J Vet Sci.  2017 Jun;18(2):209-216. 10.4142/jvs.2017.18.2.209.

Efficacy evaluation of commercial disinfectants by using Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium as a test organism

• Jang Y
• Lee K
• Yun S
• Lee M
• Song J
• Chang B
• Choe NH

• KMID: 2412574
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4142/jvs.2017.18.2.209

Abstract

The efficacies of six commercial disinfectants were evaluated by using Salmonella enterica serovar Typhimurium under simulated natural conditions such as sub-zero temperature, short disinfecting time, and surface type (uneven or smooth). We used a suspensionmodel test to determine the disinfecting efficacy under varying contact times (1, 5, 10, and 30 min) and temperatures (25℃, 4℃, 0℃, and −10℃). The bactericidal effect according to surface structure was measured by using a carriermodel test at 25℃ and −10℃. The effective concentrations of each disinfectant were fixed to give a disinfecting effect within a short time (< 1 min) at 25℃ and −10℃. The suspension model results revealed that bactericidal efficacy significantly dropped at low temperature for most of the disinfectants used; a sodium dichloroisocyanurate product showed the strongest efficacy. In the carrier test, bacterial load on a wooden surface was more difficult to remove than that on a stainless-steel surface. The results show that commercial disinfectant products vary in their disinfecting efficacy, which is affected by several field factors including temperature, contact time, and carrier material. Environmental conditions and surface type for disinfection should be considered prior to selecting an optimal disinfectant in the field.

Keyword

Salmonella; carrier-model test; disinfectant; surface structure; suspension-model test

MeSH Terms

Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology
Disinfectants/*pharmacology
Salmonella typhi/*drug effects
Surface Properties
Temperature
Time Factors
Anti-Bacterial Agents
Disinfectants

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Evaluation of Salmonella Typhimurium bactericidal activity of six disinfectants by suspension testing at four different contact times and temperatures. Complete reduction of bacteria was defined as ≥ 7.8 log10 reduction, while a > 5 log10 reduction was considered effective. (A) 2.5% citric acid. (B) 0.03% CA + 0.02% QACs. (C) 0.5% MPS. (D) 1% MPS + 0.1% NaDCC. (E) 0.3% NaDCC. (F) 0.1% GA.

• 

  Fig. 2 The effect of each disinfectant against dried Salmonella Typhimurium on wood and stainless steel at 25℃ or −10℃ for 1 min or 5 min. Complete reduction of bacteria was defined as 5.1 log10 reduction on stainless steel and 5.09 log10 reduction on wood, while a 4 log10 reduction was defined as effective. Error bars indicate standard deviations of the means. (A) 25℃ for 1 min. (B) 25℃ for 5 min. (C) −10℃ for 1 min. (D) −10℃ for 5 min. **Significant differences between the results from stainless steel and wood (p < 0.01).

• 

  Fig. 3 Evaluation of bactericidal activity for short contact times by different concentrations of each disinfectant at 25℃ and −10℃. Complete reduction of bacteria was defined as ≥ 7.8 log10 reduction and > 5 log10 reduction was considered effective reduction. (A) Citric acid. (B) Citric acid + QACs. (C) MPS. (D) MPS + NaDCC. (E) NaDCC. (F) Glutaraldehyde.

Reference

1. Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (KR). Biocides Efficacy Test against Bacteria. Notice 2013-34 (Mar. 23 2013).

2. Carling PC, Wormser GP. Antisepsis, disinfection and sterilization: types, action and resistance by Gerald E. McDonnell Wahington, DC: American Society for Microbiology Press, 2007. 378 pp., illustrated. Clin Infect Dis. 2007; 45:1251–1252.

3. Carrique-Mas JJ, Marin C, Breslin M, McLaren I, Davies R. A comparison of the efficacy of cleaning and disinfection methods in eliminating Salmonella spp. from commercial egg laying houses. Avian Pathol. 2009; 38:419–424.

4. De Benedictis P, Beato MS, Capua I. Inactivation of avian influenza viruses by chemical agents and physical conditions: a review. Zoonoses Public Health. 2007; 54:51–68.

5. Gradel KO, Sayers AR, Davies RH. Surface disinfection tests with Salmonella and a putative indicator bacterium, mimicking worst-case scenarios in poultry houses. Poult Sci. 2004; 83:1636–1643.

6. Hiramatsu R, Matsumoto M, Sakae K, Miyazaki Y. Ability of Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli and Salmonella spp. to survive in a desiccation model system and in dry foods. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2005; 71:6657–6663.

7. Kang S, Jang A, Lee SO, Min JS, Kim IS, Lee M. Effect of organic acids on microbial populations and Salmonella typhimurium in pork loins. Asian-Australas J Anim Sci. 2003; 16:96–99.

8. Koleci X, Quinn PJ, Çela M, Malaj Z. The place of disinfection in the control of infectious diseases. Albanian J Nat Tech Sci. 2007; 12:139–156.

9. Kuda T, Iwase T, Yuphakhun C, Takahashi H, Koyanagi T, Kimura B. Surfactant-disinfectant resistance of Salmonella and Staphylococcus adhered and dried on surfaces with egg compounds. Food Microbiol. 2011; 28:920–925.

10. Marin C, Hernandiz A, Lainez M. Biofilm development capacity of Salmonella strains isolated in poultry risk factors and their resistance against disinfectants. Poult Sci. 2009; 88:424–431.

11. McLaren I, Wales A, Breslin M, Davies R. Evaluation of commonly-used farm disinfectants in wet and dry models of Salmonella farm contamination. Avian Pathol. 2011; 40:33–42.

12. Møretrø T, Heir E, Nesse LL, Vestby LK, Langsrud S. Control of Salmonella in food related environments by chemical disinfection. Food Res Int. 2012; 45:532–544.

13. Møretrø T, Midtgaard ES, Nesse LL, Langsrud S. Susceptibility of Salmonella isolated from fish feed factories to disinfectants and air-drying at surfaces. Vet Microbiol. 2003; 94:207–217.

14. Møretrø T, Vestby LK, Nesse LL, Storheim SE, Kotlarz K, Langsrud S. Evaluation of efficacy of disinfectants against Salmonella from the feed industry. J Appl Microbiol. 2009; 106:1005–1012.

15. Payne JB, Kroger EC, Watkins SE. Evaluation of disinfectant efficacy when applied to the floor of poultry grow-out facilities. J Appl Poult Res. 2005; 14:322–329.

16. Pinto F, Maillard JY, Denyer SP. Effect of surfactants, temperature, and sonication on the virucidal activity of polyhexamethylene biguanide against the bacteriophage MS2. Am J Infect Control. 2010; 38:393–398.

17. Preller L, Heederik D, Boleij JSM, Vogelzang PFJ, Tielen MJM. Lung function and chronic respiratory symptoms of pig farmers: focus on exposure to endotoxins and ammonia and use of disinfectants. Occup Environ Med. 1995; 52:654–660.

18. Sattar SA, Springthorpe VS, Adegbunrin O, Abu Zafer A, Busa M. A disc-based quantitative carrier test method to assess the virucidal activity of chemical germicides. J Virol Methods. 2003; 112:3–12.

19. Shah DH, Zhou XH, Addwebi T, Davis MA, Orfe L, Call DR, Guard J, Besser TE. Cell invasion of poultry-associated Salmonella enterica serovar Enteritidis isolates is associated with pathogenicity, motility and proteins secreted by the type III secretion system. Microbiology. 2011; 157:1428–1445.

20. Stringfellow K, Anderson P, Caldwell D, Lee J, Byrd J, McReynolds J, Carey J, Nisbet D, Farnell M. Evaluation of disinfectants commonly used by the commercial poultry industry under simulated field conditions. Poult Sci. 2009; 88:1151–1155.

21. Tuladhar E, Hazeleger WC, Koopmans M, Zwietering MH, Beumer RR, Duizer E. Residual viral and bacterial contamination of surfaces after cleaning and disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2012; 78:7769–7775.

22. Uesugi AR, Danyluk MD, Harris LJ. Survival of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 30 on inoculated almonds stored at –20, 4, 23, and 30℃. J Food Prot. 2006; 69:1851–1857.

23. Wales A, Breslin M, Davies R. Assessment of cleaning and disinfection in Salmonella-contaminated poultry layer houses using qualitative and semi-quantitative culture techniques. Vet Microbiol. 2006; 116:283–293.

24. Wong HS, Townsend KM, Fenwick SG, Maker G, Trengove RD, O'Handley RM. Comparative susceptibility of Salmonella Typhimurium biofilms of different ages to disinfectants. Biofouling. 2010; 26:859–864.

25. Yilmaz A, Heffels-Redmann U, Redmann T. Evaluation of the virucidal efficacy of two chemical disinfectants against avian influenza virus A at different temperatures. Arch Geflügelk. 2004; 68:50–56.