Evaluation of disinfetant

2005 Poultry Science Association, Inc.
Evaluation of Disinfectant Efficacy
When Applied to the Floor of Poultry
Grow-Out Facilities
J. B. Payne,* E. C. Kroger,† and S. E. Watkins†,1
*Department of Poultry Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh,
North Carolina 27695-7635; and †Center of Excellence for Poultry Science,
University of Arkansas, POSC O-114 Poultry Science, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701
Primary Audience: Researchers, Veterinarians, Production Managers
SUMMARY
A common practice is to wash and disinfect poultry grow-out barns after used litter has been
removed. Because the floor of poultry barns includes the presence of soil and organic matter, a
study was conducted to determine if disinfectants are effective in reducing bacterial and fungal
populations. Commercial broiler houses were chosen as the test sites for the field trials. After the
litter was removed from the facility, the floor was swept clean in the middle of the barn and
between feed and water lines. Floor plots (1 ft2
) were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 disinfectant
treatments. The disinfectants evaluated were a phenolic compound, a quaternary ammonium
compound, a nascent oxygen compound, and a compound that contains potassium
peroxymonosulfate and sodium chloride as the active ingredients. Laboratory trials were also
conducted to test the same 4 disinfectants. Nalidixic acid-resistant Salmonella Typhimurium (NAL-
SAL) was inoculated onto sterile topsoil in metal pans. Each disinfectant was applied as a coarse
spray (field trials) or via pipette (laboratory trials), and surface samples were taken over time.
Samples were cultured to determine total aerobic bacterial plate counts, yeast and mold counts,
and the prevalence of Campylobacter spp., and Salmonella spp., for the field trials, whereas the
laboratory trial samples were cultured for populations of NAL-SAL. There was no significant
difference in the prevalence of Campylobacter for any of the treated plots compared with the
control plots for the field trials. Significant microbial population reductions were observed for
most of the disinfectants tested in both field and laboratory trials. Results indicate that disinfectant
type, application rate, time of exposure, and organic matter can impact total aerobic bacterial,
yeast and mold, and Salmonella populations on the surface of soil.
Key words: disinfectant, poultry house sanitation, Salmonella
2005 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 14:322–329
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM
A common concern of the poultry industry
is the presence of bacterial and fungal pathogens
in the bird’s environment. A high population of
pathogenic bacteria in the poultry house contri-
1
To whom correspondence should be addressed: swatkin@uark.edu.
butes to a decline in wellness of the flock and
increased levels of pathogens recoverable on
carcasses entering the processing plant. The
spread of pathogens to processing equipment can
therefore increase the chances of a contaminated
product entering the consumer market. Salmo-

PAYNE ET AL.: DISINFECTANT EFFICACY IN GROW-OUT FACILITIES 323
nella and Campylobacter have both been identi-
fied as poultry pathogens of potential threat to
consumers and are associated with frequent
foodborne infections that can be attributed to
the consumption of contaminated poultry prod-
ucts [1]. Poultry products are considered im-
portant vehicles of Salmonella [2, 3] and Campy-
lobacter for humans, whereas infection is due to
cross-contamination in the kitchen environment,
inadequate cooking, [3] and improper handling
practices. Salmonella has an economic impact
on the poultry industry by threatening consumer
markets and increasing production and pro-
cessing costs [4]. The manufacturing practices
of the poultry industry allow for the spread of
Salmonella and Campylobacter from feed mills
to primary breeders, hatcheries, grow-out farms,
processing plants, and finally to the finished
product.
Salmonella are commonly found in the envi-
ronment [5], and there are many instances
throughout the grow-out phase in which birds
can come into contact with Salmonella and other
pathogens [6]. These pathogens are able to sur-
vive for extended periods of time in the environ-
ment and can be commonly found in the litter
on which the birds live. Large amounts of feces
that are deposited in the litter can lead to in-
creases in pathogen populations in the bird’s en-
vironment.
Fungi can also be present in poultry litter.
Molds and yeasts are included in this large di-
verse group of heterotrophic eukaryotic microor-
ganisms [7]. Although foodborne molds can be
toxic to humans due to their ability to produce
mycotoxins, most of the concern over litter is
directed toward its potential negative impact on
bird health if populations of toxigenic molds
and yeasts are high. Fungal diseases of poultry
include aspergillosis, candidiasis, and dac-
tylariosis.
Poultry house sanitation plays a crucial role
in the control and prevention of pathogenic in-
fectious diseases. A good sanitation program can
benefit the grower by optimizing bird perfor-
mance while lowering the incidence of contami-
nated flocks. Any number of best management
practices, treatments, or disinfectants can com-
prise a sanitation program. However, if used
improperly, sanitation procedures can adversely
affect disease prevention, thus, lowering bird
performance [8, 9, 10]. For this reason, it is
important to routinely reevaluate the effective-
ness of poultry house sanitation programs.
Removal of old litter, followed by cleaning
and disinfecting of facilities, can help reduce
pathogen loads and break disease cycles. In most
cases, the cleaning and disinfection process will
occur after the fifth or sixth flock cycle. The
goal of any disinfectant procedure is to prevent,
reduce, or destroy microbial populations on in-
animate objects, surfaces, or the premises [11].
Optimum sanitation programs require that the
bedding material be removed from the facility,
because most chemical disinfectants have a lim-
ited effectiveness when organic matter and soil
are present. Methods for the application of disin-
fectants include spraying, misting, fogging, or
fumigation [11]. The various classes of disinfec-
tants include alcohols, halogens, quaternary am-
monium compounds, phenolics, aldehydes, and
oxidizing agents (i.e., ozone) [12].
Disinfectant efficacy is often tested against
laboratory bacterial suspensions [13, 14]. How-
ever, this approach may not always prove to
simulate commercial production conditions,
thus, making it difficult to determine the true
effectiveness of the disinfectant. Disinfectants
that are effective against bacterial suspensions
may have a reduced effect against bacteria that
adhere to surfaces [15]. Therefore, a study was
conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of 4
commonly used poultry house disinfectants on
reducing total aerobic bacterial, yeast and mold,
Campylobacter, and Salmonella populations on
poultry house floors as well as reducing Salmo-
nella populations in sterilized topsoil.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two separate field trials were conducted to
evaluate the efficacy of various disinfectants
when applied to poultry house floors. Field trial
1 tested a low application rate, whereas field
trial 2 tested a high application rate. Laboratory
trials were also conducted evaluating the same
disinfectants. Laboratory trials 3 and 4 were rep-
licate trials, and both tested high application
rates.
Field Trials (Trials 1 and 2)
Two field trials were conducted in commer-
cial broiler houses. A poultry barn, which had

JAPR: Field Report324
been cleaned immediately after flock removal,
was used in both trials. After the litter was re-
moved from the facility, the floor, in the middle
of the barn between feed and water lines, was
swept clean.
Experimental Design
Experimental test units were 1-ft2
floor plots
randomly blocked with a 1-ft2
space between
each experimental plot. The treatments consisted
of 4 different disinfectants, which included a
phenolic compound [16], a quaternary ammo-
nium compound [17], a nascent oxygen com-
pound [18], a compound that contained pot-
assium peroxymonosulfate and sodium chloride
as the active ingredients [19], and a control.
Each disinfectant was prepared according to the
manufacturers’ recommendations using distilled
water. All compounds are labeled for use as
disinfectants and cleaners with the exception of
the nascent oxygen compound.
For field trial 1, each disinfectant was ap-
plied to 10 plots as a coarse spray at a low
application rate of 10 mL/plot. The rate was
chosen due to its ability to create a good surface
coverage. Ten untreated plots, receiving no dis-
infectant, served as the negative control. For
field trial 2, each disinfectant was applied to 12
plots as a coarse spray at a high application rate
of 125 mL/plot. The rate of 125 mL was chosen
because it correlated to a common disinfectant
usage level of 500 gal/16,000 ft2
[20]. Twelve
untreated plots, receiving no disinfectant, served
as the negative control group.
Sampling
In field trial 1, (a 5 × 2 factorial design),
one-half of the plots for each disinfectant were
sampled 15-min postapplication with the re-
maining half sampled 6-h postapplication. For
field trial 2, (a 5 × 3 factorial design) one-third of
the plots were sampled 15-min postapplication,
one-third were sampled 6-h postapplication, and
the final one-third were sampled 24-h postappli-
cation. Surface samples were taken using cellu-
lose drag sponges contained in sterile whirlpack
bags [21] that were hydrated with 20 mL of
laboratory prepared Butterfield’s phosphate dil-
uent (BPD) [22] prior to sampling. Sponges were
aseptically removed from each bag by the string
and used to sample the surface of the plot. A
1:10 dilution was then prepared by placing each
sponge into sterile bottles containing 180 mL
of BPD. Samples were immediately stored in a
cooler with ice packs and transported to the labo-
ratory.
Enumeration and Identification
All samples were shaken vigorously and then
cultured to determine plate counts of total aero-
bic bacteria, yeast and mold, and the prevalence
of Campylobacter spp., and Salmonella spp. Pe-
trifilm [23] was used in accordance with the
manufacturer’s instructions to determine total
aerobic bacterial plate counts and yeast and mold
counts. Serial dilutions of BPD were made, and
1 mL was transferred onto the appropriate Pe-
trifilm. The yeast and mold Petrifilm samples
were then incubated at 25°C for 3 d, and the
aerobic plate count Petrifilm samples were incu-
bated at 30°C for 48 h both as recommended by
the manufacturer.
Campylobacter Prevalence. The prevalence
of Campylobacter spp., was determined by
streaking a loopful of each sample directly onto
laboratory prepared Campy Cefex agar plates
[24]. The Cefex plates were then incubated at
42°C for 24 h in a microaerobic gas incubator
(5% O2, 10% CO2, 85% N2) and examined for
colony formation. Colonies suspected of being
Campylobacter were randomly picked and con-
firmed using the BBL Campyslide agglutination
assay [25].
Salmonella Prevalence. Prevalence of Sal-
monella spp., was determined in accordance
with the US Department of Agriculture and the
Food Safety Inspection Service Microbiology
Laboratory Guidebook [26] with the addition of
the drag swab as a medium for sample collection.
Briefly, BPD samples were incubated at 37°C
for 24 h, and then 0.5 mL was transferred into
10 mL of tetrathionate broth [27], and 0.1 mL
was transferred into 10 mL of Rappaport Vassili-
adis [25] broth followed by a 24-h incubation
at 42°C. Both broths were then streaked onto
xylose lysine tergitol 4 (XLT4), brilliant green
sulfa, and modified lysine iron agar [27] plates
and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. Suspect colonies
were inoculated onto triple sugar iron agar and
lysine iron agar [27] slants and incubated at 37°C
for 24 h. Salmonella confirmation was per-

formed with polyvalent O antiserum reactive
with serogroups A through I and Vi [27]. Nega-
tive controls were used for all plating procedures
to ensure that the media had been properly ster-
ilized.
Laboratory Trials (Trials 3 and 4)
Two trials were conducted in the laboratory.
All-purpose topsoil [28] was firmly placed at a
depth of approximately 2 in. in 8- × 8- × 1 7/
8-in. metal pans. Topsoil was chosen to simulate
poultry house floor conditions after litter re-
moval as tested in field trials 1 and 2. The pans
were then covered with aluminum foil and auto-
claved for 45 min at 121°C for sterilization pur-
poses. All pans were left to cool overnight en-
closed in the autoclave chamber. Two additional
pans of topsoil were autoclaved for each trial
and served as the negative control to ensure
sterilization had taken place.
Culture Preparation
A Salmonella Typhimurium (ATCC 14028)
culture resistant to 200 ppm of nalidixic acid [27]
was used as a marker organism to differentiate
between naturally occurring organisms and the
inoculum. All media used for growth and recov-
ery of the marker organism contained 200 ppm
of nalidixic acid.
An aliquot of lyophilized nalidixic acid-re-
sistant S. Typhimurium (NAL-SAL) was rehy-
drated in brain-heart infusion broth [27] and in-
cubated overnight at 37°C. The overnight culture
was used to inoculate fresh brain-heart infusion
broth for 2 additional 24-h transfers.
On the day of the trial, 1 mL of the overnight
culture was diluted with 200 mL of BPD to
create a 105
cfu/mL concentration for laboratory
trial 3 or a 103
cfu/mL concentration for labora-
tory trial 4. Both the overnight culture and dilu-
ent were serially diluted in BPD and spread
plated on XLT4 agar and incubated 24 h at 37°C
to verify cell counts.
Experimental Design
There were 6 replicate pans per treatment
with 6 untreated pans serving as the positive
control. The same disinfectants listed in trials 1
and 2 were tested. All disinfectants were pre-
pared according to the manufacturers’ recom-
mendations using distilled water.
Three hours prior to treatment, all soil-filled
pans were inoculated with 40 mL/pan of 5 × 105
cfu/mL of NAL-SAL for trial 3, and 40 mL/pan
of 3.5 × 103
cfu/mL was inoculated for trial 4.
The inoculum was applied via pipette, and the
inoculation rate of 40 mL was chosen due to its
ability to create a good surface coverage. After
3 h, each disinfectant was then applied to 6
pans at a high application rate of 55 mL/pan
via pipette, whereas the positive control pans
received 55 mL/pan of distilled water. The rate
of 55 mL/pan correlates to the same common
usage level of 500 gal/16,000 ft2
used in field
trial 2.
Sampling
Surface samples were immediately taken as
previously performed using cellulose drag
sponges contained in sterile whirlpack bags that
were hydrated with 20 mL BPD prior to sam-
pling. A 1:10 dilution was then prepared by plac-
ing each sponge into sterile bottles containing
180 mL of BPD. Samples were immediately
stored in a cooler with ice packs for further
analysis.
Enumeration and Identification
All samples were shaken vigorously and then
enumerated by direct plating onto XLT4 agar
plates, which were incubated at 37°C. The re-
maining BPD samples were then incubated 24
h at 37°C and streaked onto XLT4 agar for the
purpose of recovering any viable but noncultura-
ble colonies from the previous day. Salmonella
were confirmed as described under the Salmo-
nella prevalence procedures.
Statistical Procedure
All data were analyzed using the general
linear model procedure of SAS [29]. Data were
converted to log10 values prior to analysis. Indi-
vidual plots or pans were the experimental units,
and residual effects were used as the error term.
Disinfectant and exposure time were the main
effects for factorial analysis of the field trials.
For the laboratory trials, disinfectants were com-
pared using a 1-way ANOVA. Variables having
a significant F-test were compared using the

TABLE 1. The effect of various disinfectants1
applied
at a low application rate on total aerobic bacterial and
yeast and mold populations obtained from a poultry
house floor2
(field trial 1)
Log10 Log10
aerobic yeast
plate and
count mold
Disinfectant (cfu/mL) (cfu/mL)
Control 6.40 1.71a
Phenol 6.39 1.63ab
Potassium peroxymonosulfate 6.37 1.65ab
Nascent oxygen 6.12 1.38c
Quaternary ammonia 6.20 1.56b
SEM 0.107 0.047
a–c
Column values with different superscripts differ
significantly (P < 0.05).
1
A 10-mL application rate per plot (surface coverage).
2
n = 10 plots per disinfectant.
least squares means function of SAS and were
considered to be significant at P < 0.05. Preva-
lence of Campylobacter spp., was analyzed us-
ing the Fisher’s exact test of the general linear
model procedure.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
For field trials 1 and 2, statistical analysis
indicated no significant interaction between dis-
infectants and sampling time for total aerobic
bacterial, yeast, and mold populations. Campylo-
bacter spp., were detected in field trial 1 but not
in field trial 2, whereas Salmonella spp., were
not detected in either field trial 1 or 2. Results
of the Fisher’s exact test indicated no significant
difference in prevalence of Campylobacter spp.,
for any of the disinfectant-treated plots as com-
pared with the control plots in field trial 1.
For field trial 1, disinfectant effects did not
significantly influence total aerobic bacterial
populations at the low application rate (Table
1); however, in field trial 2, disinfectant effects
resulted in significantly lower total aerobic bac-
terial populations compared with the control
plots when applied at the high application rate
(P < 0.05) (Table 2). For both field trial 1 and 2,
disinfectant effects significantly impacted yeast
and mold populations at the low and high appli-
cation rates, respectively (P < 0.05) (Tables 1
and 2). Yeast and mold populations for field trial
1 were influenced the most by the disinfectant
containing the nascent oxygen compound (0.33
applied
at a high application rate on total aerobic bacterial and
yeast and mold populations obtained from a poultry
house floor2
(field trial 2)
Log10 Log10
aerobic yeast
plate and
count mold
Disinfectant (cfu/mL) (cfu/mL)
Control 5.61a
0.82a
Phenol 5.06b
0.61c
Potassium peroxymonosulfate 4.91b
0.65bc
Nascent oxygen 4.76b
0.74ab
Quaternary ammonia 5.07b
0.74ab
SEM 0.170 0.043
a–c
1
A 125-mL application rate per plot (common usage level
of 500 gal/16,000 ft2
).
2
log reduction) (Table 1), whereas the quaternary
ammonium treatment also resulted in significant
population reductions (0.15 log reduction). In
field trial 2, the disinfectant containing the phe-
nolic compound resulted in the greatest reduc-
tion in yeast and mold populations (0.21 log
reduction) (Table 2), whereas the potassium per-
oxymonosulfate treatment also demonstrated a
significant reduction in populations (0.17 log re-
duction).
Exposure time effects significantly influ-
enced total aerobic bacterial populations for both
field trials 1 and 2 (P < 0.05) (Tables 3 and 4).
In field trial 1, there was a significantly lower
level of aerobic bacteria at the 6-h exposure time
TABLE 3. The effect of disinfectant1
exposure time
when applied at a low application rate on total aerobic
bacterial and yeast and mold populations obtained from
a poultry house floor2
(field trial 1)
Log10
aerobic Log10
plate yeast
count and mold
Exposure time (cfu/mL) (cfu/mL)
15 min 6.56a
1.60
6 h 6.02b
1.57
SEM 0.068 0.030
a,b
1
A 10-mL application rate per plot.
2

TABLE 4. The effect of disinfectant1
exposure time
when applied at a high application rate on total aerobic
bacterial and yeast and mold populations obtained from
a poultry house floor2
(trial 2)
Log10 aerobic Log10 yeast
plate count and mold
Exposure time (cfu/mL) (cfu/mL)
15 min 5.05ab
0.38c
6 h 5.37a
0.68b
24 h 4.82b
1.08a
SEM 0.131 0.333
a–c
1
A 125-mL application rate per plot (common usage level
of 500 gal/16,000 ft2
).
2
when compared with the 15-min exposure time
(Table 3); however, in field trial 2, the only
significant change in aerobic bacterial popula-
tions was a decrease from 6 to 24 h of exposure
time (Table 4). Exposure time effects had no
significant impact on yeast and mold populations
in field trial 1 (Table 3) but did significantly
increase yeast and mold populations at both the
6- and 24-h exposure times as compared with
the 15-min exposure time for field trial 2 (P <
0.05) (Table 4).
In laboratory trials 3 and 4, 3 of the 4 disin-
fectants had a significant impact on the level of
NAL-SAL in the soil (Tables 5 and 6). The
quaternary ammonium treatment resulted in
NAL-SAL populations that were not signifi-
applied
at a high application rate on nalidixic acid-resistant
Salmonella Typhimurium (NAL-SAL) populations
obtained from Salmonella Typhimurium-inoculated soil2
(laboratory trial 3)
Log10
NAL-SAL
Disinfectant (cfu/mL)
Control 2.96ab
Phenol 2.03c
Potassium peroxymonosulfate 2.73b
Nascent oxygen 1.44d
Quaternary ammonia 3.48a
SEM 0.127
a–d
1
A 55-mL application rate per pan (common usage level of
500 gal/16,000 ft2
).
2
n = 6 pans per disinfectant.
applied
at a high application rate on nalidixic acid-resistant
Salmonella Typhimurium (NAL-SAL) populations
obtained from Salmonella Typhimurium-inoculated soil2
(laboratory trial 4)
Log10
NAL-SAL
Disinfectant (cfu/mL)
Control 2.67a
Phenol 1.92b
Potassium peroxymonosulfate 1.21c
Nascent oxygen 1.45c
Quaternary ammonia 2.51a
SEM 0.196
a–c
1
A 55-mL application rate per pan (common usage level of
500 gal/16,000 ft2
).
2
n = 6 pans per disinfectant.
cantly different than control pan populations.
For laboratory trial 3, the nascent oxygen (1.52
log reduction) and phenolic (0.93 log reduction)
disinfectants both significantly reduced NAL-
SAL populations when compared with the con-
trol pan populations. In laboratory trial 4, the
potassium peroxymonosulfate (1.46 log reduc-
tion), nascent oxygen (1.22 log reduction), and
the phenolic (0.75 log reduction) disinfectants
resulted with significant reductions of NAL-
SAL when compared with the control.
Application Rate
The lack of response to the disinfectants by
the aerobic bacteria in field trial 1 is most likely
the result of a low disinfectant application rate.
The rate of 10 mL/ft2
was chosen because at
that rate the plots were completely covered. In
field trial 2, the higher rate of 125 mL/ft2
, which
correlates to a common disinfectant usage level,
resulted with significant reductions of total aero-
bic bacterial populations by all disinfectants.
In laboratory trials 3 and 4, where a known
quantity of NAL-SAL was inoculated per pan,
and 55 mL (common usage level) of disinfectant
was applied per pan, the results showed that the
quaternary ammonium product was not effective
in reducing NAL-SAL populations. The pheno-
lic, nascent oxygen, and potassium peroxymono-
sulfate treatments provided the best bacterial re-
ductions for the laboratory trials. The lack of
response for the quaternary ammonium treat-

ment is in agreement with product literature,
which states that this product does not perform
well in the presence of organic material [17].
Exposure Time
Time of exposure appeared to have a sig-
nificant impact on aerobic bacterial counts as
expected because the death rate of organisms is
affected by the length of time exposed to an
antimicrobial agent [7]. Interestingly, yeast and
mold populations continued to increase from 15
min to 6 and 24 h of disinfectant exposure in
field trial 2. This may be due to the ubiquitous
nature of fungal spores, which are able to live
in diverse habitats and withstand environmental
extremities [30].
Many disinfectants are commercially avail-
able, and careful consideration should be taken
before choosing the appropriate one. Not all dis-
infectants are classified as broad spectrum;
therefore, the disinfectant selected must be effec-
tive at destroying the specific problem-causing
organism. Proper care should be taken while
mixing disinfectants. It is important to follow
recommended procedures, application rates, and
to take into consideration factors, such as water
pH, temperature, and surfaces on which applica-
tion will occur.
Disinfection does not always guarantee elim-
ination of the problem-causing bacteria as shown
from the inability to eliminate Campylobacter
prevalence in field trial 1 and NAL-SAL preva-
lence in laboratory trials 3 and 4 of this study.
In a previously infected poultry house, a high
level of disinfection is required to prevent con-
tamination of the next flock [8]. Sublethal con-
centrations of disinfectant may even cause or-
ganisms to enter a viable but nonculturable state
[31, 32] or develop antimicrobial resistance [33].
This could carry over to persistent infections in
the flock unless a highly effective disinfectant
is used [8]. It has been suggested that increased
Salmonella susceptibility may occur from best
management practices that reduce exposure to
protective gut flora, which can be found in litter
[9]. Researchers have reported that used litter
fumigated with formaldehyde or methyl bromide
led to an increase in the incidence of Salmonella
colonization [10]. Others have observed in-
creases in contamination after the disinfection
process [8, 34]. It has been shown that Salmo-
nella and coliform populations increased during
the pressure-washing or steam-cleaning process
often used prior to disinfection [8]. The research-
ers speculated that the steam cooled upon reach-
ing the contaminated surfaces causing an in-
creased amount of moisture, which could reacti-
vate dormant organisms or cause bacterial
proliferation.
The intention of disinfectant programs in
poultry facilities is to reduce the populations of
disease associated bacteria. However, if disin-
fectants are used without properly cleaning the
facility prior to application, then the effective-
ness of the disinfectant may be compromised.
Many disinfectants are ineffective in the pres-
ence of organic matter, such as soil or litter, as
shown from the quaternary ammonium com-
pound used in laboratory trials 3 and 4 of this
study. The use of a chemical disinfectant should
represent the final stage of a comprehensive sani-
tation program that begins after the last flock
is removed.
With pathogen reduction becoming increas-
ingly important to both consumers and integ-
rators, it is very crucial to examine the various
strategies to reduce these pathogens on the final
processed carcass. Should a sanitation program
be an effective method for reducing food-related
pathogens at the grow-out level, then proper im-
plementation of disinfectant use could be im-
portant for reducing carcass contamination. If
pathogens can be reduced in the bird’s environ-
ment, contamination on the exterior of the bird
should be reduced, followed by a reduction in
pathogenic bacterial populations at the pro-
cessing plant and on the finished product.
Results of this study indicate that disinfec-
tant type, application rate, as well as exposure
time, can impact aerobic bacterial, yeast and
mold, and Salmonella populations on the surface
of soil. However, it is important to remember
that for the field trials all surface debris and
loose organic material had been removed prior to
disinfectant application. This may explain why
Salmonella spp., were not detected for either
field trial. These results may change under a
heavier organic matter load similar to what can
be found in a typical broiler house during the
clean-out process.

CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS
1. For the field trials, each disinfectant applied at the high application rate significantly reduced
aerobic bacterial populations, whereas the low disinfectant application rate did not significantly
influence aerobic bacterial populations on the surface of soil.
2. For the laboratory trials, the quaternary ammonium compound did not significantly impact
Salmonella test strains; however, this agrees with product literature, which states that this
product does not function well in the presence of organic material.
3. The potassium peroxymonosulfate, nascent oxygen, and phenol products provided the best
Salmonella reductions in the laboratory trials.
4. Results of this study indicate that variables, such as application rate, disinfectant type, time of
exposure, and the presence or absence of organic matter, are all important considerations when
including a chemical disinfectant application into a sanitation program.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. Ashton, W. L. G. 1990. Enterobacteriaceae. Pages 11–41 in
Poultry diseases. F. T. W. Jordon, ed. Bailliere Tindall, Philadel-
phia, PA.
2. Long, J. R., W. F. DeWitt, and J. L. Ruet. 1980. Studies on
Salmonella from floor litter of 60 broiler chicken houses in Nova
Scotia. Can. Vet. J. 21:91–94.
3. Silliker, J. H. 1980. Status of Salmonella—ten years later.
J. Food Prot. 43:307–313.
4. Bender, F. E., and E. T. Mallinson. 1991. Healthy birds are
lower cost birds. Broiler Ind. 54(1):62–64.
5. Murray, L. J. 1991. Salmonella in the environment. Rev. Sci.
Tech. 10:765–785.
6. Reiber, M. A., R. E. Hierholzer, M. H. Adams, M. Colberg,
and A. L. Izat. 1990. Effect of litter condition on microbiological
quality of freshly killed and processed broilers. Poult. Sci.
69:2128–2133.
7. Black, J. G. 1996. Microbiology Principles and Applications.
3rd ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
8. Davies, R. H., and C. Wray. 1995. Observations on disinfec-
tion regimens used on Salmonella Enteritidis infected poultry units.
Poult. Sci. 74:638–647.
9. Corrier, D. E., A. Hinton, Jr., B. Hargis, and J. R. DeLoach.
1992. Effect of used litter from floor pens of adult broilers on Salmo-
nella colonization of broiler chicks. Avian Dis. 36:897–902.
10. Tucker, J. F., E. G. Harry, and H. E. Wainman. 1975. The
effect of methyl bromide or formaldehyde on the infectivity of poultry
house litter naturally contaminated with Salmonella Virchow. Br.
Vet. J. 131:474–484.
11. Eckman, M. K. 1994. Chemicals used by the poultry industry.
Poult. Sci. 73:1429–1432.
12. Smith, T. W. June, 1999. Sanitation: Cleaning and disinfec-
tants. Mississippi State University Extension Service, Starkville, MS.
www.msstate.edu/dept/poultry/sanit.htm. Accessed Nov. 2004.
13. Parkinson, E. 1981. Testing of disinfectants for veterinary
and agricultural use. Pages 33–36 in Disinfectants: Their use and
evaluation of effectiveness. C. H. Collins, M. C. Allwood, S. F.
Bloomfield, and A. Fox, ed. Acad. Press, London.
14. Bloomfield, S. F., M. Arther, E. Looney, K. Begun, and
H. Patel. 1991. Comparative testing of disinfectant and antiseptic
products using proposed European suspension testing methods. Lett.
Appl. Microbiol. 13:233–237.
15. Mosteller, T. M., and J. R. Bishop. 1993. Sanitizer efficacy
against attached bacteria in a milk biofilm. J. Food Prot. 56:34–41.
16. Tri-Phenol-R/256. I.D., Russell Co. Laboratories, Long-
mont, CO.
17. Biosentry PFD-6, Biosentry Inc., Stone Mountain, GA.
18. Oxilink. Maderia Inc., Conroe, TX.
19. Virkon S. Antec Int. Ltd., Orlando, FL.
20. Plyer, J. 2000. Live Operations Manager, McClain Farms.
Mountain Home, AR. Personal communication.
21. International BioProducts, Inc., Bothell, WA.
22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2001. Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Bacteriological Analytical Manual
online, Rockville, MD. www.cfsan.fda.gov/~ebam/bam-ri.html. Ac-
cessed Nov. 2004.
23. 3M Center. Saint Paul, MN.
24. Atlas, R. M. 1997. Handbook of Microbiological Media. 2nd
ed. CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
25. BBL, Division of Becton Dickinson and Co., Sparks, MD.
26. Rose, B. E. 1998. Isolation and identification of Salmonella
from meat, poultry, and egg products. Pages 4.1–4.14 in USDA/
FSIS Microbiology Laboratory Guidebook. Vol. 1. 3rd ed. B. P. Dey
and C. P. Lattuada, ed. US Gov. Printing Office, Washington, DC.
27. Difco. Division of Becton Dickinson and Co., Sparks, MD.
28. Lowes. Home Improvement Warehouse, Fayetteville, AR.
29. SAS Institute. 2000. SAS User’s Guide. Version 8.1. SAS
Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
30. Madigan, M. T., J. M. Martinko, and J. Parker. Brock Biology
of Microorganisms. 10th ed. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
31.Roszak, D. B., D. J. Grimes, and R. R. Colwell. 1983. Viable
but non-recoverable stage of Salmonella Enteritidis in aquatic sys-
tems. Can. J. Microbiol. 30:334–338.
32. McKay, A. M. 1992. Viable but non-cultural forms of poten-
tially pathogenic bacteria in water. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 14:129–
135.
33. Gismondo, M. R., L. Drago, A. Lombardi, M. C. Fassina,
and B. Mombelli. 1995. Antimicrobial and sporicidal efficacy of
various disinfectant solutions. Minerva Med. 86:21–32.
34. Kradel, D. C., and W. L. Miller. 1991. Salmonella Enteritidis
observations on field related problems. Pages 146–150 in Proc. 40th
Western Poult. Disease Conf., Acapulco, Mexico.

Evaluation of disinfetant

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to Evaluation of disinfetant

Similar to Evaluation of disinfetant (20)

More from K Manivannan

More from K Manivannan (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluation of disinfetant