American Journal of Food Science and Technology
ISSN (Print): 2333-4827 ISSN (Online): 2333-4835 Website: http://www.sciepub.com/journal/ajfst Editor-in-chief: Hyo Choi
Open Access
Journal Browser
Go
American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2018, 6(6), 280-289
DOI: 10.12691/ajfst-6-6-8
Open AccessArticle

Cinnamaldehyde/Lactic Acid Spray Wash Treatment for Meat Safety and Byproduct Quality Assurance

Wilbert Long III1, Majher I. Sarker1, and Cheng-Kung Liu1

1Biobased and Other Animal Coproducts Research Unit, Eastern Regional Research Center, Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture, 600 E. Mermaid Lane, Wyndmoor, PA 19038, USA

Pub. Date: December 07, 2018

Cite this paper:
Wilbert Long III, Majher I. Sarker and Cheng-Kung Liu. Cinnamaldehyde/Lactic Acid Spray Wash Treatment for Meat Safety and Byproduct Quality Assurance. American Journal of Food Science and Technology. 2018; 6(6):280-289. doi: 10.12691/ajfst-6-6-8

Abstract

This study evaluated the effectiveness of spray washing with aqueous based solution of cinnamaldehyde (CA) and CA plus lactic acid (LA) in reducing aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, E.coli and Salmonella from the grain surface of bovine hide so that the developed solutions can potentially be used to decontaminate the cattle carcasses to ensure meat safety. This study also examined the application impacts of the developed formulations on leather produced from the treated hides recognizing the value of cattle byproducts. Two concentrations (0.5% and 0.75%) of CA and LA were used to develop the formulations for 2 to 5 minutes treatment. Research data revealed the fresh cattle hides washed with water alone (control) resulted in recovery of aerobic bacteria of 7.39 and 9.30; Enterobacteriaceae of 5.43 and 5.42; E.coli of 4.88 and 5.50 and Salmonella of 3.81 and 4.65 log CFU per leather panel at 2 and 5 minutes of treatment respectively. Comparing to control, hides treated with CA solution alone resulted in the highest reduction of aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, E.coli and Salmonella up to 2.22, 0.42, 0.72 and 1.61 Log CFU respectively for 2 to 5 minutes treatment. The treatment with the formulations of CA plus LA resulted in the highest reduction of aerobic bacteria, Enterobacteriaceae, E.coli and Salmonella up to 2.12, 3.12, 2.33 and 2.28 log CFU respectively for 2-5 minutes of treatments. From microscopic analysis, mechanical and subjective examinations, it was revealed that the leather produced from the formulation treated hides were comparable to the control in terms of structural integrity.

Keywords:
meat safety salmonella E.coli Enterobacteriaceae hides decontamination

Creative CommonsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Figures

Figure of 9

References:

[1]  Dickson, J.S., Macneil, M.D. Contamination of Beef Tissue Surfaces by Cattle Manure Inoculated with Salmonella typhimurium and Listeria monocytogenes. Journal of Food Protection. 54(2): 102-104. 1991.
 
[2]  Long III, W., Sarker, M.I., Liu, C.-K. Evaluation of Novel Pre-Slaughter Cattle Wash Formulations for Meat and Byproduct Safety and Quality. Advanced Journal of Food Science and Technology. 14(2): 33-41. 2018.
 
[3]  Manyi-Loh, C.E., Mamphweli, S.N., Meyer, E.L., Makaka, G., Simon, M., Okoh, A.I. An Overview of the Control of Bacterial Pathogens in Cattle Manure. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 13 (9): 1-27. 2016.
 
[4]  Mies, P.D., Covington, B.R., Harris, K.B., Lucia, L.M., Acuff, G.R., Savell, J.W. Decontamination of Cattle Hides Prior to Slaughter Using Washes with and without Antimicrobial Agents. Journal of Food Protection. 67 (3): 579-582. 2004.
 
[5]  Terrance, A.M., Bosilevac, J.M., Brichta-Harhay, D.M., Kalchayanand, N., Shackelford, S.D., Wheeler, T.L., Mohammad, K. Effects of a Minimal Hide Wash Cabinet on the Levels and Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Salmonella on the Hides of Beef Cattle at Slaughter. Journal of Food Protection. 70(5): 1076-1079. 2007.
 
[6]  Long III, W., Sarker, M.I., Marsico, R., Lindsey, U., Latona, N.P., Muir, Z., Liu, C-K. Efficacy of Citrilow and Cecure spray wash on prevalence of aerobic and Enterobacteriaceae bacteria/gram‐negative enteric bacilli and cattle hide quality. Journal of Food Safety. 38 (3): 1-7. 2018.
 
[7]  McEvoy, J.M., Doherty, A.M., Finnerty, M., Sheridan, J.J., McGuire, L., Blair, I.S., McDowell, D.A., Harrington, D. The relationship between hide cleanliness and bacterial numbers on beef carcasses at a commercial abattoir. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 30(5): 390-395. 2000.
 
[8]  Conner, D.E., Kotrola, J.S., Mikel, W.B., Tamblyn, K.C. Effects of acetic-lactic acid treatments applied to beef trim on populations of Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in ground beef. Journal of Food Protection. 60: 1560-1563. 1997.
 
[9]  Dickson, J.S., Anderson, M.E. Microbial decontamination of food animal carcasses by washing and sanitizing systems: a review. Journal of Food Protection. 55: 133-140. 1992.
 
[10]  M.E. Anderson, R.T. Marshall, W.C. Stringer, H.D. Naumann, Efficacies of the three sanitizers under six conditions of application to surfaces of beef, Advanced Journal of Food Science and Technology 42 (1977) 326-329.
 
[11]  Johnston, R.W., Harris, M.E., Moran, A.B., Krumm, G.W., Lee, W.H. A comparative study of the microbiology of commercial vacuum-packaged and hanging beef. Journal of Foot Protection. 45: 223-228. 1982.
 
[12]  Kotula, A.W., Lusby, W.R., Crouse, J.D. Variability in microbiological counts on beef. Journal of Animal Science. 35: 204. 1972.
 
[13]  McEwen, S.A., Martin, S.W., Clarke, R.C., Tamblyn, S.E., McDermott, J.J. The prevalence, incidence, geographical distribution, antimicrobial sensitivity patterns and plasmid profiles of milk filter Salmonella isolates from Ontario dairy farms. Canadian Journal of Veterinary Research. 52: 18-22. 1988.
 
[14]  Wesley, I.V. Fecal shedding of Campylobacter and Arcobacter spp. in dairy cattle. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 66: 1994-2000, 2000.
 
[15]  Byrne, C.M., Bolton, D.J., Sheridan, J.J., McDowell, D.A., Blair, I.S. The effects of preslaughter washing on the reduction of Escherichia coli O157:H7 transfer from cattle hides to carcasses during slaughter. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 30: 142-145. 2000.
 
[16]  McEvoy, J.M., Doherty, A.M., Sheridan, J.J., Blair, I.S., McDowell, D.A. Use of steam condensing at subatmospheric pressures to reduce Escherichia coli O157:H7 numbers on bovine hide. Journal of Food Protection. 64: 1655-1660. 2001.
 
[17]  Castillo, A., Dickson, J.S., Clayton, R.P., Lucia, L.M., Acuff, G.R. Chemical dehairing of bovine skin to reduce pathogenic bacteria and bacteria of fecal origin. Journal of Food Protection. 61: 623-625. 1998.
 
[18]  Purnell, G., James, S., Wilkin, C.-A., Fisher, A., Corry, J., Howell, M., Brown, T., James, C. Microbial studies of carcass hygiene issues, International Symposium on Food and Agricultural Products: Processing and Innovations Naples, Italy. 24-26. 2007.
 
[19]  Bosilevac, J.M., Arthur, T.M., Wheeler, T.L., Shackelford, S.D., Rossman, M., Reagan, J.O. Prevalence of Escherichia coli O157 and levels of aerobic bacteria and Enterobacteriaceae are reduced when hides are washed and treated with cetylpyridinium chloride at a commercial beef processing plant. Journal of Food Protection. 67: 646-650. 2004.
 
[20]  Bosilevac, J.M., Shackelford, S.D., Brichta, D.M., Koohmaraie, M. Efficacy of ozonated and electrolyzed oxidative waters to decontaminate hides of cattle before slaughter. Journal of Food Protection. 68: 1393-1398. 2005.
 
[21]  Van Donkersgoed, J., Jericho, K.W.F., Grogan, H., Thorlakson, B. Preslaughter hide status of cattle and the microbiology of carcasses, Journal of Food Protection. 60: 1502-1508. 1997.
 
[22]  O’Flynn, G., Ross, R.P., Fitzgerald, G.F., Coffey,A. Evaluation of a cocktail of three bacteriophages for biocontrol of Escherichia coli O157:H7. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 70: 3417-3424, 2004.
 
[23]  F.S.I.S.U.S.D.O. Agriculture, FSIS Directive SAFE AND SUITABLE INGREDIENTS USED IN THE PRODUCTION OF MEAT POULTRY AND EGG PRODUCTS, https://www.fsis.usda.gov, 2018.
 
[24]  Nazzaro, F., Fratianni, F., De Martino, L., Coppola, R., De Feo, V. Effect of Essential Oils on Pathogenic Bacteria, Pharmaceuticals. 6. 1451-1474. 2013.
 
[25]  Jia, P., Xue, Y.J., Duan, X.J., Shao, S.H. Effect of cinnamaldehyde on biofilm formation and sarA expression by methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus. Letters in Applied Microbiology. 53(4): 409-416. 2011.
 
[26]  Zhang, H., Zhou, W., Zhang, W., Yang, A., Liu, Y., Jiang, Y., Huang, S., Su, J. Inhibitory effects of citral, cinnamaldehyde, and tea polyphenols on mixed biofilm formation by foodborne Staphylococcus aureus and Salmonella enteritidis. Journal of Food Protection. 77(6): 927-933. 2014.
 
[27]  Cabeza, L., Taylor, M.M., DiMaio, G.L., Cot, J. Processing of Leather Waste: Pilot Scale Studies on Chrome Shavings. Part II. Purification of Chrome Cake and Tanning Trials. Journal of American Leather Chemists Association. 93(3): 83-98. 1998.
 
[28]  Giaouris, E., Heir, E., Hebraud, M., Chorianopoulos, N., Langsrud, S., Moretro, T., Habimana, O., Desvaux, M., Renier, S., Nychas, G.-J. Attachment and biofilm formation by foodborne bacteria in meat processing environments: Causes, implications, role of bacterial interactions and control by alternative novel methods. Meat Science. 97(3): 298-309. 2014.
 
[29]  Yuan, Y., Hays, M.P., Hardwidge, P.R., Kim, J. Surface characteristics influencing bacterial adhesion to polymeric substrates. RSC Advances. 7(23): 14254-14261, 2017.