Comparison of Antimicrobial Treatments Applied via Conventional or Handheld Electrostatic Spray To Reduce Shiga Toxin–Producing Escherichia coli on Chilled Beef Outside Rounds

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of different antimicrobial interventions applied via either conventional spray (CS) or handheld electrostatic spray (ESS) to reduce Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC) on fresh beef surfaces. Hot-boned outside rounds (ORs) were inoculated within 1 h after harvest with a cocktail of eight isolates consisting of 8 O157 and non-O157 serogroups of STEC (STEC8). ORs were hung on sterile meat hooks at 4°C for 36 h to simulate a contaminated full carcass side in the chiller. ORs were then treated with lactic acid (LA; 4.5%, w/v), 3.0% lauric arginate ester (LAE), 0.8% cetylpyridinium chloride, 200 mg/L peracetic acid, 3 mg/L chlorine dioxide, 5 mg/L ClO2, or tap water by using CS or ESS. Temperatures of LA and peracetic acid were set at 55 and 42°C before spraying, whereas all other solutions were applied at room temperature (25°C). Pretreatment and posttreatment STEC8-inoculated beef tissue samples were aseptically collected to evaluate the efficacy of interventions by application method (CS or ESS). LA applied with CS achieved the greatest reduction in STEC8 numbers (3.3 log CFU/cm2) compared with all other treatments: 0.2 log CFU/cm2 (tap water) to 2.3 log CFU/cm2 (LAE). Only for LA did a significant difference arise in mean STEC8 reductions between CS and ESS applications (3.2 versus 1.7 log CFU/cm2, respectively). Among the treatments applied with ESS, LAE produced the greatest reduction of STEC8. Antimicrobial interventions applied via conventional wand or cabinet-applied technologies can reduce the O157 and non-O157 STEC on fresh beef carcass surfaces, reducing transmission to beef consumers. HIGHLIGHTS

Investigation of the Suitability of a Combination of Ethyl-Να-dodecanyl-L-arginat_HCl (LAE) and Starter Culture Bacteria for the Reduction of Bacteria from Fresh Meat of Different Animal Species

“…The significant effects of LAE on the bacteria numbers on day 0 (directly after treatment and packaging) in the present study principally agree with publications that also analyzed the antibacterial impact of LAE using meat of different species [8,9,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. Most of the studies inoculated the products with the bacteria before LAE treatment.…”

“…Lauric acid is a saturated fat widely found in many vegetable fats and can enter normal fatty acid metabolism [16]. Although LAE is not approved for the preservation of fresh meat in the EU, scientific studies have been published showing antimicrobial effects of LAE on fresh meat [8,9,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26].…”

A descriptive review of the use of organic acids and peracetic acid as a decontaminating strategy for meat

“…but found a relatively greater reduction using the immersion method, probably due to its “washing mechanism.” In addition, a manual or automated application appears to influence efficacy (Signorini et al, 2018). However, no differences were observed when the application occurred by tumbling aerobically or by vacuum (Stivarius et al, 2002) or using conventional spray or handheld electrostatic spray (Hudson et al, 2019).…”

A Review of Salmonella and Campylobacter in Broiler Meat: Emerging Challenges and Food Safety Measures

“…Applications in beef processing have also shown similar results. Hudson (2015) noted that there were no differences between conventional spraying and electrostatic spraying of peracetic acid on beef brisket with reductions in Escherichia coli being around 1.0 log and 0.7 log CFU/cm 2 [ 140 ]. Currently more research is needed to determine if electrostatic spray mechanisms effectively increase the efficacy of applied antimicrobials.…”