Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T06:22:55.368Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Persistence of contamination of hens' egg albumen in vitro with Salmonella serotypes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2009

J. L. Lock  and
R. G. Board
J. L. Lock
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon BA2 7AY
R. G. Board
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon BA2 7AY
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

A study was made of the persistence of different Salmonella serotypes in hens' egg albumen in vitro at 4, 20 and 30 °C. The majority of serotypes remained viable but did not increase in numbers at 20 and 30 °C for 42 days. At 4 °C many of the serotypes died out.

The addition of ferric ammonium citrate on the 42nd day of incubation induced multiplication of organisms incubated at 20 and 30 °C, but not at 4 °C. The pH and glucose concentration of the albumen diminished only when heavy growth occurred.

Salmonella enteritidis remained viable on the air cell membrane in vitro for 17 days at 4, 20 and 30 °C. Thirty percent of the organisms also remained motile in albumen for 42 days at 25 °C and up to 5% of the cells remained motile for up to 20 days at 4 °C.

Type
Research Article
Information
Epidemiology & Infection , Volume 108 , Issue 3 , June 1992 , pp. 389 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992

References

REFERENCES

1.Cowden, JM, Lynch, D, Joseph, CA et al. , Case control study of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 in England. BMJ 1989; 299: 771–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.O'Brien, JDP. Aspects of Salmonella enteritidis control in poultry. World Poult Sci J 1990; 46: 119–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Lister, SA.Salmonella enteritidis infection in broilers and broiler breeders. Vet Rec 1988; 123: 350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Humphrey, TJ, Whitehead, A, Gawler, AHL, Henley, A, Rowe, B. Numbers of Salmonella enteritidis in the contents of naturally contaminated hens' eggs. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 106: 489–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Haines, RB, Moran, T. Porosity of and bacterial invasion through the shell of the hens' egg. J Hyg 1940; 40: 453–61.Google Scholar
6.Büchli, K. The effect of washing on the shelf life of eggs. Veeleelt-en Zuiveiberichten 1967; 10: 9/10 (Sept/Oct).Google Scholar
7.Moats, WA. Egg washing. A review. J Foot Prot 1978; 41: 919–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Sparks, Nhc, Board, RG.Cuticle. shell porosity and water uptake through hen's eggshells. Brit Poult Sci 1984; 25: 267–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9.Sparks, NHC, Board, RG. Bacterial penetration of the recently oviposited shell of hens' eggs. Aust Vet J 1985; 62: 169–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Vadehra, DV, Baker, RC, Naylor, HB. Role of the cuticle in spoilage of chicken eggs. J Food Sci 1970; 35: 5–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Smeltzer, TI, Orange, K, Peel, B, Runge, G. Bacterial penetration in floor and nest box eggs from meat and layer birds. Aust Vet J 1979; 55: 592–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Padron, MN. Salmonella typhimurium penetration through the shell of hatching eggs. Avian Dis 1990; 34: 463–5.Google ScholarPubMed
13.Bruce, J, Drysdale, EM. Egg hygiene: routes of infection. In: Avian incubation. Poultry Science Symposium 22. Tullett, SG, ed. London: Butterworth–Heinemann. 1991: 257–69.Google Scholar
14.Brooks, J. Mechanism of the multiplication of Pseudomonas in the hens' eggs. J Appl Bacteriol 1960; 23: 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15.Dolman, J, Board, RG. The influence of temperature on the behaviour of mixed bacterial infection of the shell membrane of the hens' egg. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 108: 115–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Clay, CE, Board, RG. Growth of Salmonella enteritidis in artificially contaminated hens' shell eggs. Epidemiol Infect 1991; 106: 271–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Tranter, HS, Board, RG. The antimicrobial defence of avian eggs: biological perspective and chemical basis. J Appl Biochem 1982; 4: 295–338.Google Scholar
18.Board, RG. The course of microbial infection of the hens' egg. J Appl Bacteriol 1966; 29: 319–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Board, RG. The growth of Gram negative bacteria in the hens' egg. J Appl Bacteriol 1964; 27: 350–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Board, RG. Bacterial growth on, and penetration of the shell membranes of the hens' egg. J Appl Bacteriol 1965; 1: 197–205.Google Scholar
21. Anon. Update on Salmonella infection. PHLS–SVS 1991.Google Scholar
22.Hinton, M, Threlfall, EJ, Rowe, B. The invasive potential of Salmonella enteritidis phage type 4 for young chicks. Lett Appl Microbiol 1990; 10: 237–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Rozak, DB, Grimes, DJ, Colwell, RR. Viable but non-recoverable stage of Salmonella enteritidis in aquatic systems. Can J Microbiol 1984; 30: 334–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Humphrey, TJ, Richardson, NP, Gawler, AHL, Allen, MJ. Heat resistance of Salmonella enteritidis PT 4: the influence of prior exposure to alkaline conditions. Lett Appl Microbiol 1991; 12: 258–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar