effect of microbubbles, in order to reduce the amount of disinfectant used and to control Salmonella more effectively. The present study was performed: (1) to evaluate the effect of two types of commercial disinfectants mixed with alkaline based detergent; (2) to test the effect of MBW dilutions on the efficacy of disinfectants to inactivate Salmonella Typhimurium.

Preparation of the Salmonella

All potency tests were conducted in accordance with the disinfectant potency test guidelines (Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Quarantine Headquarters notice in Republic of Korea). Salmonella Typhimurium (ATCC 14028) was used in this study. The test strains were distributed in a sterilized nutrient medium and inoculated at 37℃ for 24±2 h before being used. Salmonella suspensions in sterile saline solution were prepared to an optical density equal to 0.5 McFarland standard (approximately 108 CFU/mL).

Preparation of the Disinfectants and Detergent

For this study, we chose two different types of disinfectants: monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V; Virkon-S., Bayer Korea, Seoul, Korea) and citric acid-based disinfectant (F; FARMCARE liquid., CTC Bio Inc., Seoul, Korea). All disinfectants were approved by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (QIA), Korea. Table 1 shows the main components of the disinfectants and detergents used in this study. The detergent used in this study was a foaming alkaline Kenosan farm cleaner (Grifoam, Animed, Gyeonggi., Korea) based on 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol and sodium hydroxide. For the study, the detergent was diluted to 1% concentration according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Table 1 . Chemical compound of the monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) and citric acid-based disinfectant (F)

Ingredient nameContent (g/kg)
Disinfectant (V)Monopersulfate compound500 g
Sodium chloride15 g
Malic acid100 g
Sulfamic acid50 g
Sodium hexametaphosphate181 g
Sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonic acid additives150 g
Disinfectant (F)Quaternary ammonium chloride100 g
Anhydrous citric acid200 g
Phosphoric acid100 g
Excipient (purified water)


Preparation of the organic dilution solution

MBW was produced through a microbubble generator and pre-operated at room temperature 1 h before use. MBW was filtered using a 0.2 μm sterile PES membrane filter and immediately diluted with a test solution. Hard water was prepared by dissolving 0.305 g of anhydrous calcium chloride and 0.139 g of magnesium chloride hexahydrate in 1 L distilled water. It was sterilized at high pressure (121℃, 15 min) and stored at 4℃ before use. To prepare the organic matter/solution, yeast extract was dissolved in hard water to a concentration of 20%. The prepared organic solution was sterilized at high pressure (121℃, 15 min) and stored at 4℃. It was diluted with hard water to form a solution with organic material content of 5%, and its pH was adjusted to 7.0 with 1 N sodium hydroxide. Basic proliferative medium containing 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS) was used as the bacterial neutralization solution. The disinfectant was diluted to 1:100 to 1:1,600 using a sterile organic solution. This was the chosen concentration as the majority of the disinfectants performed well at this ratio, and a weaker concentration was required to determine any synergistic or antagonistic effects when the detergent and disinfectant were combined. After mixing 4 mL of each Salmonella culture in 96 mL of hard water and 5% organic diluent, 2.5 mL of this was extracted and mixed with 2.5 mL of the same amount of disinfectant to react at 4℃ for exactly 30 min and mixed every 10 min. To neutralize the effectiveness of the disinfectant, 1.0 mL of the mixture was immediately taken out and mixed in 9.0 mL of a 37℃ medium (5% organic diluent) and then 0.1 mL was mixed in a test tube containing 2 mL medium. Each solution was tested thrice consecutively and incubated at 37℃ for 48 h.

Estimation of Salmonella growth

The growth of bacteria was confirmed by McFarland Equivalence Turbidity Standards (McFarland, 1907). 0.5 McFarland standard was prepared by adding 85 mL of 1% (w/v) H2SO4 to 0.5 mL of 1.175% (w/v) barium chloride dihydrate (BaCl2.2H2O), made up to 100 mL with deionized water and mixed well. Optical density (OD) was measured at a wavelength of 600 nm using a spectrophotometer. The disinfectant was determined to be effective against Salmonella if no growth was recognized in the three nutritional media based on turbidity. The control group was tested under hard water conditions without a disinfectant, and the pathogen titer was confirmed to be 2×105 CFU/mL or higher in the neutralization reaction stage.

Statistical analysis

All results obtained in this study were statistically analyzed using Student’s t-test and expressed as mean±standard deviation using SPSS ver. 21.0. The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared, and P<0.05 was considered significant.

Table 2 and 3 show that effects of V and F on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups. In case of the hard water, V-disinfectant inactivated Salmonella at a 1:200 dilution ratio, and F inactivated Salmonella at a 1:100 dilution ratio. In this conditions, adding 1% detergent to the disinfectant had no effect on the increase in Salmonella control efficacy. In case of MBW conditions, Salmonella was inactivated 1:400 dilution ratio in the F compared V had no significant effect. The disinfectant is mixed with 1% cleaning agent and diluted in microbubbles. In the V disinfectant, there was no significant difference from the diluted in hard water. In contrast, in the F disinfectant, Salmonella was not detected even at 1:800 dilution ratio, which was the most effective compared to all other conditions in this study.

Table 2 . Effects of monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.72±0.02
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+V0.06±0.02*0.71±0.01*0.73±0.01*0.74±0.01*
MBWMBW+V0.82±0.05*0.83±0.03*0.82±0.04*0.89±0.03*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+V+1% Det0.06±0.03*0.81±0.060.73±0.010.74±0.01
MBWMBW+V+1% Det0.01±0.01*0.93±0.040.88±0.080.72±0.02

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared.

No growth.

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent.



Table 3 . Effects of citric acid-based disinfectant (F) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×100×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.79±0.07
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+F0.01±0.01*0.62±0.02*0.62±0.06*0.72±0.030.73±0.02*
MBWMBW+F0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.03±0.02*0.71±0.050.8±0.02*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+F+1% Det0.04±0.34*0.64±0.02*0.66±0.04*0.7±0.02*0.76±0.08
MBWMBW+F+1% Det0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.76±0.04

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared.

No growth.

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent.


Disinfection is a commonly used crucial aspect of pathogens control in environment. However, products and chemical groups of disinfectant agents vary in their activity against different pathogens (Gosling et al, 2017). Not all disinfectants or disinfectant product formulations are equally effective, and some disinfectants are less effective than others (Cabrera et al, 2017; Gosling et al, 2017). A variety of researchers have extensively reviewed the chemical characteristics and modes of action of disinfectants that are commonly used in livestock units (Cabrera et al, 2017; Jang et al, 2017; Aksoy et al, 2020; Gómez-García et al, 2022). Various efforts have been made to control Salmonella, but it is still challenging to completely eradicate infections. The acid and peroxymonosulfate components are widely used as chemical agents for disinfection and known to have good bactericidal effects, while complying with the regulatory standards of food, livestock industry, and public health (Dibner and Buttin 2002; Mroz 2005; Seo et al, 2013; Bai et al, 2022). The acid-based components could decrease the extension of the lag phase and inhibit the physiological state values of S. Typhimurium when the pH was lower than 4.5. Potassium peroxymonosulfate or potassium monopersulfate is a product widely used disinfectant in a variety of industrial applications (Kunanusont et al, 2020; Moraes et al, 2022).

Many studies highlight the usefulness of cleaning and disinfection in the swine industry to reduce the level of Salmonella in environment. Additionally, several approaches have been investigated however, difficulties in eliminating Salmonella remain. During normal cleaning and disinfection, the recommended protocol for farmers is to allow drying time between the application of a detergent and disinfectant. However, in practice, there is not always sufficient time before the next batch of pigs is due to arrive, to fully adhere to the process. Washing alone had no effect on Salmonella prevalence, with 87.2% (157/180) of swabs having tested as Salmonella-positive; using only detergent after power washing resulted in a reduction in the percentage of Salmonella-positive swabs to 54% (58/108), but results still showed the presence of Salmonella in the facility (Walia et al, 2017).

In this study, we evaluated the effect of a mixture of disinfectant and detergent on Salmonella inactivation and the synergistic effect of microbubbles. Because no study to date has investigated the various combinations with detergent and disinfectants and using MBW as a diluent to eliminate Salmonella. As a predictable result, the concentration of the disinfectant and the type of the mixed solution have a significant impact on the inactivation efficiency of Salmonella. In present study, when only disinfectant was used, the monopersulfate-based disinfectant was evaluated to have a better Salmonella inactivation effect than the citric acid-based one. This These results need to be interpreted carefully. Although both disinfectants showed an effect on Salmonella even at higher dilution rates than the manufacturer’s recommended concentration, it may be different from actual fecal contamination conditions. In spite of previous study (Gosling et al, 2017), the combination of disinfectants and cleaning agents did not increase the effect of Salmonella inactivation compared to that with the use of disinfectants alone in this study. These results differ from previous experimental results, which are thought to be due to differences in the experimental conditions. In previous studies, the test was conducted using the fecal floating model, whereas the organic matter model was used in our study, which may have resulted in lower efficacy of the cleaning agent. In previous studies conducted under fecal contamination conditions, the Salmonella inactivation effect was better when the detergent alone was applied (unpublished). However, when MBW was mixed with disinfectants and a cleaning agent, the Salmonella inactivation effect was improved. MBW rapidly shrinks and collapses upon receiving physical stimuli. The OH free radicals produced by the microbubble collapse are considered to have a bactericidal effect, although the precise mechanism involved remains unknown (Agarwal et al, 2011; Tsuge et al, 2009; Tamaki et al, 2018). MBW produces active oxygen that decomposes toxic compounds, disinfects water, and cleans solid surfaces including membranes. Since the rate of increase in the internal pressure of a microbubble is inversely proportional to its size, a high-pressure spot is eventually created at the final stage of the microbubble collapse (Agarwal et al, 2011). However, Salmonella could not be inactivated when microbubbles were applied alone in this study. On the other hand, when an acidic disinfectant was diluted with MBW, it was much more effective in inactivating Salmonella. when the acidic disinfectant was diluted in MBW, the same antibacterial effect was observed even for higher dilutions of the disinfectant. However, there was no difference in the efficacy of peroxymonosulfate-based disinfectants between hard water conditions and MBW conditions. As a result, for Salmonella control, it may be more effective to use diluted MBW with a low concentration of acid-based disinfectant and a cleaning agent.

Although many studies have been conducted on bacterial inhibition using microbubbles in various industrial fields, there were no studies have evaluated whether MBW is associated with improving the effectiveness of disinfectants.

As our results, when a mixture of a citric acid-based disinfectant and detergent diluted in MBW is used, efficient disinfection of Salmonella can be achieved and the amount of disinfectant used can also be reduced. When the disinfectant alone or in combination with a detergent diluted in hard water is applied, the antibacterial effect achieved is not as optimal. Further studies may be need to evaluate the efficacy of disinfectants according to different level of the organic contamination conditions.

This study was supported by the “Development for biosecurity evaluation method on livestock farms and the pig farm hygiene management method (Project No. PJ015119)”, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

  1. Agarwal A, Liu Y. 2011. Principle and applications of microbubble and nanobubble technology for water treatment. Chemosphere 84:1175-1180.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Aksoy A, 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 Journal of Poultry Science 22:1-12.
    CrossRef
  3. Al-Nabulsi AA, Olaimat AN, Osaili TM, Shaker RR, Elabedeen NZ, Jaradat ZW, Holley RA. 2014. Use of acetic and citric acids to control Salmonella Typhimurium in tahini (sesame paste). Food Microbiology 42:102-108.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Andres VM and Davies RH. 2015. Biosecurity measures to control Salmonella and other infectious agents in pig farms: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 14:317-335.
    CrossRef
  5. Authority EFS. 2006. Opinion of the scientific panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) related to "Risk assessment and mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production". EFSA Journal 4:341.
    CrossRef
  6. Bai Y, Ding X, Zhao Q, Sun H, Li T, Li Z, Wang H, Zhang L, Xu S. 2022. Development of an organic acid compound disinfectant to control food-borne pathogens and its application in chicken slaughterhouses. Poultry Science 101:101842.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Bonardi S. 2017. Salmonella in the pork production chain and its impact on human health in the European Union. Epidemiology & Infection 145:1513-1526.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Cabrera Y, Felipe P. 2017. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of two disinfectants and one detergent with disinfectant action in swine facilities. Computerized Journal of Pig Production 24:228-231.
  9. da Costa Luciano C, Olson N, Alfa M. 2016. Evaluation of the ability of different detergents and disinfectants to remove and kill organisms in traditional biofilm. American Journal of Infection Control 44:e243-e249.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Dewey HM, Jones JM, Budhathoki-Uprety J. 2021. Increased use of disinfectants during the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impacts on health and safety. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 29:27-38.
    CrossRef
  11. Dibner J and Buttin P. 2002. Use of organic acids as a model to study the impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11:453-463.
    CrossRef
  12. Eng S-K, Pusparajah P, Ab Mutalib NS, Ser H-L, Lee L-H. 2015. Salmonella: a review on pathogenesis, epidemiology and antibiotic resistance. Frontiers in Life Science 8:284-293.
    CrossRef
  13. Fosse J, Magras C. 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial food-borne zoonotic hazards in slaughter pigs: a review. Zoonoses and public health 56:429-454.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. 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 Management 8:1-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Gosling R. 2018. A review of cleaning and disinfection studies in farming environments. Livestock 23:232-237.
    CrossRef
  16. Gosling RJ, Mawhinney I, Vaughan K, Smith RP. 2017. Efficacy of disinfectants and detergents intended for a pig farm environment where Salmonella is present. Veterinary microbiology 204:46-53.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Heier BT, Tarpai A, Bergsjø B, Hofshagen M. 2016. The surveillance programmes for Salmonella in live animals, eggs and meat in Norway. 2015:3-8.
  18. Jang Y, Lee K, Yun S, Lee M, Song J, Choe NH. 2017. Efficacy evaluation of commercial disinfectants by using Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium as a test organism. Journal of veterinary science 18:209-216.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Kunanusont N, Punyadarsaniya D, Jantafong T, Pojprasath T, Ruenphet S. 2020. Bactericidal efficacy of potassium peroxymonosulfate under various concentrations, organic material conditions, exposure timing and its application on various surface carriers. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 33:20-324.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Marteinson SC, Lawrence MJ, Taranu ZE, Kosziwka K, Taylor JJ, Green A, Winegardner A, Rytwinski T, Dubetz C. 2022. Increased use of sanitizers and disinfectants during the COVID-19 pandemic: identification of antimicrobial chemicals and considerations for aquatic environmental contamination. Environmental Reviews 31:73-91.
    CrossRef
  21. Martelli F, Lambert M, Butt P, Cheney T, Tatone FA, Callaby R, Rabie A, Gosling RJ, Crocker G. 2017. Evaluation of an enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocol in Salmonella contaminated pig holdings in the United Kingdom. PloS one 12:e0178897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. McFarland J. 1907. The nephelometer: an instrument for estimating the number of bacteria in suspensions used for calculating the opsonic index and for vaccines. Journal of the American Medical Association 49:1176-1178.
    CrossRef
  23. Moraes MA, Oliveira-Silva M, Goulart RS, Gabarra MHC, Miranda CES, Pitondo-Silva A. 2022. Evaluation of new antimicrobial products based on potassium monopersulfate for disinfection of poultry farms. .
    CrossRef
  24. Moretro T, Vestby L, Nesse L, Storheim S, Langsrud S. 2009. Evaluation of efficacy of disinfectants against Salmonella from the feed industry. Journal of Applied Microbiology 106:1005-1012.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Mroz Z. 2005. Organic acids as potential alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters for pigs. Advances in pork production 16:169-182.
  26. Ostanello F and De Languid Lucia A. 2020. On-farm risk factors associated with Salmonella in pig herds. Large Animal Review 26:133-140.
  27. Patel AK, Singhania RR, Chen C-W, Tseng Y-S, Kuo C-H, Di Dong C. 2021. Advances in micro-and nano bubbles technology for application in biochemical processes. Environmental Technology & Innovation 23:101729.
    CrossRef
  28. Rönnqvist M, Välttilä V, Tuominen P. 2018. Salmonella risk to consumers via pork is related to the Salmonella prevalence in pig feed. Food microbiology 71:93-97.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Seo S, Jung D, Wang X, Seo DJ, Lee MH, Choi C. 2013. Combined effect of lactic acid bacteria and citric acid on Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Science and Biotechnology 22:1171-1174.
    CrossRef
  30. Skowron K, Wałecka-Zacharska E, Grudlewska K, Gajewski P, Wiktorczyk N, Wietlicka-Piszcz M, Dudek A, Gospodarek-Komkowska E. 2019. Disinfectant susceptibility of biofilm formed by Listeria monocytogenes under selected environmental conditions. Microorganisms 7:280.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  31. Snary EL, Swart AN, Simons RR, Domingues ARC, Vigre H, Evers EG, Hill AA. 2016. A quantitative microbiological risk assessment for Salmonella in pigs for the European Union. Risk Analysis 36:437-449.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Subpiramaniyam S. 2021. Outdoor disinfectant sprays for the prevention of COVID-19: are they safe for the environment? Science of the Total Environment 759:144289.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Tamaki M, Kobayashi F, Sato M. 2018. Disinfection by ozone microbubbles can cause morphological change of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis spores. The plant pathology journal 34:335.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  34. Tsuge H, Li P, Shimatani N, Shimamura Y, Ohira M. 2009. Fundamental study on disinfection effect of microbubbles. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 35:548-552.
    CrossRef
  35. Wales A, Davies R. 2006. Assessment of cleaning and disinfection in Salmonella-contaminated poultry layer houses using qualitative and semi-quantitative culture techniques. Veterinary Microbiology 116:283-293.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Wales A, Davies R. 2011. Producing Salmonella-free pigs: a review focusing on interventions at weaning. Veterinary Record 168:267-276.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Walia K, Argüello H, Lynch H, Grant J, Leonard FC, Lawlor PG, Duffy G. 2017. The efficacy of different cleaning and disinfection procedures to reduce Salmonella and Enterobacteriaceae in the lairage environment of a pig abattoir. International Journal of Food Microbiology 246:64-71.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Zhang ZH, Wang S, Cheng L, Ma H, Gao X, Yan J-K. 2022. Micro-nano-bubble technology and its applications in food industry: a critical review. Food Reviews International: 1-23.
    CrossRef

Article

Original Article

Korean J. Vet. Serv. 2022; 45(4): 277-284

Published online December 30, 2022 https://doi.org/10.7853/kjvs.2022.45.4.277

Copyright © The Korean Socitety of Veterinary Service.

Synergistic antibacterial effect of disinfectants and microbubble water to Salmonella Typhimurium

Seung-Won Yi , Young-Hun Jung , Sang-Ik Oh , Han Gyu Lee , Yoon Jung Do , Eun-Yeong Bok , Tai-Young Hur , Eunju Kim *

Division of Animal Diseases & Health, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea

Correspondence to:Eunju Kim
E-mail: keunjunim@korea.kr
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4040-0474

Received: November 2, 2022; Revised: December 2, 2022; Accepted: December 2, 2022

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0). which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Salmonella is a pathogenic bacterium that has long been important industrially because it has a wide host range and can be transmitted to humans through direct contact as well as indirect contact such as food contaminated with animal waste. Understanding how to reduce Salmonella contamination in pig farms is important for public health and the livestock industry from an economic perspective. In the swine industry, high concentrations of disinfectants have been applied because it is difficult to effectively control Salmonella in environments contaminated with organic substances. In order to evaluate the synergetic effect of disinfectants, the efficacy of two commercial disinfectants diluted in hard water and microbubble water (MBW) were compared under the laboratory condition. Different concentrations of both disinfectants combined with 1% detergent diluted in the two diluents were evaluated for their antibacterial effect. In the case of monopersulfate-based disinfectant groups, the growth of Salmonella was not observed at 1:200 dilution with both the hard water and MBW combined with 1% detergent. In the case of citric acid-based disinfectant, the bacterial growth was not observed at 1:800 dilution with MBW combined with 1% detergent. Our results show that the use of MBW as a diluent might improve the biological activities of acid-based disinfectant.

Keywords: Disinfectant, Detergent, Microbubble water, Salmonella Typhimurium

INTRODUCTION

Salmonella is gram-negative intracellular pathogenic bacteria that has long been important industrially because it has a wide host range and can be transmitted to humans through direct contact as well as indirect contact such as food contaminated with animal waste (Eng et al, 2015; Heier et al, 2016; Rönnqvist et al, 2018; Ostanello and De Lucia 2020). Animal-derived bacterial infections are a serious public health risk factor as well as an occupational risk for farm workers who come into regular contact with livestock (Fosse et al, 2009; Wales et al, 2011; Snary et al, 2016). Several studies on human Salmonella infections showed that 22% of Dutch cases and 14% of Danish cases were attributed to pork or pork products (Authority 2006; Bonardi 2017). In order to reduce Salmonella contamination in livestock, farm hygiene management through cleaning and disinfection is one of the important factors (Moretro et al, 2009; Andres and Davies 2015). Many studies have emphasized the usefulness of cleaning and disinfection in farms and livestock-related facilities in reducing the level of Salmonella infection in pigs (Andres and Davies, 2015; Martelli et al, 2017; Walia et al 2017). However, the antibacterial efficacy of disinfectants used in farms and livestock facilities is often reduced owing to organic substances such as feces left on surfaces and biofilms produced by bacteria (da Costa Luciano et al, 2016; Skowron et al, 2019). In a swine industry, there is a tendency to use high concentrations of disinfectants because it is difficult to effectively control Salmonella in environments contaminated with organic substances. Such increased use of disinfectant chemicals and their subsequent discharge into wastewater may cause adverse impacts on aquatic ecosystems, accumulation on vegetables, and contamination of the food chain via wastewater irrigation and sludge application (Dewey et al, 2021; Subpiramaniyam 2021; Marteinson et al, 2022). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a method that can effectively control pathogens while reducing the amount of disinfectant used.

Microbubble water (MBW) refers to water with gaseous structures comprising either a single gas or mixed gases, with diameter ranging from microns to nanometers, which have extensive uses in waste water purification, drug delivery system, aquaculture, cleaning, and some early industrial applications (Patel et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2022). It finds applications in several fields owing to its unique properties such as longer stability, free radical formation, scouring, surface attraction, and oxidation, which gives benefits such as controlling the pathogen growth and biofilm formation as well as improving the solid/oil/liquid separation processes (Patel et al, 2021). The removal of microbial pathogens such as Escherichia coli and Salmonella, foodborne pathogens, as well as pesticides, was reported during washing with MBW with and without additives/oxidizing agents (Zhang et al, 2022). Additionally, a previous study showed that carbon dioxide MBW could significantly improve the antimicrobial efficacy of chlorine and peracetic acid against Escherichia coli and Listeria respectively (Patel et al, 2021). To the best of our knowledge, no studies have evaluated whether MBW as a diluent solution is associated with improving the effectiveness of disinfectants. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the synergy effect of microbubbles, in order to reduce the amount of disinfectant used and to control Salmonella more effectively. The present study was performed: (1) to evaluate the effect of two types of commercial disinfectants mixed with alkaline based detergent; (2) to test the effect of MBW dilutions on the efficacy of disinfectants to inactivate Salmonella Typhimurium.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preparation of the Salmonella

All potency tests were conducted in accordance with the disinfectant potency test guidelines (Ministry of the Agriculture, Forestry and Livestock Quarantine Headquarters notice in Republic of Korea). Salmonella Typhimurium (ATCC 14028) was used in this study. The test strains were distributed in a sterilized nutrient medium and inoculated at 37℃ for 24±2 h before being used. Salmonella suspensions in sterile saline solution were prepared to an optical density equal to 0.5 McFarland standard (approximately 108 CFU/mL).

Preparation of the Disinfectants and Detergent

For this study, we chose two different types of disinfectants: monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V; Virkon-S., Bayer Korea, Seoul, Korea) and citric acid-based disinfectant (F; FARMCARE liquid., CTC Bio Inc., Seoul, Korea). All disinfectants were approved by the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (QIA), Korea. Table 1 shows the main components of the disinfectants and detergents used in this study. The detergent used in this study was a foaming alkaline Kenosan farm cleaner (Grifoam, Animed, Gyeonggi., Korea) based on 2-(2-butoxyethoxy) ethanol and sodium hydroxide. For the study, the detergent was diluted to 1% concentration according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

Table 1 . Chemical compound of the monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) and citric acid-based disinfectant (F).

Ingredient nameContent (g/kg)
Disinfectant (V)Monopersulfate compound500 g
Sodium chloride15 g
Malic acid100 g
Sulfamic acid50 g
Sodium hexametaphosphate181 g
Sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonic acid additives150 g
Disinfectant (F)Quaternary ammonium chloride100 g
Anhydrous citric acid200 g
Phosphoric acid100 g
Excipient (purified water)


Preparation of the organic dilution solution

MBW was produced through a microbubble generator and pre-operated at room temperature 1 h before use. MBW was filtered using a 0.2 μm sterile PES membrane filter and immediately diluted with a test solution. Hard water was prepared by dissolving 0.305 g of anhydrous calcium chloride and 0.139 g of magnesium chloride hexahydrate in 1 L distilled water. It was sterilized at high pressure (121℃, 15 min) and stored at 4℃ before use. To prepare the organic matter/solution, yeast extract was dissolved in hard water to a concentration of 20%. The prepared organic solution was sterilized at high pressure (121℃, 15 min) and stored at 4℃. It was diluted with hard water to form a solution with organic material content of 5%, and its pH was adjusted to 7.0 with 1 N sodium hydroxide. Basic proliferative medium containing 5% fetal bovine serum (FBS) was used as the bacterial neutralization solution. The disinfectant was diluted to 1:100 to 1:1,600 using a sterile organic solution. This was the chosen concentration as the majority of the disinfectants performed well at this ratio, and a weaker concentration was required to determine any synergistic or antagonistic effects when the detergent and disinfectant were combined. After mixing 4 mL of each Salmonella culture in 96 mL of hard water and 5% organic diluent, 2.5 mL of this was extracted and mixed with 2.5 mL of the same amount of disinfectant to react at 4℃ for exactly 30 min and mixed every 10 min. To neutralize the effectiveness of the disinfectant, 1.0 mL of the mixture was immediately taken out and mixed in 9.0 mL of a 37℃ medium (5% organic diluent) and then 0.1 mL was mixed in a test tube containing 2 mL medium. Each solution was tested thrice consecutively and incubated at 37℃ for 48 h.

Estimation of Salmonella growth

The growth of bacteria was confirmed by McFarland Equivalence Turbidity Standards (McFarland, 1907). 0.5 McFarland standard was prepared by adding 85 mL of 1% (w/v) H2SO4 to 0.5 mL of 1.175% (w/v) barium chloride dihydrate (BaCl2.2H2O), made up to 100 mL with deionized water and mixed well. Optical density (OD) was measured at a wavelength of 600 nm using a spectrophotometer. The disinfectant was determined to be effective against Salmonella if no growth was recognized in the three nutritional media based on turbidity. The control group was tested under hard water conditions without a disinfectant, and the pathogen titer was confirmed to be 2×105 CFU/mL or higher in the neutralization reaction stage.

Statistical analysis

All results obtained in this study were statistically analyzed using Student’s t-test and expressed as mean±standard deviation using SPSS ver. 21.0. The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared, and P<0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

Table 2 and 3 show that effects of V and F on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups. In case of the hard water, V-disinfectant inactivated Salmonella at a 1:200 dilution ratio, and F inactivated Salmonella at a 1:100 dilution ratio. In this conditions, adding 1% detergent to the disinfectant had no effect on the increase in Salmonella control efficacy. In case of MBW conditions, Salmonella was inactivated 1:400 dilution ratio in the F compared V had no significant effect. The disinfectant is mixed with 1% cleaning agent and diluted in microbubbles. In the V disinfectant, there was no significant difference from the diluted in hard water. In contrast, in the F disinfectant, Salmonella was not detected even at 1:800 dilution ratio, which was the most effective compared to all other conditions in this study.

Table 2 . Effects of monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups.

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.72±0.02
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+V0.06±0.02*0.71±0.01*0.73±0.01*0.74±0.01*
MBWMBW+V0.82±0.05*0.83±0.03*0.82±0.04*0.89±0.03*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+V+1% Det0.06±0.03*0.81±0.060.73±0.010.74±0.01
MBWMBW+V+1% Det0.01±0.01*0.93±0.040.88±0.080.72±0.02

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared..

No growth..

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent..



Table 3 . Effects of citric acid-based disinfectant (F) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups.

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×100×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.79±0.07
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+F0.01±0.01*0.62±0.02*0.62±0.06*0.72±0.030.73±0.02*
MBWMBW+F0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.03±0.02*0.71±0.050.8±0.02*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+F+1% Det0.04±0.34*0.64±0.02*0.66±0.04*0.7±0.02*0.76±0.08
MBWMBW+F+1% Det0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.76±0.04

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared..

No growth..

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent..


DISCUSSION

Disinfection is a commonly used crucial aspect of pathogens control in environment. However, products and chemical groups of disinfectant agents vary in their activity against different pathogens (Gosling et al, 2017). Not all disinfectants or disinfectant product formulations are equally effective, and some disinfectants are less effective than others (Cabrera et al, 2017; Gosling et al, 2017). A variety of researchers have extensively reviewed the chemical characteristics and modes of action of disinfectants that are commonly used in livestock units (Cabrera et al, 2017; Jang et al, 2017; Aksoy et al, 2020; Gómez-García et al, 2022). Various efforts have been made to control Salmonella, but it is still challenging to completely eradicate infections. The acid and peroxymonosulfate components are widely used as chemical agents for disinfection and known to have good bactericidal effects, while complying with the regulatory standards of food, livestock industry, and public health (Dibner and Buttin 2002; Mroz 2005; Seo et al, 2013; Bai et al, 2022). The acid-based components could decrease the extension of the lag phase and inhibit the physiological state values of S. Typhimurium when the pH was lower than 4.5. Potassium peroxymonosulfate or potassium monopersulfate is a product widely used disinfectant in a variety of industrial applications (Kunanusont et al, 2020; Moraes et al, 2022).

Many studies highlight the usefulness of cleaning and disinfection in the swine industry to reduce the level of Salmonella in environment. Additionally, several approaches have been investigated however, difficulties in eliminating Salmonella remain. During normal cleaning and disinfection, the recommended protocol for farmers is to allow drying time between the application of a detergent and disinfectant. However, in practice, there is not always sufficient time before the next batch of pigs is due to arrive, to fully adhere to the process. Washing alone had no effect on Salmonella prevalence, with 87.2% (157/180) of swabs having tested as Salmonella-positive; using only detergent after power washing resulted in a reduction in the percentage of Salmonella-positive swabs to 54% (58/108), but results still showed the presence of Salmonella in the facility (Walia et al, 2017).

In this study, we evaluated the effect of a mixture of disinfectant and detergent on Salmonella inactivation and the synergistic effect of microbubbles. Because no study to date has investigated the various combinations with detergent and disinfectants and using MBW as a diluent to eliminate Salmonella. As a predictable result, the concentration of the disinfectant and the type of the mixed solution have a significant impact on the inactivation efficiency of Salmonella. In present study, when only disinfectant was used, the monopersulfate-based disinfectant was evaluated to have a better Salmonella inactivation effect than the citric acid-based one. This These results need to be interpreted carefully. Although both disinfectants showed an effect on Salmonella even at higher dilution rates than the manufacturer’s recommended concentration, it may be different from actual fecal contamination conditions. In spite of previous study (Gosling et al, 2017), the combination of disinfectants and cleaning agents did not increase the effect of Salmonella inactivation compared to that with the use of disinfectants alone in this study. These results differ from previous experimental results, which are thought to be due to differences in the experimental conditions. In previous studies, the test was conducted using the fecal floating model, whereas the organic matter model was used in our study, which may have resulted in lower efficacy of the cleaning agent. In previous studies conducted under fecal contamination conditions, the Salmonella inactivation effect was better when the detergent alone was applied (unpublished). However, when MBW was mixed with disinfectants and a cleaning agent, the Salmonella inactivation effect was improved. MBW rapidly shrinks and collapses upon receiving physical stimuli. The OH free radicals produced by the microbubble collapse are considered to have a bactericidal effect, although the precise mechanism involved remains unknown (Agarwal et al, 2011; Tsuge et al, 2009; Tamaki et al, 2018). MBW produces active oxygen that decomposes toxic compounds, disinfects water, and cleans solid surfaces including membranes. Since the rate of increase in the internal pressure of a microbubble is inversely proportional to its size, a high-pressure spot is eventually created at the final stage of the microbubble collapse (Agarwal et al, 2011). However, Salmonella could not be inactivated when microbubbles were applied alone in this study. On the other hand, when an acidic disinfectant was diluted with MBW, it was much more effective in inactivating Salmonella. when the acidic disinfectant was diluted in MBW, the same antibacterial effect was observed even for higher dilutions of the disinfectant. However, there was no difference in the efficacy of peroxymonosulfate-based disinfectants between hard water conditions and MBW conditions. As a result, for Salmonella control, it may be more effective to use diluted MBW with a low concentration of acid-based disinfectant and a cleaning agent.

CONCLUSION

Although many studies have been conducted on bacterial inhibition using microbubbles in various industrial fields, there were no studies have evaluated whether MBW is associated with improving the effectiveness of disinfectants.

As our results, when a mixture of a citric acid-based disinfectant and detergent diluted in MBW is used, efficient disinfection of Salmonella can be achieved and the amount of disinfectant used can also be reduced. When the disinfectant alone or in combination with a detergent diluted in hard water is applied, the antibacterial effect achieved is not as optimal. Further studies may be need to evaluate the efficacy of disinfectants according to different level of the organic contamination conditions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study was supported by the “Development for biosecurity evaluation method on livestock farms and the pig farm hygiene management method (Project No. PJ015119)”, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Table 1 . Chemical compound of the monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) and citric acid-based disinfectant (F).

Ingredient nameContent (g/kg)
Disinfectant (V)Monopersulfate compound500 g
Sodium chloride15 g
Malic acid100 g
Sulfamic acid50 g
Sodium hexametaphosphate181 g
Sodium dodecyl benzene sulphonic acid additives150 g
Disinfectant (F)Quaternary ammonium chloride100 g
Anhydrous citric acid200 g
Phosphoric acid100 g
Excipient (purified water)

Table 2 . Effects of monopersulfate-based disinfectant (V) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups.

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.72±0.02
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+V0.06±0.02*0.71±0.01*0.73±0.01*0.74±0.01*
MBWMBW+V0.82±0.05*0.83±0.03*0.82±0.04*0.89±0.03*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+V+1% Det0.06±0.03*0.81±0.060.73±0.010.74±0.01
MBWMBW+V+1% Det0.01±0.01*0.93±0.040.88±0.080.72±0.02

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared..

No growth..

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent..


Table 3 . Effects of citric acid-based disinfectant (F) on Salmonella inactivation in each treatment groups.

DisinfectantDiluentGroup×1×100×200×400×800×1,600
Control0.79±0.07
DetergentHWHW+1% Det0.8±0.06
MBWMBW+1% Det0.8±0.02
DisinfectantHWHW+F0.01±0.01*0.62±0.02*0.62±0.06*0.72±0.030.73±0.02*
MBWMBW+F0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.03±0.02*0.71±0.050.8±0.02*
Detergent+DisinfectantHWHW+F+1% Det0.04±0.34*0.64±0.02*0.66±0.04*0.7±0.02*0.76±0.08
MBWMBW+F+1% Det0.02±0.01*0.02±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.01±0.01*0.76±0.04

*P<0.05; The different mean values of the diluents, hard water and MBW, were compared..

No growth..

HW, hard water; MBW, microbubble water; Det, detergent..


References

  1. Agarwal A, Liu Y. 2011. Principle and applications of microbubble and nanobubble technology for water treatment. Chemosphere 84:1175-1180.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  2. Aksoy A, 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 Journal of Poultry Science 22:1-12.
    CrossRef
  3. Al-Nabulsi AA, Olaimat AN, Osaili TM, Shaker RR, Elabedeen NZ, Jaradat ZW, Holley RA. 2014. Use of acetic and citric acids to control Salmonella Typhimurium in tahini (sesame paste). Food Microbiology 42:102-108.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  4. Andres VM and Davies RH. 2015. Biosecurity measures to control Salmonella and other infectious agents in pig farms: a review. Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety 14:317-335.
    CrossRef
  5. Authority EFS. 2006. Opinion of the scientific panel on biological hazards (BIOHAZ) related to "Risk assessment and mitigation options of Salmonella in pig production". EFSA Journal 4:341.
    CrossRef
  6. Bai Y, Ding X, Zhao Q, Sun H, Li T, Li Z, Wang H, Zhang L, Xu S. 2022. Development of an organic acid compound disinfectant to control food-borne pathogens and its application in chicken slaughterhouses. Poultry Science 101:101842.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  7. Bonardi S. 2017. Salmonella in the pork production chain and its impact on human health in the European Union. Epidemiology & Infection 145:1513-1526.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  8. Cabrera Y, Felipe P. 2017. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of two disinfectants and one detergent with disinfectant action in swine facilities. Computerized Journal of Pig Production 24:228-231.
  9. da Costa Luciano C, Olson N, Alfa M. 2016. Evaluation of the ability of different detergents and disinfectants to remove and kill organisms in traditional biofilm. American Journal of Infection Control 44:e243-e249.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  10. Dewey HM, Jones JM, Budhathoki-Uprety J. 2021. Increased use of disinfectants during the COVID-19 pandemic and its potential impacts on health and safety. ACS Chemical Health & Safety 29:27-38.
    CrossRef
  11. Dibner J and Buttin P. 2002. Use of organic acids as a model to study the impact of gut microflora on nutrition and metabolism. Journal of Applied Poultry Research 11:453-463.
    CrossRef
  12. Eng S-K, Pusparajah P, Ab Mutalib NS, Ser H-L, Lee L-H. 2015. Salmonella: a review on pathogenesis, epidemiology and antibiotic resistance. Frontiers in Life Science 8:284-293.
    CrossRef
  13. Fosse J, Magras C. 2009. Prevalence and risk factors for bacterial food-borne zoonotic hazards in slaughter pigs: a review. Zoonoses and public health 56:429-454.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  14. 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 Management 8:1-8.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  15. Gosling R. 2018. A review of cleaning and disinfection studies in farming environments. Livestock 23:232-237.
    CrossRef
  16. Gosling RJ, Mawhinney I, Vaughan K, Smith RP. 2017. Efficacy of disinfectants and detergents intended for a pig farm environment where Salmonella is present. Veterinary microbiology 204:46-53.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  17. Heier BT, Tarpai A, Bergsjø B, Hofshagen M. 2016. The surveillance programmes for Salmonella in live animals, eggs and meat in Norway. 2015:3-8.
  18. Jang Y, Lee K, Yun S, Lee M, Song J, Choe NH. 2017. Efficacy evaluation of commercial disinfectants by using Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium as a test organism. Journal of veterinary science 18:209-216.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  19. Kunanusont N, Punyadarsaniya D, Jantafong T, Pojprasath T, Ruenphet S. 2020. Bactericidal efficacy of potassium peroxymonosulfate under various concentrations, organic material conditions, exposure timing and its application on various surface carriers. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 33:20-324.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  20. Marteinson SC, Lawrence MJ, Taranu ZE, Kosziwka K, Taylor JJ, Green A, Winegardner A, Rytwinski T, Dubetz C. 2022. Increased use of sanitizers and disinfectants during the COVID-19 pandemic: identification of antimicrobial chemicals and considerations for aquatic environmental contamination. Environmental Reviews 31:73-91.
    CrossRef
  21. Martelli F, Lambert M, Butt P, Cheney T, Tatone FA, Callaby R, Rabie A, Gosling RJ, Crocker G. 2017. Evaluation of an enhanced cleaning and disinfection protocol in Salmonella contaminated pig holdings in the United Kingdom. PloS one 12:e0178897.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  22. McFarland J. 1907. The nephelometer: an instrument for estimating the number of bacteria in suspensions used for calculating the opsonic index and for vaccines. Journal of the American Medical Association 49:1176-1178.
    CrossRef
  23. Moraes MA, Oliveira-Silva M, Goulart RS, Gabarra MHC, Miranda CES, Pitondo-Silva A. 2022. Evaluation of new antimicrobial products based on potassium monopersulfate for disinfection of poultry farms. .
    CrossRef
  24. Moretro T, Vestby L, Nesse L, Storheim S, Langsrud S. 2009. Evaluation of efficacy of disinfectants against Salmonella from the feed industry. Journal of Applied Microbiology 106:1005-1012.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  25. Mroz Z. 2005. Organic acids as potential alternatives to antibiotic growth promoters for pigs. Advances in pork production 16:169-182.
  26. Ostanello F and De Languid Lucia A. 2020. On-farm risk factors associated with Salmonella in pig herds. Large Animal Review 26:133-140.
  27. Patel AK, Singhania RR, Chen C-W, Tseng Y-S, Kuo C-H, Di Dong C. 2021. Advances in micro-and nano bubbles technology for application in biochemical processes. Environmental Technology & Innovation 23:101729.
    CrossRef
  28. Rönnqvist M, Välttilä V, Tuominen P. 2018. Salmonella risk to consumers via pork is related to the Salmonella prevalence in pig feed. Food microbiology 71:93-97.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  29. Seo S, Jung D, Wang X, Seo DJ, Lee MH, Choi C. 2013. Combined effect of lactic acid bacteria and citric acid on Escherichia coli O157: H7 and Salmonella Typhimurium. Food Science and Biotechnology 22:1171-1174.
    CrossRef
  30. Skowron K, Wałecka-Zacharska E, Grudlewska K, Gajewski P, Wiktorczyk N, Wietlicka-Piszcz M, Dudek A, Gospodarek-Komkowska E. 2019. Disinfectant susceptibility of biofilm formed by Listeria monocytogenes under selected environmental conditions. Microorganisms 7:280.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  31. Snary EL, Swart AN, Simons RR, Domingues ARC, Vigre H, Evers EG, Hill AA. 2016. A quantitative microbiological risk assessment for Salmonella in pigs for the European Union. Risk Analysis 36:437-449.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  32. Subpiramaniyam S. 2021. Outdoor disinfectant sprays for the prevention of COVID-19: are they safe for the environment? Science of the Total Environment 759:144289.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  33. Tamaki M, Kobayashi F, Sato M. 2018. Disinfection by ozone microbubbles can cause morphological change of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. melonis spores. The plant pathology journal 34:335.
    Pubmed KoreaMed CrossRef
  34. Tsuge H, Li P, Shimatani N, Shimamura Y, Ohira M. 2009. Fundamental study on disinfection effect of microbubbles. Kagaku Kogaku Ronbunshu 35:548-552.
    CrossRef
  35. Wales A, Davies R. 2006. Assessment of cleaning and disinfection in Salmonella-contaminated poultry layer houses using qualitative and semi-quantitative culture techniques. Veterinary Microbiology 116:283-293.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  36. Wales A, Davies R. 2011. Producing Salmonella-free pigs: a review focusing on interventions at weaning. Veterinary Record 168:267-276.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  37. Walia K, Argüello H, Lynch H, Grant J, Leonard FC, Lawlor PG, Duffy G. 2017. The efficacy of different cleaning and disinfection procedures to reduce Salmonella and Enterobacteriaceae in the lairage environment of a pig abattoir. International Journal of Food Microbiology 246:64-71.
    Pubmed CrossRef
  38. Zhang ZH, Wang S, Cheng L, Ma H, Gao X, Yan J-K. 2022. Micro-nano-bubble technology and its applications in food industry: a critical review. Food Reviews International: 1-23.
    CrossRef
KJVS
Dec 30, 2022 Vol.45 No.4, pp. 249~342

Stats or Metrics

Share this article on

  • line
  • mail

Korean Journal of
Veterinary Service

eISSN 2287-7630
pISSN 1225-6552
qr-code Download