C 2019 Poultry Science Association Inc.

Effectiveness of Several Antimicrobials and the

Effect of Contact Time in Reducing Salmonella and
Campylobacter on Poultry Drumsticks
Lei Zhang,∗ Amit Morey,† Sacit F. Bilgili,† Shelly R. McKee,‡ and Laura J. Garner†,1
∗
College of Food Science and Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi
712100, China; † Department of Poultry Science, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849,
USA; and ‡ DEB EL Food Products, LLC, Newark, NJ 07206, USA

Primary Audience: researchers, plant managers

SUMMARY
Salmonella and Campylobacter are the two pathogens commonly associated with raw poul-
try meat, as poultry products are frequent vehicles of these bacteria. The objective of the
current research was to determine the optimal contact time for 6 antimicrobial treatments,
including water, 0.003% chlorine, 0.07% peracetic acid (PAA), 0.1% PAA, 0.35% cetylpyri-
dinium chloride (CPC), and 0.6% CPC. Drumsticks (n = 192) were inoculated with Salmonella
Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni, and allowing some bacterial attachment time, drum-
sticks were treated with the 6 antimicrobials mentioned above for 10, 20, and 30 s contact time.
The recoveries of Salmonella Typhimurium and Campylobacter jejuni were determined after
plating. The results of this study indicated the antimicrobial effect on reducing Salmonella and
Campylobacter on poultry parts, and the impact of contact time on the efficacy. This could be
a guide for industrial application of which antimicrobial to use and how to control the contact
time.

Key words: poultry, Salmonella, Campylobacter, antimicrobial, contact time

2019 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 28:1143–1149
http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfz080

DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM to illness [2]. The Food Safety and Inspection

Poultry meat is the most popular meat con-
sumed in the US; the per capita consumption
has been steadily increasing from 20 lb (in
1959) to 108.5 lb (in 2017) [1]. Salmonella and
Campylobacter, the 2 pathogens commonly as-
sociated with poultry meat, are among the top
3 food-borne pathogens in the US responsible
for the annual disease burden costs. Combined,
these food-borne pathogens result in approxi-
mately $5 billion in costs every year related
1
Corresponding author: bauerlj@auburn.edu
Service (FSIS) issued new performance stan-
dards on Salmonella and Campylobacter on
post-chill whole carcasses regulating a maxi-
mum of 5 Salmonella-positive samples out of
51, and a maximum of 8 Campylobacter-positive
sample out of 51 samples [3]. Additionally,
chicken parts are regulated to be less than 15.4%
and 7.7% for Salmonella and Campylobacter,
respectively [4].
There is a high possibility of cross contami-
nation during poultry processing if the process
is not well controlled [5], for example, low water
temperature in scalding, poor hygiene in carcass
1144
picking and evisceration, or inadequate antimi-
crobial contact in chilling would result in high
bacterial load on processed carcasses. A num-
ber of potential intervention strategies can be
applied during processing to minimize cross-
contamination. Applying chemicals as antimi-
crobials in poultry processing is one of the most
important intervention strategies to maintain the
safety of products. Chemicals can be applied
during scalding, evisceration, inside/outside bird
wash, chilling, etc. Acidified sodium chlorite
(ASC), chlorine dioxide, hypochlorous acid, per-
acetic acid (PAA), and cetylpyridinium chloride
(CPC) are antimicrobials approved for carcass
and parts applications [6]. PAA is most fre-
quently applied to carcasses or parts post-chill
[5], whereas CPC is applied pre-chill in drench
cabinets [7].
Studies have been conducted to determine the
efficacy of antimicrobials applied during poultry
processing. PAA at a concentration of 0.2% was
demonstrated to be effective with a 30 min con-
tact time in the chiller to reduce Salmonella and
Campylobacter on whole carcasses [8]. Nagel
et al. [9] studied PAA at concentrations of 0.04%
and 0.1% with a 20 s contact time and found a 2
log reduction in Salmonella on inoculated broiler
carcasses when treated in an immersion-type
post-chill system. Waldroup et al. [10] stated
that CPC between 0.1% and 0.5% is the most
efficient antimicrobial treatment on controlling
Campylobacter on poultry carcasses; CPC is ex-
pected to reduce Campylobacter by 1–2.5 log on
pre-chill carcasses. Zhang et al. [11] observed
that CPC at 0.35% or 0.60% applied in post-
chill decontamination tanks provided a reduc-
tion of 4 or 5 log CFU/mL on Campylobacter
in poultry parts, respectively. Cook and Beers
[12] demonstrated that CPC at concentrations
of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.3%, and 0.4% with a contact
time of 30 s effectively reduced Campylobacter
on whole carcasses. The objectives of this study
were to determine the effect of select antimicro-
bials in reducing Salmonella and Campylobacter
on chicken drumsticks and the impact of contact
time on the efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 8 treatments were included in the
experiment, including positive control, negative
JAPR: Research Report
control, water control, 0.003% chlorine, 0.07%
and 0.1% PAA, as well as 0.35% and 0.6% CPC,
with 3 contact times (10, 20, and 30 s). Specific
treatments description shown in Table 1.
Inoculum Preparation
About 1 mL of the frozen nalidixic acid-
resistant (0.05%) strain of Salmonella Ty-
phimurium [7] stock solution was added to
10 mL sterile Trypticase Soy Broth (TSB) [13]
with Nalidixic Acid (0.05%). The culture was
incubated at 37◦ C for 24 h and streaked onto
xylose lysine Tergitol 4 (XLT4) agar [13] with
0.05% nalidixic acid. One isolated black colony
was picked from the XLT4 agar plates after in-
cubating at 37◦ C for 24 h and added to 10 mL of
TSB tube. The tube was incubated at 37◦ C for
24 h. One milliliter of Salmonella culture was
added to 99 mL of TSB in a conical flask and
incubated at 37◦ C for 24 h. Cultures were cen-
trifuged [14] at 7,168 × g for 10 min at 4◦ C. The
pellets were suspended in equivalent amounts of
buffered peptone water (BPW) [13] and recen-
trifuged, followed by resuspension in BPW to ob-
tain a stock culture of 108 CFU/mL Salmonella
Typhimurium. Spread plating was performed to
confirm the inoculum concentration.
About 1 mL of the frozen Campylobacter je-
juni (isolated from the Auburn University Poul-
try Research Unit, Auburn AL) stock solution
was added to 10 mL of sterile Brucella broth
supplemented with ferrous sulfate, sodium bio-
sulfite, and sodium pyruvate (FBP) Broth [13].
The culture was incubated at 42◦ C for 48 h in an
Anaero-Jar [15] with a CampyGen sachet [15],
which generates a microaerophilic atmosphere
containing 5% O2 , 10% CO2 , and 85% N2 . In-
cubated culture was streaked onto Campy-Cefex
agar [13] and incubated in the same conditions
as described previously. One isolated C. jejuni
colony was picked from the Campy-Cefex agar
plates after incubating at 42◦ C for 48 h, and
added to 10 mL of Brucella-FBP broth tube.
The tube was incubated at 42◦ C for 48 h in the
Anaero-Jar with 5% O2 , 10% CO2 , and 85% N2 .
About 1 mL of C. jejuni culture was added to
99 mL of Brucella-FBP broth and incubated
for 48 h under similar conditions to achieve
108 cfu/mL. Cultures were centrifuged and
resuspended as by the same procedures for
ZHANG ET AL.: ANTIMICROBIAL CONTACT TIME 1145

Table 1. Description of Treatments.

Chemical treatment Contact time (s) Description
Positive control NA Inoculated samples without chemical dip
Negative control NA Non-inoculated samples without chemical dip
Water 10 Inoculated samples dipped in water for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in water for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in water for 30 s
0.003% chlorine 10 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.003% chlorine for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.003% chlorine for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.003% chlorine for 30 s
0.07% PAA1 10 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.07% PAA for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.07% PAA for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.07% PAA for 30 s
0.1% PAA 10 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.1% PAA for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.1% PAA for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.1% PAA for 30 s
0.35% CPC2 10 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.35% CPC for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.35% CPC for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.35% CPC for 30 s
0.6% CPC 10 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.6% CPC for 10 s
20 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.6% CPC for 20 s
30 Inoculated samples dipped in 0.6% CPC for 30 s
1
PAA: peracetic acid.
2
CPC: cetylpyridinium chloride.

Salmonella inoculum described previously. In-
oculum used in current research was a mixture
of 108 cfu/mL S. Typhimurium and 108 cfu/mL
C. jejuni. Spread plating was performed to con-
firm the inoculum concentration.
Drumsticks Preparation
Drumsticks [16] (n = 192) were used for the
experiment. In each of 2 replications, 4 non-
marinated drumsticks were prepared for each of
8 treatments. Each drumstick was inoculated by
dripping 250 μL of the inoculum containing both
108 CFU/mL S. Typhimurium and 108 CFU/mL
C. jejuni. After inoculation, a sterile spreader
was used to spread the bacteria evenly on the
surface of the drumstick, and a 30-min attach-
ment period was allowed before treatments were
applied under clean bench at room temperature
(20 ± 1◦ C). Inoculated drumsticks [17] were
dipped in the water control and antimicrobials
for various contact times (10, 20, and 30 s).
Sample Collection
Six chilled treatments (water, 0.003% Chlo-
rine, 0.07% PAA [17], 0.1% PAA, 0.35% CPC
[18] and 0.6% CPC) were prepared for the study.
Water used to mix the treatments was kept at 4◦ C.
Positive (non-dipped inoculated) samples were
applied to determine the recovery of attached
Salmonella and Campylobacter on drumsticks.
Negative (non-inoculated) samples were applied
to determine the background of Salmonella and
Campylobacter on drumsticks. Concentrations
of antimicrobials were measured before treating
samples. Aquachek Water Quality Test Strips
[19] was used to measure the concentration of
chlorine. For PAA and CPC, titration drop kits
[20] were applied to confirm the concentrations.
The pH of antimicrobial solutions was measured
with a pH meter [19]. The pH of 0.07% and
0.1% PAA was 3.81 ± 0.2 and 3.48 ± 0.2 and
for 0.35% and 0.6% CPC, it was 6.58 ± 0.2
and 6.80 ± 0.2, respectively. The pH of chlorine
treatment was adjusted by 1 N HCI to 5.92 to
form hypochlorous acid. About 900 mL of each
antimicrobial solution was held in a 1,500 mL
beaker. Inoculated drumsticks (one at a time)
were added to the chilled water treatments and
agitated with a stick to mimic movement in
an online decontamination tank. Samples were
treated for either 10, 20, or 30 s contact time
in a single beaker with treatments listed. After
1146
Figure 1. Effectiveness of various antimicrobial treatments at different contact times in reducing Salmonella
Typhimurium. Different letters (A to F; x and y) indicate significant differences between means of treatments or
contact times (P ≤ 0.05).
removing the drumstick from the beaker, each
sample was placed into a sterile filter bag with
25 mL BPW. Briefly, each sample was shaken
for 1 min to rinse bacteria off of the drumstick.
Serial dilutions were made with the rinsate using
BPW and plated on the appropriate media plate
for bacteria detection.
Enumeration of Salmonella and
Campylobacter
Salmonella Typhimurium in drumstick rinse
samples was enumerated by serially diluting
samples and spread plating (0.1 mL) on selec-
tive media. Appropriate dilutions were plated on
XLT4 with nalidixic acid (0.05%) for the selec-
tive plating and were incubated for 24 h at 37◦ C.
Black colonies were counted and results were
reported as log CFU/mL, comparing untreated
samples to treated samples.
For Campylobacter, rinsate was serially di-
luted and spread plated (0.1 mL) on Campy CE-
FEX for selective plating. Plates were incubated
for 48 h at 42◦ C in AnaeroPack rectangular jars
with a microaerophilic environment of 5% O2 ,
10% CO2 , and 75% N2 , generated by CampyGen
sachets. Colonies were counted, and results were
reported as log CFU/mL, comparing untreated
samples to treated samples.
JAPR: Research Report
Statistical Analysis
All microbial data was converted to log
CFU/mL before analysis in the statistical model.
Zero cannot be statistically analyzed, so a value
of 0.69 was assigned instead. Statistical Analysis
of the data was conducted using SAS 9.1 soft-
ware [21]. General Linear Model of SAS was
used to analyze the data and comparisons were
made using LSMEANS. Significant differences
(P < 0.05) were identified.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Antimicrobial Efficacy on Salmonella
Figure 1 shows the recovery of 106 CFU/mL
of Salmonella on the positive control samples
inoculated with 2.5 × 106 CFU/mL Salmonella.
For the negative control samples, which were
not inoculated, the bacterial level was under
the detection limit of 0.69 CFU/mL (i.e., no
background Salmonella on the drumsticks, 0.69
was calculated by estimating 1 colony on one
of the duplicate plates of the original rinsate).
There were significant differences (P < 0.05)
among the six antimicrobial treatments. Water
and 0.003% chlorine treatments resulted in a
1 log reduction compared to the positive control,
ZHANG ET AL.: ANTIMICROBIAL CONTACT TIME
while both concentrations of PAA resulted in a
2 log reduction. Chen et al. [7] found that inocu-
lated parts treated with a water or 0.35% chlorine
immersion treatment (20 s contact time) reduced
Salmonella by approximately 0.3 log compared
to the positive control. Bauermeister et al. [8]
determined that 0.02% PAA was more effective
than 0.0025% PAA in reducing Salmonella spp.
with a 30 min contact time. The results in our
current study did not find any differences in an-
timicrobial efficacy against Salmonella between
the different levels of PAA (0.07% and 0.1%)
with the short contact time, which is similar to
other studies using the higher levels of PAA and
short contact times in an immersion treatment
[7, 9, 11]. As for the CPC, the higher concentra-
tion (0.6%) was more effective than the 0.35%
level. While, the contact times had no difference
in effectiveness for the 0.35% CPC, the 0.60%
CPC did have an increased effectiveness for the
30 s contact (P > 0.05). Li et al. [22] stated that
there was limited research on contact time and
concentration. In their research, the efficacy
of 30 and 90 s of spraying time using different
antimicrobials (0.85% sodium chloride (NaCl),
5% or 10% trisodium phosphate (TSP), 5% or
10% sodium bisulfate (SBS), 0.1% CPC, etc.)
were tested on chicken carcasses, and the results
showed that longer contact times (90 s) worked
better than shorter (30 s). While it is hard to make
a direct comparison between a spray treatment
and the dip treatments used in this study, Li et al.
[22] did conclude that the longer the contact
time for the 0.1% CPC spray treatment was
more effective, which also supported the results
for the 0.6% CPC found in the current study.
Based on earlier studies, spraying methods are
less effective than dipping methods in applying
antimicrobials [23–25]. In the current study,
both 0.35% and 0.6% CPC were found effective
in reducing Salmonella. The highest reduction
in Salmonella was found with the longest
contact time (30 s) and highest concentration of
CPC (0.6%).
Breen et al. [26] demonstrated that CPC was
able to reduce bacteria attached to chicken skin
and also inhibit bacterial attachment to chicken
skin. The efficacy of CPC was both concentra-
tion and exposure time dependent. To remove
attached bacteria, concentrations of CPC 0.8%,
0.4%, and 0.2% with 1, 3, and 10 min CPC
1147
exposure times were required, respectively, to
obtain a 4.5 log reduction. To inhibit bacterial
attachment, 0.4% of CPC with 1, 3, and 10 min
pre-treatment contact times resulted in 1.72,
1.60, and 2.63 log inhibition, respectively; for
3 min pre-treatment time, inhibition was 0.90,
0.91, 1.60, and 1.90 log with CPC concentra-
tions of 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.8%. The most
marked inhibition (4.9-log) inhibition of bacte-
rial attachment was achieved at a CPC concen-
tration of 0.8% with 10 min pre-treatment time.
In the current study, 10, 20, and 30 s contact time
were tested, while Breen et al. [26] used extended
contact times of 1, 3, and 10 min. However, cur-
rent regulations state that CPC applied in an im-
mersion application should have no more than
10 s of contact time [6].
Antimicrobial Efficacy on Campylobacter
As shown in Figure 2, drumsticks inoculated
with 250 μL of 108 CFU/mL Campylobacter
resulted in a 5.5 log CFU/mL recovery in the
positive control samples. For the negative con-
trol, the bacterial level was under the detection
limit (i.e., no background Campylobacter was
present on the drumsticks). There were signifi-
cant differences (P < 0.05) among the remaining
six antimicrobial treatments. Both concentra-
tions of CPC (0.35% and 0.6%) were more ef-
fective than the other antimicrobials, resulting in
an approximate 4 log reduction compared to the
positive control. Chen et al. [7] demonstrated that
CPC at 0.35% and 0.6% obtained approximately
0.8 log reduction on Campylobacter on boneless
chicken parts that were incorporated into ground
chicken when applied in a decontamination tank.
There were no significant differences between
the two CPC concentrations. Cook and Beers
[12] stated that CPC at concentrations of 0.1%,
0.2%, 0.3% and 0.4% were effective in reducing
Campylobacter on poultry carcasses. Both con-
centrations of PAA (0.07% and 0.1%) resulted
in a 2 log reduction when compared to the pos-
itive control. Zhang et al. [11] found that PAA
(0.07% or 0.1%) applied in a decontamination
tank reduced Campylobacter on chicken parts by
1.5 logs. The mechanical action of water alone
resulted in a 1 log reduction of Campylobac-
ter compared to the positive control. Chlorine
at 0.003% concentration was no more effective
1148
Figure 2. Effectiveness of various antimicrobial treatments at different contact times in reducing Campylobacter
jejuni. Different letters (A to F; x and y) indicate significant differences between means of treatments or contact
times (P ≤ 0.05).
than the mechanical action of the water treatment
(P > 0.05). These results are consistent with
previous studies [7, 9, 11]. Contact times had
no effect (P > 0.05) on the effectiveness of the
antimicrobials, with the exception of the 0.07%
PAA treatment, where the shorter contact time
(10 s) had the greatest reduction in this current
study.
Research conducted by Chantarapanont et al.
[27] tested the effectiveness of chlorine (0.004%
or 0.01%) and PAA (0.004% or 0.01%) for 2
and 15 min contact time. The results showed that
40 ppm chlorine has similar efficacy when ap-
plied either for 2 or 15 min. However, 0.01%
chlorine had a 0.97-log CFU/mL reduction of
Campylobacter jejuni when applied for 15 min,
while only a 0.65-log CFU/mL reduction with a
2 min contact time. For PAA, the 15 min contact
time was more effective than the 2 min contact
time for both concentrations. This is most likely
due to the different mechanisms of action for
PAA and chlorine. PAA eliminates microorgan-
isms by oxidation and subsequent disruption of
their cell membrane [28]. Whereas, chlorine di-
rectly acts on the cellular membrane and disrupt-
ing fundamental cellular processes [29]. Thus,
chlorine needs longer contact times than PAA to
be an effective antimicrobial.
JAPR: Research Report
CONCLUSIONS AND
APPLICATIONS
1. This study indicated that CPC was the most
effective antimicrobial against Salmonella
and Campylobacter. However, CPC can
have higher costs associated with startup
and use because regulations require recap-
turing before disposal. Additionally, higher
concentrations were more effective in reduc-
ing Salmonella but not Campylobacter.
2. PAA was also an effective antimicrobial
tested in this study, and the concentration
of PAA had no impact on its efficacy.
3. Each company would need to determine the
cost-benefit associated with the selection of
each antimicrobial for a particular process.
REFERENCES AND NOTES
1. National Chicken Council. 2018. Per Capita Con-
sumption of Poultry and Livestock, 1965 to Forecast 2019,
in Pounds. Available at: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.
org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-
poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/.
Accessed 16 January 2019.
2. Batz, M. B., S. Hoffmann, and J. Glenn. 2011. Rank-
ing the risks: the 10 pathogen-food combinations with the
greatest burden on public health. University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida.
ZHANG ET AL.: ANTIMICROBIAL CONTACT TIME
3. USDA, The Food Safety and Inspection Service.
2011. New performance standards for Salmonella and
Campylobacter in young chicken and turkey slaugh-
ter establishments: response to comments and announce-
ment of implementation schedule. Fed. Regist. 76:15282–
15290.
4. USDA, The Food Safety and Inspection Service.
2016. New performance standards for Salmonella and
Campylobacter in not-ready-to-eat comminuted chicken and
turkey products and raw chicken parts and changes to re-
lated agency verification procedures: response to comments
and announcement of implementation schedule. Fed. Regist.
81:7285–7300.
5. McKee, S. R. 2011. Salmonella and Campylobacter
control during poultry processing. Presented at the Inter-
national Poultry Scientific Forum, Atlanta, GA, 24 to 25
January 2011.
6. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and In-
spection Service. 2018. Safe and suitable ingredients used
in the production of meat, poultry, and egg products. FSIS
Directive 7120.1. Rev. 48. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Food Safety and Inspection Service, Washington, DC.
7. Chen, X., L. J. Bauermeister, G. N. Hill, M. Singh,
S. F. Bilgili, and S. R. McKee. 2014. Efficacy of various
antimicrobials on reduction of Salmonella and Campylobac-
ter and quality attributes of ground chicken obtained from
poultry parts treated in a postchill decontamination tank.
J Food Protect 77:1882–1888.
8. Bauermeister, L. J., J. W. Bowers, J. C. Townsend,
and S. R. Mckee. 2008. The microbial and quality proper-
ties of poultry carcasses treated with peracetic acid as an
antimicrobial treatment. Poult. Sci. 87:2390–2398.
9. Nagel, G. M., L. J. Bauermeister, C. L. Bratcher,
M. Singh, and S. R. McKee. 2013. Salmonella and
Campylobacter reduction and quality characteristics of
poultry carcasses treated with various antimicrobials in a
post-chill immersion tank. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 165:
281–286.
10. Waldroup, A. L., K. L. Beers, P. E. Cook, E. A. Dell,
R. Odglen, and R. A. Baker. 2010. The effects of cetylpyri-
dinium chloride (cecure R cpc antimicrobial) on Campy-
lobacter spp. on raw poultry: a review. Int. J. Poult. Sci.
9:305–308.
11. Zhang, L., L. J. Garner, S. R. Mckee, and S. F.
Bilgili. 2018. Effectiveness of several antimicrobials used
in a postchill decontamination tank against Salmonella and
Campylobacter on broiler carcass parts. J. Food Protect.
81:1134–1141.
1149
12. Cook, P., and K. Beers. 2015. Efficacy of cetylpyri-
dinium chloride for the reduction of Campylobacter on
poultry carcasses. Presented at the International Association
for Food Protection, Portland, OR, 25 to 28 July 2015.
13. Acumedia Manufactures Inc., Lansing. MI.
14. Sorvall Legent RT+ Centrifuge, Thermo Scientific,
Thermo Electron Corp., Osterode and Harz, Germany.
15. Oxoid, Ogdensburg, NY.
16. Collected from Auburn University poultry research
park.
17. Spectrum; FMC, Philadelphia, PA.
18. Cecure; Safe Food Corporation, North Little Rock,
AR.
19. Hach Company, Loveland, CO.
20. PeroxyChem, Safe Foods Corporation.
21. SAS Institute, Cary, N.C.
22. Li, Y., M. F. Slavik, J. T. Walker, and H. Xiong. 2010.
Pre-chill spray of chicken carcasses to reduce Salmonella
Typhimurium. J. Food Science 62:605–607.
23. Kim, J. W., and M. F. Slavik. 1996. Cetylpyridinium
chloride (CPC) treatment on poultry skin to reduce attached
Salmonella. Journal of Food Protect 59:322–326.
24. Kemp, G. K., M. L. Aldrich, and A. L. Waldroup.
2000. Acidified sodium chlorite antimicrobial treatment of
broiler carcasses. J. Food Protect. 63:1087–1092.
25. Wideman, N., M. Bailey, S. F Bilgili, H. Thippareddi,
L. Wang, C. Bratcher, M. Sanchez-Plata, and M. Singh. 2016.
Evaluating best practices for Campylobacter and Salmonella
reduction in poultry processing plants. Poult. Sci. 95:306–
315.
26. Breen, P. J., H. Salari, and C. M. Compadre. 1997.
Elimination of Salmonella contamination from poultry tis-
sues by cetylpyridinium chloride solutions. J. Food Protect
60:1019–1021.
27. Chantarapanont, W., M. E. Berrang, and J. F. Frank.
2004. Direct microscopic observation of viability of Campy-
lobacter jejuni on chicken skin treated with selected chemical
sanitizing agents. J. Food Protect. 46:1146–1152.
28. Chen, J. H., Y. Ren, J. Seow, T. Liu, W. S. Bang,
and H. G. Yuk. 2012. Intervention technologies for ensuring
microbiological safety of meat: current and future trends.
Compr. Rev. Food Sci. Food Safety 11:119–132.
29. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2002. The use of
chlorine dioxide as an antimicrobial agent in poultry process-
ing in the United States. USDA-FSIS, Office of International
Affairs. Nov, 2002.