Antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of selected food preservatives against Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken samples

Abstract

Salmonella spp. are widespread foodborne pathogens that contaminate egg and poultry meats. Attachment, colonization, as well as biofilm formation capacity of Salmonella spp. on food and contact surfaces of food may cause continuous contamination. Biofilm may play a crucial role in the survival of salmonellae under unfavorable environmental conditions, such as in animal slaughterhouses and processing plants. This could serve as a reservoir compromising food safety and human health. Addition of antimicrobial preservatives extends shelf lives of food products, but even when products are supplemented with adequate amounts of preservatives, it is not always possible to inhibit the microorganisms in a biofilm community. In this study, our aims were i) to determine the minimum inhibitory concentrations (MIC) and minimum biofilm inhibitory concentrations (MBIC) of selected preservatives against planktonic and biofilm forms of Salmonella spp. isolated from chicken samples and Salmonella Typhimurium SL1344 standard strain, ii) to show the differences in the susceptibility patterns of same strains versus the planktonic and biofilm forms to the same preservative agent, and iii) to determine and compare antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of selected food preservatives against Salmonella spp. For this purpose, Salmonella Typhimurium SL1344 standard strain and 4 Salmonella spp. strains isolated from chicken samples were used. Investigation of antimicrobial and antibiofilm effects of selected food preservatives against Salmonella spp. was done according to Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute M100-S18 guidelines and BioTimer assay, respectively. As preservative agents, pure ciprofloxacin, sodium nitrite, potassium sorbate, sodium benzoate, methyl paraben, and propyl paraben were selected. As a result, it was determined that MBIC values are greater than the MIC values of the preservatives. This result verified the resistance seen in a biofilm community to food preservatives and highlighted this subject, not to be ignored in food applications.

An Evaluation of Alternatives to Nitrites and Sulfites to Inhibit the Growth of Salmonella enterica and Listeria monocytogenes in Meat Products

“…S. enterica strains had a MIC for sodium nitrite (10,000 mg/kg) and sulfite (50,000 mg/kg) significantly higher than values allowed for these additives in meat [ 3 ]. In the same way, the results of this study differ from those of Buket et al [ 22 ], who obtained a MIC of 250 mg/kg for a S. enterica strain, a value much lower than our results. The differences between these two studies could be due to the presence of determinate mechanisms in the Salmonella strains tested, allowing for a better tolerance to sodium nitrite.…”

Plant extract activities as antioxidant and antibiofilm against chicken gut bacteria

“…All other positive antibiofilm activities were not influenced by antibacterial activity. Determinations of antibacterial together with antibiofilm activities were suggested by Er et al (2014). They reported that some food or feed preservatives such as ciprofloxacin, sodium nitrite and potassium sorbate had more antibacterial than those antibiofilm activities which should be considered for the possibility the cause of resistency.…”

Effect of butyl paraben on the development and microbial composition of periphyton

“…Er et al (2014) compared the differences in the susceptibility of Salmonella in the planktonic and biofilm forms to preservative agents including MP and PP, and found that the resistance of Salmonella in biofilm form was greater than that in planktonic form. In addition, parabens were found easily degradated in the environment.…”

“…Parabens (esters of 4-hydroxybenzoic acid) are a group of antimicrobial preservatives extensively used in pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) and in food products (Er et al 2014;Liao et al 2013a;Melo and Queiroz 2010). As a consequence, parabens are frequently detected in the environment (Jonkers et al 2009;KasprzykHordern et al 2008;Renz et al 2013).…”