Next Article in Journal
C-di-AMP Is a Second Messenger in Corynebacterium glutamicum That Regulates Expression of a Cell Wall-Related Peptidase via a Riboswitch
Next Article in Special Issue
Giardia duodenalis Styles, 1902 Prevalence in Cattle (Bos taurus Linnaeus, 1758) in Europe: A Systematic Review
Previous Article in Journal
Harnessing Novel Soil Bacteria for Beneficial Interactions with Soybean
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Microorganisms
Volume 11
Issue 2
10.3390/microorganisms11020301
microorganisms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effect of Commonly Used Disinfectants on Salmonella Infantis Isolates

by
Katja Bezek
1,
Jana Avberšek
2,
Olga Zorman Rojs
3 and
Darja Barlič-Maganja
1,*
1
Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Primorska, 6310 Izola, Slovenia
2
Veterinary Faculty, Institute of Microbiology and Parasitology, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
3
Veterinary Faculty, Institute of Poultry, Birds, Small Mammals, and Reptiles, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2023, 11(2), 301; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020301
Submission received: 9 January 2023 / Revised: 20 January 2023 / Accepted: 20 January 2023 / Published: 23 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Foodborne Pathogens and Disease)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis is the most prevalent serovar in broilers and broiler meat in the European Union. The aim of our study was to test the biofilm formation and antimicrobial effect of disinfectants on genetically characterized S. Infantis isolates from poultry, food, and humans. For the biofilm formation under various temperature conditions (8 °C, 20 °C, and 28 °C) and incubation times (72 h and 168 h), the crystal violet staining method was used. The evaluation of the in vitro antimicrobial effect of Ecocid® S, ethanol, and hydrogen peroxide was determined using the broth microdilution method. The antibiofilm effect of subinhibitory concentration (1/8 MIC) of disinfectants was then tested on S. Infantis 323/19 strain that had the highest biofilm formation potential. Our results showed that the biofilm formation was strain-specific; however, it was higher at 20 °C and prolonged incubation time. Moreover, strains carrying a pESI plasmid showed higher biofilm formation potential. The antibiofilm potential of disinfectants on S. Infantis 323/19 strain at 20 °C was effective after a shorter incubation time. As shown in our study, more effective precautionary measures should be implemented to ensure biofilm prevention and removal in order to control the S. Infantis occurrence.

1. Introduction

Salmonella enterica subsp. enterica serovar Infantis (S. Infantis) is the most prevalent serovar in broilers and broiler meat in the European Union (EU) and is among the top five serovars involved in human infections [1]. There is also an emerging problem of multidrug-resistant (MDR) Salmonella spp. isolates from broiler carcasses, which were reported with the highest proportion in Slovenia (90.9%) and Austria (87.3%), due mainly to serovar Infantis [2]. In addition, S. Infantis clones with a megaplasmid, known as plasmid of emerging S. Infantis (pESI), became predominant in Slovenian broilers and humans in the last decade [3]. pESI-like plasmids are highly mosaic and associated with MDR and increased virulence. In addition to several antimicrobial resistance genes encoded in pESI insertion regions, genes involved in resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds and heavy metals could also be present [4,5]. The presence of pESI-like plasmid was frequently found to be associated with an increased S. Infantis fitness under various environmental conditions [6,7]. As shown before, the strains harbouring the plasmid exhibit superior biofilm formation, adhesion, and invasion into avian and mammalian host cells [4]. Biofilm formation is often reported as one of the most important features of Salmonella persistence in the environment [8,9,10]. As pointed out by Merino et al. [11], Salmonella biofilms contribute to cross-contamination and foodborne infection thusly. It is, therefore, important to identify their presence, whereas different approaches are necessary for biofilm control [11]. Moreover, it has been shown that biofilms of several Salmonella isolates were more resistant to disinfectants [12] and antibiotics [13] than their planktonic counterparts. The resistance to disinfectants was shown to be higher also for S. Infantis strains which persist on farms [14]. Accordingly, there are difficulties of S. Infantis elimination from farms or slaughterhouses despite extensive cleaning and disinfection [15]. In addition, S. Infantis was repeatedly detected in certain holdings during the production break, although sanitation measures were implemented [16]. Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) of multiple isolates originating from the same farms also revealed the persistence of genetically closely related isolates; however, re-introduction of additional clones was also noted over time [3].
Disinfectants play an essential role in limiting the spread of infection and disease. However, the effectiveness of disinfection can be achieved only if an appropriate disinfectant is used at the right concentration [17]. In addition, all other biosecurity measures, such as cleaning, insect and pest control, and all in/all out systems, have to be implemented [18]. The cleaning and disinfection protocol commonly used in Slovenian broiler farms after transporting the birds to the slaughterhouse includes dry cleaning, i.e., removal of manure and feed, followed by soaking and washing of equipment and facilities, and disinfection. The most used disinfectants in the Slovenian poultry industry are peroxides combined with organic acids, a combination of glutaraldehyde and quaternary ammonium compounds, or a mixture of glutaraldehyde and formaldehyde. Recently, mixtures of hydrogen peroxide, acetic acid and peracetic acid, and chlorocresol products have also been introduced in some premises (personal communication). As reported previously, the slaughterhouse has also been identified as a potential source for Salmonella contamination of poultry meat, thus representing a critical stage for control of its dissemination in the food chain [19]. However, even when cleaning procedures were assessed as satisfactory and strong disinfectants were used, the survival and detection of Salmonella in carcass samples was reported [20]. Furthermore, contaminated surfaces in food processing environment may result in biofilm formation that can hardly be eliminated and thereby poses a risk of food contamination [21].
As is well known, the eradication of S. Infantis in poultry flocks and food processing chain is considered extremely difficult. In addition, due to its frequency of isolation from humans, S. Infantis is also an important public health concern. The aim of our study was, therefore, to test the biofilm formation, antimicrobial, antiadhesion, and antibiofilm effect of commercially used disinfectants on genetically characterized S. Infantis isolates from poultry, food, and humans.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Selection and Characteristics of S. Infantis Isolates

S. Infantis isolates originating from poultry (n = 7) and food (n = 3) were selected from the Salmonella strain collection of Veterinary Faculty, Institute of Microbiology and Parasitology, whereas clinical human isolates (n = 5) were provided by Mateja Pirš (Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Slovenia). Isolates were previously characterised by whole-genome sequencing [3], and main characteristics are summarized in Table 1. pESI-positive strains with the Slovenian prototype plasmid (n = 8) harboured the typical pESI-associated resistance genes aadA1, sul1, and tet(A), which were absent in the strain with the truncated version of the plasmid. Additionally, all isolates belonged to sequence type 32 (ST32), and pESI-positive isolates (except 251/12 strain with the truncated version of the pESI plasmid) carried genes involved in resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds (qacEΔ1) and mercury (mer), whereas none had ars genes, involved in arsenic tolerance.

2.2. Determination of Microbial Resistance to Disinfectants

Prior to experiments, the strains were subcultured on Trypton Soya Agar (TSA, Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) aerobically at 37 °C. For inoculum preparation, 5 mL of TSB was inoculated with one bacteria colony and incubated overnight at 37 °C and shaken (60 rpm). The overnight cultures were then diluted in the ratio 1:100 to the final bacterial concentration in the experiment, which was approximately 1 × 107 CFU/mL.
To determine the in vitro antimicrobial effect of Ecocid® S (a mixture of potassium peroxysulphate, surfactant, organic acids, and inorganic buffer; Krka, d.d., Novo Mesto, Slovenia), ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany), and hydrogen peroxide (Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany), a modified broth microdilution method was used [22,23]. Briefly, microdilution susceptibility testing was performed in flat-bottom 96-well clear plates (TPP Techno Plastic Products AG, Trasadingen, Switzerland) containing 100 μL of Trypton Soya Broth (TSB, Sigma-Aldrich, Darmstadt, Germany) in each column except the first one. The addition of disinfectant (100 μL) to the first two columns was followed by the twofold serial dilution across the plate. Each well was then inoculated with 20 μL of prepared bacterial culture. Plates were incubated aerobically at 37 °C for 24 h. After the incubation, bacterial viability was determined using PrestoBlue™ Cell Viability Reagent (Life Technologies, Darmstadt, Germany) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. After 90 min, the fluorescence signal was read using microplate reader (Infinite f200, Tecan Trading AG, Männedorf, Switzerland). The MICs were defined as the lowest concentration of the disinfectant at which no metabolic activity was detected. All the MIC measurements were carried out in three technical and two biological replicates. The control wells were prepared with a culture medium, with the bacterial suspension only, or alternatively, with the disinfectant dilutions only.

2.3. Biofilm-Forming Ability

For the biofilm formation under various growth conditions, the crystal violet (CV) staining method was used. Briefly, eight wells of a 96-well polystyrene flat bottom microtiter plate (TPP Techno Plastic Products AG, Trasadingen, Switzerland) were inoculated with 200 µL of prepared bacterial suspension and incubated under various temperatures (8 °C, 20 °C, and 28 °C) and incubation times (72 h and 168 h). After incubation, the suspensions were aspirated and the wells were washed twice with sterile phosphate buffered saline (PBS; Oxoid, Hampshire, UK). Plates were then dried at 60 °C for 10 min and stained adding 200 μL of 1% CV solution (Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) for 15 min. After that, the stain was aspirated, and the wells were washed five times under tap water and finally dried at 60 °C for 10 min. The bounded CV was then released by adding 200 μL of 96% ethanol (Sigma-Aldrich Co., St. Louis, MO., USA), and the optical density of distaining dye solution was measured at 595 nm using a microtiter plate reader (Infinite f200, Tecan Trading AG, Männedorf, Switzerland). The measurements were corrected by subtracting the mean values of the negative controls for each well (OD595) and discussed in terms of biofilm formation.
For the comparison of biofilm-forming ability at 20 °C and 28 °C after 72 h and 168 h, the isolates were classified as no biofilm, weak, moderate, or strong biofilm producers, as previously described by Stepanovic et al. (2000) [24]. Briefly, the cut-off optical density value (ODc) was three standard deviations above the mean OD of negative controls. Isolates were classified as OD ≤ ODc = no biofilm, ODc < OD ≤ 2× ODc = weak biofilm, 2× ODc < OD ≤ 4× ODc = moderate biofilm, and 4× ODc < OD = strong biofilm.

2.3.1. The Antiadhesion Assay

To quantify the antiadhesion properties of disinfectants, subinhibitory concentrations (1/8 MIC) were tested on S. Infantis 323/19 strain that had the highest biofilm formation potential. Briefly, the suspension of disinfectant dilutions and overnight bacterial culture were prepared. Eight wells of a 96-well polystyrene flat bottom microtiter plate (TPP Techno Plastic Products AG, Trasadingen, Switzerland) were then inoculated with 200 μL of prepared suspension and incubated for 24 h, 72 h, and 168 h at 20 °C in aerobic conditions. The positive control contained overnight bacterial culture diluted in sterile TSB, and the negative controls contained disinfectant dilutions without bacterial culture. After incubation, the assay followed the steps described for biofilm formation in Section 2.3. The measurements were corrected by subtracting the mean values of the negative controls for each well (OD595) and discussed in terms of antiadhesion effect.

2.3.2. S. Infantis Biofilm Treatment with Disinfectants

The antibiofilm effect of disinfectants was tested on 72-h- and 168-h-old S. Infantis 323/19 biofilm formed on polystyrene at 20 °C (Section 2.3). For the biofilm treatment, disinfectants were prepared in PBS to final concentrations as used for surface disinfection as follows: 1% Ecocid® S, 70% ethanol, and 1% hydrogen peroxide. All solutions were prepared at the time of testing. After biofilm formation, the bacterial suspensions were aspirated, and polystyrene plates were washed three times with sterile PBS and treated with disinfectants in prepared concentrations for 15 min and 30 min contact time. After the treatment, each well was washed again three times, and the numbers of biofilm cells were determined as CFU/mL after 10 min treatment in an ultrasonic bath (room temperature, 10 min; frequency, 37 kHz; power, 80 W) (Elmasonic P 60 H, Elma Schmidbauer GmbH, Singen, Germany). Then, the number of viable bacterial cells was determined by drop plate method on TSA. The experiment was carried out in three technical and two biological replicates. The difference in the reduction of viable bacterial cells after the treatments, compared with the untreated control, is given in percentages of removed cells.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The Mann–Whitney U test was performed in SPSS software version 26 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) to confirm the statistical significance (p < 0.5) of differences among the crystal violet OD values of each experimental set of wells.

3. Results

3.1. Resistance to Disinfectants

In our study, minimal inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of three disinfectants were determined. While MIC values were 0.75% for Ecocid® S and 9.0% for ethanol for all tested strains, MIC values for hydrogen peroxide were 0.015% (n = 12) and 0.029% (n = 3; strains 101/08, 134/19; 323/19), respectively.

3.2. Biofilm Formation

The in vitro biofilm-formation ability of strains was tested under various temperature conditions and incubation times (Figure 1). Regarding OD595 values, all tested strains formed biofilm on polystyrene at 20 °C and 28 °C after 72 h and 168 h incubation time, with a significant difference compared with negative controls. The results showed that the levels of biofilm were significantly higher (p < 0.001) at 20 °C and had a longer incubation time (168 h). Concerningly, the values of CV at 8 °C for some of the strains after 72 h (n = 6) and 168 h (n = 11) were significantly (p < 0.0.5) higher than those of negative control. Regarding the presence of pESI plasmid, the biofilm formation for strains carrying pESI plasmid was significantly higher at 20 °C (p < 0.001) and 28 °C (p = 0.003) after 168 h incubation time. However, there were no statistically significant differences in biofilm formation among the strains after 72 h, at any test temperature. The biofilm formation of 251/12 strain with the truncated pESI plasmid did not differ significantly from strains without the plasmid, and they are, therefore, grouped together.
To determine the effect of temperature and incubation time, isolates were classified as strong, moderate, weak, and no biofilm formers (Table 2). After shorter incubation time (72 h), the majority of strains formed weak biofilm, regardless of temperature tested. On the contrary, the biofilm-forming ability after 168 h was classified as strong (n = 10 at 20 °C; n = 8 at 28 °C).

3.2.1. Antiadhesion Effect of Disinfectants

Disinfectants in subinhibitory concentrations (1/8 MIC) were tested for their antiadhesion properties against S. Infantis 323/19 strain after 24 h, 72 h, and 168 h at 20 °C (Figure 2). The greatest effect was observed after 24 h incubation time when OD595 values after incubation with Ecocid® S (p < 0.001) and ethanol (p = 0.029) were significantly lower than those of the positive control. Ecocid® S was effective also after 72 h incubation time, but after 168 h, no effect was observed for any of the disinfectants tested.

3.2.2. Antibiofilm Effect of Disinfectants

Effect of disinfectants on the 72-h- and 168-h-old S. Infantis 323/19 biofilm formed at 20 °C on polystyrene was tested. The most effective were 1% Ecocid® S and 70% ethanol, as there were no viable cells detected after the treatment of 72-h- or 168-h-old biofilm as early as after 15 min contact time. On the contrary, 1% hydrogen peroxide was effective on biofilm cells (no viable cells detected) only after a 30 min contact time. In the case of a 15 min contact time, the number of viable cells in the 72-h-old biofilm decreased by 50% and by only 18% after the treatment of the 168-h-old biofilm.

4. Discussion

Attachment and subsequent biofilm formation of food-borne pathogens have become one of the most important areas of food safety research [25]. In fact, biofilm formation is believed to enhance the capacity of pathogens, such as Salmonella, to survive under stressful environmental conditions and persist outside the host [26]. Moreover, biofilms formed in farm and food processing environments are a constant source of microbial contamination that may lead to infection or food spoilage. The biofilm-forming ability of Salmonella spp. on different abiotic surfaces, such as polystyrene, glass, plastic, cement, and rubber, has been confirmed [27]. The results of Moraes et al. (2018) indicated that most of S. enterica strains were characterized as moderate to strong biofilm producers. This phenotypic feature varied both among and within serovars and is observed mostly among strains isolated from food involved in outbreaks [28]. However, biofilm formation is affected by various environmental factors, e.g., temperature, contact time, surface material, presence of organic material, pH, water activity, etc. [28,29,30,31]. Among those, temperature is considered as one of the most important factors for bacterial growth and, thus, a critical control measure in the food-processing chain. In our study, the polystyrene microtiter plate method with CV staining was used for biofilm screening of S. Infantis isolates originating from poultry, food, and humans. The results showed that the biofilm formation was strain-specific, with an observed trend of increased biofilm formation at 20 °C and longer incubation time (168 h) (Figure 1; Table 2). Higher biofilm levels observed after longer incubation time (Figure 1) could be attributed to the downregulation of genes responsible for biofilm formation in early biofilm (72 h) and upregulated expression in the mature biofilm [32,33]. As shown before, isolate-to-isolate variability was observed, whereas S. Infantis produced strong biofilm on polystyrene at either 25 °C (48 h) or 15 °C (120 h) [34]. On the contrary, in the study of Schonewille et al. (2012), S. Infantis strains were poor biofilm producers (48 h) on polystyrene in general, independent of the incubation temperature (20 ± 1 or 37 ± 1 °C) [35]. Similarly, as shown by Pate et al. (2019), the S. Infantis persistence on broiler farms was related more to its widespread occurrence in the broiler production chain and ineffective disinfection protocols than to its ability to form biofilm [16]. However, the deviation from our results could be attributed to incubation time, with the results of both mentioned studies obtained after 48 h. Moreover, when evaluating the effect of incubation temperature on S. Infantis biofilm formation, a great inconstancy of results can be observed. For example, Borges et al. (2018) observed no significant differences in biofilm production of S. Infantis at four evaluated temperatures (37 °C, 28 °C, 12 °C, and 3 °C) [36], whereas Karaca et al. (2013) showed that 20 °C is the optimum temperature for Salmonella biofilm formation [37]. However, it is generally accepted that a lower temperature reduces or even stops the bacterial enzymatic activity. Consequently, metabolism, reproduction, and adhesion to surfaces could be minimized or prevented [30,38]. Further research has shown that lowering the environmental temperature at processing premises decreases but does not prevent biofilm formation. In addition, the initial interaction of cells with abiotic surfaces may be even better at low temperatures, increasing their adhesion and biofilm formation [26,39]. In our study, the OD595 values at 8 °C after both incubation times were significantly higher than those of the negative controls for the majority of tested isolates. This confirms that S. Infantis is able to produce biofilm even at relatively low temperatures [28,36] and possesses a great risk for cross-contamination during food processing. These results are relevant considering that chilling is required for all raw product unless they are moved directly from the slaughter line to heat processing or cooking. It is well established that a direct link exists among contamination in food-processing environments, bacterial biofilms, and contamination of the end food products [40,41]. Therefore, S. enterica strains with biofilm-forming ability are expected to pose a relatively high food safety risk because of biofilm-released cells that may result in recontamination of foods during processing. On the contrary, as predicted by MacKenzie et al. (2017), host adaptation relieves the selection pressure placed on Salmonella to persist in environments and correlates with loss of the biofilm phenotype [42]. The study results show that the experimental conditions used were less biofilm-favourable for isolates of human origin, as after 72 h incubation time, most strains produced no biofilm, regardless of temperature (Table 2). In addition, the human S. Infantis isolates tested were not closely related to the Slovenian broiler isolates, as noted in a previous study [3]. A different source of S. Infantis for human infections was suggested, and it seems that the ability to form a biofilm is not as crucial as it is in the farm environment. As also reported by Harrell et al. (2020), there is no evidence that would implicate the involvement of biofilms in persistent and/or recurrent non-typhoidal Salmonella human infections [43].
The presence of pESI plasmid contributes significantly to the antimicrobial resistance and the pathogenicity of its carrier. However, the pESI plasmid carries not only resistance genes but also several virulence factors, among which a superior biofilm formation was observed [4]. Recently, an S. Infantis strain-specific infectivity in broilers was also shown for the first time, and an increased potential of pESI-positive strains to colonize and infect birds was observed. As broilers infected with the pESI-positive strain were major shedders, a superior biofilm could also be attributed to environmental persistence of strains in broiler houses and consistent reinfection of birds [44]. The majority of strains (n = 11) in our study harboured pESI-like plasmid, which is also a predominant S. Infantis clone in Slovenian broilers and humans [3]. Along with strain-specific biofilm formation, a significantly higher biofilm formation after 168 h incubation time at 20 °C and 28 °C was shown for strains harbouring pESI-like plasmid, whereas there was no difference between the strains after shorter incubation time (72 h) (Figure 1). Because of the specific plasmid-borne genes which enhance colonization, virulence, and fitness behaviour of the strains, it was suggested that once the plasmid is acquired by S. Infantis, it would likely be spread [45]. Thus, proper intervention strategies are needed to prevent further dissemination of pESI-positive strains along the food chain. Interestingly, among human isolates, no/weak biofilm was observed for pESI-positive 61/21 strain, while 321/20 strain without p-ESI like plasmid was a strong biofilm former (Table 2). This may indicate the involvement of other uncharacterized genes in biofilm formation, which will be the focus of our future studies.
In practice, different cleaning methods and disinfectants are used to eliminate food-borne pathogens from poultry farm environments and food-processing chains. However, increased resistance of mature Salmonella biofilm to disinfectants and antibiotics has been reported [13,21]. In addition, a variable efficiency of commercial disinfectant products is affected by several factors, including temperature, contact time, and carrier material [46]. In our study, three disinfectants were tested for their antiadhesion and antibiofilm effect. Although 1/8 MIC values of disinfectants were used, there was a significant reduction of S. Infantis 323/19 biofilm after 24 h incubation with Ecocid® S and ethanol, measured as OD595 of bounded CV (Figure 2). After 72 h incubation time, only one of the disinfectants (Ecocid® S) was effective, whereas no effect was observed after 168 h. The efficacy and safety of Ecocid® S under both laboratory and practical clinical conditions has been shown before [47,48]. This disinfectant, with a potassium peroxysulphate as an active substance, acts as a powerful oxidation agent. The highest antiadhesion and antibiofilm potential of Ecocid® S in this study could be attributed to its multicomponent composition that allows for good contact with the cell surface. However, an antiadhesion effect of disinfectants in sub-inhibitory concentrations was observed only after a shorter incubation time, emphasizing the importance of subsequent biofilm formation despite the disinfectant residue. Nevertheless, it was even shown that ethanol in sub-inhibitory concentrations was able to stimulate biofilm formation of S. Enteritidis on polystyrene (25 °C for 5 h) [49]. Therefore, the pros and cons of disinfectants residues in farm and food environment should also be evaluated regarding the biofilm formation. Although the effect of only three disinfectants on the viability of biofilm cells was tested in this study, there was a difference in effectiveness shown as a percentage of viable cells after the treatment of the 72-h- and 168-h-old biofilm. Two of the disinfectants (Ecocid® S and ethanol) reduced cell viability as early as after 15 min contact time, whereas hydrogen peroxide was ineffective on the 168-h-old biofilm. This is consistent with previous studies reporting a lower efficacy against mature biofilms. Although it is well known that organic material in poultry farms or slaughterhouses decreases the efficacy of disinfectants, further studies are needed to test the in vitro efficacy of disinfectants on S. Infantis strains. Moreover, as shown by Drauch et al. (2020), disinfectants vary in their efficacy on S. Infantis strains, while a difference in organic matter burden (low vs. high protein concentration) can also influence the level of effectiveness of disinfectants [14].
To sum up, our study results suggest that S. Infantis isolates differ in their attachment depending on the temperature and incubation time, which may also influence their persistence in the processing environment. Furthermore, the inconsistency of experimental conditions makes it difficult to compare the results of studies that evaluated the effects of incubation time, temperature, and disinfectants on biofilm formation. Based on our results, study designs should test prolonged incubation times (at least 168 h) to get representative results on Salmonella biofilm formation. In addition, biofilm formation should be tested under farm- or slaughterhouse-simulating conditions, using surfaces from practice and applying, for example, bovine serum albumin to mimic organic residues on surfaces. The imitation of conditions in practice is also one of the main limitations of the present study. Due to the presence of genes involved in resistance to quaternary ammonium compounds (qacEΔ1) in pESI-positive strains, further studies are planned to examine detailed resistance of biofilm to this class of disinfectants used in the food production chain.

5. Conclusions

S. Infantis isolates from poultry, food, and humans produce biofilms on polystyrene surfaces with a higher potential at 20 °C and prolonged incubation time. Importantly, a significantly higher biofilm has been shown for strains harbouring pESI plasmid. Our study and literature-based results suggest that S. Infantis attachment and biofilm production depend on the encountered conditions, which may influence their persistence in the environment. Despite stringent cleaning and disinfection measures, recurrent infections of poultry flocks and cross-contamination in meat-processing chains are often reported. Therefore, more effective precautionary measures should be implemented to ensure biofilm prevention and removal in order to control the S. Infantis occurrence. However, the specific biofilm formation ability and differences in antibiofilm properties of the tested disinfectants show the need for further investigations and use of standardized test protocols.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.B. and O.Z.R.; methodology, K.B.; validation, K.B. and J.A.; formal analysis, K.B.; investigation, K.B. and J.A.; resources, J.A. and O.Z.R.; data curation, K.B. and J.A.; writing—original draft preparation, K.B.; writing—review and editing, K.B., J.A., D.B.-M. and O.Z.R.; visualization, K.B.; supervision, O.Z.R. and D.B.-M.; project administration, O.Z.R.; funding acquisition, O.Z.R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research Agency and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food of the Republic of Slovenia (Target research project No. V4-2004: Management strategies and control of Salmonella Infantis infections in broiler flocks).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Mateja Pirš (Institute of Microbiology and Immunology, Faculty of Medicine, Slovenia) for proving the S. Infantis clinical human isolates.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Authority, E.F.S. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control the European Union One Health 2019 Zoonoses Report. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Authority, E.F.S. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control the European Union Summary Report on Antimicrobial Resistance in Zoonotic and Indicator Bacteria from Humans, Animals and Food in 2018/2019. EFSA J. 2021, 19, e06490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Papić, B.; Kušar, D.; Mićunović, J.; Pirš, M.; Ocepek, M.; Avberšek, J. Clonal Spread of PESI-Positive Multidrug-Resistant ST32 Salmonella Enterica Serovar Infantis Isolates among Broilers and Humans in Slovenia. Microbiol. Spectr. 2022, 10, e02481-22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Aviv, G.; Tsyba, K.; Steck, N.; Salmon-Divon, M.; Cornelius, A.; Rahav, G.; Guntram, A.G.; Gal-Mor, O. A Unique Megaplasmid Contributes to Stress Tolerance and Pathogenicity of an Emergent Salmonella Enterica Serovar Infantis Strain. Environ. Microbiol. 2014, 16, 977–994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Aviv, G.; Rahav, G.; Gal-Mor, O. Horizontal Transfer of the Salmonella Enterica Serovar Infantis Resistance and Virulence Plasmid PESI to the Gut Microbiota of Warm-Blooded Hosts. mBio 2016, 7, e01395-16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Franco, A.; Leekitcharoenphon, P.; Feltrin, F.; Alba, P.; Cordaro, G.; Iurescia, M.; Tolli, R.; D’Incau, M.; Staffolani, M.; Giannatale, E.D.; et al. Emergence of a Clonal Lineage of Multidrug-Resistant ESBL-Producing Salmonella Infantis Transmitted from Broilers and Broiler Meat to Humans in Italy between 2011 and 2014. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144802. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bogomazova, A.N.; Gordeeva, V.D.; Krylova, E.V.; Soltynskaya, I.V.; Davydova, E.E.; Ivanova, O.E.; Komarov, A.A. Mega-Plasmid Found Worldwide Confers Multiple Antimicrobial Resistance in Salmonella Infantis of Broiler Origin in Russia. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 319, 108497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lamas, A.; Regal, P.; Vázquez, B.; Miranda, J.M.; Cepeda, A.; Franco, C.M. Salmonella and Campylobacter Biofilm Formation: A Comparative Assessment from Farm to Fork. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2018, 98, 4014–4032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, H.; Ye, K.; Wei, X.; Cao, J.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Occurrence, Antimicrobial Resistance and Biofilm Formation of Salmonella Isolates from a Chicken Slaughter Plant in China. Food Control 2013, 33, 378–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vestby, L.K.; Møretrø, T.; Langsrud, S.; Heir, E.; Nesse, L.L. Biofilm Forming Abilities of Salmonella Are Correlated with Persistence in Fish Meal- and Feed Factories. BMC Vet. Res. 2009, 5, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Merino, L.; Procura, F.; Trejo, F.M.; Bueno, D.J.; Golowczyc, M.A. Biofilm Formation by Salmonella sp. in the Poultry Industry: Detection, Control and Eradication Strategies. Food Res. Int. 2019, 119, 530–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Chylkova, T.; Cadena, M.; Ferreiro, A.; Pitesky, M. Susceptibility of Salmonella Biofilm and Planktonic Bacteria to Common Disinfectant Agents Used in Poultry Processing. J. Food Prot. 2017, 80, 1072–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Tezel, B.U.; Akçelik, N.; Yüksel, F.N.; Karatuğ, N.T.; Akçelik, M. Effects of Sub-MIC Antibiotic Concentrations on Biofilm Production of Salmonella Infantis. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2016, 30, 1184–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Drauch, V.; Ibesich, C.; Vogl, C.; Hess, M.; Hess, C. In-Vitro Testing of Bacteriostatic and Bactericidal Efficacy of Commercial Disinfectants against Salmonella Infantis Reveals Substantial Differences between Products and Bacterial Strains. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2020, 328, 108660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Davies, R.; Breslin, M. Observations on Salmonella Contamination of Commercial Laying Farms before and after Cleaning and Disinfection. Vet. Rec. 2003, 152, 283–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Pate, M.; Mičunovič, J.; Golob, M.; Vestby, L.K.; Ocepek, M. Salmonella Infantis in Broiler Flocks in Slovenia: The Prevalence of Multidrug Resistant Strains with High Genetic Homogeneity and Low Biofilm-Forming Ability. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Mueller-Doblies, D.; Carrique-Mas, J.J.; Davies, R.H. A Study of the Dynamics of Salmonella Infection in Turkey Breeding, Rearing and Finishing Houses with Special Reference to Elimination, Persistence and Introduction of Salmonella. Avian Pathol. 2014, 43, 146–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zeng, H.; De Reu, K.; Gabriël, S.; Mattheus, W.; De Zutter, L.; Rasschaert, G. Salmonella Prevalence and Persistence in Industrialized Poultry Slaughterhouses. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 100991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Soliman, E.S.; Moawed, S.A.-R.; Ziaan, A.M. garhy Assessing Cleaning and Disinfection Regime in a Slaughterhouse against Carcasses Contamination. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci. 2016, 4, 449–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Corcoran, M.; Morris, D.; De Lappe, N.; O’Connor, J.; Lalor, P.; Dockery, P.; Cormican, M. Commonly Used Disinfectants Fail to Eradicate Salmonella Enterica Biofilms from Food Contact Surface Materials. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 2014, 80, 1507–1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  22. Bezek, K.; Kramberger, K.; Barlič-Maganja, D. Antioxidant and Antimicrobial Properties of Helichrysum Italicum (Roth) G. Don Hydrosol. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Humayoun, S.B.; Hiott, L.M.; Gupta, S.K.; Barrett, J.B.; Woodley, T.A.; Johnston, J.J.; Jackson, C.R.; Frye, J.G. An Assay for Determining the Susceptibility of Salmonella Isolates to Commercial and Household Biocides. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0209072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Stepanovic, S.; Vukovic, D.; Dakic, I.; Savic, B.; Svabic-Vlahovic, M. A Modified Microtiter-Plate Test for Quantification of Staphylococcal Biofilm Formation. J. Microbiol. Methods 2000, 40, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Bai, X.; Nakatsu, C.H.; Bhunia, A.K. Bacterial Biofilms and Their Implications in Pathogenesis and Food Safety. Foods 2021, 10, 2117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Roy, P.K.; Ha, A.J.-W.; Mizan, M.F.R.; Hossain, M.I.; Ashrafudoulla, M.; Toushik, S.H.; Nahar, S.; Kim, Y.K.; Ha, S.-D. Effects of Environmental Conditions (Temperature, PH, and Glucose) on Biofilm Formation of Salmonella Enterica Serotype Kentucky and Virulence Gene Expression. Poult. Sci. 2021, 100, 101209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Steenackers, H.; Hermans, K.; Vanderleyden, J.; De Keersmaecker, S.C.J. Salmonella Biofilms: An Overview on Occurrence, Structure, Regulation and Eradication. Food Res. Int. 2012, 45, 502–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Moraes, J.O.; Cruz, E.A.; Souza, E.G.F.; Oliveira, T.C.M.; Alvarenga, V.O.; Peña, W.E.L.; Sant’Ana, A.S.; Magnani, M. Predicting Adhesion and Biofilm Formation Boundaries on Stainless Steel Surfaces by Five Salmonella Enterica Strains Belonging to Different Serovars as a Function of PH, Temperature and NaCl Concentration. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2018, 281, 90–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Speranza, B.; Corbo, M.R.; Sinigaglia, M. Effects of Nutritional and Environmental Conditions on Salmonella sp. Biofilm Formation. J. Food Sci. 2011, 76, M12–M16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. De Oliveira, D.C.V.; Fernandes Júnior, A.; Kaneno, R.; Silva, M.G.; Araújo Júnior, J.P.; Silva, N.C.C.; Rall, V.L.M. Ability of Salmonella spp. to Produce Biofilm Is Dependent on Temperature and Surface Material. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2014, 11, 478–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bezek, K.; Nipič, D.; Torkar, K.G.; Oder, M.; Dražić, G.; Abram, A.; Žibert, J.; Raspor, P.; Bohinc, K. Biofouling of Stainless Steel Surfaces by Four Common Pathogens: The Effects of Glucose Concentration, Temperature and Surface Roughness. Biofouling 2019, 35, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Ćwiek, K.; Korzekwa, K.; Tabiś, A.; Bania, J.; Bugla-Płoskońska, G.; Wieliczko, A. Antimicrobial Resistance and Biofilm Formation Capacity of Salmonella Enterica Serovar Enteritidis Strains Isolated from Poultry and Humans in Poland. Pathogens 2020, 9, 643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wang, H.; Dong, Y.; Wang, G.; Xu, X.; Zhou, G. Effect of Growth Media on Gene Expression Levels in Salmonella Typhimurium Biofilm Formed on Stainless Steel Surface. Food Control 2016, 59, 546–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Obe, T.; Richards, A.K.; Shariat, N.W. Differences in Biofilm Formation of Salmonella Serovars on Two Surfaces under Two Temperature Conditions. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 132, 2410–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Schonewille, E.; Nesse, L.L.; Hauck, R.; Windhorst, D.; Hafez, H.M.; Vestby, L.K. Biofilm Building Capacity of Salmonella Enterica Strains from the Poultry Farm Environment. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2012, 65, 360–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Borges, K.A.; Furian, T.Q.; Souza, S.N.; Menezes, R.; Tondo, E.C.; Salle, C.T.P.; Moraes, H.L.S.; Nascimento, V.P. Biofilm Formation Capacity of Salmonella Serotypes at Different Temperature Conditions. Pesq. Vet. Bras. 2018, 38, 71–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karaca, B.; Akcelik, N.; Akcelik, M. Biofilm-Producing Abilities of Salmonella Strains Isolated from Turkey. Biologia 2013, 68, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Morey, A.; Singh, M. Low-Temperature Survival of Salmonella spp. in a Model Food System with Natural Microflora. Foodborne Pathog. Dis. 2012, 9, 218–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lianou, A.; Koutsoumanis, K.P. Strain Variability of the Biofilm-Forming Ability of Salmonella Enterica under Various Environmental Conditions. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2012, 160, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Olsen, J.E.; Brown, D.J.; Madsen, M.; Bisgaard, M. Cross-Contamination with Salmonella on a Broiler Slaughterhouse Line Demonstrated by Use of Epidemiological Markers. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 826–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Rasschaert, G.; Houf, K.; De Zutter, L. Impact of the Slaughter Line Contamination on the Presence of Salmonella on Broiler Carcasses. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2007, 103, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. MacKenzie, K.D.; Palmer, M.B.; Köster, W.L.; White, A.P. Examining the Link between Biofilm Formation and the Ability of Pathogenic Salmonella Strains to Colonize Multiple Host Species. Front. Vet. Sci. 2017, 4, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Harrell, J.E.; Hahn, M.M.; D’Souza, S.J.; Vasicek, E.M.; Sandala, J.L.; Gunn, J.S.; McLachlan, J.B. Salmonella Biofilm Formation, Chronic Infection, and Immunity within the Intestine and Hepatobiliary Tract. Front. Cell. Infect. Microbiol. 2021, 10, 624622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Drauch, V.; Kornschober, C.; Palmieri, N.; Hess, M.; Hess, C. Infection Dynamics of Salmonella Infantis Strains Displaying Different Genetic Backgrounds—With or without PESI-like Plasmid—Vary Considerably. Emerg. Microbes Infect. 2021, 10, 1471–1480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Alba, P.; Leekitcharoenphon, P.; Carfora, V.; Amoruso, R.; Cordaro, G.; Di Matteo, P.; Ianzano, A.; Iurescia, M.; Diaconu, E.L.; Study Group, E.-E.-A.N.; et al. Molecular Epidemiology of Salmonella Infantis in Europe: Insights into the Success of the Bacterial Host and Its Parasitic PESI-like Megaplasmid. Microb. Genom. 2020, 6, e000365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Jang, Y.; Lee, K.; Yun, S.; Lee, M.; Song, J.; Chang, B.; Choe, N. Efficacy Evaluation of Commercial Disinfectants by Using Salmonella Enterica Serovar Typhimurium as a Test Organism. J. Vet. Sci. 2017, 18, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Matsuoka, T.; Yoshida, S.; Ohashi, K.; Shinoda, Y.; Kato, M.; Mori, T.; Yoshimura, T.; Tanaka, K.; Sato, A.; Goto, T.; et al. Evaluation of Efficacy and Clinical Utility of Potassium Peroxymonosulfate-Based Disinfectants. Can. J. Infect. Control 2017, 32, 93–97. [Google Scholar]
  48. Tozon, N.; Biasizzo, M.; Ščuka, L.; Potočnik, T.; Redek, M.; Prem, L. Reducing the Number tf Bacterial Colonies Using Ecocid®S (Potassium Peroxysulphate Based Disinfectant) at Small Animal Clinic. Slov. Vet. Res. 2020, 57, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. He, S.; Zhan, Z.; Shi, C.; Wang, S.; Shi, X. Ethanol at Subinhibitory Concentrations Enhances Biofilm Formation in Salmonella Enteritidis. Foods 2022, 11, 2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Microorganisms 11 00301 g001 550
Figure 1. Biofilm formation of S. Infantis strains (n = 15) regarding presence of pESI plasmid, under various temperature conditions and incubation times: (A) 72 h and (B) 168 h; ⋆, ○ outliers; * p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Biofilm formation of S. Infantis strains (n = 15) regarding presence of pESI plasmid, under various temperature conditions and incubation times: (A) 72 h and (B) 168 h; ⋆, ○ outliers; * p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 11 00301 g001
Microorganisms 11 00301 g002 550
Figure 2. Antiadhesion effect of disinfectants on S. Infantis 323/19 strain after different incubation times at 20 °C. EtOH – ethanol; H2O2 – hydrogen peroxide; * p < 0.05.
Figure 2. Antiadhesion effect of disinfectants on S. Infantis 323/19 strain after different incubation times at 20 °C. EtOH – ethanol; H2O2 – hydrogen peroxide; * p < 0.05.
Microorganisms 11 00301 g002
Table
Table 1. Metadata and characteristics of Salmonella Infantis strains used in the study (n = 15).
Table 1. Metadata and characteristics of Salmonella Infantis strains used in the study (n = 15).
Strain NameIsolation YearOriginpESI Presence 1Resistotype (Coded) 2
101/082008Broiler faeces−1
160/122012Broiler faeces+2
251/122012Broiler faeces+ (truncated)3
42/142014Breeding flock−1
290/182018Broiler faeces+2
42/192019Food+2
134/192019Food+2
219/192019Broiler faeces+4
236/192019Food+5
323/192019Broiler faeces+2
321/202020Human urine−1
58/212010Human faeces−6
60/212013Human faeces+2
61/212015Human faeces+7
62/212019Human faeces+8
1 pESI presence is indicated with a plus sign, absence with a minus sign. 2 Resistotypes are numbered as follows—1: aac(6’)-Iaa, parC (T57S); 2: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, aadA1, sul1, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), nfsA (NS159); 3: aac(6’)-Iaa, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), nfsA (NS159); 4: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, aadA1, aadA2, sul1, sul3, dfrA8, cmlA1, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), blaTEM-1B, nfsA (NS159); 5: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, aadA1, sul1, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), qnrS1, blaTEM-32, nfsA (NS159); 6: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, ant(2’’)-Ia, sul1, dfrA1, cmlA1, parC (T57S), gyrA (D87Y), blaTEM-1B; 7: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, aadA1, sul1, dfrA14, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), nfsA (NS159); and 8: tet(A), aac(6’)-Iaa, aadA1, aph(3’)-Ia, aph(3’’)-Ib, aph(6)-Id, sul1, sul2, dfrA14, floR, parC (T57S), gyrA (S83Y), blaTEM-1A, nfsA (NS159).
Table
Table 2. Biofilm-forming ability of S. Infantis isolates on polystyrene at two temperatures and incubation times.
Table 2. Biofilm-forming ability of S. Infantis isolates on polystyrene at two temperatures and incubation times.
Temperature20 °C 28 °C
Strain Name72 h168 h72 h168 h
101/08weakweakmoderateweak
160/12weakmoderate//
251/12weakweakweakweak
42/14////
290/18weakstrongweakstrong
42/19weakstrongweakstrong
134/19weakstrongweakstrong
219/19weakstrongweakstrong
236/19moderatestrongweakstrong
323/19weakstrongmoderatestrong
321/20/strongweakstrong
58/21weakstrongweakmoderate
60/21/strong/moderate
61/21/weak/weak
62/21moderatestrongweakstrong
Biofilm formation was classified using the cut-off value (ODc) as strong biofilm: 4× ODc < OD, moderate biofilm: 2× ODc < OD ≤ 4× ODc, weak biofilm: ODc < OD ≤ 2× ODc, and no biofilm (/): OD ≤ ODc.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bezek, K.; Avberšek, J.; Zorman Rojs, O.; Barlič-Maganja, D. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effect of Commonly Used Disinfectants on Salmonella Infantis Isolates. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020301

AMA Style

Bezek K, Avberšek J, Zorman Rojs O, Barlič-Maganja D. Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effect of Commonly Used Disinfectants on Salmonella Infantis Isolates. Microorganisms. 2023; 11(2):301. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020301

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bezek, Katja, Jana Avberšek, Olga Zorman Rojs, and Darja Barlič-Maganja. 2023. "Antimicrobial and Antibiofilm Effect of Commonly Used Disinfectants on Salmonella Infantis Isolates" Microorganisms 11, no. 2: 301. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms11020301

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop